On Hate of Humans

[Meno2 (Meno_)]

@Guide

Childishly asinine comments such as that of “Meno” should serve one as a model of a life glutted with inadequate inappropriate and stupid political, in contradistinction to, proper philosophic thirst.

And people like you feed on hate, for what reason who knows, and it seems like this forum was written as an autobiographical vehicle.

With me being the prime protagonist.
Now I’m searching my mind how this came about, and come up blank. So, since this forum is , as of yet has not become overtly politically slanted , I would propose a cease fire, so as to enable me to manage to get my breath.

Writing about hate while being so, points to a contradictory style, a level much lower than it should be.

But then , I am in your narrative, as you have presented yourself in mine as well.

A case fire should consist in observance of rules , as engagement follows them as well.

I’m not even referring to cordiality. This is merely an attempt to formal discourse, exempting substantive errors of decency and humility.

If these diatribes are meant to unhinge or disturbe self evaluations . posted for comic effect, and is a different form of irony, you may be forgiven.

But I don’t want you to sit there, gloating in your successes in upmanship of a sado-masochistic triumph. and declare a kind of scholastic superiority.

[Guide]

“Deprive yourself of love long enough and you only fear hate. This is to say hate and fear are of the same connotation. As before we’ve said fear sponsors fear so does hate sponsor hate. Convoluted are those streams of information and I try very hard to not have convoluted streams of information. It doesn’t matter what I say anyway. When something possesses a soul to have feared hate then one goes on to hate fear. Visa Versa. Maybe we’ve taken too much from older cycles of violence only to forget what triggers humans these days.”

This kind of ‘reasoning’ is political. It really means: I don’t like “hate”, ergo, let me find some way to debase it. Then one finds, out of the stock of readily available prattle, the cheap notion that hate is connected to “fear”. Fear is meant to be a low thing. Sheer blather. One could with more justice make an argument connecting love and fear. If love is understood as eros, i.e., as a deprivation that draws towards something (or, as an anxious and solicitous care for something), it is always in a state of “fear and trembling” over the outcome, and over the attainment of its object (whether of enjoying the object or keeping it safe from harm).

In any case, these comments, as most here, are misguided, since they are just random personal views about what hate is, rather than an attempt to confront the specific concept of hate put down in the text.

PS

The remarks of “Meno”, although we have duly read them, are of too low a standard to respond to. The part about a “contradiction” in speaking about hate while having it is especially moronic, not to say simple nonsense.

[MagsJ (..a chic geek)]

@Pneumatic-Coma

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SFt7JHwJeg[/youtube]

…listened to this whilst reading the new posts… there seems to be a(n Indian) Summer madness of sorts here… where the unusually warm Winter days and comfortably cool Winter nights, are prolonging Summer’s causative effects on the UK psychological and biological makeup of (wo)man. It’s hilarious to see, but often-times not.

That song was way before its time… some of those chords though.

OP: Practising the art of indifference towards other humans is highly recommended, although not necessarily essential.

[Meno2 (Meno_)]

Guide,

I choose and have chosen not to hate I am merely trying analysing the why’s and what’s of. conflict is of primary consideration.

The most basic difference between Eros(pleasure) and Reality is by way of that very analysis of the connections. that their functions can reveal.

If someone begins to get a sense of hostility from someone else, it’s not merely an absence of love that changes connections , but the variability of meanings implied within that usage.

Fear is connected to the loss of love, but fear is of a different kind when the. construction of its opposite, can become independent of the loss of love. The opposite, or opposing feeling often develops as the result of the basic logical level of reasoning , and it becomes a kind of negation of love, a denial of sorts, seeking out a choice of bad faith dishonesty of admitting that the person feeling this way, is unable to accept such self assessment.

In fact, hate is the refusal to see goodness in one’s self on this level, and he de-differentiates love and hate into a lovehate relationship, in an effort to deny the oft used cliche : ‘killing with kindness’. The intent also reverses , to attributing intent into a positive thing.

Magj, indifference does not help a person who is intent to go above and beyond the contradiction, which is in all probability an acquired trait, and not a genetic predisposition.

I simply cam not bury a hatchet for the usual reasons of self preservation, but truly in an effort to help clear. the slate by releasing the bindings of peripheral attitudes and look below it fairly and constructively.

This position is in a way self serving, but usually for the opposite reason then For often alleged-
to gain a glimpse with perpetual contradiction. Into the more subtle world of sensing something missing in another, who can merely apprehend the misconstruence of meanings as they connect with higher and lower levels of understanding.

This is why its better to induce something then to deduce an absolute notion of how more progressive ideas should be adopted, not how they are stuck in an immobile shell of apprehension.

Politics of this kind of apprehension fall victim to its negative aspect, of looking around to see how more significant players react, and emboldened by instructive negative comments, mixing them with ideas of planted referentiality , placing them into more generally bounded
sets.

[Guide]

Hostility is a sign of love, according to this (above) text. The hostile are those who have been misused, for example American Negros during the Civil Rights movement. Hate here means something withering, which does not notice the other. Ergo, it is the answer to the question, why is Ellison’s Invisible Man, invisible? “Meno”, in this way, makes intelligence invisible. Such is the absolute moronic nature of “Meno”, such a one as for which intelligence does not exist, or, at best, is invisible. Which means, perhaps, in some way, “Meno” is moved by the forces of intelligence, but without ever seeing it properly.

On the other hand, “Meno” labors without rest in the vineyards of a hate towards intelligence. The very being of “Meno” attempts to make the service of intelligence impossible. This hate is such, in “Meno”, that it is best characterized as zealous hate, a zealous hate that attacks intelligence toto caelo and to the hilt. “Meno” is so much identified with this hate that she is unconscious of it. She leads an unalloyed hateful existence.

[Meno2 (Meno_)]

The above is a paradigm example of seducing by a logically excluding format: to equovocate hate with love. Using this formula, is to exclude the unknown variables which seduce larger frames of reference into smaller ones, by using a reductive connection of unrelated sets. That they call a reductive effort use the opposite of reduction on a quasi negated productive. masked way. That is not induction, it leads to not am existential frame of held reference, only a directorial authoritarian dare me if you care pronouncement , loaded instead with preferential roots, without validating them

The preference however, is stuck inaithentically in an invisible plateau, almost crying for repression hiding the need instead for control of the self.

Invisibility usually turns on projectiive and not. introjective identified substantial structures