Satyr's fatal flaw...

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
81

Yes, pleasure has a function…unfortunately it is not the primary function of a behavior…it is a way of ensuring the behavior.
Pleasure is a negative sensation. It is the feeling of gratifying a need, or suddenly satiating it, when it has become uncomfortable.

you don’t have to believe in God to be infected with the Abrahamic meme.
Secular Humanism is Judeo-Christian/Islamic meme minus the anthropomorphic God.
Another example is Marxism.
Marxists are atheists, because they’ve replaced the abstraction God with the abstraction humanity, and sinner/saint with socioeconomic classes.

Same dis-ease…different metaphors.

And yes pleasure is useful, and so is pain.

82

I’d say it’s 50/50. Thing is, my consciousness was born into a time where there are flushing toilets and backyard barbecues. That can’t be no mistake.

Don’t think so.

By that definition, heterosexual sex is also a parasite. And come to think of it, a homosexual male turkey basting a woman is actually heterosexual sex.

now, some might say you are a terrible philosopher, or an idiot, but I think they are wrong, you have a way of putting ideas succinctly and an interesting style…People don’t have to agree with you, nor do you have to be right 100% of the time, you’ve got star quality…I see you being remembered as one of the earnest philosophers, along with all the others like Hume, Kant, Socrates, Neitzche, etcetera, along with Me and my DnA machine.

However, what I see with you is a tendency to only look at half of the picture, for instance Pleasure is also the alleviation of the stress and the stress itself (masturbation stresses the muscle until it orgasms.)

But futher down the rabbit hole, one must ask Why is Pain actually Painful (in terms of quale?)

83

We return to our mind/body model, with the nervous system being the nexus, connecting the two - exoteric/esoteric, connected and divided by the neurological network, with the brain as the central processing organ.

Why did the brain evolve?
It evolved to gather and process stimuli, from external and internal sources, and then to direct the organism, focusing its aggregate energies, towards an objective that promises to alleviate need/suffering.
Stimuli from cells, organs, send data to the brain, screaming for attention, for satiation.
The brain now directs itself towards a phenomenon it has evaluated as potentially a source of what the internal organs lack.
This is need/suffering stressing the nervous system…and it is continuous as (inter)activity, Flux, never ceases, and the organism is in a constant struggle to maintain itself within it.
this is the brain’s primary function - satiating need/suffering.
Satiation, in higher organism with more sophisticated nervous system, is interpreted as pleasure, it is sensed as a sudden or gradual gratification of need, and a reduction of suffering, stress.

Now we come to the second form of pleasure which is the product of the first.
It is the result of successful gratification, and the accumulation of excess energies.
We call these libidinal energies.
Originally they were a standby mechanism for the fight/flight reaction - explosive energy, when triggered.
Excess is also directed toward organic growth - expansion of the organisms domain of space/time control.

Later these excess energies are directed towards the heterosexual reproduction method.
The accumulated excess energies storesd as nervous tension… exploding in orgasmic relief.
In the orgasm’s spasmodic convulsions we witness the expenditure of excess nervous energies - releasing stress energy, feels good - calming.
Fighters feel like that, and all athletes when they exert themselves.

In even more sophisticated organisms, such as humans, this libidinal nervous stress, can be directed towards creative objectives - rather than procreative.
Art is an expenditure of excess energies… and depends on comfort, and leisure.
All linguistic based art-forms, including philosophy, also depend on this excess libidinal tension.

We follow the process from its lowly past, its original emergence and the function it provided to the organism up towards its higher forms - Bottom<>Up.
From genetics to memetics
From the primal to the cultured.
Culture means the cultivation of creative methods to expend excess libidinal energies constructively, rather then destructively, and the repression of libidinal energies because they are destructive.

The nervous system is the conduit through which organic energies are accumulated, stored, and expelled.

So, we have two types of need/suffering… one important, primary, the second not so important, secondary.
The first is the need/suffering of lack - desire for what one cannot manufacture in self.
The second is the need/suffering of excess, also producing the stress of containment - libidinal.
Also called “overflowing”: a product of power/strength.

We feel pleasure when we satisfy a need for nutrition and oxygenation and hydration etc…Attraction
We also feel pleasure in expunging the system of toxins, or of excess energies etc…Repulsion

In both cases the pleasure sensation is that of stress upon the organism directed to the brain via the nervous system.
an additional source of stress is through the sense organs, externally… into the brain. the organism senses a potential threat to its well-being, resulting in tension, of preparing the fight/flight mechanism.
All sensations, emotions being automatic reactions to sense stimuli, are useful.
Love, hate, pleasure, pain.

Pain is the sensation extreme need/suffering - the organisms feeling itself dying, or being damaged, either externally, due to a wound, damage to its outer periphery - the organ that envelopes its organization - or internally, when it lacks water, oxygen, food.
When need is left unsatisfied for a period of time, it grows in severity to what we call suffering, and then to pain.
Pain indicated damage being received.

[size=50]My “fatal flaw”?
Wasting my time and my energies on simple shit like this.[/size]

84

That’s pretty interesting. I don’t know about parasitic though, kind of brutal, I do understand the aspect of not being able to breed physically like heterosexuality, but it could still be possible with science.

What about love? Is that a mere pleasure? Some have sexual encounter from that, not just to get a quick pleasure fix.

I also don’t know what to believe anymore in terms of atheism or religion, I will probably just not buy into either. Both dogmatic, agenda ridden and controlling.

85

Are we discussing how man intervenes upon nature, to “correct” and adjust to his tastes?
What of homosexual behavior in all species?

Simple definition, and emotion does not factor in, nor human methods of “correcting” an “injustice”.
Fitness, defined biologically, is measured by reproduction.
The mutation producing homosexuality in humans is unable to replicate itself without contradicting itself - therefore it relies no heterosexuality to come about.

As for homosexuality in other species, there are 3 reasons for it:
1- Absence of enough females, or members of the opposite sex, to expunge libidinal energies.
2- Displays of dominance, among social organisms where the male is not expelled by the dominate male.
The beta to omega males acquire a feminine disposition, decreasing testosterone, to become less threatening to the alpha.
Such males do not breed, although in monkeys they use alternative methods of passing no their genes.
3- Genetic mutations, left un-culled, producing unfit organisms.
Over time resulting in compounding mutations, and population pressures…such as with humans.

I’ve offered a definition and a description Here.

I divide love and lust into agape and eros.
One relates to the other, but they are not the same.

You have to break free of this belief that all spirituality is a religion…or the confusion between Abrahamic ([size=85]Judaism/Christianity/Islam[/size]), and Paganism, or Hinduism and Buddhism, particularly neo-Buddhism.

This is the division between Nihilistic, life denouncing, and Paganistic life affirming, spirituality.

86

Goddess of Persuasion, stop being so high and mighty. Maybe you could expand it for us.

Please complicate this. that is such a simple explanation in the abstract…it does not truly explain pain quale, after all why do certain patterns and pulses cause pain…? Is it the shape of the molecules? The monotony of it? They say the mental state of the brain during orgasm is the same as in during terrible pain…so what about it causes it to be pain? What causes pain to be sensed as a “need”, rather than a pleasure? And would you say stroking your genitals is actually a stress, and stress can be pain and pleasure? And why does it all fit like a puzzle…why does our Consciousness suffer during need/pain…why does it manifest as such a snug quale, why is our intangible consciousness’s quale so parallel to our bodies?

so, monkeys invented they turkey baster now? Monkeys turkey baste their females? Or something new kind of thing.

in that case, what is so wrong with homosexuals repressing their libidinal energies and using test tubes?
(Actually, I am against test tubes, and test tube society in general, just asking though.)

87

:astonished: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: Turkey basters… :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

88

I know what religion is, I have divided that a long time ago, spirituality isn’t the same as religion. No control, all freedom. I say buddhism isn’t religion or paganism as well.

89

Circles are two dimensional and planets are three dimensional but Earth is still not
geometrically perfect as it is an oblate spheroid meaning that it is flat at the poles

90

Not true since although an atheist Satyr despises nihilism so would never make such a claim

91

You have failed to understand what he is saying, then, or how he defines the word “Nihilist” and why he does so.
Let me give you a brief synopsis, because you once showed respect for him, and he’s authorized me to reciprocate on his behalf.

Nihilism as the moderns define it, from the Orthodox Christian Russians, is a uni-verse void of meaning, purpose, morality, and God… all the “good” things.
But this definition is itself part of the Nihilistic paradigm, which is always linguistic.
Without language Nihilism, and all its constructs, cease to exist… even as neurological concepts.
Nihilism was born when the biblical declaration “First came the wod…” was spoken/written, and it seduced feeble minds with a promise.

A cosmos void of meaning, purpose, God, and morality ([size=85]in the Abrahamic sense[/size]) is not a negative, a nil, but a positive, if you love yourself and life.
I’ll explain…
It is this cosmos, void of all those human constructs that makes life, as we know it, possible.
To call this a “nil” is to display dissatisfaction, despair, decadence, decay, degeneration, desperation…
It is BECAUSE the cosmos is void of meaning, purpose, uni-versal morality - although here a biological connection is possible despite Judeo-Christian/Islamic propaganda - and it is BECAUSE there is no God, that makes the cosmos ([size=85]jewel[/size]) a creative and wonderful experience.
To expect purpose, meaning, to preexist all life, is to wish to remain a child - seeking a father, out there, a God… who is also missing; a void filling the hearts and minds of infantile psychologies with despair, a negative emotion.
It is a desire to be a slave, under the auspices of an authority, a divine Rule(r).
The only god(s) to be worshiped are those representing the forces of NATURE.
Changing your understanding of the term “God” is a way to break free of Abrahamic Nihilism.

So, the evaluation of cosmos goes through the Judeo-Christian/Islamic religious nihilistic psychosis, and is labeled a “nil”.
This would be like a child waking up to the absurdity of Santa clause, and then calling life a nothing.
Man constructs these ideals, bubbling out of his needy cowardly spirit and then expect them to be… out there, waiting for him, to save him, to give him guidance, and sheltering, and to make his life worth living - slave morality.

The absence of these human artifices, most of which Moderns cannot define without a dictionary, or some other Book text ([size=85]children of the book, by the book, for the book[/size]), is not only not a negative, but it is the most positive of all realizations.
It is man that gives his life purpose, and his existence meaning.

When Nietzsche calls himself a Nihilist he means in relation to Judeo-Christian/Islamic ([size=85]Humanism, Marxism…[/size]) Nihilism - he annuls the negative = positive… and when Satyr uses the word Nihilism he uses it in a derogatory manner, and in its proper definition: a description of all those needy minds that have to annul what is, calling it a negative, because it does not provide the things they desperately NEED.
They are the TRUE Nihilists.
These Moderns.
The Modern understanding of language, is infected with the memetic dis-ease of Nihilism - Moderns are trapped in the Nihilistic paradigm… unable to think outside its premises.
For most this inability is a product of genetic limitations. They, simply, cannot conceptualize beyond the either/or dichotomy.

One would have to clean house, meaning clear the mind of this memetic dis-ease, reproducing itself through words.
To break the fever one must begin by connecting words, referring to noumena ([size=85]abstractions[/size]) with phenomena ([size=85]apparent, presence[/size]), with the world… and those words that cannot be connected can be appreciated as pure noetic devices, and placed in their proper contexts.

Even the word “atheist” requires redefinition, because it is trapped in the absurdity of a linguistic paradox:
Poor, blue-eyed Ecmandont, could not comprehend it, thinking I was making a “fatal error”…taunting with “Truth is there is no truth” and “There is absolutely no absolute”.
Consider the absurdity…THEOS is declared an absolute FACT, with no references outside human skulls. To deny this absurdity one must equal it with a absolute negation - A-THEOS.
This dualism permeates all forms of Nihilism… forms religion to politics ([size=85]right/left[/size]) where both sides accept the same absurdity, and then position each other in opposition of applications.

Nihilistic hijacking of language, has enslaved mankind, in its paradigm… most enjoy being kept safe and protected.
Here is how the above paradox is produced…
One, imbecile, proposes an absolute, out of nowhere, having no evidence, no reason, nothing to connect the claim to.
He calls it by a name: truth…in the absolute sense…or he calls it “absolute”, or God.
This absurdity is pure noetic construct, it has no reference outside needy brains.
How, then, does one contradict an absurdity?
By using an equally absurd negation.
How does one negate a linguistic absolute?
By using an equally absolute negation.

This is where taking language literally, and not as what it is: an artistic form, using approximations, representations to pass on data, confuses the modern brain.

The absolute need not be proposed, at all, and truth only refers to perspective, not to a uni-versal TRUTH.
Language, based on simple on/off neurological mechanisms, uses binary thinking, dualism.
The simpler the mind the more literally it understands its own abstractions.

So to contradict the absurdity of an ABSOLUTE, God, TRUTH, whatever word one wishes to sue, one has to use an equally absurd absolute… and this is how the linguistic paradoxes emerge.
Conflict of real and ideal, or noumenon and phenomenon.

92

Yes. I know, a sphere. But these shapes still exist in nature and can be found perfectly, rarity does not mean a negated existence.

93

No, shapes are simplifications/generalizations of phenomena. There is no “perfect” anything.
How long is a string?.

The perceptual/event-horizon is the limit of your sensual awareness. If you were to magnify a “line” it would disappear, and the “perfect sphere” would become a jagged mess.
Your mind interprets it in this way, using a priori evolved methods.
There are no “straight lines” or perfect shapes…as these are noetic constructs, depending no ambiguity, and simplifying/generalizations ([size=85]abstraction[/size]).

94

A very informative post and one argued with impeccable logic so I will just say a couple of things. I define myself as a nihilist because I do not think there
is any objective meaning to life and not because I am in any way needful for what I do not have. I give meaning to my own life which is the acquisition of
knowledge and so from a subjective perspective it does have meaning. I like the deconstruction of atheist you have provided. It does seem nonsensical to
define oneself in relation to something for which there is zero evidence even if said definition is in the negative. But given the incredibly powerful meme
that religion is then all definitions in relation to it will remain till human society rids itself of it entirely. Or at least in sufficient quantity for its influence
to be benign. Assuming of course that it ever does. Though I am not against individual belief per se just the negative consequences of it and the privilege
that religion gets which is entirely without justification in my opinion

95

peitho : you are doing an excellent job of referencing Satyr so keep at it. As a nihilist and egalitarian and liberal I am everything he is not. The only things we
have in common are atheism and free speech but in all other respects we are as different as chalk and cheese. But I still like him for as I have already said he
challenges my own thinking. Even if I choose to retain it it is refreshing to have had it questioned particularly by someone as wise and knowledgeable as he is

96

Then, you define yourself using nihilistic standards.
The absence of meaning, purpose, god, uni-versal morality is a positive, not a negative, for the noble mind, and only a negative for the coward, the weakling, and the imbecile.

Yes, the Nihilist proposes an absurdity, for which there is no evidence, and no justification, besides it feeling good, and being comforting and being easy to comprehend and relate to, and then all are forced to reduce themselves to that level in order to contradict this absurdity.
God, in the pagan tradition means nature/past.
When an ancient preyed to gods, he prayed to his dead relatives.
When he worshiped, and honored his gods, he worshiped himself through his ancestors.

The average mediocre mind should not be convinced of anything outside this controlling Nihilistic meme. They lack the spirit, to be honorable, when there is no threat ([size=85]cost[/size]), and no promise ([size=85]benefit[/size]), in proportion to the filth (s)he hides inside and keeps repressed.
This is why the moment anything honest is spoken of about the sexes or races, the first assault in en emotional appeal, and a threat, concerning violence, and hate mongering… because when the mediocre mind loses God, or any variant of hi Nihilistic idea(l), he knows he will revert to what he is: a manimal.
Such manimals intuitively know what they are, and because they cannot comprehend anything besides this, they can understand the other who stands outside this paradigm as themselves in that circumstance.
So, when you say something honest about human races, they take themselves as an example and assume you are proposing violence, abuse, hatred…because that is how they know they would act if they accepted such forbidden knowledge.
The Christian imagines himself an atheist, and he knows he could let his inner spirit loose… assuming that atheism is about evil, Satan ([size=85]defined in the Jewish manner[/size]) death and destruction, exploitation of weakness…
you can spit a moron immediately just by their reaction to certain theories.

97

I am an apatheist so it makes absolutely no difference to me whether God really exists or if he is simply the product of human imagination and nothing else

98

The question of a Abrahamic God, is nonsensical, and yet it dominates intellectual discourse among certain groups.
Like an endless debate over Santa Claus.

The honest position is agnostic, leaving room for all possibilities, and discarding the least probable as irrelevant, unless evidence is provided.
The real debate is a memetic one, over how to define the word “god”, and how to relate to world through this word.

99

Describing oneself as a positive nihilist would be rather confusing given what the word is both defined as and perceived to be. Definitions can only truly change through regular usage so until then nihilist and nihilism will continue to have negative connotations regardless of how one may define them for oneself. Having
said that though it is an inaccurate term to describe my own position since I do not think that no objective meaning to life equates to negativity. I think that it
is neutral rather than negative or positive. But I still define myself as a nihilist since that is the most accurate description of my position. Albeit not entirely so

100

Are you sure about that? Aren’t atoms potentially perfect spheres?