Huffing and puffing.
I can’t believe I managed to bring you down to this level, so quickly.
If I say so myself, that is. 
Indeed, even his idea of “wit” is to make a fool out of himself ineptly mimicking me.
And now only 365 days before he’s back again!!! =D>
We’ll need a context …of course.
Again, imagine how witless you have to be to consider this a “clever” comeback. He’s not inept enough in mimicking me above so he challenges himself to be even more inept still!
Can he top even this?!
Help him out Wendy. 
Note to Nature
What does this even mean?
Freedom = independence.
Will to Power = will to Freedom.
Power is movement towards … omnipotence. Never attaining the absolute. Movement away from powerlessness.
Freedom is a movement towards absolute independence. Movement away from dependence.
Power determined options and access to them.
One can see options and not have access to them. Not be able to choose them.
Multiple accessible options is a measure of power and freedom.
This implies independence from one particular option. Which produces obsession. Neediness is an indication of weakness because it expresses a lack of options. Lack of accessible options is an indication of powerlessness, weakness, dependence.
Coping mechanism = nihilism.
Options are not acknowledge or not accessible - choice is illusory. Nobody actually has a choice, because one option is all he can access. He is powerless to make another choice. Weak.
Nihilism - conventional meaning
A description of the world lacking a one-god, universal meaning, pre-existing purpose…lacking an absolute state of oneness, wholeness, a singularity - a static immutable, indivisible thingness.
Called god, or god-particle, or singularity, or absolute, or order/chaos, or one/nil, or whatever name one desires and is seductive - inspiring to as many minds as possible.
Since a nihilistic concept cannot exist outside minds it requires minds to convince, coerce, seduce or bribe, into holding it as true. It is entirely linguistic because it is an abstraction that needs language to be transmitted/communicated from mind to mind. Memetic fertilization.
Its utility is as a defensive barrier to an uncertain, threatening, uncaring reality.
Emerging as a school of thought a attitude, alongside self-awarness.
The concept offers the individual comfort, certainty, by reducing the uncertain and indifferent into the known, or by insinuating an alternate reality that usurps the experienced one.
Nihilism = any theory - spiritual or secular - which projects a mental abstraction which contradicts experienced reality. Beginning with the ideology or the metaphysical presumption of what negates, nullifies the physical world, i.e., empirical, tangible, multiplicity, fluctuating, interactive, we experience as existence. Example any complete, static, stable, inert state of being.
The experienced World is sampled or completely dismissed, so as to justify a noetic construct - an abstraction - with no external referents other than the ones man creates.
Nihilism = projection of abstractions into reality considered negative because it is lacking said abstractions.
Nihilism usurps the real with an ideal…an idea. It does so through art - language being an art-form.
Technology being an art form = externalization of man’s knowledge and understanding of himself.
The abstraction is itself a synthesis of multiple ideas existing as a theoretical, i.e., hypothetical, noumenon, that can then be projected in a beyond space/time or a beneath space/time - supernatural or occult realm, considered to be more real than the real.
To believe that science itself has not been infected by nihilistic superstitions is naïve.
To believe that after 2000 years of breastfeeding on the teet of nil that physics could have avoided digesting the nil, making it part of its infantile thinking, is naïve.
What is this “god particle” they are presuming and looking for?
What is the “singularity” they’ve presumed preceded the Big Bang?
What is this belief in the one, as it being more than a human linguistic representation of man’s own binary thinking?
There could not have been a singularity, because then existence would not have occurred - inflation.
If space is possibility and matter/energy probability, then a singularity is a human concept of certainty.
What would perfection change into?
Why would it?
The modern answer:
Change is part of its perfection…which also solves the Christian dilemma: why would a perfectly benevolent good god create and tolerate evil?
Answer:
Evil is part of his benevolent goodness.
Word games.
The eastern traditions already provided the answer with their Yin/Yang.
There could not have been a singularity, only a duality. there could only have been an imperfection in perfection.
ergo order is not absolute but chaos, defined as randomness, i.e., absence of patter, is part of existence. It also explains why there is free-will in the form of choice - a necessity, more than a theory.
Choice becomes a necessary part of evolution, dealing with the unforeseen.
I an absolutely ordered universe why would life, and consciousness even be required?
To fool the living that they are partially in control of their own life? Why would natural selection evolve if all is determined?
There is no absolute order …and so not all is knowable. No occult secret order only the chosen know about.
In Defense of Humorous Nihilism
John Marmysz looks on the funny side of absolute nothingness.
On the other hand, until it is absolutely demonstrated that a God, the God either does or does not exist, as philosophers, we can pretty much say any damn thing we please about Him. Even make God a Goddess. Or the universe itself. Hell, you can even fall back on “thought experiments” and hypotheticals to get your point across in a “world of words” God. Or in a God that is brought into existence “by definition”.
Or, as with some here, God can become your own personal Creator. He is ever and always what you think He is “in your head”.
This can get tricky obviously. Depending on, for example, the context. In one sense it can be argued that if two things – any two things – come into contact then they are inherently congruous given the fact of that in and of itself. And here nihilism is no less impotent. One can argue that they ought not to be in contact but that invariably becomes a value judgment and incongruities here become entangled in subjective assessments of conflicting goods. One person’s harmonious congruity may well not be another’s. Then what? Then one person may see the situation as humorous while the other becomes enraged.
Right. But from the perspective of the masters or the slaves. And the slaves are almost certainly going to get less of a chuckle if the “final historical synthesis” doesn’t result in their freedom from servitude.
Shades of Plato and his own intellectual contraption bullshit. If only, once again, from the perspective of the slave if the final Truth does not comport with his or her emancipation.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETHOqqKluC4[/youtube]
Reversion to the Titanic Age…abandoning the Olympian Age.
Increasing entropy…chaos.
Disappearance of order.
Linear time - movement from near-absolute-order - incomplete singularity, i.e., duality - towards near-absolute-chaos ([size=85]not complexity[/size]).
Patterned energies interacting produce attrition, contributing to an increase in complexity and non-patterned energies.
Order is a restriction, reduction, of possibilities, i.e., probability.
Within this expanding possibility - reducing probabilities - the possibility of a new near-absolute-order emerging - as a spontaneous event - increases.
Cosmic cycles.
We’ll need a context of course.
Now that is comedy…a caricature imitating a caricature of itself.
Mocking, dismissing, negating, destroying, rejecting…and leaving behind a hole…a trap.
Motive: to destroy confidence and make its utopian postmodern delusions palatable to the desperate, because it cannot rationalise an absurdity unless the mind is made so insecure as to be willing to accept anything, rather than nothing.
Neo-Marxism - opportunism.
Feminine competing strategy - linguistically undermine the opposition until it capitulates.
Undermine language itself. Make the irrational feel rational, the nonsensical feel sensible.
Note to Other
shit-Stain you’re up.
Ha!!
Listen to this lecture
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcSb6VCRoMc[/youtube]
Try to identify how many ILP members fit the descriptions.
No, not a fun context, a real one.
As with PK, I try to avoid youtube video philosophy.
25 words or less.
And a context of course.
Lost energy typing text to a brain dead imbecile who will only dismiss, reject, negate it with no reasoning, no argument but only allusions.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BGbHG63x8w[/youtube]
When Hicks describes a theoretical postmodern, he is describing an actual experience with such brain-dead, deceptive minds.
But this is what objectivity is…to describe a subjectivity with a description of a general rule.
It’s, as if, he had met iamalyingcunt, of ILP when he described postmodernism - and I doubt if he’s ever had the displeasure of coming across this specific moron.
Philosophy doesn’t occupy itself with the particular, but with the general. Objectivity is a pursuit of what remains outside the subjective - the real.
One can never become god, no more than he can attain absolute objectivity…no more than his pursuit of power is absolutely attainable as the realization of omnipotence.
Just as fre-will is never absolute, perfect…complete…but always a matter of degree, expressed via choice.
Our perceived options and which ones are attainable, accessible, a product of our awareness and our power.
Since we can never be omnipotent nor omniscient we can never be absolutely free from causality, but can only participate in it as willful agents increasing or decreasing the probability of an object/objective being attained - never certain that it can be attained, never certain if it is attainable.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8BRdwgPChQ[/youtube]
This has happened before…only this time technology makes it worse.
Every empire, within its defining civilization, collapses.
During such periods decadence and degeneracy increase or come to the surface - out of hiding “out of the closet”.
Americanism’s culture-of-no-culture will be far worse.
Superstitions, end of the world prophets, human repressed anxieties brought forth to find relief.
What was repressed is now declaring itself the new norm, as law & order deteriorates and social cohesion fragments.
Sex is the primary expression of this social collapse because societies impose rules that force individuals to self-repress, to conceal themselves, to control themselves.
No order is forced into concealment, as the empire implodes to be replaced by another.
Ah, I see! A theoretical postmodern. And what in particular was this theoretical postmodern theoretically doing. Was it theoretically related to race or gender or sexual orientation? Let him describe this actual experience.
Then [of course] straight back up into the stratosphere of his very own general description intellectual contraption rendition of “philosophy”.
Into the “world of words”, “definitional logic” “autodidactic” real.
I challenge – dare! – one of Mr. Fun’s admirers here to take this “theoretical post-modern” out into the world of actual conflicting goods revolving around an actual set of circumstances most of us here will be familiar with.
And not even just for the fun of it.
Yet…Hicks describes the postmodern as if he were participating on ILP, and knew of the iamahypocrite.
She’s a type…unoriginal. A psychology.
Neo-Marxist…opportunist…undermining…negating…digging under the footing of those it pretends to care about…
How to argue with a postmodern…
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfFWRWCxQrg[/youtube]
Hicks asks…when dealing with postmoderns…
1-Is this person honest?
2- What matters most to this person?
Both questions have been answered by moi…
1-No…she’s a liar. The worse kind…a liar that believes her own lies. Deception made efficient through self-deceit.
2-What matters most is vengeance against a world she could not understand, pretending to want to help the world change…to make it ideal…to save it before she dies.
She already gave us her cover story - her self-deceit.