Philosophy is not for the faint of heart

The disassociated ego covered by karmic calculation is the way to go from the abyss toward the light.

As fragile the dynamic in this process can build an increasingly patently interrelated face of strength of the will to overcome it’s self.

Napoleon said, that its harder to conquer the self than it is the battle.

The subject to object relationship could be dessurected by a vintage ILP forum:

‘Objectivity, Obfuscation, and Mysticism.’

I could not find think but will keep on looking, the point made is general so as to delate a hidden premis- behind N’'s Will to Power, (power to will) , so as to imply, and make implicitly relate that hiddenness with the emerging hypocrisy between the N’s transcendent object, with Marx’s social realism.

That is why we are socially reaching confusion between the subjective and objective notions that have accrued in the name of social
realism.

Personally, such latent reality plays havoc within the analogous tie in between social and personal psychology, and that is what exerborates the psychic states( that the above article brings up: )
and particularly exemplified by long standing metaphors revolving around alienation, post impressionistic narratives of cut up meanings .

That being said, there should not be an effort to demonized parties abject to these kinds of real exclusionary forces, the effects ard always contradictory to unify society.

It is unfortunate to derail mysticism as it usually is caught between social and psychological relatives that try to zero in on object relations.

And sadly, too many of 'us" are overtly aware of this, even as our inclusion of this hidden susceptible trait, becomes perceived.

But here is, where the will, can rescue us , as our power to effect our will , diminishes. This is the crux of the hardest tensions, resonating within
today’s life.

“But here is, where the will, can rescue us , as our power to effect our will , diminishes. This is the crux of the hardest tensions, resonating within
today’s life.”*

*from as of yet undetermined source

“But here is, where the will, can rescue us , as our power to effect our will , diminishes. This is the crux of the hardest tensions, resonating within
today’s life.”*

*from as of yet undetermined source
Top Report this post

The idea is, that the overt appearance of a herd mentality represses the strongest will which fuels contradictory but less pitically viable will-thereby reducing it’s power to effect.

This is the problem with the will to power, it is inversely related to fictional-popular political opinion.

The will to resist is repressed into the general weakness of conflated ideas.

This was the idea mostly lost on the followers of Trumpism .

Sad but true for all the archytipical victims that were put through inhuman treatment, since age immemorial.

Such a-political expediancy is not meant to invoke affectations or reminiscence, but clearly down to earth tit for tat.
The more personal is a shift toward objective criteria , the lesser , neare e to subjective overgeneralization. Not that such may not be mediated, through neo-religious allegory such as between a father and a son, and non contemperously, as archytipically described.

One virtue to the disaffected: you never really get to know how deeply a philosopher can retain an irony, when it gets to the point that bitter lemons and sour grapes have caused them to give up any hope, where they have entered that forbidden place, where ego no longer exists. That must be a description of their version of hell.

On the other hand, those that see through the despised shell which is their last hope and final abode, can see that they really don’t understand the vacancy which goes unfilled in that place, and the last thing they loose is that luminous afterglow, which has been a prefab structural design. Love , pity, piety and the hopeful beginning of each smiling child’s face, tells it all.

Heaven or hell is really a free choice at every moment of our short life.

Lest forgotten.

Sorry.

Body double

The most feared state for anyone is to be Any One.Always has been.

There are also plenty of pragmatic reasons not to be “someone”,…

…for example not having to interact with the nonsense that takes place on this forum from people that clearly have idle minds. Good philosophy is not for the faint of heart.

Good philosophy is hard work…and requires a high level of motivation and plenty of time available with oneself…

…to spend time with oneself…logically, pragmatically, and necessarily working through problems that matter most to oneself and one’s family.

Also, talk is cheap and if one seeks to make the world a better place then one needs to get off of one’s ass instead of blowing hot air in the hopes of “one-upping” their fellow man.

So much could be said but alphabets, words, and sentences are essentially worthless compared to a wholesome state of being.

Otherwise, imagination is a useful tool for passing the time when all else fails…

Before the pragmatic point of view can be explored , ‘any one’ has to be differentiated from anyone’

Anyone could entail any particular one, and reducing that into no one in particular.

It’s almost seems like a reductive contradiction in it’s denoted sense, while at the same time it implies an appearent gestalt of the type, the question appears to illustrate: that what is a. half filled cup?

Half full, or half empty?

Now reduce that into logical symmerry, that gestalt can not make sense. The seeming contradiction is expressed as fallacious.

Fallacy is far cry from contradiction.

It would be more effective for the sake of communication if my understanding of what you were saying was more clear…

…but I detect a difference in the way we are using what on the surface can only appear to be the same language. :laughing:

For me, when I realize/sense people are speaking in code they have no intention of translating, I respond in kind & let them pretend they know what the gibberish means. I give up even trying to understand them and just play along with the gibberish. I’m a grandmother who grew up in the ‘90s, so I’m into that sort of thing, sometimes. Other times I move on to something else.

Not so, necessarily, and u guys have some sense of what ‘it’ means.

If it means something bad then knock it off.

Ok

^I love that guy.

Question: Is it the spirit that is willing and the flesh that is weak, or is it the flesh that is willing and the spirit that is weak?

What are the conditions for this or that?

One effects the other is affected., then the affected effects in various knots .

The ugly is produced by the good and bad, if disaffection occurs, but if not, then beauty can untie the links which have knotted together.

Beauty and love are not dependent on the ugly and hateful, that is the final strughle, best kept a political struggle.

Politics is played one in one, one to one in many ways, among many partners and patterns and codes.

Codes can bury the hatchet, but wisdom in a flash intuits self deceit as primary receipt of others.

A classic act knows this.: at times intelkectualization is not only the last resort but the only one, especially when a self thought man can learn digitalkt, without spending his life in a dusty, musty haven of a library. Though it has had more ambiance , and the claustrophobia seldom became an issue .

Exit signs generally indicated an open door policy, whereas shut INS may not have this convenience.

The problem with intellectualism is simply put by the words of Thomas Paine:

_
How is it that very few here can understand Meno, when Meno is using words that each have a single meaning and unconjoined origin, so if you know the definition of each word… that when combined into a sentence, makes a very coherent proposition/response/argument/whatever. Do Hungarians follow Indo-European grammar and syntax?

His spelling is an entire different subject altogether tho… eh Meno? :wink: