Genes to Memes

How do you know that Ancient Greeks were fair-haired?

K: that is the most interesting part of Aegean post… the vast amount
of assumptions made…the post are very poor in themselves
but the assumptions made, wow…that is what is amazing…

Kropotkin

From their own texts.

Wait a minute…you guys think it’s controversial to claim that the ancient-Greeks were fair-haired and fair-skinned?

Watching too many movies, aren’t you?
Maybe you think they were black. Some do.

Reding the original texts will offer examples of the ancients describing their own appearance.

Yes, I watch a lot of movies. Brad Pitt and Colin Farrel are my favorite black actors.

I never liked those two because they copy other white actors… especially Morgan Freeman and Samuel L. Jackson.

Still better than Gerard Butler whose name I can barely pronounce.

I know right? Why can’t all actors have normal names like Shia LaBeouf, Goran Visnjic or Zach Galifianakis?

What I learned from watching modern movies is that there were, in fact, Africans that fought with Alexander, Norse gods were mulatto, and women can indeed kick the arse of a 200 lbs man. Girls power to inspire the womens.
Egypt is, in fact, A Negro Empire - we wuz kings.
There are, in fact, many kinds of genius…like weaving genius, and slam dunking, and roller-skating, and dry-walling.
Mixing is, in fact, a way to produce higher organism. I suggest we return to the primordial pool when all life on earth was once united in a uniform gue. Parity in oneness. Don’t know what kind of bigoted evil intervened to produce divergence and inequality, but I’m sure that if we use the power of the nil, we can all ‘correct it’. Natural selection my unbigoted arse. How racist to select. just abandon yourself to pleasure.
Fuck, eat, drink, sleep, wipe…repeat. The meaning of life. Braziuuullll.
Multiculturalism is the future. Diversity is strength.

I had it all wrong.
I apologize for my naivete.
Please, stay as you are. I have zero_sum desire to change anything, including your minds.

There’s no need to be so dramatic.

As it pertains to life, need/suffering is the experience of existing.
Suffering rising as need remains unsatisfied.
Interactivity - temporal attrition - constantly erodes the organism’s aggregate energies When these suffice to self-maintain it is in a state of comfort.

Accumulated energies, stored and kept in reserve, also produce stress, and must be expunged.

So, we have two different kinds of need, which will be given a different name to differentiate them.

We have the need produced by constant interactivity, and we have ‘desire’ indicating stored excess energies pressuring to be released. Both are felt as stress.

Need produces desire, if it is successful - fit, strong, healthy.
Energies directed towards self-maintenance and growth, can be redirected towards reproduction - extension of self.
All art is a product of excess. The externalization of mental abstractions, i.e., energies that have successfully accumulated.
The origin is in fight/flight energies kept on stand-by to be expunge din an effort to survive. These evolve from the process of mitosis - the simplest form of self-replication - gradually evolving into libidinal energies, and the sexual impulses.
Art is a redirection of libidinal energies. Not to procreate but to create - externalizing one’s perception and reactions to the existent…

Oh, indeed. With σειληνός there are three things you can almost always count on:

1] flagrant assumptions about damn near everything
2] flagrant assumption expressed almost entirely in intellectual contraptions
3] intellectual contraptions that, sooner or later, topple over into frenetic posts where he can barely contain his outrage at those who refuse to think exactly as he does

About, well, damn near everything.

With the latter, he ought to be careful. After all, it could get him permanently banned again. In the absence here at ILP of a dungeon.

Millenniyule 2019: The Jolly Heretic

youtube.com/watch?time_cont … e=emb_logo

Cleansing philosophy of its accumulated garbage begins with the return of language to its original role as mitigating symbol connecting mind with reality.

It places the definition outside cultural and social circumstances and begins with nature as it exists before humans emerged and continues outside human contrivances.
The real now limiting the manner to which the idea/ideal can be defined and applied.

Words like ‘male/female’, ‘freedom’, ‘morality’, ‘love’, ‘race’, ‘sex/gender’, ‘order/chaos’, ‘will’, ‘self’, ‘god’, can all be reconnected to actions all can perceive and experience independently, without the intervention of a mediator.

Again!

1] flagrant assumptions
2] flagrant assumption expressed almost entirely in intellectual contraptions
3] intellectual contraptions that, sooner or later, topple over into frenetic posts whereby he can barely contain his outrage at those who refuse to think exactly as he does

After all, if he can’t “[cleanse] philosophy of its accumulated garbage” up in the clouds of abstraction, he will sooner or later resort to huffing and puffing about those who refuse to join him there.

Come on, how long can he last? :wink:

Abrahamic post-Marxist Linguistics
The only correct answer is:
We are all victims.
We are all equally ignorant.
We must come to our senses and come to a mutually beneficial agreement that stops all this conflict.

We are all equal in sin; we are all equal in imperfection. We are a uniformity of sinful arrogance.

If you do not post a disclaimer, showing some humility, or self-doubt, then you are an evil fascist, or na objectivist. Same thing - a capitalist, a nazi….use any metaphor for absolute evil.
The proper behaviour to change the world, is to admit that nobody knows the absolute truth, and that we are all absolutely ignorant.
Parity in Nil.
Uniformity in and through the negative.

ILP can have this trash to recycle it…but it cannot. So, it gets pulled into the hole, the void - its trash-bin.
A Gordian Knot linguistic trick.
How did Alexander solve the conundrum?

He was like a man who once wanted to change the world, but was soon disillusioned and feeling like a fool, he resolved to pull the world down with him, as a last act of contrition.

With no absolute oneness - no god - the only concept left to worship is absolute nil - chaos.
All attempts to use words in a way that reconnects them to reality, is the new ‘evil’ - because reality is where need suffering comes from - it is hell on earth.
We must escape ni linguistic meaninglessness and reject all attempts that use reality as the standard for defining words.

Abrahamism failed to bring about the pious man; Marxism failed to bring about Utopia; god is dead, so Paradise is truly lost.
What’s left to the nihilist other than the absolute nil?

As far as I can tell, he’s merely stating that philsophical beliefs (and beliefs in general) should be evidence-based. It’s a rather trivial insight. You disagree with it?

Well, in order to pursue evidence in regard to “cultural and social circumstances”, we need to focus in on actual sets of circumstances relating to ‘male/female’, ‘freedom’, ‘morality’, ‘love’, ‘race’, ‘sex/gender’, ‘order/chaos’, ‘will’, ‘self’, ‘god’.

You must know by now of my own narrative [intellectual contraption] here. That any particular individual’s value judgments revolving around these things are embedded subjectively in the manner in which I construe the existential relationship between identity, conflicting goods and political economy – economic wealth reconfigured into, among other things, government, the armed forces and the police.

In other words, the intertwining of an extremely complex conflation of countless variables embedded in the historical, cultural and day to day interpersonal interaction of genes and memes.

Instead, by and large, in my view, he [if he is who I presume he is] approaches these things by insisting that there are “natural” and “unnatural” political agendas. And, if you are one of us you get that in precisely the same manner that he does. Whether it be in regard to race or gender or sexual oriention or any number of political prejudices that he encompasses in his own scholastic rendition of “serious philosophy”.

So, why don’t the three of us zero in on an actual context relating to one of the things above and note what we deem to be the most rational assessment. In particular when there are clearly conflicting goods involved.

All must be made ideological.
All must be made empirically meaningless.
All must be made into a ideological, spiritual, product to be purchased and sold - recycling older versions that were successful, and resold as new and improved.

Uniformity in the market place; equality of supply and demand.

Nihilism is a defensive reaction to a reality that denies the individual certainty, completion, immortality, salvation.
It has to make words empirically meaningless so as to promote tis own ideological alternatives.
Meaning has to be made meaningless for it to be declared subjective and entirely malleable - perspectivism to its absolute logical end.

Although how phenomena inter-relate, and the degree that they do so - meaning - is objectively real (independent form subjective interpretation) - evaluated by the subject - the nihilist must make it subjective in origins to escape its implications.

Philosophy must be converted to psychology - politics, marketing.