The Feminization of Man

[Zunya]

Satyr, are minds phenomenons? Can you you sense minds? Or minds are the part of the ding an sich if you can’t sense them? Or only you exist?

[Lollipop_King]

Your point being…

The mind is the flow of thinking.

[Zunya]

My questions are important if we wanna know what can we know about other minds (including female ones). Problems of the noumenon and so on.

[Ade]

randomness may only be human prejudices caused by the incomprehensibility or complexity of the rules themselves.

Yes, it “may” be. This is a hedge. This cannot be used as some scientific way of declaring man’s shortcoming, because it also may be possible that randomness is simply that: randomness. Science, so far, has done nothing about the “Uncertainty Principle” and perpetually we hear from the scientific community, “We are working on it.” However, if the Uncertainty Principle were one day solved, and we could predict the pattern of movement of any atom, then we could essentially predict EVERYTHING. It would no longer be called the Uncertainty Principle, either. But until that happens, you cannot use this as some sort of basis to show that “man is biased”, because not even you can help but think this way.

In areas where direct observation is impossible a reliance on second-hand accounts is understandable, but in areas where personal experience is possible and sensual awareness is feasible a personal assessment, is often, more preferable and constructive.

This is beginning to sound dangerously like Progatoras’ theory that “man is the measure of all things” found in Plato’s dialogue Theatetus (spelling?). I’m afraid that some of the questions that this essay looks at are not necessairly emperical ones. Sociology and Psychology are not hard sciences, and it’s really difficult to accept anything found in them that is not strictly from a chemical level. As soon as “matters of opinion” and “guesstimating” come into play, the emperical factor is lost, and the argument becomes weak.

Philosophy isn’t a mere repetition of past hypothesis or a reassessment of previous theories; it is an exchange of critical thoughts and personal analysis. It is normal to be guided and influenced by the work of others but to completely become dependant on them and to mimic or imitate them only reveals our own quality in comparison.

OK Emerson. You speak as though there is some “infinite repository” of good ideas out there. Funny though, the only way to come to a “good idea” is to think critically (or get extremely lucky). The ability to “think critically” is not something that humans are born with in a cultivated sense. It has to be taught by someone else; good teachers, parents, guardians, etc. So in a sense we cannot help but be influenced by the work of others. Our very style of reading, writing, and literary analysis is taught from somewhere. Certainly we can apply our own temperment to these faculties, but they did not just develop out of nowhere.

There was a wonderful period called “Modern Philosophy” in which a few thinkers (spearheaded by Descartes) decided to cast off all past knowledge to see what they could find. The inevitable results of this confusing period of philosophy (in which nothing was certain) were idealism (in a philosophical sense), solipism, and (shudder) “logical positivism”). Also, I find it hard to believe that someone could become “overly dependant” on authors that actually had some true things to say (Plato, Aristotle, Kant). I mean, if what they say is correct, then what is wrong with incorporating it into your repotoire?

More to come. I don’t want my computer to crash and lose these huge posts, so I’ll keep going…

[Ade]

When and if it does result in insecurity, fear, resentment and feelings of inadequacy it is unfortunate but natural, when considering the pitiful state of the human condition and our modern world of delusion and illusion.

This is nothing but an assurance. Even the wisest philosopher would be somewhat subject to this “unfortunate state”, thus he has no room to speak on it.

To dismiss me as being a sexist, a male chauvinist or one suffering from some mental or psychological ailment or sexual dysfunction is to not deal with the subject at hand but on my apparent human imperfections upon which much speculation can be dedicated.

To the empericist, maybe. But to say that science precludes ethics is a very bold statement, and is not testable.

One must also keep in mind the constantly changing moral standards and popular beliefs that may make some ideas shocking in one time and in one culture and a matter of common sense in another time and culture.

Social mores certainly change with time. But every society has at least attempted to find out what justice is. There are no societies that were completely devoid of it. Not everything is in a state of flux ALL OF THE TIME. If everything were in flux, then why try to speak on anything? It will have already changed!

It is my hope that my own attempts to uncover myths and ailing ideologies should help in this search for power and purpose in a universe where man has neither.

Another bold and untestable statement. Power over what? I have the power to sit here and learn of my own accord. I also have the power to go do something else. Do you mean “absolute power over all knowledge in the universe?” Is this really what man was intended to do? To figure out everything (at any cost) so that we can have dominion over everything? This would require the presupposition that “power and survival” are somehow more preferable to peace and contentedness. Thus, people who just like to “chill” and enjoy life would have neither power nor purpose. Can you determine this?

Ok, that’s it for the Disclaimer, now onto the essay…

[Ade]

socialization persists to filter out all the ‘unwanted’ human characteristics, altering, in this way, human nature and degenerating, in my opinion, the human spirit into indistinct oblivion.

Please note that ever since man could pick up a pen, there have been writers who have tried to declare the “individual human spirit” as obselete and destroyed. This idea sure got Karl Marx a long way…right.

There is no conspiracy here, no invisible entity directing things from the shadows. We might even say that the process is ‘natural’ and the consequence of a normal social progression that started in the tribal unit and has resulted in the emergence of a huge socioeconomic machine, with its own logic and interest, assimilating, conforming, levelling and eradicating everything in its path. We might also say that this ‘natural’ process has its roots in human physical disadvantage causing psychological insecurity that makes the cooperation of individual beings a forced necessity.

This is also untestable. Under this view, every human action would be “one person trying to gain some sort of advantage over another to propogate his genes.” Anyone who disagrees with you will be declared to be “trying to derail your argument to show you to be his intellectual inferior” and thus have some dominion over you. However, you have no way of knowing if the person is simply looking for what is true. And because you cannot determine the motives of all human actions, then you cannot declare that there is some “huge socioeconomic machine” that has its own will. What about the nameless person who saves another person’s life and is never recognized? What sort of advantage does that provide him? Are you going to say this hero is a “bad animal” because he isn’t looking out for his own interests? Why do we glorify such actions? You talk as though the general sense of social mores and ethics are things that we “begrudgingly accept” to be allowed to live, and then we can attempt to gain advantage over others when nobody is watching. A grand assumption, indeed.

We might also say that this ‘natural’ process has its roots in human physical disadvantage causing psychological insecurity that makes the cooperation of individual beings a forced necessity.

Or we might just call it injustice or greed.

and by interbreeding between a growing intellectual subclass and a continuously diluted intellectual upper-class that finds itself incapable to resist social and religious pressures and socioeconomic prerequisites.

There isn’t any solid proof that “good breeding” creates “good objective thinkers.”

A fundamental characteristic of weakness, as a concept, is its willingness to sacrifice a part of itself to save its entirety. Weakness is furthermore characterized by its inconspicuousness, its ability to blend and vanish into the multitude, its non-confrontational incorporation into more powerful entities, its expendability, its commonness, its malleability, its reliability and willingness [when conscious] to conform and adapt.

So if a person is reading a book and he discovers that he had previously had an incorrect idea and now adheres to the “correct idea” he has a weakness?

I think your definition of weakness needs some work.

The ‘If you can’t beat them join them’ strategy is one most often practiced in nature and in our universe; what cannot survive on its own inevitably either perishes or winds up as a part of something bigger and stronger, by means of consumption, via having its parts absorbed, or assimilation, via having its parts conformed. It is this transcending fundamental principle that is primarily responsible for the constant state of flux and fluidity, we experience as change and time, and which characterizes our state of being and our perspective of reality.

So everything eventually becomes part of something bigger or dies? Now just a second…is this bigger thing necessairly better? If the “big thing” keeps on changing and is in constant flux, then how can it determine what is good? Maybe this isn’t a scientific theory, either.

This human ‘gift’ that can take advantage of external resources, through the application of the imagination and the utilization of mans providential opposing thumbs, has produced the need for social units of vast scale and intricacy and has resulted in the added need for an adaptation to human environments that have replaced or surpassed the importance of natural ones. In addition to this, human psychological insecurity and physical frailty has imposed the need to armour mans feebleness with technological artifices that place a wall between man and his true spirit and distances man from himself and from nature entirely, by means of self-contained artificial systems

I think it was Einstein who basically said (to paraphrase), that any theory that cannot be understood by a fifth grader is poorly written.

What you’re saying here is that man only “creates things” to make up for his frailty and insecurity. Maybe some people just want to “figure things out” and take enjoyment in doing so! What about art? Can man do anything for joy? Or are you even going to classify that joy as “the releasing of endorphins to make man happier to prolong his survival.”?

Empiricism is a dangerous road to walk down. I picture the man who walks down the road to smell the roses and thinks to himself, “Yes, I am doing something pleasurable which will release endorphins and prolong my life. And now I will go do 100 push-ups and eat a sandwich on wheat bread…” and so on. Do people really do this? I sure don’t think so. Am I a defective human being because of it? I dunno, I’m enjoying myself. Is it up to you to say that I could be enjoying it so much more if I were more powerful and could get more pleasure out of life? Can we tell “how much someone is enjoying life” through the use of some instrument?

Man does not simply create things to survive. I do not know why exactly I am driven to create, nor do I pretend to have the answer.

More to come…

[Ade]

Like with all closed systems, a social system has its own methods and mechanisms by which it meets its needs and creates environments and participants that ensure its continuance and health. In doing so each system replaces or mutates past systems and refocuses and redefines their premises.

Yes, but every system has had at least some “sense of justice.” And whenever the mass populace comes to realize that the leaders are not adhering to that justice, the society crumbles. With the use of technology, people are now able to be much more deceptive and to keep the proletariet blind to their injustices, but it still demonstrates that man is drawn to justice. Just because a few assholes think they’re better than everyone else and start telling lies to “get their giant social machine moving” (ie. Marxism) doesn’t mean these guys are “superior.”

If you assume that “having physical and intellectual domination and being able to coerce others into doing what they don’t want to do” is “superior”, then why are you writing an essay trying to help people realize the truth about it? Are you trying to pit everyone against each other or something? This is silly.

Democracy is the result of weariness, caused by the constant conflict and uncertainty of previous political systems, and the natural consequence of population explosions that enabled individuals, of questionable quality, to unite and achieve political relevance through the strength of numbers; it is also the expected result of increasing demands for resources, caused by a prospering civilization, shrinking spaces and a human psychological predisposition for peace and stability.

Alright I’m stepping back for a moment from my refutations to say that this is the most pretentious sentence that I have ever read in my entire life. You basially hedge your paper of all “ethical repurcussions” in the beginning in order to say that “some individuals are of questionable quality?” What sort of quality do you speak of? Is a “good quality” individual the sort of individual that can exact his superiority over others? And you say we’re “thinning out the gene pool” by allowing too many people to survive? In order to declare this as true, you also have to know exactly what it is that man is MOVING TOWARDS. And you do not know this, and are thus no better than the rest. According to your own words, this knowledge of “superior versus inferior” only exists in particular social contexts, and the rubrick by which superior and inferior are judged is in constant flux. Thus, you cannot ever determine that a certain human is of “questionable quality.” To speak this way is to

This trend towards larger and more malleable populations, existing within smaller spaces and dwindling resources, has made equalitarian, servile moralities essential and vital.

By saying this, you’re also making the dangerous step of saying that “ethics and morals” are subject to becoming obselete, and may one day be eradicated. Of course, this is under the assumption that man’s primary goal in the universe is to “merely survive” which has never been proved.

More to come still…

[Ade]

For instance, many of us in the west, influenced by marketing practices from an early age, find it obvious that certain product name-brands are associated with a particular ideal and that the acquisition of certain material products and the image constructed to go along with them, is of the utmost importance and relevance and the means by which we advertise and express our own self-worth and quality to the world.

Or maybe the “most bought brands” are just better quality? Doc Martens used to be considered a “status symbol” but they’re also damn good shoes! People naturally have an eye for product quality. And sometimes the best aren’t even the most expensive! I would much rather wear sturdy Old Navy jeans than the flimsy expensive ones from the Buckle. Are you saying that people are attracted and “turned on” by being expediant? How is “being wasteful” a sign of power?

Owning a BMW or a Mercedes or a Versace or a Rolex, is how we exhibit our social status, as capable consumers, and attract others, especially females, to our genetic potency dictated, in this case, not by natural symbolism but by a socioeconomic one, we have been sold on, and guided by an ideal, we have accepted as our highest. The quality of the products we own and consume must supposedly symbolize our personal quality, whether it is present or not.

Not every woman is attracted to possessions. And this proves that a person can think “outside of the box” and come to realize that “objects do not necessairly equal status.” In fact, the people that generally fall into this trap are the intellectual inferiors, the people you just said were of “questionable quality.” So if a “gold-digging female” is likely to be of questionable quality intellectually, and thinks that possessions equal happiness, then do I really want to “select her” to raise my kids? Please.

The current popularity of spirituality and the rediscovery of past spiritualism, particularly amongst urban populations where the distance between man and nature is the greatest and where the fruits of mans labour are mostly of an impersonal nature, is a symptom of this systematic, capitalistic redefinition of value and self-worth that serves the socioeconomic system by forcing a continuing striving for materialistic acquisitions, which in-turn drives modern economies, and maintains a constant state of tentative hopefulness for material wealth, that is supposed to be the ultimate answer to boredom, meaninglessness and misery, and keeps the masses working and dreaming despite the odds being stacked against them and the overall interests of the system itself to preserve the status quo of class disparity.

Or maybe some people really just wonder if there are higher forces in the universe, and are fascinated by the thought.

Here we can also find the causes for the current generational gap and the roots of this recent pampered undisciplined naiveté and unmerited over-expectation of western urban youths that has resulted in them not respecting or valuing anything, including their very selves.

This is nothing new. There have been spoiled brats since time imemormial.

We no longer relate to each other as thinking, feeling human beings connected with all of creation intimately but we relate to each other as consuming owners, protective maintainers of that which we own and covet and egotistical misers that take the things that they buy to be what defines them as individual human beings.

Maybe you do this. Pretty big assumption, though.

Most people have the ability to realize the folly of materialism given the education. Apparently, despite all of your education, you were unable to escape this.

That’s enough on this for one night. I’ll continue again when I have time. Sorry for doing this incrementally, my current word processor programs are on the fritz so I can’t really save anything.

[Lollipop_King]

Ade

This is beginning to sound dangerously like Progatoras’ theory that “man is the measure of all things” found in Plato’s dialogue Theatetus (spelling?). I’m afraid that some of the questions that this essay looks at are not necessairly emperical ones. Sociology and Psychology are not hard sciences, and it’s really difficult to accept anything found in them that is not strictly from a chemical level. As soon as “matters of opinion” and “guesstimating” come into play, the emperical factor is lost, and the argument becomes weak.

Which field of knowledge does not study the specific and extrapolate the universal through its behavior?

OK Emerson. You speak as though there is some “infinite repository” of good ideas out there. Funny though, the only way to come to a “good idea” is to think critically (or get extremely lucky). The ability to “think critically” is not something that humans are born with in a cultivated sense. It has to be taught by someone else; good teachers, parents, guardians, etc. So in a sense we cannot help but be influenced by the work of others. Our very style of reading, writing, and literary analysis is taught from somewhere. Certainly we can apply our own temperment to these faculties, but they did not just develop out of nowhere.

I agree…and?

There was a wonderful period called “Modern Philosophy” in which a few thinkers (spearheaded by Descartes) decided to cast off all past knowledge to see what they could find. The inevitable results of this confusing period of philosophy (in which nothing was certain) were idealism (in a philosophical sense), solipism, and (shudder) “logical positivism”). Also, I find it hard to believe that someone could become “overly dependant” on authors that actually had some true things to say (Plato, Aristotle, Kant). I mean, if what they say is correct, then what is wrong with incorporating it into your repotoire?

There is nothing “wrong” with it, but it cannot be called ‘thinking’.
Studying the history of past greatness is not the same as creating history.
Criticizing and interpreting and repeating and analyzing scientific studies is not conducting science and knowing past artists, being able to interpret them and commenting on their style and motives, is not being an artist.

This is nothing but an assurance. Even the wisest philosopher would be somewhat subject to this “unfortunate state”, thus he has no room to speak on it.

In fact he must speak of it before he speaks of anything else.

Social mores certainly change with time. But every society has at least attempted to find out what justice is. There are no societies that were completely devoid of it. Not everything is in a state of flux ALL OF THE TIME. If everything were in flux, then why try to speak on anything? It will have already changed!

Because I would be a fool not to.

Change doesn’t happen at the speeds that would make any assessment of reality immediately obsolete.
Furthermore we exist in a human reality where change is resisted.
Human thought is naturally conservative.

Another bold and untestable statement. Power over what?

Himself.

Do you mean “absolute power over all knowledge in the universe?” Is this really what man was intended to do? To figure out everything (at any cost) so that we can have dominion over everything? This would require the presupposition that “power and survival” are somehow more preferable to peace and contentedness. Thus, people who just like to “chill” and enjoy life would have neither power nor purpose. Can you determine this?

The search is always for the unattainable absolute.
This is what makes life all the more absurd.
Define what “peace” and “contentment” are and how they are even possible without power or control.

Please note that ever since man could pick up a pen, there have been writers who have tried to declare the “individual human spirit” as obselete and destroyed. This idea sure got Karl Marx a long way…right.

The process is ongoing.
Many, many more will comment on it.

What about the nameless person who saves another person’s life and is never recognized?

Recognition isn’t always from the other.

One, often, feels pleasure when he lives up to the moral system he’s been indoctrinated within.
The anonymity is part of this, since it insinuates selflessness.

In fact the person gains recognition by secretly admiring himself through how the others appreciate his actions, even when they do not know it was him that acted.
Here the individual has so associated himself with the group that the group’s appreciation or advantage becomes his.

What sort of advantage does that provide him?

The advantage of every weakness: power through association - indirect power.
Pack psychology.

One feels strong by belonging to something strong - God for example.

The individual recognizes its own inadequacies and seeks to overcome them by losing one’s self in the whole.
The whole becomes his replacement identity.

All social creatures rally expose their individual inadequacies which forced a unity with others.

Are you going to say this hero is a “bad animal” because he isn’t looking out for his own interests?

I never characterized it as “bad”. It is another survival strategy. It is hypocritical. But subterfuge is another natural survival strategy.
A strategy forced by weakness or an inability to cope.

I am just exposing it for what it is, beyond the romantic idealisms

Why do we glorify such actions? You talk as though the general sense of social mores and ethics are things that we “begrudgingly accept” to be allowed to live, and then we can attempt to gain advantage over others when nobody is watching. A grand assumption, indeed.

I’m sorry it bothers you so much.

The need to think of things as selfless or pure or noble is part of the social mechanism which prevents resistance to assimilation.

The loss of identity or freedom, as a distinct entity, must be made easier by imbuing it with a sense of grandeur or overcoming.

The mind is a tool dedicated to preserving the unity it is produced in.
Any attempt to redirect it is met with resistance. Resistance is the mind fighting against the flux.

To overcome the mind’s singular purpose emotions and instincts are evolved to ease the process.
Emotions inebriate the mind, losing the ego in the whole. Love is a good example, but the same can happen with hate.

Or we might just call it injustice or greed.

Human emotional characterizations, meant to overcome the mind’s resistance to assimilation.
Shame, is used to force acceptance of the collective decree.

There isn’t any solid proof that “good breeding” creates “good objective thinkers.”

Funny how natural selection uses breeding to find the best suited for an environment but humans somehow escape this natural process.

So if a person is reading a book and he discovers that he had previously had an incorrect idea and now adheres to the “correct idea” he has a weakness? I think your definition of weakness needs some work.

I think you need to work on understanding what I am saying.

So everything eventually becomes part of something bigger or dies? Now just a second…is this bigger thing necessairly better? If the “big thing” keeps on changing and is in constant flux, then how can it determine what is good? Maybe this isn’t a scientific theory, either.

Bigger is a judgment of comparison in relation to that being absorbed.

I never said anything about “better”, if anything I’m implying a personal dissatisfaction with it.

I like ‘me’ too much.

What you’re saying here is that man only “creates things” to make up for his frailty and insecurity. Maybe some people just want to “figure things out” and take enjoyment in doing so! What about art? Can man do anything for joy? Or are you even going to classify that joy as “the releasing of endorphins to make man happier to prolong his survival.”?

I don’t know, what do you think?

What about art?

Are you saying man acts and thinks and lives just for the hell of it?
You know….just for fun?
What about fun…what is it?

Empiricism is a dangerous road to walk down. I picture the man who walks down the road to smell the roses and thinks to himself, “Yes, I am doing something pleasurable which will release endorphins and prolong my life. And now I will go do 100 push-ups and eat a sandwich on wheat bread…” and so on. Do people really do this?

Obviously…you don’t - which would explain why you think what you think and how you think.

Am I a defective human being because of it? I dunno, I’m enjoying myself. Is it up to you to say that I could be enjoying it so much more if I were more powerful and could get more pleasure out of life? Can we tell “how much someone is enjoying life” through the use of some instrument?

No. All animals do the same thing.
They don’t think much. They simply act.

Be comforted by the ‘truth’ that you are part of a vast majority living and never exploring what this means; enjoying and never deconstructing what this is; fearing to lose the magic of life by understanding it.

‘The meek shall inherit the Earth.’
‘Ignorance is…’

Man does not simply create things to survive. I do not know why exactly I am driven to create, nor do I pretend to have the answer.

More to come…

I’m tingling with anticipation.

If you assume that “having physical and intellectual domination and being able to coerce others into doing what they don’t want to do” is “superior”, then why are you writing an essay trying to help people realize the truth about it? Are you trying to pit everyone against each other or something? This is silly.

True, I often wonder why myself.

Truth is I am displaying my own human frailties – which I am trying to overcome – and I am exposing my human need for recognition and acceptance by those I consider of my ilk.

Social needs are human weaknesses.
See?
I do not exclude myself from my comments.

Alright I’m stepping back for a moment from my refutations to say that this is the most pretentious sentence that I have ever read in my entire life. You basially hedge your paper of all “ethical repurcussions” in the beginning in order to say that “some individuals are of questionable quality?” What sort of quality do you speak of?

Why….to be honest…your quality is what I speak of.
A quality you are making all the more clear with your every sentence.

Thank you, by the way, for your e-mail in which you promise to put me in my place.
It was charming.

I hope you get over your headache and your distaste for my style.

What sort of quality do you speak of? Is a “good quality” individual the sort of individual that can exact his superiority over others? And you say we’re “thinning out the gene pool” by allowing too many people to survive? In order to declare this as true, you also have to know exactly what it is that man is MOVING TOWARDS.

I have an opinion about ‘what man is moving towards’.
You, represent the modern man.

And you do not know this, and are thus no better than the rest. According to your own words, this knowledge of “superior versus inferior” only exists in particular social contexts, and the rubrick by which superior and inferior are judged is in constant flux. Thus, you cannot ever determine that a certain human is of “questionable quality.” To speak this way is to

I speak of ‘inferior/superior’ as a comparison between two or more unities within a particular context.

Since thinking is how man differentiates himself from animals or the universe, then I use this as the highest of all qualities.

By saying this, you’re also making the dangerous step of saying that “ethics and morals” are subject to becoming obselete, and may one day be eradicated. Of course, this is under the assumption that man’s primary goal in the universe is to “merely survive” which has never been proved.

More to come still…

Morals and ethics will always exist when two or more conscious entities unite into a group.
Morals are the rules of relating.

As man becomes more and more dependant on the whole, moral law will become more and more binding and relevant.

I claim the opposite of what you say.

I am saying individuality is becoming obsolete, making morality all the more important and dominating.

Or maybe the “most bought brands” are just better quality? Doc Martens used to be considered a “status symbol” but they’re also damn good shoes! People naturally have an eye for product quality. And sometimes the best aren’t even the most expensive! I would much rather wear sturdy Old Navy jeans than the flimsy expensive ones from the Buckle. Are you saying that people are attracted and “turned on” by being expediant? How is “being wasteful” a sign of power?

If you cannot understand how being excessive is a sign of power or how control over resources is symbolized through products, then I cannot help you.

I ask you what you mentioned earlier:
What advantage would I gain from opening your eyes?

I seek my own kind to share.
I don’t seek minions or students or followers – although these too flatter my human vanities – or believers or converts.
They eventually become tiresome.

Not every woman is attracted to possessions. And this proves that a person can think “outside of the box” and come to realize that “objects do not necessairly equal status.” In fact, the people that generally fall into this trap are the intellectual inferiors, the people you just said were of “questionable quality.” So if a “gold-digging female” is likely to be of questionable quality intellectually, and thinks that possessions equal happiness, then do I really want to “select her” to raise my kids? Please.

Your naiveté is none of my business.

Perhaps it would be harsh to say that what separates the notion of a prostitute from a woman of moral fiber is one of price.

But men are no less prostituting themselves to survive and to procreate.
Ergo The Feminization of Man.

Just like in nature, all relationships are based on give/take balances.
It’s all economics.
Long term investments, sacrifices, benefits, price, reward, work, creativity, pension plans, exploitation of resources etc.

Sexual Tensions
ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … highlight=

Or maybe some people really just wonder if there are higher forces in the universe, and are fascinated by the thought.

Or comforted by the thought….like you, for example.

Maybe you do this. Pretty big assumption, though.

All human beings do this.
Some just deny it or call it by other names so as to save themselves (survive) and remain loyal to the ideals (integrate) all at once.

It has to do with the meme trying to appropriate and replace the gene.

User’s Guide
ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … highlight=

Most people have the ability to realize the folly of materialism given the education. Apparently, despite all of your education, you were unable to escape this.

Yes…I see this all around me daily.

But you make some broad assumptions about me, guided by your distaste for what I have to say concerning reality and driven by an emotional need to avenge yourself.

My message is highly non-materialistic…or didn’t you realize this from the text?

If you are interested then here are some links to help you understand my perspective better.

Another pretentious things to do….I know.

Beware of Greeks…
ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … highlight=

Entertaining Ramifications
ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … highlight=

Random Thoughts
ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … highlight=

Asceticism
ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … highlight=

[Ade]

No. All animals do the same thing.
They don’t think much. They simply act.

Be comforted by the ‘truth’ that you are part of a vast majority living and never exploring what this means; enjoying and never deconstructing what this is; fearing to lose the magic of life by understanding it.

‘The meek shall inherit the Earth.’
‘Ignorance is…’

I’m beginning to wonder if “breaking things down” do the degree that you do is “exploring” at all.

We have heard that “the unexamined life is not worth living,” but another person once (who escapes me) said that the “unlived life is not worth examining.”

Viewing things purely in terms of economics can lead to seemingly definite answers, but it makes vast assumptions about all living matter. I have to get ready for my next class but I will continue to slog through this essay when I have some time.

Also, I do not find myself “distanced” from your style. I can understand it just fine. But I’m concerned about the tone.

I think you should examine the reasons for which you wrote this essay and determine if it really is so that “people think highly of you” or if you simply find joy in these pursuits. If you do it simply for the “joy”, then it really wouldn’t be a matter of pure economy. We may be living in a universe of matter and economy, but that doesn’t mean that’s ALL THERE IS. And if that were all that was to the universe, then why does man have to focus so carefully to think of the world in these terms? We look at Stalin (or Bataille, who was a better Stalinist than Stalin himself) and call them “unnatural”. Yet they had EXCELLENT perceptions of economy.

You’re never going to believe that there is anything beyond the seen because it’s something you cannot detect with your five senses. And you say that I use it for comfort, hah. Obviously from the fact that I’m able to read and extrapolate ideas I already have a fairly decent advantage over most people today (yes I can be a little pretentious, too), but I never rule out the possibility of it. I don’t need it for comfort, but I do find it interesting. Believing that the universe is “simply a matter of economy” is just as much of a “leap of faith” as believing in the spiritual realm. Neither can be proved. However, I would encourage the lab scientist to conduct experiments to “create new matter” or to create life from “not life”. They have yet to make any progress on this. And it alludes to the possibility that these initial rules of the universe were set by something “outside of the rules.” And it would thus be the repository of all things that are correct and good. Call it God or call it The First Mover, the possibility is there and cannot ever be extinguished. Also, it is possible that this “world of economy” is simply an illusion, and that we simply have yet to make the scientific leaps to basically “turn any matter into anything else we want” which would completely destroy the problems of scaracity and the need for people to “conform to survive.”

[Lollipop_King]

Ade

I’m beginning to wonder if “breaking things down” do the degree that you do is “exploring” at all.

We have heard that “the unexamined life is not worth living,” but another person once (who escapes me) said that the “unlived life is not worth examining.”

How does examining one’s life exclude living it?

I think you should examine the reasons for which you wrote this essay and determine if it really is so that “people think highly of you” or if you simply find joy in these pursuits.

Then perhaps you can expand your extrapolations - from this single essay - concerning what my intentions and motives are.

I guess ‘An unexamined life…’ for you means the other’s life, as opposed to your own.

Please “examine” my life all you like – from what you know if it – and do not examine your own, - fearing that you might lose the magic of it.
What is magic? - The gleeful appreciation of the surprising and the unknown, upon which the mystical is built.
Children love magic.

I find it pleasing when another seeks to turn the tables on me by assuming that he’ll tell me something about me that I don’t already know or accept.

I would suggest you examine why any artist creates art or why any philosopher or thinker shares his thoughts.
You will find there nothing but human nature.
I do not distance myself from it. I accept it and know it fully.

Now, maybe, it is time for you to do likewise.

A little rule of thumb:

When life surprises you or when people disappoint you or baffle you, perhaps the reasons or the failings should not be sought in them, for they are what they are, but must be sought in you.
Blaming others for your own failures to interpret and comprehend correctly is cowardice and an escape from responsibility.

The world isn’t at fault. It is you who has failed to perceive it which is at fault.

Here’s a little metaphor for you:

When you walk in the woods and you see a pack of canines running towards you, what do you think?
Do you think them domesticated dogs or wild wolves?
Do you assume they come to play fetch or that they hunger for your flesh?
How do you extrapolate their intentions and their “inner” being?
Do you pray for divine intervention?

The universe has programmed the mind to think of the worse first; of the negative before all else.
Why?

Because the universe is a dangerous, inhospitable place for life and the living and one is better off assuming the worse to prevent it.
Furthermore the mind, innately knows what life is and what a struggle surviving is.
It intuitively understands what the most likely motive is, in them running towards you.
It perceives of the unknown as threatening because the unknown is just that.

The only mind that would think otherwise is a mind shielded from the universe’s reality.

Like a dog, brought up under the protection of human societies, it is friendly to all and believes all are friendly towards it.
It has been domesticated.
It has been trained in the rules of humanity:
Thou shalt not bite the hand that feeds you.
Thou shalt not shit on the carpet.
Thou shalt not jump on the furniture.

Morality.

A dog is naïve and lacks the experience to make it weary and careful and aware. It is stuck in adolescence.

To such a mind a pack of canines running towards it in the woods is an invitation to play.

Now, if the canines are like it, domesticated, adolescent dogs, with full bellies and naïve dispositions, it will be correct in its assumption.
But if the canines care not for its hopes and lack of experience with reality and if they are governed by the primordial forces of the forest, brought up in the wilds where they had to fend for themselves and survive using their wits, then this hypothetical, naive mind is destined for a crude awakening.

If you do it simply for the “joy”, then it really wouldn’t be a matter of pure economy.

You are so cute.
And what is joy and why would it, whatever it is, provide joy?

And if that were all that was to the universe, then why does man have to focus so carefully to think of the world in these terms? We look at Stalin (or Bataille, who was a better Stalinist than Stalin himself) and call them “unnatural”. Yet they had EXCELLENT perceptions of economy.

Who calls them “unnatural”?

You are saying that we may live in a universe of “economics” but it is best to not think of the universe in that way.
Fascinating.

We should then live in delusion because this comforts us?
We should make ourselves victims because we lack the stomach to see the world for what it is?

Maybe you should read more than just Bataille.

You’re never going to believe that there is anything beyond the seen because it’s something you cannot detect with your five senses.

A religious mind, I smell.

What then should I rely upon?
Words written in a book?
Promises, hearsay, threats?

What is “beyond the seen”, do tell?
And please explain how you’ve perceived it or how you’ve become acquainted with it.

And you say that I use it for comfort, hah. Obviously from the fact that I’m able to read and extrapolate ideas I already have a fairly decent advantage over most people today (yes I can be a little pretentious, too), but I never rule out the possibility of it.

Ha…indeed.
I haven’t ruled out the possibility that aliens will abduct me and take me away from this planet, but I’m not betting on it … I’m only hoping it.

Here’s another thing I haven’t ruled out:
When I here a pack of wolves in the forest a part of me still desperately hopes that they are there playing in the fields of our Lord, and that they simply want to be friends.

Believing that the universe is “simply a matter of economy” is just as much of a “leap of faith” as believing in the spiritual realm.

Yes.
The rules of equalitarianism inevitably result in the equality of ideas and beliefs and judgments.
It is when the weak are protected from their own stupidity that all perceptions become equally valid.

For instance, in a world where technology has created a medical safety net, the spiritually minded find it just as helpful to pray for healing when the medical establishment fails or they are also being helped by science.
Then, when and if they are healed they could say that it was their praying all along.
If they are not…they can blame science for it.

Here’s a way to test the equality of your equal ‘leaps of faith’:

1. Leap off a cliff with nothing but your belief and your faith in God. Pray for His omnipotent arms to cushion your fall.

2. Leap off a cliff after you’ve analyzed and studied nature, placing your faith in your innovations and in your abilities to perceive and to comprehend and to invent and to adapt.

Neither can be proved.

Neither can be proved absolutely.
But some ideas are more probable than others.

Guess how probability is measured.

Imagination?

Hope?

Faith?

Guess……

However, I would encourage the lab scientist to conduct experiments to “create new matter” or to create life from “not life”.

Ah…so not knowing how something works means that it works supernaturally?

I get it now.
There was a time when mankind didn’t know how fire worked.
They called it God and believed spirits danced in it.

There was a time man didn’t know how to fly, did they not think that birds were mysterious and magical?

Shall we place God, once more, in the unknown, where He can comfort us with His hypothetical existence from afar?
Shall we then explain the mystifying by invoking Him?
Shall we remain slaves to our fears and anxieties?

For most the answer is: YES!
They so desperately want to be happy and they have so little time to find happiness.

Do you know what happiness is?
A dog playing with a ball - A simple mind requiring simple answers, content in fulfilling its simple needs, acting without knowing why…and not caring.

They have yet to make any progress on this. And it alludes to the possibility that these initial rules of the universe were set by something “outside of the rules.”

Good conclusion.

I bet that when, in the past, they failed to comprehend how the Earth could be round when the water was not draining away, they chose to invent Atlas, place a flat earth upon him and be done with the exploration.

It’s a good thing man has reached the end of knowledge and that nothing new will be discovered in the future, for you and your kind.
Good because we can now point to scientific ignorance or failure as proof that it is no different than religious dogmatism.

Why then not take Pascal’s wager and hedge our bets?
Why not then believe in the comforting, benevolent, unknown?
Why not surrender to the hunger of the wolves and as they tear us apart, smile because they are doing God’s biding and making our ascension to heaven a quick affair?

Call it God or call it The First Mover, the possibility is there and cannot ever be extinguished.

And neither can the anxiety of existence be “extinguished”.

I cannot disprove Leprechauns either.

Should I prove a negative then?
Is this the final resting place of the desperate and needy?

Yes, you can have your God…and all His wonders with Him.
You certainly deserve and need a God like Him.

Also, it is possible that this “world of economy” is simply an illusion, and that we simply have yet to make the scientific leaps to basically “turn any matter into anything else we want” which would completely destroy the problems of scaracity and the need for people to “conform to survive.”

Yes. The utopian world of Star Trek is a comforting, hopeful place, as well.

One thing I found unrealistic about it though – besides the problems concerning ‘beaming’ up or down – was how unnatural the humans behaved in it.
They didn’t even defecate or urinate, and fornication was only insinuated.

A universe void of any reminders about man’s animal nature; a sanitized universe. Even food was replicated from pure energy.
An idealized, clean world. A world for children and the child-like.

Let us dream……

Here’s another thing you should not place much faith in:
Another response from me.

Believe what you like.
Your life and your mind is your own affair.
Do with both what you will and….

Good luck.

[Ade]

You will find there nothing but human nature.
I do not distance myself from it. I accept it and know it fully.

I don’t think you know everything about this either. In fact, despite all of your words, you are probably no closer than anyone else because you have yet to find any certainties.

Neither can be proved absolutely.
But some ideas are more probable than others.

If something is completely unproveable then you can’t even begin to speak on probability. Don’t even try to slip this one in on me.

And neither can the anxiety of existence be “extinguished”.

I cannot disprove Leprechauns either.

Should I prove a negative then?
Is this the final resting place of the desperate and needy?

Yes, you can have your God…and all His wonders with Him.
You certainly deserve and need a God like Him.

This is bullshit. I actually could care less whether or not I survive or “live on”, and I really don’t fear death. I work in a liquor store at night while trying to put myself through college, and I could care less if someone pulled a gun on me. I really just can’t stand people who think they know everything like you. If I die and there is no God and there is nothing, then I won’t be around to worry about it. If there is a God and a Heaven, then I suppose we will all be equal in him in the end, and if there’s not, we’ll all be equally dust (so enjoy your high and mighty pretentiousness while you still can).

You know no more than anyone else in this thread, you’re just a lot more eloquent at saying it.

I want you to explain to me right now where the laws of the universe were set. Explain where they came from. Explain how matter was created. Until you can answer these questions (or even begin to) you cannot say that empiricism is “more likely” to be correct than the existence of God. How conceited it us for us, whom you referred to as “frail humans” to think that there is no such thing as the supernatural!

I’m not even sure if I can read the rest of the essay and finish commenting on it because you’re not even willing to attempt different modes of thinking. You use the one that best rationalizes what you do in life (which I am certain is a moral vacuum if it’s anything like any other empiricist’s life). I have TRIED empiricism and I have ignored all “social mores” and attempted to live life in a purely economical sense (live, get pleasure, reproduce, etc.) and no matter how much I tried to put it out of my head, simply “using people” made me feel like a horrid person!\

You can’t even hold to this ‘constant empricism’ because you just wished me “good luck” even though, under your own theory, I am a being that could one day try to control you and manipulate your interests!

I’ll try to finish this, but to me this seems no better than any Contemporary Philosophy (which is mostly nonsense). It’s full of contradictions that are well hidden by rhetoric. No wonder you’re too afraid to dumb down your writing style, then most people (not just myself and a few others) would be able to see what you’re really trying to say (and realize it for what it is).

The gloves are off. You really picked the wrong day to tell me that I’m nothing but a bunch of random atoms floating around.

I guess anyone can become an ILP legend if he dresses up nonsense in such a complicated manner that the people examining it for qualifications are so confused that they just accept it. Nicely done.

Someone as cocky and distant as you has no place in a community if he reveals through his “own personal experience” that he is a being who is trying to force his will on others (while trying to avoid having his own will manipulated)!

Under your view, even obeying the rules of this forum would be hypocritical because they are obviously keeping you from doing “what you want to do all the time,” so let’s just start ignoring those as well!

I’ll start ignoring them by saying that you are a pretentious bastard who wants nothing more but the childish pleausre of trying to convince people of a cold and cruel universe so that they become just as depressed and bitter as you are. You want to make them feel like worthless commodities, and you pull the bullshit move of comparing “God” to “Leprechauns” even though a purely economic universe is just as ludicrous to speak of! You keep on avoiding this and arguing ad hominem, so now I will do the same: You’re a dumbass!

[Sauwelios]

@Ade

You will find there nothing but human nature.
I do not distance myself from it. I accept it and know it fully.

I don’t think you know everything about this either. In fact, despite all of your words, you are probably no closer than anyone else because you have yet to find any certainties.

Or maybe Satyr does not even believe that there are any certainties to be found.

@Ade

Neither can be proved absolutely.
But some ideas are more probable than others.

If something is completely unproveable then you can’t even begin to speak on probability. Don’t even try to slip this one in on me.

“Completely” unprovable? You can either prove something or you can’t. If something is provable (and proven), it is certain, not probable. On the other hand, if something is probable, it is not proven, but the evidence (as opposed to proof) makes it quite credible that it is so. There are gradations of probability; not of provability. Perhaps that is why nothing is provable, whereas many things are probable.

@Ade

And neither can the anxiety of existence be “extinguished”.

I cannot disprove Leprechauns either.

Should I prove a negative then?
Is this the final resting place of the desperate and needy?

Yes, you can have your God…and all His wonders with Him.
You certainly deserve and need a God like Him.

This is bullshit. I actually could care less whether or not I survive or “live on”, and I really don’t fear death. I work in a liquor store at night while trying to put myself through college, and I could care less if someone pulled a gun on me. I really just can’t stand people who think they know everything like you. If I die and there is no God and there is nothing, then I won’t be around to worry about it. If there is a God and a Heaven, then I suppose we will all be equal in him in the end, and if there’s not, we’ll all be equally dust (so enjoy your high and mighty pretentiousness while you still can).

You know no more than anyone else in this thread, you’re just a lot more eloquent at saying it.

I want you to explain to me right now where the laws of the universe were set. Explain where they came from. Explain how matter was created. Until you can answer these questions (or even begin to) you cannot say that empiricism is “more likely” to be correct than the existence of God. How conceited it us for us, whom you referred to as “frail humans” to think that there is no such thing as the supernatural!

The supernatural? Is not everything natural? Why at all make a distinction between the “natural” and the “supernatural”? Whatever exists is natural. So if the “supernatural” exists, it is not supernatural, but natural. On the other hand, there is, of course, no such thing as that which doesn’t exist.

@Ade

I’m not even sure if I can read the rest of the essay and finish commenting on it because you’re not even willing to attempt different modes of thinking. You use the one that best rationalizes what you do in life (which I am certain is a moral vacuum if it’s anything like any other empiricist’s life). I have TRIED empiricism and I have ignored all “social mores” and attempted to live life in a purely economical sense (live, get pleasure, reproduce, etc.) and no matter how much I tried to put it out of my head, simply “using people” made me feel like a horrid person!\

Well, that is your problem, isn’t it? Maybe you were just not strong enough to defeat your superego. Maybe you are just a slave.

@Ade

You can’t even hold to this ‘constant empricism’ because you just wished me “good luck” even though, under your own theory, I am a being that could one day try to control you and manipulate your interests!

I’ll try to finish this, but to me this seems no better than any Contemporary Philosophy (which is mostly nonsense). It’s full of contradictions that are well hidden by rhetoric. No wonder you’re too afraid to dumb down your writing style, then most people (not just myself and a few others) would be able to see what you’re really trying to say (and realize it for what it is).

The gloves are off. You really picked the wrong day to tell me that I’m nothing but a bunch of random atoms floating around.

I guess anyone can become an ILP legend if he dresses up nonsense in such a complicated manner that the people examining it for qualifications are so confused that they just accept it. Nicely done.

Someone as cocky and distant as you has no place in a community if he reveals through his “own personal experience” that he is a being who is trying to force his will on others (while trying to avoid having his own will manipulated)!

Under your view, even obeying the rules of this forum would be hypocritical because they are obviously keeping you from doing “what you want to do all the time,” so let’s just start ignoring those as well!

I’ll start ignoring them by saying that you are a pretentious bastard who wants nothing more but the childish pleausre of trying to convince people of a cold and cruel universe so that they become just as depressed and bitter as you are. You want to make them feel like worthless commodities, and you pull the bullshit move of comparing “God” to “Leprechauns” even though a purely economic universe is just as ludicrous to speak of! You keep on avoiding this and arguing ad hominem, so now I will do the same: You’re a dumbass!

That quote by Dr. Thomas Martin says it all. Sad.

[Lollipop_King]

Sauwelios

Or maybe Satyr does not even believe that there are any certainties to be found.

Every time I talk to fearful, desperate minds I am always faced with the certainty issue.

What certainty does science offer or philosophy offer?
None.
That’s their honesty.

They both offer only probabilities.
Superior and inferior probabilities.

A proposition is deemed probable or improbable due to its supporting arguments, but most of all due to the supporting evidence.
An opinion is deemed probable or improbably when the source is valued as reliable or unreliable.
A source is judged using its past assessments and accuracy and creations and predictions.

We judge a lovers love as being pure and reliable using his/her past actions and performances as evidence pf future actions and performances.

The fearful mind exposes its fear in its demand for certainty.
It wants to escape the responsibility of using its own wits and taking a chance on its own judgment by asking for another’s unquestionable ‘truth’ – it judged by quantity rather than quality and in how it adheres to personal interests and placates personal anxieties.
The mind feels the ‘truth’ given and succumbs to the need for it to be absolutely true.
This is where manipulation starts.

Then religion offers it just that…a finality, an absolute certainty, a comforting escape from the dangers of existence.

“Completely” unprovable? You can either prove something or you can’t. If something is provable (and proven), it is certain, not probable. On the other hand, if something is probable, it is not proven, but the evidence (as opposed to proof) makes it quite credible that it is so. There are gradations of probability; not of provability. Perhaps that is why nothing is provable, whereas many things are probable.

The fearful, desperate mind can only think in absolutes.

Notice the language: “Completely unprovable…”

There is a completion here.
There must be.
A final decree must be found so as to live by its rules.
The desperate, weak mind cannot function in uncertainty or fluctuating reality. The weak mind cannot accept degree of possibility.
It has no confidence in its adaptive abilities and on its awareness.

It must be given a path; told in what direction to head, and offered a stable place to make a stand.

It then uses reverse logic by asking for the absoluter certainty of the contradicting opinion.
If none is given it assumes that its own position is the equal of the opposing one.

The logic goes like this:

Prove, beyond doubt that Santa Clause does not exist.
If you cannot then Santa’s existence is possible.
If Satan’s existence is possible then Santa’s non-existence is equally possible.
Therefore Santa’s existence or non-existence is equally possible.

Thusly Santa’s existence should be judged by what the belief offers.
In this case believing in Santa makes Christmas magical, it insinuates God, it promises gifts and a ‘Good’ spirit watching over us.

Belief in Santa’s non-existence offers …nothing but misery and effort.
One must buy one’s own gifts. One must watch over one’s self.
One must remain uncertain about life after death and God.

The balance it tilted by emotion.

The supernatural? Is not everything natural? Why at all make a distinction between the “natural” and the “supernatural”? Whatever exists is natural. So if the “supernatural” exists, it is not supernatural, but natural. On the other hand, there is, of course, no such thing as that which doesn’t exist.

The desperate, weak mind presupposes an answer with its question:

“What created matter?”
It does not even analyze what matter represents or if it even needs a creator at all.

Matter: The interplay of Time and Space.

Time and Space: The flow of energy - universal flux – through probabilities.

The Flux: The universe seeking completion. Flowing from one near-absolute state of Somethingness towards another near-absolute state of Nothingness, creating a temporal direction. (Big Bang ↔ Big Crunch). The near-absolute becomes the focal point of the flow, appearing to the mind as an explosion or a dark abyss – depending on which absolute is approached.

No creator - a process of constant creation, exposing an absence of completion, within which unities come to be and resist the flow, uniting, assimilating, disassociating, conflicting, cooperating, in an endless dance seeking the absolute.

Well, that is your problem, isn’t it? Maybe you were just not strong enough to defeat your superego. Maybe you are just a slave.

A slave to the communal decree - the opinion of the other has replaced one’s own opinion in power and the mind thinks of itself as it imagines how the other perceives it.

[Ade]

If you want to say it like that, then I maintain that there isn’t enough known about the universe to make the “law of economy” probable. Until you can begin to speak on where matter comes from, you cannot expound on the scaracity of it, nor can you deem that humans are controlled by certain “supply and demand” concepts. You speak as though there is some hidden power that controls us from “behind the scenes.”

I’m not afraid of anything. If I die and there’s nothing, then so what? It wouldn’t even make sense to look for truth and contentedness during’s one life, because even the memories of acquiring that truth or the ability to see the aftereffects of your work would be lost forever. But in order for there to be conscious beings, they had to come from somewhere. And since we are bound by the laws of time and space, it makes sense that something “beyond the bounds of time and space” set the rules in order for everything else to exist. Your equating “the discovery of the world being round” to “life coming from not-life” is quite pathetic because there isn’t even a way to BEGIN on the life/not-life problem. Absolutely no progress has been made, and I’ll bet you a hundred bucks that it never will. This is why I think there has to be some sort of being who is outside all of this, and yes, it would be impossible for us to detect it. That doesn’t mean it does not objectively exist. How pathetic it is of you to think that you are “the best and the brightest” that the universe has to offer! Are you a professor, a grad student? I think you need to go back to school and learn some humility. You try to emperically analyze all of my comments. Like, for that last comment, you would say something like, “What you really intend with this statement is to derail my discussion so that you can assume the power of the alpha male, etc” and other gobbletygook! Maybe I really MEAN what I say, and there isn’t something hidden in it. Maybe I mean that I find you unpleasant to read, and that I find most of your comments baseless, not only from a scientific standpoint, but from a philosophical one, as well!

So if you can’t even determine why you do anything, then why should I listen to you?

I have never met someone so full of himself, so judgemental, as you.

Let’s look at our two sides:

You WANT to hope that there is a law of economy, by which all living matter in the universe is striving to survive by any means necessary. You EARNESTLY WISH for this to be the reality of things so that you can rationalize anything that you do without a conscience (which you would view as socially instilled weakness and unnatural). You cannot even begin to speak on your rules of economy because you only understand them in the context of your existence, which is irrelevant in comparison to the objective reality of the universe (ie. the origin of matter, scaracity, the drive for survivial, etc).

I, on the other hand, want to hope that whatever “set the laws of the universe” is a conscious being that has given it a sense of purpose. I want to hope that my sense of rightdoing is not something socially instilled, but a virtue that has been acquired through effort. Similarly, I cannot prove there is a God because my senses do not have the precise nature to detect even the remotest possibility of such things. However, I derive his existence by realizing the limits of science. I wouldn’t call it some false hope, because that is glazing over the problem too quickly, and seems all too much like an assurance to justify your own actions.

So as much as you dress up your arguments, I cannot help but wonder if there is some malevolent intent under them.

It seems to me that you have only studied a very narrow sect of philosophy, and have become so imbalanced with “head knowledge” that you discount all “heart knowledge” as some sort of pathetic way of compensating for a lack of intelligence, yet you cannot demonstrate this in any way except through your own perception, Protagoras.

Then religion offers it just that…a finality, an absolute certainty, a comforting escape from the dangers of existence.

Or maybe you’re just trying to substitue people’s “faith” in religion to “faith in Satyr.” By assuring them there is no God, and that we’re just “essentially trying to whore ourselves out to one another so that we can reproduce” it would easily justify the hedonistic life that I gather from reading the profile on your blog.

So maybe instead of speaking on the intent of MY writings, you should look at the intent of your own.

And, no. I don’t consider existence dangerous. Certainly, I dislike pain. I cannot help it. But if I die, then it will be like going to sleep and never waking up. What’s so scary about that?

[Sauwelios]

Hey, Mr. Ade edited his last post and added lots of text:

@Ade

Let’s look at our two sides:

You WANT to hope that there is a law of economy, by which all living matter in the universe is striving to survive by any means necessary. You EARNESTLY WISH for this to be the reality of things so that you can rationalize anything that you do without a conscience (which you would view as socially instilled weakness and unnatural). You cannot even begin to speak on your rules of economy because you only understand them in the context of your existence, which is irrelevant in comparison to the objective reality of the universe (ie. the origin of matter, scaracity, the drive for survivial, etc).

Hey, Ade, did you acquire an objective perspective in the meantime? May I ask where? I’d like to get one myself!

By the way, what is this about “scaracity”?

And why must the “natural” (e.g., matter) come from anywhere? If the “supernatural” can be eternal, why can’t the “natural”? Isn’t this a prejudice on your part?

@Ade

I, on the other hand, want to hope that whatever “set the laws of the universe” is a conscious being that has given it a sense of purpose. I want to hope that my sense of rightdoing is not something socially instilled, but a virtue that has been acquired through effort.

All your traits are virtues, Ade! They’re not weaknesses!

@Ade

Similarly, I cannot prove there is a God because my senses do not have the precise nature to detect even the remotest possibility of such things. However, I derive his existence by realizing the limits of science. I wouldn’t call it some false hope, because that is glazing over the problem too quickly, and seems all too much like an assurance to justify your own actions.

So as much as you dress up your arguments, I cannot help but wonder if there is some malevolent intent under them.

It seems to me that you have only studied a very narrow sect of philosophy, and have become so imbalanced with “head knowledge” that you discount all “heart knowledge” as some sort of pathetic way of compensating for a lack of intelligence, yet you cannot demonstrate this in any way except through your own perception, Protagoras.

Hey! Maybe you should talk to JennyHeart! But before you do, pray tell me what it is you mean by “heart” - surely not the muscle pumping blood through your body, right?

@Ade

Then religion offers it just that…a finality, an absolute certainty, a comforting escape from the dangers of existence.

Or maybe you’re just trying to substitue people’s “faith” in religion to “faith in Satyr.” By assuring them there is no God, and that we’re just “essentially trying to whore ourselves out to one another so that we can reproduce” it would easily justify the hedonistic life that I gather from reading the profile on your blog.

So maybe instead of speaking on the intent of MY writings, you should look at the intent of your own.

And, no. I don’t consider existence dangerous. Certainly, I dislike pain. I cannot help it. But if I die, then it will be like going to sleep and never waking up. What’s so scary about that?

It’s not scary, it’s just that your life is utterly fleeting. Doesn’t that make you feel futile?

[Lollipop_King]

I was always partial to Heidegger’s interpretation of Nietzsche’s thinking in What is called Thinking?

How does one overcome one’s revulsion against time gone by?
How does one overcome its passing?
How does one stop being vengeful towards what ‘has been’?
How does one begin to cross the bridge towards the overman?

Scaracity?

Here’s a more appropriate word:
Scotomization

I propose that we should all train ourselves in the more feminine form of knowledge, known as “heart knowledge”.
Let us feel our way through reality.

Over-thinking is bad. We might see something we don’t like.

Let us, now, emote:

I feel that immortality makes me happy.
Therefore I am immortal.

Love feels nice.
Therefore love is eternal and universal and omnipotent and pure and selfless.

Being uncertain makes me sad.
I cannot accept that all is meaningless, awaiting my meaning, and that I am a product of strife and chance combinations, governed by unconscious laws.
Therefore God exists “outside”, in the non-existence or existence, in the eternity of timelessness, in the unrealistic reality – watching over me, caring for me, dictating my purpose, guiding my life, giving meaning to my suffering, offering hope for an afterwards.

I feel better already.

You see, the first victim of feminization is the male rational mind; the part that resists and challenges and explores and seeks to know and understand and dominate and overcome - the part that questions.

Then the brain surrenders to its feminine side: it wants to belong, and be cared for and guided and controlled and it wants to remain a child.

Forgive my obvious human pretentiousness but I cannot resist repeating what I’ve already said – to save time and effort:

The benefits of a thick skull – It’s easy to mistake obtuseness for strength and sensitivity for weakness.
The crass appear to be admirably coping when they are simply oblivious to what is occurring.
Stupidity is a natural immunity to life’s miseries and a thick skull the best protection against man’s vulgarity.

The idea out of which a god speaks to his minions is bent upon the incessant whisper of cultural dogmas that echo in our brains.
Those monotonous herd drones of ‘Thou shall…’ and ‘Thou shall not…’ well-up inside our minds, from the depths in which they were planted and were allowed to flourish, and they feel like they are coming from alien mouths when it is really our own mind speaking to us using another’s words.

Retardation ( en retard – late) –
The retarded mind comes late to thought.
It acts first and then justifies its actions afterwards – usually to others through itself.
The advanced mind comes late to action.
It thinks first to justify its acting beforehand – usually to itself through others.

The first will appear decisive and daring, especially to itself, even if it is thoughtless in its acting, and will claim that the justifications which it finds for its actions, after the fact, are supported by the consequences of its acting, in hindsight.
It will convince itself that it had thought itself forward when it has done so backwards.

The second will appear indecisive and cautious, even if it is thoughtful in its acting, and will claim that the justifications which it finds for its actions, before the fact, are supported by the consequences of its acting, in foresight.
It will convince itself that it has acted forward when it has done so backwards.

It is true that of the two methods the first is the most ubiquitous, owing to the fact that it is always an easier task to explain circumstances when they have already occurred and that have now become established instances of the past which can then be analyzed and memorized from the distance of the present. This requires neither great insight nor a completeness of thought or accuracy of awareness. It only requires the ability to construct a reasoned plausibility drawn from the selective interpretation of details as they become available through others – such as in history – and an instinctive drive to release oneself to whims and desires in the most primitive way.
The added advantage of this method of being is that it allows for the constant reinterpretation of events and the distance created by time creates some objective clarity, if the mind can retain the memories intact and devoid of egotism and if it has access to the details, either through abstracted memory or historical documentation, that participated in it.

It is for this basic reason why history repeats itself and why many people seem to fall into a pattern of action that can make them predictable and irrational. By the time an event is comprehended it has already occurred in imitation of previous events and the mind(s) that participated in recreating it took little heed, beforehand, of the signs that pointed back to a previous time.
The ego, often, resists projecting itself forwards, choosing instead to believe that the errors of the past were caused by another’s weakness and another’s inferiorities which it can avoid or surpass or correct; it resists learning from the experiences of others and is forced to repeat them in order to understand them – limiting itself to first-hand knowledge and placing emotional barriers between itself and the vast amounts of information available in its surroundings.
This lack of imagination coupled with arrogant egotism is a fundamental aspect of human frailty and establishes a limit to reason.

The second method will have the more difficult task of projecting into the future the accumulated result of its abstracted perceptions of the past and present – whether these accumulated perceptions were first-hand or second-hand experiences is of little importance.
The accuracy of its imagination and of its consequent predictions will be determined by how closely the results correspond with its expectations and how well it has perceived and incorporated details into its plan.

The first will rarely be disappointed or disheartened - it has few projected expectations but adapts its abstractions to whatever occurs, and interprets them according to its needs and desires; acting occurs intuitively and instinctively and is then incorporated into expectation.
The second faces the specter of disappointment and disillusionment constantly and will often feel unconfident with its ability to perceive and control its destiny, due to the vast amounts of information needing incorporation into a reliable abstraction and the acknowledgment that much more has been lost. It will often turn on itself in condemnation because, being a mere human mind, it cannot fully avoid error or control circumstances - taking full responsibility for its failings.

Where the first will blame it all on others, since it has participated little in its own destiny and has found an identity in acting and being for others through which it finds itself there in its past and explaining its present as predestined - the second will mostly blame itself, since its participation is greater in its own destiny and has found an identity in acting and being for itself and then imagining itself there in its future; a future that can never perfectly correspond to expectation and so always a source for dissatisfaction.

The retarded thinker will be weary of thinking – calling it “over-thinking” so as to avoid the shame, towards others, of thoughtlessness – because it is a hindrance to its acting through which it discovers itself in how others appreciate and value its acting.
The advanced thinker will be weary of acting – calling it “foolish” or even “meaningless” so as to avoid the shame, towards others, of inaction – because it is a hindrance to its thinking through which it realizes itself.

[Fenrys_Wolf]

@Satyr

Less Apollonian, more Dionysian.

I’ve been there. It had little result other than being, as you say, an experience.

I’ve been away. I was meaning to get back to this much earlier.

It takes more strength to deny a need while constantly confronted with its temptations than it does to run from it and isolate your self in an ascetic bubble.
Extreme ascetics are inadvertently exposing their vulnerability to the temptation by guarantying themselves.
They are saying:
“I cannot resist, I am weak, and so I completely abstain, making my self-denial easier.”
It would be like someone blinding himself to the world so that he can deal with it by not seeing it.

Perhaps. And you will say that retreating after having confronted those same temptations is an admission of defeat - or weariness.
But there is also indifference.
And ratios of both.

I have spent a great deal of time confronting both fear and indifference. Particularly recently, since you wrote that.
The deeper one goes into the self, the greater the fear of becoming less human. Of what one begins to lose.
I find myself wondering if you’ve thought that perhaps your return to the Dionysian is nothing more than a reaction to your mind screaming at you to stop. Coming to the surface to take a breath.
You have described your retarded and advanced mind, but refrained from describing that which prompted your change from, in your words, Apollonian to Dionysian.

I’m curious.

[Ade]

You see, the first victim of feminization is the male rational mind; the part that resists and challenges and explores and seeks to know and understand and dominate and overcome - the part that questions.

You say that “over-thinking may lead us to things we don’t like”, but I think it leads to absurdities!

There is no proof that it is natural for man to “dominate and overcome,” or that he prefers “survival” to “not survival.”

Maybe some men wish to dominate and overcome, but if they start causing great harm to others, inevitably they will be killed. You call this some sort of social-mechanism that you try to pick apart (and find even further absurdities), I call it justice.

In the end, you cannot say that living a life of “trying to whore yourself out” or “dominating the universe” is going to produce a happier, more fulfilled individual. You are a human being, and never has an object been able to step outside of itself and analyze itself in a completely objective manner. Your entire standpoint is based on the absurdity of:

“Ok, there’s a whole bunch of crap that we can’t detect out in the universe! But if we just THINK HARD ENOUGH we can come to conclusions about ourselves.”

But, as smart as you seem, you made a very amateurish error: a faulty premise leads to an absurdity, and anything derived from that absurdity will be equally absurd.

So yes, a person can say “suppose the universe is merely a matter of economy” (which he cannot prove), and from there he can write an incredibely eloquent and convincing piece (and he might even convert many people), but the good reader will go back and notice that his initial premises for the argument is not testable.

So essentialy you insulted me by saying “oh no, a little wimpy mind like mine can’t possibly think hard about anything because it might find something it doesn’t like”, but I think you forgot to see the problems of your arguments: that thinking hard about a speculated premisis is about as good a method of finding “universal truth” as throwing darts at the wall.

You will never change your mind because your pride has swelled too much. But your adherence to your premisis is just as much of a “seemingly irrational leap of faith” as your view of a staunch religious person. Unfortunatly you must not know what a mirror is.

[Ade]

Furthermore, it’s OK for us to say “I don’t know.”

You talk as though man’s limited perception makes him weak and frail.

Compared to what? So far the human race has advanced pretty well, in my opinion. (and I’ve noticed that as time goes on, the race is trying to move closer to a universal sense of justice, rather than this ‘take whatever you can’ state that you postulate).

You cannot call mans perceptions a frailty because it is how man is made. That would be like asking someone to count through the entire set of cardinal numbers and then calling him weak when he is unable to do so!

Trying to break things down to the degree that you do may work in your own mind, and there may be a few people who accept your initial premises and adhere to what you say, but for the most part it doesn’t do anyone any good. The level of breakdown is based on assumption, so essentially I’m reading an entire essay worth of speculation.

I would rather say “I don’t know” and let my sense of justice solve these matters, rather than trying to pick them apart as you do. You might not even be picking apart the actual state of the world, but rather one that was arbitrairly chosen.