Do you think poll voting on ILP serves a valid purpose?
- Yes, X% of the left side of my brain said so. (X=number of choice.)
- No, statistics are bullshit.
- You agree beer and sex is good.
0
voters
11.30.06.1723
Just curious…
Voted for beer and sex.
Statisahwhogivesafucktics.
Really don’t care for ale either, but sex, yes, sex is far superior to numbers.
Unless of course, you happen to be one of those weak ass socialite mathematician/philosophers whose only chance of getting laid comes once a year when the carnival is in town … you will probably disagree, and have some numbing linguistic ruse to cover the fact that basically you find cerebral mastrubation superior to actual sex, and how this makes you superior.
Yes beer can make sex better but, only if you have the right amount, after that you won’t really care. I vote beer, then sex then more beer, a nap, more beer then sex while having beer by your side.
You know after reading what I wrote., I laughed hard. Joke: We have a cat named Beer. 
A quote about statistics worth sharing come to mind
“They say 34.4234234% of all statistics are made up on the spot”
I am old and married, so beer is my vice of choice.
Sex, well would that mean sex with my wife?
No thanks.
Kropotkin
LMMFAOROTFL …
Only Mr. K could return with such immediate fervor.
Well done. LMMFAO …
And I thought I was too honest. ROTFL… =D>
Voting esentially is democratising, whether of opinions or of actions, for we want to know here what is the majority and the mainstream stance. I am antidemocratic. So no voting is relevant for me since I do not care about mainsteam stance. This antidemocraticism arises from nowhere other than antiethicism. Moral means congenial. Voting, therefore, is basically moralistic.
Based on the above reasoning, I conclude that voting will not be short of its voters here. It will mounts up to whether the topic you are asking us to vote pertains to the interest of the majority, of the mainstream. Your voting threads will attract votes, either you are well acquited with fasion, news and trends et cetera, or you are acquinted with pyschological manipulation. I give an example to the latter case.
Say, you do not know what is the current hot topic is, but nevertheless you want to recieve a lot of votes just for the sake of your thread. Then what you have to do is to make that thread topic that spur and stir up the inner interest of people here, as opposed to their outter interests regarding what is actually happening. The inner interest always pertains closely to the will to power.
Thirst4metal, for example, was a masterful case at such. His threads ask people to vote if he is admirable, respectable or intellegent. What he essentially did here, is to manipulate the disgust and resentiment of pople. These feelings within people are among the strongest. So, his threads of voting were never short of voters. We cannot attract the same amount of votes when we throw out a thread asking what ILP thinks about us, because ILP do not have much disgust or resentiment instored for us.
I am participating in this vote, here, because the above statement successfully stirred up my resentiment.
Mastriani, the fact that there is no decent Sicillian ales, do not give you the reason to not to care about ales. This is a dangerous caring mechanism, because it essentially makes you not to care about a lot of fantastic creations unless you are well acquinted with them with a certain personal historical pedegree. This is not adequate affirmation of life. It focuses on a sense of safty, of cozy, of controllability, of knowability, instincts which we reply on heavily when we are weak, volunarable and young things. These instincts as a whole as a will must be be brought into conscious and gradually overcome, by means of, for example, trying the best ales on the market in a refined manner with suitable dining courses. It is a will to enjoy life fuller, more, higher. It is a healthier will to power, certainly healthier than if you drain chemical laiden beers all the time. Heineken, however, might be an exception. But, ales, are without comparison.
No. Being a mathematically enraptured actury, or even an accountant, or more likely, someone who works with complex derivatives in capital markets, is more intense. Investment traders are bourgeois, wealthy and smoothy people, they are capable of getting laid more than literally anyone else. But, they spend the whole day at their desks, making love to derivatives and probabilities. They glow on the trading floor. They send commercial messages to each other as if they are pillow talking. They toss their telephones about interacting with clients, as if they were their wives. They are not thinking about sex, however, they are under the spell of Eros
Eros, you must understand, as something stands about all forms of rapture, not just sexual rapture. The attainment of Eros, determines the level of feeling of power. Sex is a straightforward way to experience such feeling. But, what is most straightforward is not most intensifying. You have too experience it in order to believe it. It is no cliche.
There are plenty things that feel better than sexual intercourse. To man, woman is not the end, power is the end. Woman is there to keep man reminded that power can begotten. The Enteranl Feminie eternally draws us on, to the end of power, not to the end of the virgina.
It is a matter that, man must learn to sublimate his motives and instincts. This is, afterall, is what distinguished us from other animals. When Beethoven makes love to his piano all night long while others make love you their wives, an intraspecesial heirachy is in place. It is not a matter of Beethoven has no erotic will, or he was short of women admirers, not at all. It is strictly a natural matter of being diiferent specimen of our speciese.
There are two significant flaws.
-
You have a selection bias. The sample is never random. People have complete control over their participation or non-participation.
-
Tiny sample size. Even the most wildly popular polls get only a few dozen votes.
Uni, LMMFAO, you are truly fabulous, LMAO.
But, for a Sicilian, ales and lagers are vulgarities of lesser beings. If it doesn’t say Sangria, it may as well be the blood of vermin. I personally, will not partake of such uncultured swill as ale or lager.
My Eros, is dominance. With a male, this means bearing my weapons, drawing from him the ambrosia of fear, and forcing him into unwilling submission by physical force.
With the female this can also be done, but is a social and cultural anathema, so sexuality takes the place of the majority of forceful dominance, unless she so bids otherwise.
Both bring euphoria, it just depends upon what the order of moment is, punishment or pleasure. The female does not keep you, unless you allow such to happen, and their wiles are only effective where conscious aversion fails.
If you are parleying for cultural sophistication, I have no interest, I am a misanthrope, and detest the ill weakness of social grace.
Sublimation of primality is weakness also, don’t be fooled.
This is the case perhaps because Sicilly only knows how to produce wine, and it has never learnt how to enjoy of pint of imported beer because it breeds an island full of antiforeigners. One must not stop at Being, that is, one must not be content at looking current facts. One cannot ignore the Becoming aspect of existence, and when one opens up the history books of alchoholic reception in Sicilly by Sicillians, one is likely to find surprising pasts. But most importantly, one learns the reason why Sicillians are the way they are today and hence is able to draw logical inferences as to what they might become to be tommorow.
It is within my prediction that you define a mere piece of liqour in cultural terms. You make that unessential connection, sheerly for valuation purposes, to give rise to reject whatever inspires your negation. Culture is here used by you as a means to reflect the English football hooligan image upon such beautiful and brightly coloured drink as beer. We drink together in a bar, talking about ILP. I drink beer you drink wine, you are likely to loose it before me, to become uncultured in front of my superior conscious.
Yet, you make that unessential connection above. I am a misanthrope, more than you. Your actions, more than your words of swearing, reflect how moral you are or how ammoral you are. The moral is always the congenial, as a sign, his action is always congenially oriented. It might well be the case that your swearing inspire more social grace, than my seemingly cultured prose without a dirty word. I hope that is the case, anyway, as when the content of my posts really get across beyond the tonality level, I would seem to mount up to someone who says “fuck the becomings of your being”.
My philosophy is that we are all born to fuck around, in all senses. It is a matter, in the end, of how deep can we fuck. It is plainly reflected in the most shallow form of fucking, sexual intercourse, because of its shallowness we can infer the philosophy directly from it. We cannot infer this philosophy from more cultured actions, misanthorpia therefore, should be used to remind ourselves of this philosophy, instead of using it to demolish and devalue cultural doings. You dig? You are abusing misantrophy and turning it into something which devalues itself. It has no longer positive value for your social being, it is inclined to push you into your solitudinal being, which is nothing without relation to you social being.
I do not think you ever performed anything like that, rather, your impression comes fully from your perfermance with a female. You bear the phallusic weapon and forces her into an overheating mixture of pleasurable submission and painful struggle. When with a man, you take no pleasure from his fear or submission, but you take pity and contempt. You expect more from his strength, you do not use a man like you use a woman.
Your pleasure in war is beyond pity and contempt, it is begotten when he willfully struggles beyond the composed level of your struggle. The level where you encompass him, psychologically and motionally, where your are consious as a fighter beyond his reactive and overheated conscious. This is your victory as a warrior, nothing else, his existence in fighting establishes your existence because he has managed to fall until there exists this existential gap. Upon sensing this gap, you feel your crystal clear and radiant existence, you feel power. As long as he does not incur this gap sufficiently wide, you do not feel power. When your prey stares you directly into the eyes when you eat its guts, you feel contempt towards yourself, and resentiment towards your prey isntead of pitty.
This argument has been heard before, and although geographic limitations certainly played into the exclusivity of prefered drink for this particular region, it is no more than cultural affectation at the current time. My statement was more of a “less than subtle” parley for cultural superiority, linked to my genetics. Although you may be correct, my blood resents your inferences.
My language usage is heavily dependent upon the prevailing mood, and language is a small indicator of the overall being, more at a ruse for such. Trying to compare levels of misanthropism? A bit juvenile, wouldn’t you say? You have no real knowledge of my person, nor I you, so that is an entirely fruitless endeavor.
One cannot in actuality abuse a linguistic construct. Sociality is a condition, in the same manner that a disease is a condition. Neither should be glorified. That one should define “being” through sociality means that they never had reason to exist, and no chance at becoming.
Assumption is foolhardy, and wraught with error. You would do better for yourself without that proclivity. My contempt is not limited or gender specific, humanity is anathema born, bred, subsisted of and by stupidity, little else. It is barely worth indifference, possibly less for contempt.
Incorrect, pity has no place. Primality of becoming being is all that is availed in warfare. It is the power removed from another that is recompense, nothing else. My contempt is not internal, it is radially externalised.
You blood resents my inferences, so you know that, do you still claim resentiment? If so, why persistently so? Why not overcome?
When you feel bad, you negate, which is why you feel bad. A lack power via negation. Your moods and the fluctuations should be effortly restricted whenever anywhere. The more you are inclined to abuse moods, the more you are addicted to that inclination which conscequently penetrates and gains rooting in your affirmation/negation of beings as a whole. It influences and shapes you silently and fundamentally. This pertains to the Sartrean existential principle, that man is who he wills to be. Nietzsche says, in shaping a man intensity is less of a matter than prolongivity.
Saully is a living proof that one can, and one does necessarily. We abuse langauges and we achieve no philosophical groundbreaking results. The philosophers are people who have stopped abusing languages, to a more than average extent. So their results stand out above average by sheer means of encompass our linguistic mental frames. If one is free from the influence of linguistic constructs, then Wittegenstein is a waste of ink.
They are outgoing people. Their counterpart is the loners. Niether achieve satisfactory existence. The reason is that existence must not be interpreted as social-bound, nor, solitude-bound. Some kind of balance must be reached. But this balance very much arises out of a linguistic construct, to penetrate the matter deeper, is to recongnise the relativity of existence. That is, there is no “I” without “You”, no “We” without “Them”, et cetera. We coexist. This must be affirmed in this essential level. The implication is that satisfactory existence is established by means of socialisation in the essential/balanced way.
Satisfactory existence is the feeling of power. When you speak of a removal of power from another, it pertains to this relativity of your and his existence. This existential gap between you established your existence and his powerfully, with yours being positive on the power scale, and his being negative. When you are matched up, you merge, your existences are dominated by an intimate sense of interacting and interpenetrating. You are reactive in that situation, negative under that circumstance, and powerless. Your existence, therefore, then does not shine at you radiantly so you do not really feel it. There is only power struggle, there is no internality or externality. This dualistic concept comes to mind when the difference of power created between you are significant enough. But we know, this duality is temporarily based on the power flux, it is wholy dependent upon it, it is a humanisation/understanding/liguistic construct of it.
You are right about this, about me knowing you not and you knowing me not. I assume because I affirm this. Doing better for myself, means no other than to stand by my own cause and affirm the tragedy of my cause. We are all doomed in this sense, so the winners among us are those who affirm more. The losers among us are those who are in denial, let alone negation, of this doom. What I like about ILP is that few people here are satisfied with life out there as it is, so they are here together to stage this tragedy. But, most of us here are not affirmative enough of this tragedy in which we all play. It helps if we affirm it. There is no point in complaining about it, as I have learnt from these years ranting online, the only way is to go on and forget about the impossibilities of consensus or mutual understanding or so on. But when I say all these, does it not make things actually better, does it not gain more understanding? If it does, then it is justifiable. If it does not, that is, if you don’t know what I am talking about, then I keep doing it because I know what the alternative is like and I am already bored of that alternative.
Overcome what exactly Uni? My need to make a joke about racial/ethnic superiority complexes, because others do not understand that is my motivation? I make fun of my own ethnicity, for my own amusement, although like now, it is publically manifest.
Both of those gentlemen made the same error, in my opinion. Trying to assume the ability to give qualitative definition to life experience, without first understanding what it takes to quantify such. Symbology doesn’t shape you in any fashion, unless you allow yourself to be enslaved by such rudiments.
I completely and patently disagree with this statement, except that Wittgenstein is a waste of ink. Philosophers abuse language almost beyond all others, and merely as an attempt to create elitism through exclusivity, because they can then feel superior, and important in their complete impotence with being able to resolve issues that have forever afflicted the human mind. Philosophy only furthers confusion, it solves nothing in formalised tradition.
If the only reference for “I”'s existence is because of “you”'s or “them”'s, then truly reality is a fruitless endeavor of a deluded species haunted by the incapacities of an imprisoned mind-being.
I utterly reject that implication.
Before any further discussions of power would be fruitful between us, you would have to understand Nitobe Inazo-san, and how he shows through samurai precept and tradition, that power, guided by virtue, is one of the calls of the human desire to understand beauty, in the universal manner. Until then, we are just crossing bits on optics and copper, and wasting time with passing triviality.
Let me appologise, Mastriani, I forgot that you meditated in the mountains of Japan. I took you to be an utter rant who was incapable of uttering words beyond LMFAOs and hence who was in the need of general deantisocialisation. I have mistaken. I am starting to remember your taoist past.
But, regarding your emphasis on sex and associated power notions, I have been ruminating towards a comprehensive coonection between three recent threads. This one here, the eliminating suffering one there, and another one. So far I had a few ideas in mind, very rough, such as Gamer being a Schopenhaurean sensualist who differs from Homer because of producing elevated beat poetry. I need more thoughts on this.
Why do you apologise? No offense has been taken, at least not on my part, nor should any be made between us. It is only a discourse.
Before you go too far into hiding to contemplate this, just be aware that my motivations are far from complex, and require only the loosening of Western tethers that ensnare the mind. Nothing more.
You are, of course, free to continue if you would like.
I realise that your conviction in sex, as an example, arises out of a solid empirical basis. You also confidently speak of a removal of power from opponents, which resents my relatively abstraction based speech regarding power. It is clearly, therefore, I who must manifest further and fuller in order to even move your much more solidified stances. I deem this to be my task, generally, and this task cannot be accomplished within the subject domain of a single thread or two. I am lucky enough if ILP as a whole is grand enough to accomandate this endeavour. I need all sorts and classes of ILP to help me, including the daoist, the pedant, the trio, the eccentric, the mundane, the dialectic and the poetic.
I made the Gamer connection previously, because I have reason to believe that you agree with him a big way, with regard to mainstream philosophy as a whole. You speak of sex as supreme, while Gamer, if I remember, spoke of sex as second only to food, followed by music. Food, sex, music, that was one of his beaotry in another forum. A sensualism is cohereing. A pragmaticism as well. An empiricism too. If I am asked to distinguish you two, then so far I venture to say that, Gamer seems to be willing Schopenhaureanly towards his sensual pleasures, whereas Mastriani seems to be willing fundamentally towards his sensual pleasures. In other words, I think that Gamer eliminates suffering by means of rapturous drift and aesthetical reactivity, while Mastriani attempts to ground the very human will upon fundamental forms of pleasuring. Of course, I admit that this sounds all very rough.
By the way, it is pointless to claim that suffering does not exist, because if I take his pleasures away, then immediately he suffers. Effectively therefore, his pleasures are constantly oppressing and eliminating his sufferings. Pleasure and pain coexist, otherwise, none of them can possibly exist. They must be quantified, their linguistic designations must be wiped out of the mind. Their redesignations must be based on some scale or guage, not necessarily assigned with numerals or properly mathematicalised, but one day we must be able to lucidly and firmly make our mind aknowledge how pleasure and pain coexist, what is their essential relation and why this relation is not apparant in applicational empiricism. Onotology, epistemology and phenomanology are requiredto do this respectively. This is the grandness of the endeavour.
Just so that you know I am not experiencing some grandiosity complex, or making empty minded claims which I might never live up to. I take this place, ILP, as seriously as I can.
Interesting, of all the people you would find me in comparative basis equal to, linguistically, Gamer would not have been a conscious choice.
If recall doesn’t fail me, there may have never even been a post shared between us.
Anyways, irrelevant. If you can take the pleasure from him, either “he” was a delusion created of your mind, or the pleasure was never really there for the taking, it was constructed of unfounded belief.
There is also another reasoning for my belief in sexuality/sensuality that is never spoken of here.
Schopenhauerean sensuality is close! Bored Epicureanism is closer. But if you were to say punk-geopolitical neo-hedonism, you’d be even closer. And if you were to say slap-happy bourgeois consumerist yarnweaving or Tchaikovskian minutiae-fucking, Sade-esque buffet-style barnstorming cockwagging Barthes-fucking multi-CarlSaganism assimilative felatiosity, I would probably choke on my beef sandwich and give it a name. Keep working.