Light disciplines the mind – it focuses it; darkness lets it mingle in its own shadowy fantasies, hoping nothing real will ever intrude.
The impulse towards increasing objectivity – a necessary aspect of the philosophical acumen – is an impulse that places the mind’s clarity above the body’s needs/desires.
Few manage it, and those that attain its higher levels inevitably pay the price for such divine pursuits, i.e., as one approaches the absolute, the godly, one disintegrates; as one approaches the objective goal, one subjectively disappears – a condition that cannot be maintained for long without severe consequences.
The sensation of approaching the divine is tantamount to approaching the speed of light, a gradual discarding of materiality; an experience of liberation from existential anguishes in the final epiphany of clarity, the mind refusing to return to its previous care-driven blindness – but it must if it is to survive.
The process of advancement is from the lower animalistic levels of subjectivity towards the divine and increasing levels of objectivity.
Objectivity signifies a detachment of an incorporeal mind from a corporeal body which may become an irresistible temptation and can become a lifelong pursuit – a temptation that must be resisted as a concealed death impulse intoxicated by the experience of escaping the price of existing consciously.
Imagination is essential to empathy, and empathy is essential to objectivity, i.e., the cognitive ability to perceive itself and another from a third person vantage point, or as an indifferent bystander – projection of mind outside the body and beyond space/time interactions, and their multifarious implications.
Subject wrongly assumes that objective necessity conceals self-interest, just as it mistakenly assumes that all movement conceals motive.
When a subjective thinker attempts psychoanalysis of another it becomes a confession.
Where an objective thinker has the experienced world as his standard, the subjective mind can only have other subjective minds as its standard. Intentional, semiotic, feedback validating or invalidating its convictions. It has willingly made itself a prisoner of popular appeal.
Existence is indifferent to human needs, desires, and suffering. Objectivity requires such indifference.
Disagreements occur when men abandon common rational objective standards and succumb to subjective emotional motives. Ironically, those who fight against authoritarianism make it inevitable when they deny all objective standards for evaluating perspectives, and for defining the words associated with them.
To put it bluntly, when they denounce nature’s authority they make human authority the alternative.
The idea of objective reality, and why anyone would be interested in it, though it challenges and threatens subjective needs & desires, is so alien to a subjective psychology that it is as if a primate were observing human behaviours, and speculating on their underlying motives; the monkey would inevitably use itself to make sense of what it finds incomprehensible.
For simple minds, like animals or children below a certain age, preoccupation with what offers no clear and immediate pleasure would seem a waste, since they associate good/bad with pain/pleasure, and know nothing beyond this simple organic duality. Intellectual distances cannot be bridged.
To a modern/postmodern Judaized Americanised psyche the ancient Greeks would seem as another version of modern-day Nazis – always comparing everyone and everything with this seminal, in their psychology, historical event that has marked them deeply. That is to say, that Hellenic worship of natural order, through their polytheistic representations, identifies nature as the brutal, authoritarian, totalitarian, inhuman, personification of ‘evil,’ and anyone what describes and defines it as it is must be some brutal inhuman evil person, rather than on objective thinker that worships nature as it is, rather than how it subjectively ought to be.
So deep is the cut, so traumatic the experience of raw existence, unfiltered by human agencies wanting to protect them for their own reasons, that they’ve convinced themselves that ‘evil,’ as they call nature, does not exist as it is described by objective minds, unconcerned about anyone’s feelings or preferences, so they must accuse them of enjoying some form of pleasure from the descriptions, or of benefiting from them.
Life is only cruel in so far as the body of the being
causes its pain and its old age and its disease.
If a life-form was strong enough,
he would have no sense of evil in the world.
Evil has to do with danger and pain,
but pain is self caused,
and danger is only dangerous to the frail.
Life is the product of what threatens it…chaos.
Time.
Nietzsche’s Übermensch is a future man that has overcome the resentment of this conundrum, to be a being of time that will end in time - Heidegger.
Life is constant struggle…and when suffering subsides boredom rises - physical to mental need.
Schopenhauer.
We experience the flux of existence as a perpetual need - temporal attrition - necessitating the continuous replenishing of energies and constant self-maintenance, to correct the consequences of temporal attrition.
Excess is a by-product of successful replenishing and self maintenance, producing excess energies life redirects towards growth and procreation - man adding art.
This excess is experienced libidinally as desire - focus on what can expunge them.
Sheltering produces excess despite an individual’s feebleness.
So in-between stress and ennui - physical need and mental desire - lack and excess = the human condition.
Are there not threats other than physical threats? Are all strong? Are the strong not protectors of the weak? Why would being strong switch off your self=other violation/alignment sensor (conscience)?
Why do you think “pain is self-caused”?
Deconstruction is easier than construction.
Negation, denial, uncertainty, is easier to cultivate than affirmation, positivity, certainty.
Impotence is easier than omnipotence.
Ignorance more universal than omniscience.
What is easier: to build a thesis or to destroy all thesis?
Is it to be an artist or to critique art?
Is it easier to create or to destroy?
Is it harder to build probability or to undermine it by presenting possibilities?
Is it more difficult to construct a theory concerning existence or to seed doubt and skepticism towards all theories?
Is it harder to affirm or to deny?
What is harder to create and maintain: order or chaos?
Order, ordering is hard work - it requires struggle, and war…
Nil is easy…all it requires is time…and time measures change, and change is inevitable.
The psychological root of nihilism is the desire to disappear and not be perceived and judged in relation to another.
[size=70][ MANifesto: Nihilism][/size]
Social adaptation necessitates a talent for playing a role so convincingly that the actor himself eventually comes to believes it to be his true self. Over time he may become so submerged in his own performances demands that he forgets that it is one.
Probably not different from the psychological root of someone who pontificates and judges yet wants to remain anonymous.
:-"
The distinctive difference between a superior subjective mind and an inferior subjective mind is described by the term ‘empathy’ or neither antipathy nor sympathy’ but objectivity.
It requires an evolutionary advancement from first-person, to second-person and then to third-person perspectives.
To illustrate the difference consider the chimpanzee relative to an average homo sapient.
The former can never know the homo sapient as it can know the ape…more so the chimpanzee can never know nor understand itself like a human can know and understand it.
This difference applies to lower and higher humans.
The lower is trapped in subjectivity, projecting what it knows of itself into another.
The higher is not trapped in this projection method, resulting in sympathetic & antipathetic binaries.
It can reduce the corruptive effects of ego, emotion, self-interest from its analysis and so feels little sympathy nor antipathy with the target of its focus.
The lower, little higher than the ape, can never know itself nor the other…more so the superior is, for it, entirely incomprehensible.
All it has is what little it knows of itself - without understanding - projected into what it find strange.
Its own self-knowledge is not only poor but self-serving, more often a product of compensatory overestimations, making its second-person projections a product of ego-centered defensiveness.
Imitation fails when it remains superficial and encased in the subjective sympathetic/antipathetic duality. The imitating act becomes gaudy…like an ape siting at the table wearing a suit & tie, smoking a cigar or eating food using utensils.
Have you ever encountered a mind superior to your own… or are you at the top?
(I guess that’s a question you can’t answer, as according to your own logic it would be incomprehensible to you, hence you couldn’t know, right?)