KTS and myself.

Social Forums Non-Philosophical Chat
1

I’ve been long considering writing a thread like this. Fixed Cross’ thread, viewtopic.php?f=2&t=186363, inspired my to do so now, rather than later, so I’d like to thank him for that.

This thread will likely only be of interest to those who have wondered what my relation to KTS is and my involvement on it as opposed to this forum, or for those who have found me to be dishonest at times, in that regard or any other, and want an explanation. I realize that may include very few people, but find the need to write it anyway.

I’ve been a member of KTS since last summer, first under the account Canterbury, then starting in late February, under Stuart. I originally made an account with a different name partially just for a change, but I was also afraid of offending those on this forum by being too clear about my interest and involvement there. Though at the time I thought that a minor issue, not a direct product of fear. To be honest I may as well have spoke openly about how I was beginning to find that forum useful.

About October last year my account named Canterbury was restricted to the sub-forum “Dungeon” for good reason, though I doubted it at the time. Then, due to hatred at being regarded so low, I started to openly slander Satyr and to a lesser extent Lyssa and some of the other members of KTS. The question that may be asked, was if I was slandered in return by Satyr, Lyssa and a few others at KTS. Though, it may at first have appeared that way, I wasn’t.

In late February returning to KTS as Stuart, I said in the “Forums” thread, that I would no longer take part in provoking this cross communication between the two forums. Though far less loud, I didn’t keep my word on that. Later, better understanding this break in trust, I attempted to be apologetic, but did so half-heartedly, and was recently told, once again, by Satyr and Lyssa, in no uncertain terms what they think of me.

My motives are of need, the need for friends, and having few, I value those here greatly, but I also think that honesty is a motive that I’ve longed highly regarded. I’ve been dishonest, and can only admit to it, and try to be more honest in the future by digging deep and challenging myself to reveal things I’ve hidden from others, and myself. Satyr, Lyssa and others at KTS of been very helpful for me in doing that. Their refusal to water-down the truth has given me reason to look closely at what I fear and value.

Exploring one’s fears and hypocrisies involves risk, which is partially why, as far as I can discern, Satyr, Lyssa, and others at or involved with KTS don’t directly approach others asking them to take that challenge, but simply state their views honestly, and to let others initiate any personal analysis. So with that said, while I recommend reading and trying to understand the work at KTS, mostly because I find the quality of work written and referenced there far exceeds any other forum, I don’t necessarily recommend further involvement than that for others. It seems its best to challenge oneself to read and explore the ideas there as they have the strength to do so.

It’s not my goal to promote KTS in general, and no one has suggested I do so. I now intend on occasionally discussing and even promoting it on this forum alone, because I’ve already opened that door by doing so here in the past. It seems that to avoid further hypocrisy, I shouldn’t hide my more recent, perhaps more objective, views on that forum any longer. Generally, regarding this forum and others, my goal is to simply state, objectively, my understanding of the world, much of which was influenced by Satyr and others at that forum.

I don’t really expect any questions regarding further information about myself and KTS, but will answer any provided. As for general discussion on that forum, I don’t recommend it in this thread, but if started may give some input.

2

They critique others and hold others to account, only as a reaction to their inability to critique themselves or hold themselves to account.

They’ve no personal integrity. This is masked by all the shit they throw at others. ‘We look good because you look bad’.

It’s smoke and mirrors, man.

I’ve no doubt they’ve challenged you to be sincere to yourself, but don’t mistake for a minute that they are sincere within themselves, or that flinging shit is quality work.

3

“Objectivity”, as it’s used today, the term means something is superior to something else.
The more “objective” it is, the better.
Objectivity can do no wrong.
Anyone who talks “objectively”, would be listened to by the most sane and reasonable persons, right?
And then, the worst cow-like people will reject or not be fit for this objectivity.

4

Yes, objective observations are superior to subjective ones.

If a statement is completely objective [Edit: I originally mistakenly wrote subjective here] in that it has no bias from the observer considering his wishes, it would still be limited to the degree of his sensual perception and ability to understand and describe it.

If the subject is of interest to him.

Cow-like people would listen to objective statements when flattering or useful, and ignore them, preferring subjectivity, when not.

5

Values and morals project over the whole of a human life.
When something matters, either in a good or a bad way, it effects how we react to it.
The human being, as you know, is an integrated process, and sometimes its gears don’t fit right.
The idea that it is possible for one thing to be greater than another, is like the birth place of moralization.
Even if the greatness is purely subjective, or even less than subjective, like a dream, even then, it still holds its moralization.
Some people measure themselves in part compared to their enemies, to the things they may dislike.
“Self righteous” is a example of someone who usually hates a large sum of people, but then goes back and compares the worst to the best, according to himself.
The more crappy an average human appears, the more righteous the “enlightened” person is, in contrast.

6

I’m pretty sure he considers himself wiser than a large percent of humanity.
Maybe he even thinks he’s superior. Maybe.

I was trying to explain the last time we (me and stuart = we) chatted,
that a heck of a lot of things are basically futile and unnecessary in life.
Even if someone was your enemy, what true profit would there be in insulting them?
If it’s futile to insult a common person, then it is equally futile to insult all of humanity, or even more futile to do so.
There’s a difference between negation of value, and discipline, too.

7

Satyr’s understanding of the world is unimpressive. You guys all need to get some hobbies. Or study the occult. Except Dan. Not talking to him.

8

Subject and object can only be separated in the abstract. Just thought I’d throw that out there.

Stuart, not to seem like I care too much about what you’re saying…but…could you give examples of the difference between a subjective, and an objective observation? Then tell me why one is better?

I think that subjects observe objects and that they form interpretations that may or may not be individual ones.

I don’t understand how you distinguish between a subjective and an objective observation.

9

Obviously, there is no clear line between subjective and objective observations, but here is a general way of distinguishing them.

One has made a subjective observation when the subject was created prior to fully evaluating how it is an object in relation to other objects. Basically, the objects in such observations are skewed, because they’re related to an object that is only a symbolic fabrication.

When one attempts to equally evaluate all parts of one’s observations - how they are subjected to each other (or better stated as how they interact) then one is being objective. Basically, one is being objective when one originally starts one’s evaluations without a subject. If one forms subjects afterwards (or we can say if afterwards one focuses on specific objects and how they are subjected to other objects) then one is still being objective, because the subjects have already been objectively defined.

For example, when one makes an observation and relates it to how it effects himself he is placing himself as a subject in the observation, and then he is only being subjective if he hasn’t first objectively defined that subject.

Most people haven’t objectively defined themselves, because of modern conditions and so all observations they make regarding themselves are subjective, even if they are still capable of the most objective, call them scientific, observations in areas not directly concerning themselves.

One is acting with less real information when using subjective observations.

A person’s observations can’t be anything other than interpretations, whether he be considered a subject or not. So whether observations are subjective or objective depends on the whether the subject has or has not been given primacy interpretation over the object.

Symbols are abstraction, they’re what we use to communicate. But, objects aren’t abstractly subject to other objects, they are actually subject to other objects, just ask yourself if your head is or is not subject to a falling object when without a helmet.

10

There’s no doubt he thinks that, and evidence shows he’s correct.

More important than admiration is an honest evaluation of whose work is the most valuable.

An insult can be done intentionally or unintentionally. One’s enemy is someone one is in conflict with and one will use what one can to gain or avoid loss in that conflict. So if an action against an enemy is insulting to him, then so be it, or if using words as an insult makes them lose focus then it’s worthwhile. Of course, just as often insults with words make an enemy gain focus.

Humanity, meaning all beings under the human breeding type is by definition common, because the average is almost always that which is the most common. But, its not futile to insult common people. One may need to drive them off or at least one may find one lacks the necessary need (based on fear and value) to bother not insulting them when it comes easy.

But, your right in that there is no reason to actively insult all humans as a whole. Though Satyr doesn’t do that, he states the obvious when speaking of the human breeding type or the average person, not censoring himself because some take those observations as insults.

Discipline can be a value, so I don’t understand.

11

Yes.

When you get down to it, there is no “object” whatsoever, except within the teleological perspective of a subject.

As simple as this is phrased, it is true. You seem to have a better hold on this than… some other people.

“Objective thinking” is a form of subjective thinking without integrity.

By and large, the “objective thinker” is guided by statistics, averages. He thinks that the rule of the greatest quantity is an absolute/objective truth.

12

I’ve tried explaining how subjective/objective works so many times its not even funny. Most people just think that “subjective” means opinion and “objective” means fact.

The road for them is so, so, so far. Shit like this is the reason that I laugh anytime anyone’s suggested that I teach.

13

Its getting so that I find Smears to be more interesting than you. Smears, is generally always off on his observations, but his questions in this thread were very useful for me in motivation to better think through these distinctions. He is inconsistent as he is a contrarian, and like you he spends as much time speaking of his supposed quality as showing it as it actually is in his writing, but at least in his failure to have any poetic ability he doesn’t create such a variety of fantasies out of words and mix them in with philosophy to make it seem more than it is. His fantasies are more simple.

14

Good for them, but in case you were referring to me, you may notice that in my earlier post I didn’t use either term.

But, let’s explore those terms. A fact is not just something observed, but it is something accurately observed. One may make accurate observations both subjectively and objectively, just its far more likely in the latter. An opinion, as the word is used may or may not be a fact as well, and may or may be based on subjective or objective observations. The word opinion hardly differs from the word perspective. There are at least three ways of looking at perspective. One is that being that everyone can only perceive from their perspective, then everyone can only state observations, opinions, facts, etc. from their perspective. Another way is to borrow a perspective, meaning just parroting words of others. The third is simply that while one is always viewing from his own perspective, his vantage point, he is still attempting to obtain enough information, to make it so that his observations aren’t as limited.

You laugh so you don’t cry?

15

I am more hard headed here but to no avail recently. The bottom line turns out to be that someone thinks there is an objective world made out of factual situations and that we need to find our proper place in that, or something to this extent.

16

No physical equation ever applies exactly in two different places. Just like no two snowflakes are the same. There is no more objectified law than the derivations of the principle that there can be a law, and that this law follows from observation.

Observation-made-law is what science embodies and thus also what it describes.

In the strictest definition, science observes only the consistency of its observing.

17

One can list reasons why one might want to use facts to find a certain place in the world, but we needed do anything. Facts refer to what has been, and how came to be. First one observes the world with no prior focus. Then one focuses on their ancestors, those much like themselves, and what their environment was, and he sees how it was he came to be. He then focuses on himself specifically, noticing exactly how he as an individual in individual circumstance differs from that, and finally, now having a far better idea of who and where is he, he finally takes a subjective stance
by asking what exactly it is he wants to do with that information.

Is that beyond obvious? Only those scattered form their home and culture would ever even find the need to look for themselves. It’s one thing to say that I prefer the pagan mentality and way of living, but that preference doesn’t translate into reality, I’m a continuation of such scattering for which the Jewish diaspora may have originally been one of the most significant causes. But, just because I’m among a society infected with the memetic ideal of separation from ancestry and culture, and therefore no little about my origins, it doesn’t mean that I should take the prevailing idea of letting subtle suggestion that has seeped into my mind without my knowing, be the compass for how I find myself. I’d rather try the extremely unlikely task of obtaining the direction of my ancestors, and failing that be honest that I’m hopelessly lost, rather that base my entire search as subjective observations and basically be a slave to suggestion.

In other words, just do as you feel like a slave or an animal.

18

From a en email I just sent:

“Nazism is a yearning, a Christian yearning for the end of Christianity. I thought that it may perhaps be seen as the opening move to a kind of nobility, but it is rather only the pure self-rejection of Christianity in its total disguise as its antithesis. But in this disguising, it betrays its deepest thoughts about itself.”

19

Why do you revert to these apologetics of the artless non-absolutist, when it suits you, speak obviously in terms of absolutes, without any mistake that you give the reader credit for understanding the fluid nature of reality, when that suits you instead, and yet all the while being one of a gifted poetic mind, who could manage to express the fluidity of reality in non-absolutist, non-apologetic, artful terms?

Facts are not laws, if the scientific claims as much that doesn’t change this. Facts are correct observations, both of which, facts and observation, like all things, being in flux - subject to change. That you focus on those who mistakenly equate facts to laws relates to how you were saying earlier that many believe that many believe that one can find a place in the world through observation alone.

You’re an absolutist in that you speak of humanity, outside of a breeding type, and yet you criticize absolutists in the fields of science. I try not to think in terms of absolutes, including thinking in terms of absolute subjectivity - often a ideology that stems from a ridiculous misunderstanding of Sartre’s early work on existentialism.

20

That would be the case, if you are, like you and satyr an animal and/or slave.
In such a case, it is necessary to have a master, to not value directly.
The irony has it that the slave will choose the animal as his master, and the animal will choose his slave as his guide.

But I am not speaking to such creatures.

Do not count on many replies from me, as you are indeed the most slavish nature that this forum has produced, and belong in Satyrs lap, sucking his ‘utensil’, as he sees it.