We’re all immortal lorikeet.
The question is what you do with it.
Careless says this is supported by evidence, so I must accept it.
Otherwise why isn’t it in the ‘rant section’? His high standards are to be maintained.
If crazy is the rule then let’s go crazy.
Here I go…
I am Time Lord…I exist outside time.
Immortal doesn’t even apply to what I am.
It is how mortal being, like you, understand what I am.
I am the answer to the 5 fundamental questions - I am W5.
Denies the wealth of evidence for the beginning of entropic whatevers… Demands evidence for everything else.
Just showed up for the nemesis audition.
Entropy is ongoing.
If you have evidence of a beginning, present it.
Show us this point of beginnings.
Line up a bunch of dominoes. Stare at them until they start tipping over.
when you get tired of waiting …
Cause one of them to tip over, watch the rest follow, and ask yourself
…would that have ever happened if you had just kept staring at them?
It doesn’t matter if they always sat there not tipping, or if you had to think them into existence.
But. You have two choices. either they’ve always been tipping, so that there wouldn’t be any left to tip, or you had to think them into existence and tip the first (noting that nothing but self=other describes how you can still mess with them as needed). What do you observe in the world around you? Not heat death.
This was a pointless exercise, because all the known evidence is available on the Internet.
What a simplistic scenario from a simple mind.
Nothing is standing still dear.
Existence is a state of turmoil - dynamic, fluctuating, interactivity.
Nothing has ever been nor ever will be static.
What you perceive as static is changing at a rate your mind cannot perceive.
No first cause, simpleton.
Only cause/effect, for eternity,.
Cause and effect are emergent properties not a universal ground, they eventually manifest out of the quantum foam as a result of probability stacking. This has been confirmed experimentally by quantum phenomena which seems to flout the laws of phyics and cause and effect, ie, we are witnessing the activity of a purely chaotic, immaterial substrate (the quantum foam).
You know what’s funny is I never said that. You know what else is funny is that every “point” is granted-stationary relative to every other “point” granted-moving, and vice versa…every “point” is granted-moving relative to every other granted-stationary “point”. There is no privileged point (no separable point) because it’s all a whole.
A living whole.
Archimedean. But living.
You project yourself outside multiplicity and conceptualize it as a whole.
This is the source of your delusions and the paradoxes it creates…the mystification.
Did you just accuse experience of self-awareness and then say it didn’t experience anything?
A multiplicity/complexity and a whole/unity are not mutually exclusive. They are mutually “productive”.
There is no will without life.
Will is the defining characteristic distinguishing the living from the non-living.
Will, intentionality…focus on an objective.
There is no life without exclusion - a willful discriminating rejection and attraction of otherness.
There is no life without another.
‘I am that which I am not’…or lucidly, ‘I am that which I choose not to become’…‘I am that which I refuse, reject…’
The desire to immerse yourself in another, a universal otherness, is a symptom of self-hatred.
The quantity of the otherness and tis qualities, exposes your self-respect.
So, belonging to a herd is not like belonging to a pack…and belonging to an ideology based no reality is not the same as wanting to belong to a universal ideology…
You said otherness. Y’slippin!
Otherness = both living and non-living other; both ordered and chaotic energies to be excluded, rejected.
Do try harder, dear. [-o<
no biggy
Will To Life advances to Will To Power, placing an objective above that of the animal’s primal objective to remain alive.
Emergent self-consciousness dishearten the will, diminishing its power to advance further.
It begins losing trust in itself, seeking power through associations, through collectives - power via proxies.
Its will to power inverts to will to powerlessness, preparing itself for integration into what is more powerful than itself - surrender.
Denial of self, denial of agency, implying impotence, is how this submission manifests psychologically.
Distrust in one’s own judgments, in one’s own ability to make good choices; inadequacy to perceive and to judge.
The absent absolute using the power of nil to formulate certainty, and to immerse itself in uniform nothingness.
In the dark all appears to be the same.
In the void uniformity is achieved.
Evolution from Dogmatic ([size=80]spiritual[/size]) to Ideological ([size=80]secular[/size]) Nihilism
Spiritual, Abrahamic tropes are upgraded and replaced by modern/postmodern, secular variants:
The ‘one-god,’ replaced by ‘one-humanity,’ i.e., ‘will,’ ‘prime mover’; ‘absoluteness’ replaced by singularity/oneness’; ‘church’ replaced by ‘state’; ‘priestly class, Pharisees’ replaced by ‘experts, sanctioned authorities, idols/icons, celebrities’; ‘salvation’ replaced by ‘freedom, liberty’; ‘eternal life’ replaced by ‘eternal return’; ‘divine will’ replaced by ‘the people’s will’ and/or ‘popular opinion’; ‘divine approval’ replaced by ‘popularity,’ often expressed monetarily, i.e., market value; ‘paradise’ replaced by ‘utopia’; eternity ‘beyond space/time’ replaced by a forever imminent ‘future’; immortal ‘soul’ replaced by undying ‘memory’, i.e., to live on in and through logos; ‘sin’ replaced by ‘biology,’ viz., to be self-purified, absolved of all sin, is to be reborn as an incorporeal idea, living on as collective memory, void of all biological identifiers; ‘evil’ replaced by ‘multiplicity’; ‘good’ replaced by ‘uniformity’ and/or ‘openness’; ‘infidel’ replaced by ‘fascist/Nazi/white supremacist’ or ‘bigot, racist, sexist,’ or anything that differentiates and disrupts humanity’s ideal uniformity; ‘primordial sin’ is replaced by ‘past,’ and/or sum of all past nurturing, i.e., nature, since the body is past made present; ‘morality’ is replaced by ‘determinism’ – since all is absolutely ordered there is no choice other than the inevitable choice of symbolically sacrificing oneself to the totalitarian authority of humanity – a completely unnecessary act of symbolic consent towards the divine one-god and/or one-humanity, since there is no human agency.
Nature is the ‘evil’ they despise. They can’t slander nature by accusing it of bigotry; they cannot silence nature by labeling it ‘Nazi,’ ‘fascist,’ ‘authoritarian’… so they attack whomever describes and defends it.
All must be reduced to an ideology. An ideology can be corrected, annihilated, silenced… not nature. They need a subject to attack and accuse.
The basic ideas that have seeped through into secular forms of nihilism from Abrahamic superstitions, i.e., spiritual nihilism:
*Beginnings & Ends – requiring an ex nihilo explanation: the idea that there was a state of non-existence from where existence emerged, either intentionally or spontaneously.
*Absoluteness – absent absolute: the idea that there is an indivisible, immutable, eternal being, and/or ‘thing-in-itself,’ i.e., atom, god particle, awaiting discovery; omnipotent, omniscient, singularity as a return from a degraded ‘fallen state.’
*Absolute Order – replacing the absolute perfection, being, of the one-god: this is expressed in the idea/ideal that all is knowable, predictable, rational, consistent, and reliable. From this basic presumption a denial of human agency follows.
*Sanctity of Life: the idea that life is divine, or innately valuable, implying cosmic teleology, with ‘being’ at its final objective.
From this basic presumption the replacement of Abraham’s one-god with Abraham himself follows: God = humanity; Humanity = god. Consequently from the superstition that existence is of divine creation – creationism – comes the idea that human intersubjectivity creates morality, race, and gender, or any biological concept that threatens human cohesion.
*Idealization of Man – man converted to pure idea: Abraham’s one-god is the absolute individuation of man – multiplicity of being; gradually secularized as humanity. The church was replaced by state as the primary representation of this collective idealization of humanity. Man, and only man, has access to the ‘divine mind,’ or mankind’s collective mind – hive mind; deific creator & destroyer of worlds. Subjectivity of all that pertains to man becomes an intersubjective project that can recreate reality at will. Humanity’s consciousness progresses from being considered a conduit reflecting a pre-existing cosmic consciousness into being an emergent cosmic consciousness.
Their own convictions, their own ideologies their own sacred dogmas have resulted in a loss. They cannot doubt what they’ve grown accustomed to and dependent upon, so they must find something, someone, to blame for their boredom, for their loss of sexual options, for their loss of identity, loss of culture, and of family; they need something to unload their woes upon.
Their own nihilistic dogmas and ideologies – their world-views, their perspectives, their judgements and choices, are the cause of their losses, but they cannot admit it. They must unburden themselves from responsibility, by finding someone, something to accuse. Nature? Too amorphous; too general. They need a face, a name. “God is dead,” so who is left to blame for all this evil? Man? Certain men, because mankind is their new god, and it must be maintained in a state of pristine purity.
A solution is finally found and announced: all those who refuse to integrate to adopt this universal cooperative, are the evil ones; those who challenge the collective will, are the source of all this loss. They are the blemish that prevents Mankind from attaining its divine purity.
After over two-thousand years of cultural and linguistic indoctrination – social engineering – it is clear that ‘western thinking’ has been shaped with specific ideas that have become innate and indisputable. A feat made all the more impressive when considering the fact that the experienced world, throughout all this time, has never ceased to contradict them. A feat made comprehensible – almost inevitable – when one considers the motives of the minds it appeals to; minds driven by a conscious and subconscious desire to cope with what they intuitively feel unable to accomplish.
Will is another word for intention. If you strongly intend/will something then you will be taking actions that result, or are hopeful and/or likely to result, in the something you intend/will. But calling it “will” is a mystification that isn’t really helpful. We can see in philosophy how the concept of will is misused to improperly reify and to give the appearance of something being more significant than it really is.
Taking the notion of intention and reifying and generalizing it to the level of will to life or will to power is… just silly. The move is meant to hide the particular-actual behind an image of generality-universality; in other words, it is a kind of religious move or, more accurately, an ideological move. Living things may act in ways to continue living, or you can also say that existing things may act in ways that serve or tend to serve to expand their ‘power’, but in every case of those occurring there are specific, particular reasons-causes for it having occurred like that. It isn’t because of some singular, mystical metaphysical ‘force’ just as all instances of will-intention are not the same or caused by the same reasons.
Even the idea of will is a bit disabling to one’s actual will, you can end up sitting around thinking about it and getting buried in the words rather than just acting according to what your intentions are. If a person intends to do something then there are very specific, situationally-contextual reasons for that being the case and, under normal conditions (i.e. absent either the confusion of many conflicting intentions all at once, or the presence of sufficiently strong disincentives against that which one intends) they will act in such a way as befits their intentions. It’s really no more complicated, and no more philosophically significant, than that.
In his main work, published in 1818, Schopenhauer assumed two main propositions, one of which is that the world in itself is will. The world as an idea must therefore be based on something other than what Kant called the thing-in-itself. According to Schopenhauer, everyone is given to himself in two ways, as body and as will. According to Schopenhauer, there is no cause-and-effect relationship between will and body, because acts of will and changes in the body are a process in two areas: The body (and analogously the entire world) is the objectivation of the will, that is: the body (and analogously the entire world) is the will that has become imagination, whereby the stages of development of the world as imagination correspond to stages of objectivation of the will. All phenomena are nothing but objectifications of the one will that underlies the world as an unrecognizable thing-in-itself. This will is an unreasoning and blind urge (cf. theory of evolution).
I reject this use of the term ‘will’ because it implies a variation of the Abrahamic one-god.
Will is a term I use to differentiate the living form the non-living - or what has intent, has an objective, a motive.
Existence has no motive.
Placing it, outside space/time of causality, as Schopenhauer did, is part of the same method used by Abrahamism.
There is nothing outside space/time - literally.
Existence is dynamic and Interactive, and space/time is how a consciousness relates, experiences this existence.
I prefer the term Energy, not to be confused with the conventional use of the term, but in the Greek sense, as ‘at work’, in a state of agitation/turmoil.
Conventional use of energy only refers to perceived patterns, whereas ΕΝΕΡΓΕΙΑ includes both ordered and chaotic.
Chaos - correctly defined as a absence of order, or randomness - is why will is necessary.
Absolute order - and eternal return of the same - would make will superfluous.
Free-will is not only fact it is necessary.
Choice is the observable act of will, even if the entire organism is a manifestation of Will - according to Schopenhauer.
Where Schopenhauer went astray - infected by Abrahamism, which he could not completely overcome, finding a more mature form of nihilism in Buddhism - is when he replaced the Abrahamic one-god, or Divine Will, with simple Will; placing it "outside space/time and causality, just as they had.
Choice is the act of selecting - using precedent and an objective that may be immediate or projected far into the future - between many available and accessible options, to gratify one of many needs/desires.
The most pressing gaining in probability, but not establishing certainty, among the needs/desire to be satisfied/gratified.
Other objectives, beyond basic organic needs/desires, may factor in the evaluations/analysis we call ‘judgement’ preceding the act of choice.
All this occurs subconsciously when it comes to willing.
Choice is usually used to refer to a conscious, formal act of willing, when willing occurs constantly - not requiring the participation of the lucid part of consciousness: ego.
We will ourselves towards an objective constantly, sometimes while we think we are willing the opposite.
Self-Deciet is an aspect of human psychology which makes the entire subject confusing to the average mind.
A man can know another man more than he knows himself; just as a man can know an ape, or a dog, or a cat, or any animal, more than it can ever know itself.
Self-Awareness does not immediately mean accurate self-awarness.
Most individuals over- under-etimate themselves - lie to themselves, in order to cope with what is.
Denial of culpability is another way minds cope.
Self-Deceit is therefore possible, and often necessary for survival, since not all can endure what is revealed to them about the world and themselves, relative to it and to others.
Self-Deceit is for many an existential necessity and, usually, react passionately when exposed to a truth they cannot endure.
The idea that we could not have chosen other than what we did choose - after the fact - is a sneaky way of maintaining innocence - evading the hardship of regret when the individual is unable to adapt, to change, to control himself.
The idea - openly declared on this forum - of having a choice which cannot have been otherwise - a non-choice choice - is a deceptive way to deal with the reality of the act of choice.
In theory anything can be nullified.
But the act cannot be so easily dismissed.
The act of willing, of choosing, is problematic to those who want to maintain their peace of mind, their innocence, so they must concoct these self-contradicting claims that cannot be refuted…because who can go back in time and choose differently?
So, claiming that the choice made was the only one that could have been made, is a self-deception that remains plausible…even if it converts natural selection to fatalism, returning the mind to the religious convictions it could not entirely escape. The comforting of those superstitions is too seductive for them to ignore.
Not even Schopenhauer or Nietzsche managed it.
I have no respect for Shopenhauer or Nietzsche or any other well-regarded “philosopher”, because none of them even tried.