Πήγαινε στο περιεχόμενο
Guest Satyr

A WAR LIKE NO OTHER

Recommended Posts

Guest Satyr

Nihilism is a psychological position concerning nature.

It is an idea(l), a group of ideas, a moral stance, a standard for measuring value(s)–it is an attitude, a genetic predisposition, producing multiple memes expressing an antipathy and a desire to negate natural hierarchies and the immutable past.

Using psychosomatic contexts, we can define nihilism as dis-ease, unease; dissatisfaction with what is perceived, leading to the usual fight/flight mechanism.

 

We have now, in this age, entered into a state of memetic warfare – one where the old hot-wars have cooled down to verbal exchanges, battling over hearts and minds; a feminine type of warfare, where words become solidified into code, losing their artistic qualities, or are detached from their role as symbolic description of the sensual world, and turned into vehicles of escape; a war sharpening words into blades, into surgical instruments to amputate, or grind into a uniform mixture what has been inherited.

And to this we must respond, and adapt by first disarming the opposition with clear definitions that return words to their rightful place: noetic symbols of a sensually perceived phenomenon, and artistic devices bridging the gap between ideal and real.

In this war of words, words are all that is left to us.  

 

Φ

 

This war like no other is over the hearts and minds of humans.

Its focus is human reality – it is political and spiritual, in the same sense that the Cold War introduced a new age of warfare.

In this war words replace guns, and the pen is mightier than the sword.

The manner in which each camp uses language, defines and exposes them as what they are – their intent, their principles, their ideals.

We, as devout Pagans expose ourselves as realists and lovers of life and nature, and our usage of words reflects this fact.

It is on our commitment to connecting the noumenon to the phenomenon, using the word, and not to detach it, so as to manipulate emotions, human frailty, eroticism, and naiveté.

It is our "less is more" attitude which forces us to be brutally honest, driving away the feeble minded the coward and the charlatan where we present ourselves as what we are.

It is on our severity, our principles where we find the power to endure, and to speak clearly, simply, and honestly, not wanting to obfuscate and construct false complexity so as to make the nonsensical feel sensible.

It is our unyielding spirit that helps us endure the pains of perceiving world, as it is, and not as we wish it were, that lays down the cornerstone for our ideals.

It is because we do not care to seduce, erotically, but challenge thymotically, that we draw to our midst only the strong and honorable, those who would sacrifice existence to dignity, and pleasure to pride.

It is because we know life is hard, that we make ourselves harder, and do not succumb to the easy self-flattering call of the priestly miser, collecting and hoarding to endure what he cannot.

It is because reality is independent of our hopes and desires, that we must sharpen our subjective limits, become warrior artists, to approach the objective real.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Δημοσίευση σε άλλες σελίδες
Guest Satyr

Binary thinking emerges from the continuously evolving mechanism for sensing the world – the sum of all otherness – giving the organism the survival advantage of a quicker (re)action time.

Evolution works on a slow, natural selection, rhythm, but the evolution of immediate (re)activity, using sensual input, speeds-up the process.

The gain is qualitative, in other words it is temporal.

The mechanism is based on the simple on/off concept, corresponding to flow (more, fast), and no-flow (less, slow).

 

On: The condition where a neuron, a sensory cell, experiences energy influx, via the nervous, or sensory, network.

Off: The condition where a neuron, a sensory cell, experiences no energy influx, via the nervous, or sensory, network.

 

Of course, since all is in Flux, all is changing, energy, fluid, the distinction between more or less is in relation to the organism’s own sensory network.

The sensory cell is the standard, and more/less, faster/slower, is a relationship of neural pulse to neuron.       

 

Φ

 

Two streams of data converge in the brain.

One, from external sources – sensual {exoteric}.

The second from internal sources – nervous system connecting ever organ, every cell, to tis “hub” (esoteric).

This dual influx is also what reinforces binary thinking and dualism – division between objective and subjective thinking; mind/body, where mind represents the exoteric (phenomena), and body the esoteric (noumenon), selectively and arbitrarily inverted with nihilism, depending on the circumstances; the motive/objective always being fixed.    

 

Φ

 

The concept nil is presented as the opposite of one – the no-thing, to the some-thing.

Yet, both nil and one, (1/0), are part of the same nihilistic paradigm.

One implies the other, and both are different ways of representing, symbolizing, insinuating the same concept: absolute.

The absolute is the non-existent, that which contradicts existence.

Whatever form this binary system takes, whether it be as 1/0, something/nothing, here/not here (there being a projected here), now/not now (after being a projected now), good/evil, if these abstractions are taken literally and not as representations, human simplifications, generalizations which are abstracted and projected as points in space/time to help the will orient itself, they are projections of the annihilation of reality, of existence... in the same way a picture of a tree, if taken as the tree itself is the negation of the reality of the tree it depicts.

Both sides of the duality, the binary logic, if considered anything other than symbols, metaphors, artistic representations which the mind fabricates in order to find direction, to direct its will in the flux, are nihilistic, in that both annul existence conceptually. They are the noumena that nullify the phenomenon, if it taken literally.

 

One side of the ambiguous projection implies the other, and both need each other to make sense.

 

Outside of the human brain none of these abstractions exist, and without each other these words lose meaning – they are nonsensical. 

This is why to contradict one or the other you must resort to an absurdity... because the starting premise is nonsensical.

The sentence trying to convey the meaning that the absolute is non-existent “There are absolutely no absolutes” is paradoxical because the existence of an absolute, which cannot be experienced, has already been taken for granted s a given. The original nonsense is then negated by a sentence that takes as its starting point the non-existent.

How does one negate what is not in existence? 

There is no one nor a nil in existence... both are human constructs, abstractions, which insinuate each other and remain ambiguous, undefinable... if by definition we mean a connection of the symbol, the word, with the phenomenon, the perceived.

The human mind believes that one is the opposite of the other, when, in fact, they are both part of the same nihilistic paradigm, within which human perceptions are trapped.

The modern mind thinks it is engaged in exploring reality when it is trapped within a paradigm where both sides of its binary code are annul the dynamic, the (inter)active, the real, the existent.

Therefore in the dualistic paradigm of nihilism the opposite of Being is non-Being... and both are nonsensical concepts if taken on their own and if taken literally and not artistically, figuratively, metaphorically.

Contradicting both is reality, Becoming.

Becoming in neither Being nor non-Being... it is process, not thing.

Both Being and non-Being, as absolutes, annul Becoming... they negate it. 

Becoming is positive in that it is experienced, it is not hidden, it creates what we experience as reality, as the world. 

Both Being and non-Being, the something and the nothing, imply a thingness, which is the true negative, the nullification of the phenomenon.

But for a mind trapped in this binary nihilistic paradigm what is opposite to something is nothing, and what is opposite to nothing is something, both based on the presumption of thingness... and this thing, cannot be experienced anywhere... it is the true nil, the concept that is non-existent.

 

Φ

 

Consciousness precedes self-consciousness; ergo the brain is originally a tool for distinguishing otherness; it is a tool for dealing with threats to the organism – that which presents itself as a disorganizing element.

The only threat to the self-organizing is what which will destroy, or imbalance, this organization.

The senses are always outwardly focused, and there is no possibility for introspection, early on.  

 

Φ

 

Sensing is the term which best describes a rudimentary form of consciousness.

When the neural network, the sensory parts of an organism, is still undeveloped the organism is pure automated (re)activity to stimuli.

With the evolution of a central processing hub, the brain, consciousness becomes possible.

Just as sensory input is a method of (re)acting to external conditions, adding the strategy of immediate adaptation to the survival panoply, so does consciousness begin as an outwardly focused automatic (re)action to sensual stimulation – it’s advantage is that of an increasingly wider space/time field of awareness; a wider and deeper perceptual-event-horizon.   

 

Φ

 

When self-consciousness emerges the beginning of dualism is birthed along with it.

Dualism is the projection of binary thinking, and binary thinking is the most primal, simple, form of perceiving.

The perceived diminishes as the alien otherness, as the unknown with the potential of good or bad, whereas self is (re)cognized within this multiplicity of otherness, through reflection, as another part of this unknown; as the slightly more familiar within the foreign.

The long journey towards self-knowledge commences.      

 

Φ

 

What we call life, this self-maintaining/self-organizing, emergent unity, is a (re)action, to the world – a resistance to, a detachment from.

Reality, being characterized as a “towards randomness” (chaos), defines life as an ordering in the disordering.  

 

Φ

 

Conflict between exoteric and esoteric sources of data, results in this sense of alienation, resistance to world – individual struggling to remain intact within the Flux.

Contradiction of the objective by the subjective can reach the degree of a total rejection – disconnection.

The subjective is preferred, because it is malleable, under the will’s sphere of control.

 

Φ

 

Degrees of fluidity, in relative to the perceiving organism’s own fluidity, determine the projected absolutes of matter/energy. 

From this relationship, the neurobiological, (more flow, less flow) become the on/off switches which then evolve into good/bad, positive/negative. 

 

Φ

 

(Inter)Action is another way of saying Flux, of expressing the concept of fluctuating fluidity, which is existence.

 

(Re)Action is a way of describing Flux, possessing a will, a direction, and a focus.

Since only conscious, living, organisms, on various level of awareness, can direct the aggregate energies, at their disposal, the sum of processes under their control, (re)action is a term given to a living organism, a self-organizing, self-maintaining, emergent unity, when it focuses its actions towards this goal, in opposition to temporal flow, towards increasing chaos.

 

Φ

 

The confrontation of the emerging conscious nervous system by the world is the precursor for the establishment of the dialectic between brain, the noumenon, and the world, the phenomenon, the apparent – it is a dialogue between the ordering and the disordering.

 

Φ

 

Binary thinking is the next stage in consciousness – its advancement from primitive to more sophistication.

From consciousness of other, we discover self as another otherness, and self-consciousness emerges as this either/or, I/other.

If the brain becomes stuck in this state of thinking its world remains a simplistic black/white, good/evil environment – the religious mind.

The next step is to break free from this binary method by (re)cognizing it as a method, a tool, a necessary abstraction and symbolization, and not as that which is being symbolized – the artistic mind.    

 

Φ

 

Binary thinking is the easiest form of conceiving to emerge, and so it emerges first.

It makes quick judgements using self as the pivot point in space/time, separating reality into good, for self, and bad, for self.

More sophisticated forms of thinking, such as the artistic mind, demand a projection of this pivot point, this self, to a point in space/time other than the one being occupied, other than the immediate.

This sets-up a quadrant: self (pivot, or now/here, self), good (for self), bad (for self), and projected self (objectified self, self as detached from the here/now).

The evaluation of good/bad shifts and a tension is created between the ego, and the projected detached ego, between the feminine and the masculine, between body and mind.

This constitutes an evolution is thinking which breaks out of binary thinking, and escapes dualism.

Its basic requirement is imagination, but not an imagination detached from reality, as in fantasy, but an imagination still firmly engaged with reality.     

 

Φ

 

The shift between the predominance of external stimulations affecting the nervous system's central processing hub, and internal organ (inter)activity taking precedence, can only have occurred when the external world became less of a source of satiation, for cellular, organic, needs, than it was when the environment evolved the nervous system.

This shift was from consciousness towards self-consciousness, as the primary focus of the brain's processes

The nihilistic psychology emerged from this first step.

 

The source for feeding need turned inward, when the body's basic requirements were easily met, and the brain's functions were diverted inward, seeking for needs to be serviced.

It was the effectiveness of intelligence, as a pre-emptive projection, using the past a guide, which liberated the brain's functions to a degree where it would feel ennui, which became the most pressing need of all.

This boredom was the result of energy accumulation without a direction nor a motive to relieve the increasing internal pressures.

From this first stage, the mind diverted its energies towards surrogate object/objectives, originally meant to function as a method for reproduction.

Sheltering and reproduction as a “right” also reproduced organ weaknesses, and mutations that were contrary to survival.

The result was degeneration, pressuring the still accumulating aggregate energies towards decadent means of expression.

When the shift occurred, redirecting the brain's focus, the word became more important than anything it originally referred to, and how things felt more relevant than how things appeared.

The shift of consciousness towards self-consciousness could only have happened if the external world, and its processes, had become predictable less of a source of anxiety/fear, more predictable in their ordered human state.

The price was servitude, and the benefit was an internal escape.

Whatever natural processes remained and still required satisfaction through an external source could be diverted towards alternate methods.

Creation emerged, as an artistic expression of these internal pressures needing a focus.

For the less sophisticated nervous system, the direction was towards an alternate object/objective.

 

Φ

 

From quantities emerge qualities, and only after a particular level comes into congruence.

From multiplicity of patterns a delicate harmony binds them into an agreement.

The first dialectic, binary relationship, is that between agreement (accord), and non-agreement (discord).    

Share this post


Link to post
Δημοσίευση σε άλλες σελίδες
Guest Satyr

Levels of Cognition

Each level of cognition corresponds to a state of relating to world, and, in turn, reflects the different levels of intellectual sophistication starting with basic consciousness of other (subjectivity) to self-consciousness, and then towards the objectification of consciousness as a consciousness of self-consciousness (super-subjectivity), and onwards towards increasing objectivity.

Awareness is always sensual and involves a medium (inter)acting with phenomenon, and then (inter)acting with sense organ, where the stimulants are gathered, translated into a form the organism has evolved to process, causing a topical (re)action, triggering automated biological processes.

In higher life-forms these stimulations are translated into a form, a code, the organism has evolved to process, and then transmitted to a central nervous-system hub (brain) where they are integrated into a unity (abstraction).

The more sophisticated the organism is, and its nervous system has evolved to be, over time of trial/error, the more sophisticated the abstractions created will be.

An abstraction is a noumenon, a noetic device, a representation, tool, referring to a phenomenon which has triggered the process via a medium.

The phenomenon is a continuum of (inter)activity which is simplified/generalized into an object/objective, a thing, in the brain – in other words the processing of simplification/generalization, resulting in an abstraction, is a cutting away of data, of stimulations, corresponding to possibilities (spatial dimensions), converting the dynamic, (inter)active continuum (pattern) of phenomenon into a thing, into a noumenon, an abstraction.

Noumenon is the subjective, laced and combined into intricate webs of cognitive models – idea(l)s.

Phenomenon is the objective, fluid patterns in an intricate web of (inter)activity we call world, or existence, or reality.

Phenomena exhibiting no pattern, or a pattern too complex for the brain to process, to convert into bio-code the nervous system can use, is interpreted, translated as darkness, void, black, the nil of the dynamic.

Such phenomena though not perceived consciously, can be processed as detached segments of awareness the brain cannot integrate into abstractions, allowing them to linger as vague sensations, coming out as dreams, intuitive feelings with no object; as paranormal occurrences and feelings.

 

1st Level of Cognition

Awareness of other in relation to need/suffering; other as (re)cognized pattern promising satiation of the sensation of self as existing – Subjectivity.

Consciousness of Otherness.

Self is perceived as (inter)activity with otherness, felt as stress producing need/suffering.

Other is the source of both pain and pleasure; pain/pleaser are self. 

 

2nd Level of Cognition

Awareness of self, as other, amongst others; as (re)cognized pattern differing from others (self as not-other) – Hyper-Subjectivity.

Self as Other.

Self is perceived as pattern, amongst patterns, with particular differences that distinguish it.

Other and self are the source of pain and pleasure.   

 

3rd Level of Cognition

Awareness of self from the projected perception of other; alienation of self from self – Objectivity.

Self through Other.

Self is approached from the vantage point of an otherness; projected consciousness.

 

4th level of Cognition

Awareness of self and other from the projected perception of a whole; relationship of self with otherness as a one – Hyper-Objectivity.

Self and Other.

Self, and Other become part of a unity, approached from a noetic vantage point of a detached, consciousness – God.

Confusion of self as other, and other as self.   

 

5th level of Cognition

Awareness of self and other from the projected perception of a non-whole, from the vantage point of detached, indifferent, consciousness – Supra-Objectivity.

Reaffirmation of self as other than other, with no end.

The self is distinguished more clearly, more precisely, as a pattern, amongst patterns, forever self-ordering, similar to other patterns, but forever other-than. 

Share this post


Link to post
Δημοσίευση σε άλλες σελίδες
Guest Satyr

Language

Abstracted Symbolism

 

 

Φ

 

Language = code, symbol of representation, externalizing mental-models (noumena –abstractions) so as to share them with other minds.

 

Language, made up of words, just as DNA is a double-helix (dualism, 1/0, binary) of interlocking nucleotides arranged into chromosomes (sentences), represented in language by letters, numbers.

 

Language is memetic DNA, or genetic method of passing on past, towards future, translated into a mental abstraction used to externalize this method – body to mind, phenomenon to noumenon.

Techniques/Technologies are reproductions, extensions, of genetic processes.   

 

Φ

 

Language represents the outward projection/expression of internal abstractions/representations.

Its purpose is to share, to express, internal sensations, abstractions, as a more sophisticated form of primate grooming.

This already predisposes it to what is bonding, for the very emergence of language presupposes someone to share with – it presupposes a same otherness commune with: social.

If this predisposition is manipulated it can result in a containment of its promise.    

 

Φ

 

Language, and its use, determines the boundaries of the brain’s effect, and the form this effect will take – it shapes the projection of abstractions, and their quality.

 

Φ

 

Language shapes itself by the mind’s intention – its motive (movement towards…).

If the intention is to produce a seductive boding, or to include all within identification, or a concept all can identify with, then language is restricted by this motive.

If, on the other hand, it breaks free from this consideration and it is used by a mind motivated only by the need to see, to understand, and to identify, whether this is all-inclusive or not, then this, too, shapes the way the linguistic method is applied. 

 

Φ

 

From basic physical grooming, establishing and reinforcing hierarchies, relieving the stress of internal social dynamics, language evolves as a mental more efficient form of the same behavior.

 

Φ

 

The mechanical production of particular linguistic forms, as these develop in time/space, within particular environments, and due to particular circumstances, has a visceral connection to the concept being symbolized.

The relationship between speaker and what is spoken of is expressed not only in the usage of words but in the way these words are formed – what parts of the anatomy are used to shape, and project, them.

Letters, being parts of the word, are, therefore, a crucial element in what emotional relationship the individual has to the concept, and/or the phenomenon, being referred to.

Letters are symbols of sound, later to evolve into the written text, which a human can produce using the mouth.

The mouth is also how nutrition is passed on from parent to offspring.      

 

Φ

 

Learning a language is the first stage of initiation into the "human family".

It makes it possible for an organism to come into contact with the divine, through the WORD: salvation found through the code; the word correcting, by replacing, the action.

During times of high illiteracy the few in the literate priestly class were the ones who could act as mediators between the masses and the word of God.

But the word had to be spoken in the right order and enunciated in the right way.

A ritual had to be followed... the right words had to be spoken in the proper sequence, using the proper tone, otherwise the possibility the word offered was lost.

The Devil being the linguistic seducer who rearranged the divine words so that the illiterate strayed away from God's Will.

Satan reconnected the symbol, which the word represents, to the action, the existent.

To this day the correct recitation of code, the appropriate data interpreted in the correct way is part of the humanistic dogma.

Most words are permitted but how one relates to these words are strictly regulated – the divine should not be soiled by “evil”.

By "interpreted" what I mean is “understood”.

To know, through the reading of the word, or being told of the word by the "specialized," literate priest, the anointed/christened who could decipher the script, for a one, a some-body, and do it in the right sequence, was a way towards the unifying Divine... the ONE, to assimilate him/her into the communal Body (Church).

Christ’s blood and body ritually consumed, assimilated, accepted as part of the individual’s reborn/new Self – an introduction into the Christ-Church. To consume the metaphorical, the symbolic, is to swallow, and be altered internally, by the shared word.

 

To be born human is to be born with the potential for salvation, the potential to learn a language (recited code), the potential to know God, the absolute, the Divine. But this potential had to be nurtured, or else it was lost, corrupted.

It had to be nurtured in that the right words recited in the right order, like every chant should, was very important if one wished to find salvation through them.

Rejecting Satan's definitions is a necessary rite of passage.

The community had to be on the same page, and recite the same passages with the same tenor and reverence; otherwise the magical feeling was corrupted by an off-key singer.

In modern times with literacy being a prerequisite for being a "civilized" person, education takes on the form of ritualized salvation.

Through this training one learns how to recite the words appropriately – using the same gestures, reaming true/loyal to the word, to the Script(ure).

Understanding is not so important because servitude only demands that one knows how to read the codes, follow the methods prescribed, remaining true to the ritual, the play.

It’s all faked: actors playing a role in a sacred theatre.

Teachers take over the priestly task of educating/directing young minds on how to not only decipher the code correctly, but to do so in the right order, placing it in the "right" context, and do it with an appropriate conviction to make it believable – conviction depends on their performance.

The teaching of reading also accentuated the illusion of shared salvation.

All who could learn to decipher the code became worthy of what the code revealed to them if it was read correctly – the prayer was effective only if it was performed properly; the esoteric in harmony with the exoteric pretence, the inner convinced by its own performance embodying the role: faith.

Nothing inherited mattered because with language, and reading, all had access to the “communal genius” of mankind.

This shared stock of words IS God… Humanity becomes the new word for the Divine.  

 

Φ

 

The confrontation of the emerging conscious nervous system by the world is the precursor for the establishment of the dialectic between brain, the noumenon, and the world, the phenomenon, the apparent – it is a dialogue between the ordering and the disordering.

The word begins as a method of reinforcing communal bonds so as to more effectively deal with a challenging, threatening, world.

Then it becomes a symbolism, which refers to mental abstractions, sharing, perspectives of the world, and spreading communal data about the world.

This communal sharing creates a condition of parity where the superior in perception implant on the inferior the words they need to participate in the community struggle against otherness.

In modern times the word has become the mimetic shell within which man attempts to establish internal order so as to deal with a world of chaos.

 

Φ

 

Language is a tool, not a divine singularity, nor a mystical source of power.

All language does, and can ever do, is symbolize a mental model (abstractions) which may, or may not refer to something real.

The reality of the perceived is a subject separate from language.

Here the topic becomes one of epistemology, and how to validate what is more or less real, and not a figment of the mind’s imagination.

When reality becomes the topic then the issue of how and how well the abstraction refers to the apparent, or how many connective references the noumenon has with the phenomenon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Δημοσίευση σε άλλες σελίδες
Guest Satyr

Dualism

Projected Absolutes

 

Φ

 

Cellular diastolic/systolic processes, the on/off of flow/no-flow of neural pulses through neural networks, evolved to the cognitive dualism of good/bad, I/other , and the binary methods of categorizing, culminating in the most abstract form of mathematical 1/0.

 

Φ

 

Dualism is the linguistic, formal, form binary expresses itself through; it is the name given to the projected absolutes, the on/off neurological functions.

From this flow/no-flow state the multiplicity of human conceptions emerge, and evolve from the basic flight/fight, into friend/foe, edible/inedible, good/bad, God/Satan, infinite/finite, something/nothing, One/Nil.  

 

Φ

 

There are two projections of an absolute, in tune with the brain's own methodology:

Towards absolute Order, Godliness, Oneness – Singularity (1)

No activity, no movement, no possibility (time/space).

Probability = One, Absolute Certainty.

Life, and the consciousness which evolves to maintain/direct, it, are irrelevant.

There is nothing to be conscious of.

Total Solipsism.

Life is superfluous, or a big joke – the comedy of existing.   

 

Towards absolute disorder, chaos, randomness – Void (0)

Infinite activity, infinite movement (no patterns), infinite possibility (time/space).

Probability = Nil, Complete Uncertainty.

Life, and the consciousness which evolves to maintain/direct it, is impossible.

There is no order, no matter, randomness nullifies all organization, and there is no pattern in absolute randomness.

Total Chaos.

Life has no probability of evolving out of its primitive emergence.

 

Both are nihilistic, for they negate, as concepts, the (inter)active, the Flux which makes life possible.

Both represent, in ambiguity, and in theory, the end of life and consciousness, one by making it impossible, and the other my making it irrelevant.

The, so called, left, whatever form it takes, is always obsessed with the attainment of the nullifying absolute.

Both the Communist and the Nazi are directed by a need, turning obsessive, to annihilate the present, so as to direct its energies towards an absolute, towards a totalitarianism.

 

Φ

 

Life has an antagonistic relationship with the world that makes it possible.

It is both a part of it, and also striving to distance itself from it, trying to maintain itself within it; it is both a product of it and also threatened by it; it is both forced to adapt to its fluctuations and also trying to intervene upon it – to contradict it or correct it. 

This antagonism creates the possibility for an existential contradiction, which makes a mind cling to life while hating it at the same time.

This contradiction results in linguistic paradoxes.

The word is turned into a representation of this internal conflict.

Instead of trying to represent the real, the perceived phenomenon, the word becomes a tool to create an alternative reality. 

 

Φ

 

Dualism is the soil within which all human ideas and ideals are rooted.

They, then, splinter-off into variations of a common theme, some towards the light and others towards the darkness.  

 

Φ

 

Sexual duality, by-products of the binary brain functions, produces two divergent attitudes, yet with a shared libidinal foundation, towards the world and its negation.

The reversal of attraction must be kept in mind.

The masculine nihilist will place himself in the role of the singularity; the one that devours the world and reduces it to a paste.

He wishes to consume and then defecate a new world of feces.

His disgust for the real world is the disgust one experiences at the sight and smell of another’s shit – one’s own is never so bad. 

The more feminine nihilist will seek relief in the other, and will desire to surrender to the nullifying power of absolute order.

(S)He will wish to be devoured, used, assimilated; dreaming of belonging to what (s)he can never attain on his/her own. 

For him/her God is the perfect symbol of this state of absolute Being.

God’s word, scripture, is a divine memetic sperm, inseminating his/her mind with possibilities. 

 

Φ

 

Emphasis on exoteric, or to esoteric, sources of data, shifts duality towards a prejudice.

It acknowledge the other, but rejects otherness to establish boundaries of self, using arguments either based on external, or internal sources.

Realism, or objectivity, bases it on phenomena, the apparent – words connecting noumena to phenomena.

Nihilism, or subjectivism, base it on noumena, the implied, the word, the emotion – words disconnecting from noumenon form phenomenon so as to reconnect it back to noumenon. When the connection “back” is outward, in another brain, the illusion of objectivity is maintained – collective consciousness, identifying with the greater “Self”, the hive mind. 

 

Esoteric is where “magic” is effective.

Its power limited to inter-subjective “world”.

The “exo-”, the world, remains unaffected, but can only be influenced when the collective act as agencies of change, of intervention, constructing an artificial reality then justified by redefining words, or taking a vague dictionary definition of words, and applying a meaning with no reference outside this shared “reality”.

 

ΦΦΦ

Share this post


Link to post
Δημοσίευση σε άλλες σελίδες
Guest Satyr

Negative/Masculine Nihilism

Beyond – Past

 

Anarchism

Φ

 

The division into masculine/feminine is not arbitrary. It is a natural consequence of progression from the singular, towards increasing fragmentation, reflecting existence as a process of increasing chaos.

Masculine/Feminine represent reproductive roles, in (re)action to this ceaseless fragmentation: order(ing) in contradiction/conflict {agon} to the dis-ordering.

Each role develops, to a degree, the physical and mental traits that will facilitate its reproductive role. These traits establish an attitude towards world, other humans, and, consequently, language as a means of engagement/relating, with humans as part of world.       

 

Φ

 

“Order” is the word used to describe this absent absolute.

In its emerging stages it formulates the conception of a singular Deity, a one.

The masculine nihilist will find this totalitarian regime deplorable.

For him the promise land is where absolute chaos presents itself to him, like a maiden begging to be inseminated with his organizing ideals.  

 

Φ

 

If the male judges his past/nature to be insufficient to cope to excel in world he will desire to nullify it, and bring all others down to his nil, with him.

Honesty, his male pride, cannot be twisted to a feminine lie.

His only solution is self-destruction, and if he is also resentful of others continuing to exist, and cope with what he cannot, he will dream of world destruction as his idea(l). 

 

Φ

 

The “positive” one, the absolute singularity, is a duplicitous concept.

It attempts to signify a negation of a negative, when the negative is presupposed, implying its own positivity.

What it, actually, signifies is an end to existence, when existence is defined as (inter)activity (flux), with the implosion of space/time into a monad, a theoretical oneness, also called God.

With the feminine type of nihilism almost the same effect, in relation to life, is implied with an explosion of space/time and the attainment of infinite possibilities, which signifies the elimination of probability (chaos).

Life, or consciousness is nullified in chaos, whereas in the absolute order of a singularity life is made irrelevant.

 

Φ

 

“Negative” is pure, an affirming of Nihilism.

Direct and honest, it hides only the motive, the reason for all this destruction and leveling all to nothing.

The masculine spirit wishes to destroy what order exists either because it shames him, through his failure to match it, or because it wishes to destroy so as to rebuild something in accordance to his own tastes: leveling of order to build upon chaos a new order.

A less duplicitous form of Nihilism.  

 

Φ

 

Anarchism

An example of masculine nihilism.

It could only be part of what is called the “left wing” political spectrum.

 

Anarchism is a ruse.

It declares an antithesis to an arche {αρχη}, and yet it is driven by one; it rages against hierarchies, and yet it proposes a new one; it attacks order, and yet it promotes a new one.

Its duplicity is more direct.

What destruction, levelling, it dreams of, is a kind of bulldozing preparatory stage; necessary for a new foundation to be built.

Flatten things down, convinced that in the emptiness produced it will rise up from the dirt, to become the new master – a desperate attempt, which would rather destroy “what is” than live in it.   

 

Φ

 

The male need to order the chaos is an expression of his libidinal desire to impose his will upon otherness.

The first step towards lucidity, awareness, is the nullification of what cannot be processed, or integrated into a coherent concept, an abstraction.

Consciousness begins with nullification.   

 

Φ

 

In its extreme masculine nihilism leads to the depression of absolute negation – pure nihilism, or nihilism proper.

 

Φ

 

God, the absolute representation of the Masculine, is both a one and a nil.

Oneness, absolute order, would be the elimination of all possibilities, or their restriction, within the singular probability of One/God.

It is an annulment of space/time, within its noetic implosion into a singularity.

Ordering is the exclusion or rejection of possibilities, so as to enable the desirable possibilities to become more probable, therefore absolute order, whatever name it is given, is the rejection of all possibilities and the presence of a singular absolute probability. 

 

ΦΦΦ

Share this post


Link to post
Δημοσίευση σε άλλες σελίδες
Guest Satyr

Positive/Feminine Nihilism

Immanent – Future

 

Φ

 

“Positive” Nihilism is duplicitous, false, and full of promise and hope.

A feminine appeal offering itself as a means to an end.

Through the feminine form of nihilism possibilities expand to embrace the infinite, the “all is possible” universe of chaos – randomness with no order, no probability restricting possibility

 

Φ

 

With no ability to create/establish order sufficient to deal/cope with chaos, the feminine seeks order, the absent in itself, in other.

It is seduced by order, reflecting a power to withstand/resist/reject chaos, and gravitates towards it, sensing it as a probability (hope) promising relief: peace in the war, stability in instability, certainty in uncertainty, a semblance of an absolute representing what was lost – past/nature (God).    

 

Φ

 

Sexual types and their genetic psychology will determine which type of nihilistic mimetic variant the individual will be attracted to.

Where the more masculine will find God a competitor, preferring the chaos to build his sacred Kingdom for himself, the feminine psyche will be easily seduced by the masculine promise of a God. 

 

Φ

 

Nihilism acquires the sexual traits of the mind.

The more feminine psyches will be seduced by the power of change, though it is tending towards absolute chaos.

And like all shameless lovers this irresistible force will promise them, through its priestly representatives, the fantastic, and the undeniable, just to get under their… skin.  

 

Φ

 

A nihilist will not come with empty hands.

This will expose him to others and to himself.

A nihilist comes bearing gifts of hope and positivity.

He hides from himself his inner emptiness by filling it with words.

He hides from himself.

 

Φ

 

The “positivity” aspect of this projected nullification of the present is that it remains a promise, seducing the mind but never disappointing it, because it is never attained.

It is the promise of hope, and the feminine form of nihilism.

Surrender to entropy becomes the surrender to possibility, fraught with unfathomable opportunities – the siren song.

 

Φ

 

The duplicitous soul will find nothing wrong with lying to his own self to inherit eternity.

Like all hypnotic states this one relies on the active, compliance of the one being hypnotized.

Exposing the hypnosis as a fraud only exposes the self-hypnotized to their duplicity.

They will take this unraveling personally.

The hypnotic priest has nothing to worry about in this performance.

Though he may be exposed as a peddler of dreams, the purchaser is part of the lie, and the one with the most to lose.   

 

Φ

 

In a feminizing meme/culture, the Modern, nihilism takes on its feminine mask, attempting to harmonize internal structures with its all-leveling force of forgetfulness.

Nihilism becomes a method for internal mind-control – it reduces the elements that can create friction by slowly smoothing/eroding away natural processes.  

The word “Modern” can only refer to this socioeconomic cultural state.

 

Φ

 

Manipulating the internal is how a female asserts herself upon the dominant, externally, male.

The effete male, the emasculated, beta, finds here his only hope of salvation.

What he cannot deal with, applying what (s)he’s inherited, is compensated with words, redefining reality to be less harsh in relation to this inherited past/nature. 

 

ΦΦΦ

Share this post


Link to post
Δημοσίευση σε άλλες σελίδες
Guest Satyr

Nihilism – Modern

Institutionalized Negation

 

Modern Mind Control  Modern Dialectics  Symptomology   ◙

 

Φ

 

The nihilist wishes to make everything "mental,” as he calls it; noetic, accessible to corrective interventions.
The idea of an immutable past, he cannot access, disturbs him, because it imposes upon him a determining factor he cannot change, but only cope with, and adapt to.
He is forever obsessed with the immediate, the current, and the future, the coming, the immanent.
The past is forgotten, rejected, considered inapplicable.

The "physical," in a simpleton’s dualistic thinking, is a metaphor – he takes literally – of what lies beyond his will, his noetic power of reinventing or correcting.
In this case the corrective intervention presupposes an understanding preceding effort; the success or failure remaining dependent on the precision and clarity of this understanding.
The shallow past is still accessible, because of its immediacy.
The aspects of this past which remain beyond the mind's immediate ability to intervene upon are dealt with by covering them up, hiding them, denying them, rejecting their relevance.
The nihilist cocoons himself in a temporal box, determined by his will's potential to intervene and to change what has been determined by forces he is not aware of.
His world is fish-bowled into a container where his will's potential to change things, become the boundaries of what he considered acceptable and what he rejects as "evil.”
Ironically, that he shrinks his perceptual-event-horizon, in this way, makes him primitive, animal-like, though he considers himself progressive, and enlightened: he makes himself dependent on intuition, and instinct, and the forces he is not aware of are forever beyond his perception because he's blinded himself to anything that may offer him insight so as to preserve his fish-bowl existence.
This is why experts become the only other source of understanding he has access to.

 

Φ

 

The word referring to an abstraction, is a representation of that abstraction that noumenon.

 

The noumenon need not refer to a phenomenon, or what appears in space/time and is simplified/generalized into the abstraction, into a thing.

The word is a tool, a symbol, and it may very well refer back to itself and other abstractions, connected and integrated into a bigger abstraction, a larger idea(l), or, it may very well refer to an abstraction in an other's mind, transferred linguistically to one's own.

If the abstraction, the noumenon, and the word representing it, has no reference outside minds, to the apparent sensual world, the real, then it is ambiguous, and if taken literally, and not as a tool, a representation, it can function as a nullification of the real, the apparent.

The abstraction is a static, simplification/generalization, of a (inter)active, a dynamic phenomenon, and, as such, its effectiveness is determined by how well it serves its function, how good of a tool it is, and how well it simplifies/generalizes the dynamic.

By understanding what the word is, and how it relates to what it is supposed to represent, and simplify/generalize, one is not dismissing its function, but one is clarifying, it, sharpening the tool, as it were, and one is also throwing away words that refer to nothing but back to human constructs with no reference outside minds, sharing, perhaps, a common definition, along with the imagery, to make the word functional within the human world of communication, exploitation, hierarchies.

Confusing the representation for the represented, is idolatry, and in this nihilism is a form of idolatry which with its representations annuls what is perceived and replaces it with symbols, numbers, concepts with no reference outside the mind, constructing an ideal, idealized, inter-subjective alternate "reality".

Once it assimilates, indoctrinates, enough minds into this alternate noetic universe, it can begin to self-refer, self-validate, relying, now, upon numbers, or popular appeal, referendum, to validate or to dismiss an idea(l).

These Nihilistic memes require a certain number of subjects, to inappropriate into its alternate universe, for it to become viable, and so population control and seduction, is its primary usage of words.

 

Φ

 

The Triad of God/Holy Spirit/Son, refers to World stimulating sensual organs, agitating nervous system – Determining Past – God <>  Nervous system, including brain, processing stimulations – Soul as the agitated nervous systems – Holy Spirit <> Body sending sensations, to the nervous system, of organic interactions – Passion – Son.

 

Φ

 

The Modern mind either because of an inherited, determining genetic limitation, or due to a stunting inflicted upon it by its environment – produced by the environment by imposing a limit of shame, guilt, social convention, social exclusion, peer pressures etc. – cannot think outside this binary, primitive form of conceptualizing.

For it all dichotomies pivot around the immediate, the self, and even when it denies self it places there a surrogate and stands behind, beneath, within it – it disappears so as to avoid the repercussions of its sacrifice.

When and if it can project self as an otherness, objectifying it, allowing the artistic mind to emerge, it cannot help but fall into the trap of fantasy, where the extraordinary, the supernatural, the unreal combinations in its mind, governed by need and fear, are projected as objects/objectives detached from the sensual world.

This projected objectified self, at a distance, becomes the mind, leaving behind the body in the immediate space/time.

This is the point where the Nihilist loses itself in hope – rejecting, as it were, what binds it to time/space, wanting to liberate itself from what limits it and determines it indifferently–the individual is ripped in two, choosing to go with the projection, detaching itself from itself, as part of a Becoming in the world.

This detachment creates the division between the real self and the idealized self, existing in reality or in idealized space/time.

If dissatisfaction with the immediate, the real, is present, then the mind rejects the projecting self, and settles on the ideal self, reaffirming the schism.

It can now reject all the determining past, and its manifestations as sex, race etc.

Fantasy is preferable when reality has proven to be cruel.

 

Moderns live in idealized space/times – in their own projections of their ideal self, at a distance.

This is the root of their cynical aloofness, and the reason why they deny anything to do with the past, nature, with the physical manifestations of this immutable before.

This rejection, denial, distancing, this forgetting is Nihilism.

 

Φ

 

Those who feel the most embarrassed about themselves, insecure about their higher cognitive potentials, those who feel ashamed of their past, will want to pull everything down to its lowest common denominator.

Only then do they feel secure, proud, and happy.

 

Φ

 

The modern nihilist's binary logic, now projected consciously as dualism, separates the real, the (inter)active fluidity (Flux), using the rates it exhibits.

Slower rates are his physical, materialism, what resists change the longest, what is more timeless, more present.

Faster rates are the mental, energy, what exhibits a constant alteration.

Being forever dissatisfied with what is produced, by this (inter)activity, the modern nihilist is always in a perpetual expectation of what is to come.

He rejects what resists change, in other words what order maintains itself in the disordering, for longer periods of time, because he, being a manifestation of the past, is always determined by what he wishes to flee from.

Having closed himself off from exploring this past, in an open, and honest way, he has detached himself from the only exploration that can help him alter his future, in whatever way he can, and to what can also help him deal with what cannot be altered, or what cannot in a manner which would affect him immediately.

His only consolation is this denial of past, this forgetting and dismissing, and his focus on the coming, the yet-to-be, the void full of unknown potentials (hope), is this projection into the future.

He is a "progressive" in this sense: the future, whatever it may be, can only be better than what is, and what was.

Not because he has dealt with it, explored it, understood it, come to terms with it, and not because he has come-up with methods to adapt, but because he has selectively rejected it, depending on immediate cosmetic interventions, and a shared lie.

This shared lie is what he demands all, in his environment, adhere to: a social contract.

It is the shared comforting, grooming, need, language has evolved to satisfy.

 

The word, giving one's word, is a reaffirmation of this shared lie.

No matter what may be real what matters is that the word can stand-in like a curtain, so as to create this social environment within which the real is reshaped into a new-reality; constructed, sometimes in antithesis to what it tries to change, and denied when this cannot be facilitated. 

 

Φ

 

Orwell hints, to us, what we need to know.

Orwell, George wrote:

“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”

The first quote hints at the contradictions produced by nihilism.

The word, taken literally, rather than figuratively, creates this schism between the noetic and phenomena.

To deal with it the mind compartmentalizes its standards for evaluating what is real and what is not.

This creates the rift, a schisms, which I consider a natural by-product of modernity.

 

Orwell, George wrote:

“War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”

The second quote hints at the reversibility of human constructs, since they are now detached form the anchoring, determining, sensual, and become self-referential, and based on human emotional reactions and fabrications, and desires.

With the concept of war, the idea that all life is an agon, a struggle, a battle, a fight, against dissimulation is not explored.

It is posited as only a human practice, making peace a concept promising relief from existential struggles.

The only peace, is death – one "rests in peace" only when the struggle to remain alive is done with.

But now, with the word detached from reality, it becomes an idea(l) implying, with vagueness, what is nowhere in evidence: a state of living death; to be alive and at peace, at the same time.

A paradox resolves with selective reasoning or compartmentalization.

 

Orwell, George wrote:

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

In this third, and last, quote, we find a hint at the power of the word.

Once the past has been forgotten, denied, or reinterpreted, by detaching it from experience and connecting it to mental constructs and emotional sensations, the work of human husbandry is almost done.

What remains is to rip identification from perception, so as to reattach it, to human artifices.

This is difficult since the organism, in this case the human being, is a becoming, and most of its processes are unconscious, automatic; one can erase human conscious memory but not genetic memory.

The word, by limiting human conception to the immediate, detaching it from reality, is part of the solution.

Shame, indoctrination, morality, also contribute is slandering self, and turning ego into a vice.

The rest is dealt with using inebriation, and distraction: fatigue (excessive work), sexual obsession (preoccupation with the sex organ), and numbing methods (drugs, alcohol, religion).

 

Φ

 

The true motive of the modern nihilist is to reduce all discourse to the mundane and the trivial.

Any talk of the divine, the sacred, the out of bounds, is a desperate attempt to place the subject beyond reach. 

 

Φ

 

What many men call "progress" is only their forced adjustment to the tides of change.

They are like a river walker who tries to maintain his balance in the water's course.

As the flow alters his environment, he struggles to remain afoot, and this struggle in relation to change he cannot control, nor stop, but only endure, he calls a "step forward".

 

Φ

 

Demystification: the leveling down of reality expressed as a need to reduce it to a thing, eliminating it as a source of anxiety, producing respect.

The mind ashamed of its nature dreams of tearing down the world to where it finds a common grounding in the base.

The cynic makes everything into a joke; he diminishes the fluid, turning it into an object, and then he ridicules it, bringing it closer, making it more intimate – something lovable because now he can relate to it.    

 

Φ

 

The word "nihilism" simply means to annul, or it is a doctrine of annulling, negating.

In modern times it is only used to indicate a negation of human constructs, which have no reference to anything outside the human condition.

In other words those who negate existence, as being just that, void of meaning, finality, a moral standard, a universal, absolute, have twisted the word to mean a positive, simply because it is positive to human needs.

The insinuation here is that reality must be positively inclined towards human life, and not that human life stands in a state of antagonism, resistance, to a reality which also gives rise to life.

This reversal of meanings is typical of nihilism and its methodologies.

Not only was the "word" first, in this self-serving paradigm, but humans are the centre of existence, which must conform to human needs, hopes, and projections. 

The organism, in this case the human species, is not burdened with adapting to the world, but the world must adapt to human constructs, defined and symbolized with words.

Language has one function: to symbolize a mental abstraction; a mental abstraction, an idea, being the product of sensual data, collected and processed by the brain, and then simplified/generalized, into an image, at first in its most primitive form, or a concept, attaining the height of a numerical value.

This is where it can acquire a secondary function:

To detach, dismiss, avoid, correct, detach, from the sensual input used to construct it.

This is solipsism at is rawest form.

A self-reference begins, as the word, symbolizing an abstraction, can now be looped back to refer to another abstraction.

The real, collected as input, and interpreted (simplified/generalized) as mental-models (abstractions), falls into the background.

Baudrillard refers to this process as a simulacrum of a simulation.

I go further and connect it all the way back to the Bible, and its obsession with the word.

It's not that there is a God (an absent absolute, referring to an absolute order, a complete past), but that with the bible the word IS God.

 

The word is authoritarian because it demands total obedience to its shared definition.

It is determining because it shapes and limits human thinking.

It demands loyalty because the sensual must be denied power – it is cast as the Devil.

The word is malleable and so it is comforting, it offers salvation from the real, to minds who must escape their past/nature.

The only possibility for eliminating the sensual, the experienced, the perceived, is to shame it, turning it into a "sin," or, like in the east, into an "illusion."

It's not that the word fails to adequately describe the real, but that the real is totally false, leaving the word in the void.

 

Φ

 

Modernity as Consuming and Digesting

To consume is to deconstruct, to destroy, and to then assimilate the parts into a new organization.

Life is this consuming self-organizing part of reality.

To life is to destroy what is alive, and to then be destroyed and assimilated, by another.

Nihilism is this method of internal reorganization of what has been destroyed, cut into pieces, and then selectively devoured.

 

It is an internal digestive process of a Superorganism, feeding on organisms.

The destruction of identity, the detachment of the organism from its past, from nature, from reality, mirrors the process of killing, masticating, and then swallowing the ground up into fine pieces.

Digestion is the creation of a fine, uniform paste (equalization), from where the new organism draws nutrients from (production) – reorganizing the pieces in accordance with its own internal structures, its own needs (institutionalization). 

It in an internal digestive process.

 

Φ

 

One begins to consume otherness, only when this hunger has already fed upon itself.

The organism begins to consume itself, to the point where pain/suffering commences.

Then it is driven, so as to not eat itself alive, to seek nutrition elsewhere.

Have not modern minds been deprived of nutrition to the point where they’ve eaten themselves alive?

Almost dead, they stumble into the world, sniffing for something to fill them up.

Need is how a hungry mind is lead to the slaughterhouse.

 

Φ

 

The modern is so encased in his own little world – the one he pays for to retain the “right” to do so – that now he no longer has to watch the news or anything which he finds deplorable or outside his/her comfort zone.

With his service to the system, offering him this “right,” he purchases his own tiny world, cut-off from everything and anything that challenges or contradicts him.

He can tweak, twitter, surf, watch, listen, and enjoy anything he likes, just as long as he remains loyal and useful to the service provider.

He can become a loner, a recluse, an asexual, totally detached form the world outside his small existence, and all he needs to do to purchase this “right” is to pay his dues to the institution that shelters him from a reality that cares not about personal spaces and enclosed universes.

Within this sheltered, enclosed, reality, this mind can now feel safe enough to remain aloof, cynical, and indifferent to anything which he chooses not to touch him.

He refuses to acknowledge what he has accepted, as self-evident, to purchase this tiny, little space, or what he must do on a daily basis to maintain this "right" to mock and to remain detached and carefree, and careless.

But the cost is not a high one to pay for the many who have either remained stunted in their sheltered existence or have not inherited the potential to grow beyond a certain limit.

Not much reason is sacrificed by the average Christian who gives it up as evidence of his complete faith in the irrational he calls belief, and the average modern man has very little identity to deny so as to gain the "greater" identity in the projected Ideal.

 

Φ

 

A language using symbols with no reference to a phenomenon is a language detached from reality.

In modern times, words are used not to refer to reality, to what is perceived, but to refer either to another mind, an authority (deferring, dependence negating independence), or to refer back to itself (delusion, solipsism).

The word becomes a method, a way of escaping the world, rather than engaging it. 

 

Φ

 

The Modern man projects his need/desire upon what is empty of permanence, void of complete satisfaction, and then declares it to be a negative.

 

Φ

 

Because of the absence of absolutes, all theories, all godlike visions, all revealing, are flawed.

To cope, therefore, becomes a matter of finding the exceptions, the flaws, so as to discredit the entire theory.

The one who sees must humble himself, show deference to this idea that since all theories are flawed, then all are equally possible... which means none are so.

The status quo is preserved... nothing is done... zero effort.

Any resistance on the part of the one who sees, who reveals, is to be considered hubris, arrogance, an ego wanting to dominate because it feels insecure – it is compensating.

No superior/inferior hierarchy is accepted – no survival of the strongest meme, the most probable possibility.

All must humble themselves to the negative, the absence of the absolute – which is presumed but never presented.

Before the unknown Absolute – out there awaiting discovery, like a coming messiah – all perspectives must bow – as equally flawed, equally sinful, and equally weak.

The one who reveals must show deference to the collective who have already settled and want things to remain as they are, only debating on the minor details of what is shared – Biblical studies.

Philosophy as a debate over who saw what, where nothing is ever considered superior and all is mere perspective.

The one who exposes must be reminded of his humanity – he must be brought down to the lowest-common-denominator so that nobody is forced to adjust; nobody shamed, nobody hurt, nobody embarrassed, nobody exposed as a liar and a hypocrite.

 

Φ

 

Abrahamic

The, so called, Abrahamic religious traditions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity), represent, for Aryan tradition, that period of overturning when the previous form of nihilism, as a looking back towards absolute Order, slowly entered into its Modern state, as a looking forth to an absolute end.

With Abrahamic religions the Absolute reached its apex/nadir state, and man approached the Divine.

Man was placed in between the God, overhead, and the Devil beneath his feet, each anthropomorphized according to taste, or abstracted into an ideal.

With both these binary projections so close at hand man felt the pressure of their presence in his mind.

In the past the Divine was perceived as this distant absent-absolute, a thorn in his mind, coming to his presence in the guise of gods and goddesses, each with their own demands upon him.

In modern times the absent-absolute is projected as the coming, the second coming of the near-absolute that has to be forgotten so as to make the approach towards it more effective.

Forgetfulness is this reinvention of self, by letting go of the past as unneeded baggage, enlightening the mind as it sprints forward.

Still in the midst of this flipping of the perspective from looking to the distant past, to looking to the shallow future, the present secular-humanist psychology reflects this passing stage of Abrahamic immediacy relating to the absent-absolute.

One can expect that as time progresses, and the distance from the near-absolute past–the real–increases (represented as God or Big Bang), that man will project his imagined/created ideal further and further ahead, wanting to compensate for the increasing chaos (randomness), leaving behind the Abrahamic stage as the point in space-time when he psychologically, culturally, altered his attitude in relation to self and to this need/suffering that characterizes his experience of existing.

This projection towards increasing distances will detach him imagination from its past, and fantasy will take over where creativity rooted in reality once governed his mind.

This will constitute the final stage of alienation from self.

No longer aware of the past, and his hope cast further and further adrift in space/time, he will be left alone in the waves of Fluctuating (inter)activity, the tides growing stronger and stronger, the winds picking-up speed, his vessel, itself a construct of the past, crumbling all around him.

What shall keep him afloat then?

Forgetting is a form of self-condemnation, self-damnation.

Only a mind that forgets can repeat its past mistakes having nothing to draw support from.                     

 

Φ

Share this post


Link to post
Δημοσίευση σε άλλες σελίδες
Guest Satyr

Modern Mind-Control

Shaping Perspectives

 

Φ

 

1- Repeat Official Dogma

The consistent repetition of imagery, words, associated with ideas, emotions, constructing a shared consciousness by creating an immediate past.

 

2- Emotion

Use Shame, Guilt, and Ridicule to silence any contrary position.

Use love, joy, humour, hope in relation to the preferred world view.

Place a high price to any exploration of a possibility that contradicts the official narrative; impose a higher standard of proof on any possibility that does not agree with the official dogma.

 

3- Confuse Knowledge for Understanding

Make the knowledge of a word associated with an idea synonymous with the understanding of the idea.

Education becomes a way of turning minds dependent on institutions.

In more complex specializations train the mind to follow established methodologies, precedent, and the shared manual.

 

4- Restrict thinking to binary dualism, the either/or

Any contrary opinion must be categorized as being on the opposite camp which is preferably one characterized by positions which accept the basic principles of the preferable dogma – McLuhan’s thesis applies.

Playing both sides of the dualistic paradigm restricts all conceptions, forcing them into seemingly contrary positions which, nevertheless, never challenge the shared underlying principles.

 

5- Inhibit Pattern Recognition

The inhibition of patterns recognition restricts the minds ability to reason independently.

Dependence on authorities to educate it on what is perceived, and what it means, institutionalizes the individual.

To further inhibit free-thought insecurity in one's own judgements is promoted, as no idea is taken seriously if it is not referring, or deferring to authority figures, or is not speaking on behalf of an established institutionalized perspective.

Even if the mind is able to perceive patterns and it can analyse possible explanations, it is embarrassed to risk an opinion unless it has been supported by an established authority or it has been accredited by an established institution.

Of course this only applies to subjects that are considered undesirable, or socially reprehensible, or perspectives that contradict the internal cohesion.

Judgment in all other areas is uninhibited. 

To gain this institutional credibility one must first absorb, and perhaps internalize, the official knowledge and its acceptable understanding.

 

6- Cultivate confusion rather than Lucidity

The usage of language to imply depth, complexity, which cannot be displayed, is how a concept is converted from absurd to feasible.

Detaching words from external reference points is the first step before the second of redefining their meaning, by connecting them to noetic constructs.

Hiding the process in unnecessary complexity is how the vague, exploiting emotion and human vulnerability, convinces the many, creating an inter-subjective reality – a world within the world.

Nihilistic meme detaching from gene.

What paradoxes remain as the by-product of this idea(l) being contrary to the real, can be easily smoothed over, using the same method of (re)definition and word placement within a sentence, when the mind has been properly identified (as a fellow mind in desperate need), and indoctrinated (educated). The other will want to be convinced, otherwise he is excluded from the sheltering community of delusion, of Nihilistic detachment.

His willingness will make him an agency of his own imprisonment. 

 

Φ

Share this post


Link to post
Δημοσίευση σε άλλες σελίδες
Guest Satyr

Modern Dialectics

Deciphering the Code of Nihilism

 

Φ

 

One of the ways minds are entrapped within nihilistic structures is through the socialized process of education.

Words are redefined, in some cases to the extreme point of reversing their original meaning.

If and when this training/educating succeeds, total indoctrination is established. The mind cannot think outside the definitions and word-play, and it is released from direct supervision – the illusion of freedom becomes possible.

The turning of reality upon its head, the reversed pyramid, indicates an overturning of hierarchies.

The "meek shall inherit the Earth" but only if they buy into a world where definitions are altered–a world of artifices created for them, seducing them into its promised liberation from their condition. 

What follows is an exploration of the feminine tactic of word-play, verbal manipulation, selling a "positive," emotional, product by negating, nullifying reality – a process of seduction, and emotional manipulation.  

Appropriate if we begin from the very word Nihilism itself.

 

Nihilism– The concept of Nihilism is now defined as any position which admits to the fact that there is no moral law, no teleos, and no absolute law, outside of the human brain.

Essentially, the positivity of the world, as that which makes life, consciousness, possible, and permits creativity, as the expression of a Will's command, is defined as a "negative".

The missing absolute, a human construct itself, its absence in the world is labelled a nil, implying the "positivity" of what is a human artifice.  

The world is nil because it does not conform to human needs, human desires, human dependencies, and the positive the one, in the binary system, is human projections which "correct" this deficiency in nature.

This is the beginning of the process where reality is replaced by the idea(l).

 

World– When a Modern speaks of the world he most often speaks of the world of man.

Even when engaging reality, nature, it does so through a mediating human proxy.

The world is never something it engages directly, and whenever the term "world" is brought up it is always a reference to human artifices, the world of man.

The human world rather than being a tiny part of the world at large, now becomes the all-encompassing paradigm swallowing up reality into its human simplifications.

The world becomes malleable, less stressful, more predictable, simply by incorporating it within human abstractions, expressed with numerical or linguistic codes.

The practice of using the term “world” when referring to manmade artifices, in time, and through constant repetition, becomes established as a norm.

The world can only be engage via a human proxy, or a humanitarian agenda–perceiving must wear the glasses of humanism and see the world through its self-serving decrees. 

 

Perspectivism– Originally a term used to describe the human limitation admitting to the fact that all human perceptions are interpretations, perspectives, of the real; it has now become a method of levelling all opinions down to an equal footing, erasing hierarchies.

The implication begins from the negative, as all nihilistic positions do: the absence of an absolute, in this case omniscience, now becomes an argument for the presence of an absolute parity, the oneness of human ignorance.

Because language shares data, perspectives, disseminating them within human structures where even the lowly can adopt them and parrot them to indicate inclusion, the idea that an equal understanding is also achieved.

Data dissemination – access to knowledge, information – becomes a way of establishing the illusion of equality in reasoning, or in analyses of data.

Here is where the previous misinterpretation of the term “World” becomes important. When all approaches towards reality must go through human artifices, or human experts, human authorities, institutions, disseminators and analyzers of data, information access is castrated because none of the minds with access to it has the ability or the attitude required to process the data – find patterns within it.

It either repeats it verbatim, like a parrot, regurgitates it as it were, or it defers to another who provides it with an analysis, an understanding.

If this proxy fails to provide an answer, or declares the concept far too complex, or postpones a conclusion indefinitely, then the minds using this proxy follow suit.

The “official” position on any matter is the position of merit.

All other perspectives are equally speculative, and only perspectives of the official position; not reality itself, but perspectives of a perspective.

 

The illusion of parity, based on communal ignorance/gnosis, is strengthened by imposing a higher standard upon any perspective that challenges the communal perspective, and a lower standard for any perspective that feeds into the communal perspective.

In some cases absolute evidence, an absolute certainty is demanded, from the first, whereas from the second any absurdity is tolerated as philosophically "possible" – the objectivity of the mediocre Modern mind. 

The modern mind failing to rely on its own authority, and having become dependent on community authorities, or communal decrees of what is more or less possible or what deserves consideration and what does not, can never show the deference requires to consider a position outside these social conventions.

Perspectivism becomes a method of dismissing any opinion that does not go through a communal proxy.

The average mind having no ability to perceive or to analyze reality beyond a certain point, determined by its genetic inheritance and mimetic stifling, redirection, of potentials, can now repeat the conclusions it is given without having to understand the process by which these conclusions were reached.

The mediocre modern mind can now defer, refer, knowing that someone, at some time, has done the thinking it cannot do, for it.  

 

Positive/Negative– Perspectivism offers the perfect excuse to avoid connecting words, like positive/negative, to reality.

Having no proxy which would dare offer one which contradicted social conventions, the words are left to describe a subjective perspective.

No attempt is made to refer them to real phenomenon, in the fear of losing control over the words themselves, by placing the standard outside human artifices–artifices which can be controlled and altered at will.

All definitions must be filtered through proxies, referring and deferring to human needs.

When the need is based on the socio-economic, cultural paradigm trying to establish and maintain internal harmony, then all definitions which connect words to a reality outside this paradigm are rejected, or judged using the most absolutist, stringent, standards so as to ridicule, and then dismiss them out of hand.

 

Emotion– The usage of words to stimulate innate emotional responses, is part of the Pavlovian method, and a tool for the application of nihilism for the creation of uniformity, in this way minimizing internal structural frictions.

The emotion of "love", being a natural, instinctive, bonding mechanism, is presented as the opposite to the anxiety, a preparatory stage for the fight/flight mechanism, we call fear when it reaches an extreme... just as we call suffering when need exceeds a certain level of human tolerance.

In fact hate is the opposite of love, but this method is meant to blur the connection of fear with its numbing mechanism love.

 

Words in Nihilistic, Modern, environments are used to refer to a sensation, an automatic (re)action, and an emotion.

Reality, the perceived, the aesthetic, the real, is, again, excluded... pushed into the background.

All concepts must go through humanistic emotional filtering.

Shame is the peer pressuring method of silencing any idea which exceeds this social need to maintain internal harmony.

Love becomes the replacement of God – the divine being stripped of its anthropomorphic representation, leaving behind its emotional humanistic ingredient.

Ergo, whatever goes beyond the acceptable, within modern nihilistic dialogue, must be connected to hate, or fear... because fear can only produce hate, it can never result in love as a way of dealing with it.

The sacredness of love is preserved by disconnecting the emotion from its natural roots, allowing it to remain an ambiguous, purified, noetic, abstraction.

For the Modern nihilist all ideas concerning reality cannot be approached independently from sex, race, or personal circumstances. For him reality can only be judged by how it affects the individual personally, and the idea that someone may consider a position superior even if it hurts him on a personal level, is something he cannot process.

The evolution of love, as a way of coping with fear/anxiety is, therefore, rejected as "inhuman," because it connects the emotion, the phenomenon, with a reality that is indifferent to human concepts and sensations.

 

Progress– The concept of progress has been subverted by modernity. The word has been hijacked, forcefully recruited into Nihilistic dogma, and taken away from any definition other than the one it has now been mimetically attached to.

To "progress" is to move forward... but we are all moving, and if the direction you take you prefer to call it forward, because it is before you, before your eyes, which is significant for a predatory species, then this movement is always forward.

But this is not what the modern mind understands by forward. For it the movement is not merely a movement forth, a towards a projected object/objective because the only forward it can accept, in relation to the unknown immanent future, is the association of the object/objective with what is prefers, what it desires, what it needs.

The action, directed wilfully, towards an object/objective can only be a "forward" if it leaves what it does not desire, what it finds distasteful, what it does not need, what, in fact, is detrimental to what it needs, behind.

Behind is "overcome", it is undesired, it is forgotten, it is primitive, and why not, it is inferior to what lies ahead, forward, towards the yet-to-be, the immanent, the promising, and the possible.

Space, as a projection of possibilities, must always lead to a "positive" to its needs, outcome.

The only acceptable possibility is a possibility that fulfils a need... dissatisfaction is behind, as what must be left there forever.

Dissatisfaction is what motivates and motivation must be left behind.

The imagined, not pushing it forward, but pulling it... placing the Will at the helm of what motivates.

So, it is not the need pressing it forward, but the Will, guided by a projected object/objective, now taking on the form of a promising idea(l) which motivates, which causes it to move in that direction.

Need/suffering is overcome.

It no longer motivates... the willing is purified.

It is not moved by need/suffering, but by pure promise.

 

The Modern will deny need/suffering, fear, being what motivates it.

The artist, for instance, does not create out of need, the lover does not love out of need, the action is sanctified... placed in the coming future, in the beyond the present, and far beyond the despicable, primitive past.

The object/objective, now the idea(l), does not exist... it is in the beyond space time, forever coming but never present; it never appears, it is pure promise.

Nothing worldly can soil it pragmatically because it is never applied, it avoids becoming real, remaining forever ideal.   

 

Equality– The notion of 'equality' is directly linked to the codification of reality and its detachment from the aesthetic world of experience.

The tautology that 2=2 or that a=a refers to an ambiguity, a symbol referring to a mental construct with no connection to anything outside the mind, unless one draws the symbol on paper or on some material surface.

The symbol can now refer to anything in the real world, and its only consistency can be found in its strict adherence to a definition, which is itself encoded symbolically. This practice of providing a written definition is necessary because the symbol may lose meaning, being understood differently by every mind, since it has no shared reference point outside the human mind.

This stringent adherence to the code, the written down words, which enforce an intellectual consistency for the understanding of concepts which may or may not have a sensual reference point in space/time now creates the illusion of parity.

Because the word "human" must always be equal to itself no matter how many times it is replicated, or in what medium, or colour, or general linguistic form it is replicated, therefore the concept “human” becomes a concept which implies equality for everyone it is used to describe.

The code must remain true to the definition, the book of definitions, and so the concept the word describes can now also remain constant and uniform no matter how many variation of the same is replicated.

 

Freedom– Freedom, as a concept with no definition not related to human constructs, becomes, for the Modern the highest virtue.

For the Modern Nihilist freedom means liberty from the past, from nature, from self as it has been determined.

The concept fills the mind with terror, and over time the first excitement turns to a sense of emptiness, and desperation, seeking for something to attach one's self to, something to light the path towards an object/objective.

The most terrified are the simplest minds; the ones who are the least able to cope with an idea they have no thought through.

These simple minds are the first to attach themselves to a new dependence.

Their original overestimation becomes a desperate cry for an alternative incarceration.

Independence is not possible as an absolute.

The moderns dream of detaching themselves from the past but they can do no more than forget, and deny its effect upon their presence.

They mistake their choices as free choices, when the very degree of their options is limited by the past, as it projects itself forward.

The consequences of this delusion is the loss of self, a denouncement of ego; self-hatred becoming a rejection of one's inheritance, a resentment of presence/appearance, and the desperate attempt to castrate one's body from one's mind, as if mind were not the product of brain processes.

This is nihilism twisting a self-annulment into a "positive" value, by projecting it as some coming future state and by refusing to define the word used to represent the feeling the ambiguity gives the brain.

American "individuality" is the most popular manifestation of this drive to self-negate.

Its social purpose is to disconnect the mind form any supporting sources that would increase its resistance to indoctrination.

 

 

The previous exploration of some of the words used by moderns to cocoon themselves in the humans artifices they were raised to depend upon, and to value because they eliminate nature (past), offering them an easy way to parity, leads to this:

 

>Declarative sentences, full of self-aggrandizing, self-flattery, insinuating what he cannot deliver, being arrogant but not directly so, so as to retain his commitment to communal humility.

Here the recitation of words that imply one's own superiority, or conformity to the communal dogma which gives them superiority through association, may not refer to anything real... it may even be contradicted by performance.

What matters is the statement, the casual insinuation, which is supposed to leave a residue one can benefit from, or reject, if called on it.

For instance, one might mention how well-read, or well-travelled, they are, implying cultivation he cannot then prove with his positions, or the defence of the positions he's adopted, as his own, from an authority... or someone might name-drop a famous figure, or another mind's work (treatise or famous philosophical school of thought), implying collusion through shared understanding but unable to prove it by defending these views using his own words.

This, too, is part of the communal illusion of parity. 

 

>Deference to a known or unknown authority, either an individual thinker or an institutionalized position.

The deference to this authority need not be accompanied by personal understanding.

The mind need only know of the words associated with the position, and be able to recite them from memory.

No personal participation beyond this regurgitation of words is necessary.

Furthermore, ignorance positions itself on faith. 

It has faith in the institutional decrees, which must have thought these things though, are motivated by reason, and have the particular mind's interests in mind.

Such a mind cannot say why or who or what, but it has faith that somewhere, somehow, the shared communal beliefs are justified by someone, or something.

The Modern mind can now distract itself with hedonism, materialism, and judge his performance accordingly, because it has faith that its best interests are being handled by minds superior than it, in knowledge, not in quality... the illusion that it, too, could function as such an authority if it committed itself towards this goal, must be retained.

The child, also, has faith in parental protection, allowing it to direct its attentions to play.

 

>Emotional Appeal– A proposition is now judged not by its reasoning, its arguments, connecting it to a perceived shared world, but by its emotional appeal, its connection to a shared method of coping with the world, which must be kept at a distance.

Emotion has changed its functionality.

It was meant to offer efficiency to an organism with automatic (re)action to reality, later it became a method of dealing with individual weakness, making herding, heterosexual reproduction, and then communal living, and cooperation, possible, but now utility is founded on how it preserves the internal artifices, by shaming dissenters into silence, or by evoking emotional arguments to defend shared illusions. 

The standard for judging, for thinking, has ceased to be perception, reason, awareness, and is now a reference to how the perceived affects the individual, or the community of individuals, personally, emotionally.

The appeal to emotional criteria is really a veiled appeal to hedonism and materialism, or to whatever gives us, as humans, pleasure.

The need is to remain comfortable, comforted, content... Happy.

Thinking is returned to its primal motive, its primitive unconsciousness, while it is now defined as an enlightened state.

Consciousness does not necessarily lead to happiness, to contentment, in fact it exposes the mind to what is troubling, indifferent, and uncertain, outside its comfort zones.

With Modern Nihilism the sheltering verbiage is preferable because the mind needs to remain infantile, playing carelessly, while someone else takes care of reality for it.

 

Φ

 

Modernity and the Word [1]

When it comes to words the modern mind must detach them from anything perceived, from what is sensually perceived.

By detaching them, the word is liberated from its purpose, as that which attempts to define, to refer to, the real world.

The word only retains a reference to a text, the book (dictionary), which defines it in the most abstract way (simplification/generalization), so as to remain useful as a method of communication; it need not have a reference outside the text, made up of words itself, nor a reference outside the human brain.

 

The word, thusly liberated, can now be manipulated with fewer restrictions.

It can be used to symbolize the reverse, the ambiguous, always retaining a connection to an emotion rather than a sensation.

The word becomes evidence of Perspectivism because each mind can now apply it at will.

Once freed from the world it had to submit to the mind that utilizes its symbol. The word now refers back to personal attitude, an emotional (re)action to the phenomenon, not to the phenomenon itself–its application is a matter of perspective, indeed.

The more abstract the concept being symbolized by the word is, the more it can be detached from the sensual, the perceived; it can now hover in limbo, forever insubstantial… mystical, magical.

Words like male/female, positive/negative, good/bad, one/nil, lose all substance.

They have been made interchangeable, pure abstraction with no referential point outside human abstractions.         

 

Φ

 

Modernity and the Word [2]

The modern nihilist passionately assaults all attempts to connect a word, a concept, with reality.

To do so would take away from him the power of reinventing everything, including himself.  

(Re)Attachment to reality is what he seeks to avoid, with its determining, immutable, pasts.

The word, referring only to a mental abstraction, must remain in a relationship of symbol, defined by text, denoting a mental model, or an authority providing one.

The word must remain mysterious, and ambiguous, or else it loses its power to contradict the perceived.

Any attempt to (re)attach the word, symbolizing the mental model, with the phenomenon, a pattern of (inter)activity, is attacked as being authoritarian, totalitarian, fascistic, bigoted.   

 

Φ

 

Modernity and the Word [3]

Nihilism has taken over both sides of the binary model, each one representing the other’s opposite, each one with nothing real to present as an example of its reality, each one presupposing and implying the other.

The 1/0 binary model is the most abstract form of dualism.

In fact, both sides refer to the same concept, the same negation of the real, the same end of existence.

No longer symbols, they’ve become the absent absolute as symbol, as word, as pure abstraction (vaguely implying a dimensionless reality), with no referential point.

What they are is companions of nihilism, the masculine/feminine, the good/bad, the positive/negative, represented as opposites but both participating in the world’s symbolic annihilation, if taken literally.

Whether one negates existence with an absolute singularity or an absolute nil, makes little difference.

All that it indicates is a psychological, sexual, predisposition in the mind showing a preference in one or the other, as a final destination point. 

To them both, and to the model they both participate in, the existent, stands forever as that which lacks both a one and a nil.

To deny this is to deny the world as it is.    

 

Φ

 

Positive/Negative [1]

In relation to the concepts of positive/negative the polarities are reversed, once the word has been detached from the realm of human experience and perception.

Each term, representing the other’s opposite in typical binary dualism, can be arbitrarily applied, in accordance to whim, or how the particular individual relates, on an emotional/cognitive level, to the perceived phenomenon; personal taste, individual psychology, tip the balances either way – on the either/or absolute scales.   

 

Φ

 

Positive/Negative [2]

Positive is no longer that which requires effort, agon, to persist.

It can now be given the characteristics of the negative, and what requires no effort to persist, as if this change of names will also alter the nature of the phenomenon.

The element of expectation is involved.

The mind resists the (re)connection to reality, and submits to fate.

That which requires no effort is now full of possibility, “positive” in relation to the mind’s needs.

The female mind must remain open, remain accessible, give herself over to superior possibilities, and there is no greater force of increasing possibilities than this “towards chaos.”

The “positive” aspect of what these possibilities entail, are left to chance – a blind hope (faith).  

The female mind must give-in to what holds, for her, the most promise, is the most seductive with its apparent potentials, and in this sense chaos, change, is full of possibilities, whose potentials are indeterminable – a mysterious, charmer, full of promises, delivered through the mouths of his representatives.

No matter how powerful a force a corporeal, mortal, ephemeral, ordering can present itself as, it is no match to the natural ease of effortless change, exploding with increasing possibilities.

Another paradox emerges: a female mind, attracted to ordering, as an indication of masculine authority, is now “swept off her feet” by a force no real man can equal.

She is promiscuous in her endless search for the “perfect male,” and because no real-world masculine entity can ever completely meet her criteria, she becomes cynical towards masculinity.

A far greater, force is present; an irresistible one.

But it remains faceless, enigmatic, threatening.

To enable her submission to this force of change, this towards increasing randomness, which is more a promise of decay and lifelessness, clever minds project into this coming future, this progress towards the unknown, an order beyond the human mind’s ability to imagine – a Divine Being, a something, a paradise, a utopia.

Chaos has now been redefined, with a word, into its opposite.     

 

Φ

 

Modernity and the Word [4]

When the spoken word was made into the written word, the emergence of moderns, as children of the book, and by the book, became inevitable.

The contact between the physicality of the concept and the world it was describing became fragile.

The path towards detachment was set.

Abstraction increased where not even the utterance of the word could remind the brain of its roots. The word became purified as a thought with few attachments to the experienced.    

 

Φ

 

The body acts, because it can do nothing but act, its existence is that of acting.

The brain thinks, as its own form of acting, wanting to direct the body's actions, only then questioning its own direction, later questioning its own acting.

The methods used to direct the primitive mind to act in particular ways later become the motive of the act itself.

The brain interpreting the sensation of acting as need, and the sensation of successfully carrying through with an action as pleasure mistakenly believes itself to be the source of both when it is nothing other than a tool in the service of acting.

Modernity manipulates this misunderstanding, directing the mind's control over the body, towards socially useful behaviours.

The mind of the Modern confusing the sensation of an action motivated and then completed turns the completion into its reason for acting – Hedonism.

Materialism is Hedonism given a tangible object/objective.

Simpler minds need tangible goals, with the promise of an immediate gratification.

 

Φ

 

From the perspective of need/suffering being the driving force for human creativity, for life’s struggle, reflecting cosmic processes, Abrahamic religions proposed the absolute as present, occupying some hidden crevice of our perceptual-event-horizon, there, but not-there, all at once.

From the position of need/suffering, existence, being something a man had to deal with, cope with, find ingenious methods to trick and to overcome in himself, we pass through that phase where surrender to the certainty of the absolute’s demand being paid in full, and we enter the next phase of the nihilistic virus’ lifespan.

In modern times payment can be postponed, need/suffering forgotten, denied – a rejection of past/nature – pleasure finding equal footing with pain, just as the ideal surpasses the real in relevance.

Need/suffering no longer urges man to act, but he is freed from the past, now motivated by his own will, his own creation, as the ideal pulling him towards it with tis hypothesized promise.

Man’s activities are sanctified when they are torn away from their natural “base”.

The idea(l) having nothing to answer to releases itself as pure speculation.

Man feels liberated.

He can invent himself as this coming “future man” because he no longer resides in that looking back, and the present God of Abraham has not satisfied his expectations. He is pure expectation, he no longer draws inspiration form the past he forget or denounces; his expectations are purified in idealism.

He wills the coming perfection, becoming master of himself.

He is the coming God, no longer in the past, not in the most immediate past, the present.

He is pure idea(l).

The meme surpasses the gene.         

 

Φ

 

God is dead, is the proclamation of the rejection of the determining, immutable, higher-ordered past.

Past, yes, being another term for nature – sum of all nurturing.

The sacredness of nature, once divided into multiple forces, later simplified into an authoritarian, autocratic, singularity, is to be declared dead.

What has been declared dead?

Man's nature, human past.

Now it’s no more than a place to visit, like a park, a zoo, or in the mausoleum to reminisce over a long lost relative.

Man is released from his past... he is now Modern.

He forgets, denies, and reinvents himself with words.

Whatever he cannot turn away from, his appearance, he redefines, he declares shallow, inapplicable.

And what are words?

Words are God reinvented... not past, any longer, but immanence, the up-and-coming, the immanent future.

Man is not propelled forth by his past, his need, his lost order trying to organize itself anew, but he is pulled forth by the projection of the absolute as a future idea(l), represented by the code (language: numbers, words).

The idea(l) replaces the real – progress is this focus on the projected object/objective.

 

The Monist God was the intermediate stage when the Divine was flipped on its head, proclaiming the age of Nihilism.

As with all flipping, there is a short time where the object flipped rests perpendicular to one’s head.

The Monist God of Judeo-Christianity was this singularity hovering over man’s head, threatening his existence with its mass.

Now morality, teleos, meaning, once associated with the concept of Nihilism are the projected human constructs made real with words.

 

God morphed into symbol.

The past is forgotten, denied... and a New Age, a new form of Nihilism, is born and baptized; announced with joy.

One that rejects reality, nature, the past, because all of that was void of human constructs, empty of the things man needed to remain sane, to comfort himself, to placate the masses, to direct them with hope – hope being an antidote to fear.

The forever immanent future turns fear into hope.

The Judeo-Christian phase was this process in the most present, where the monist God was closer to man than any other time before.

But such hope no longer stirs the cynical modern mind.

Spinoza, the most famous secular Jew, announces the turn from past, then to present, and finally into future.

The "present" was still far too connected, far too determined by the past.

It had to be left behind, along with the past.

The future, on the other hand, is free from all such constraints.

When one thinks of the future one is free to fantasize as he wishes.

What the human mind can imagine it can project as possible.

Imagination detached from nature (past), becomes fantasy – the fantastic.

Man is released from his responsibility to his ancestry.

His family is to be escaped from.

 

Did not Jesus declare himself as the way which one had to undertake by first leaving behind his family?

Did not God test Abraham by commanding him to slaughter his only begotten son?

Modern man has castrated himself from his nature.

He can now make himself new (reborn), identifying with the most recent, or the most hopeful yet-to-come.

He has no obligation to anyone, or to anything but himself.

Modern man does not live in the past, nor the present, for that matter.

He exists as a future possibility, as a fantasy, a pure idea(l); one that is always on its way, always full of possibilities because it is unrestricted by probabilities determined by an unforgiving nature, a determining past.

He has alienated himself from himself, and he feels empty.

His new-found freedom, achieved by self-mutilation, self-castration, exposes him to Sartre's terror.

He rushes back to the ongoing present, seeking there an immediate gratification, a relief, a sense of self in pleasure, in matter, in the here and now.

He numbs his pain with chemicals, fills himself with numbness, and distracts himself with the trivial.

And in his desperation, his need for a fullness he forgot, the one he gave up, he surrenders himself to the current.

 

Φ

 

The Pagan gods were powerful but not omnipotent, wise, but not omniscient, beautiful but not perfect, not impervious to the ugly.

The Judeo-Christian God was all that, and also self-contradictory, to make room for His existence.

Good, but not so good as to not be able to conceive of evil.

Perfect but whimsically imperfect in His indifferent boredom; wise but with a bit of insanity to explain human suffering.

The Yin/Yang of the east, with a dirty-old man's face – Abraham's appearance.    

Modernity "surpasses" both with the simple act of self-lobotomy – fragmentation of mind, compartmentalization, schizophrenia.

A traumatized mind often uses self-hypnosis to isolate a memory and then quarantine it out of consciousness.

It's inability to cope results in technique, permitting all weak psychologies to cope.

Madness, as a method of culling, becomes a social imperative.

To be insane is no longer a vice but a virtue; remaining infantile, exo-pragmatic, no longer a recipe for self-destruction, but the height of human playfulness.

Play not as a necessary step of preparation, practice, and ascetic training... but as an end in itself.

Infantile play as the final stage before senility.        

 

Φ

 

The surrender to authority, to the word of the master/expert, is a reflection of world in otherness.

The Modern, cannot be exposed to the world, cannot have it revealed, without him thinking of the other, who has done this to him, as the origin of the vision.

The one exposing is then accused of being the one creating the vision, because they are born and raised in a world where realities are constructs of human abstractions, suing words.

When the world is exposed, the one exposing it is the creator of what is being exposed.

He invented the world as it is revealed to them... because they know-not of a world outside human artifices.

He tricks them with words – with rhetoric, with word-games – because word-games are all they have to appreciate and to escape.

Hate redirected.

The world as revealed is frightening... anger, hatred, fills the mind.

It requires a focus.

How does one feel anger towards reality?

He anthropomorphizes it.

The one who has revealed is the one who has done this to the mind – wrath is directed towards the one who exposes the world, as if he invented it.

Nature = Devil

 

Fight/Flight is no option.

How does one fight the world; how does one run away from it?

Love... the drug of inebriating hope.

 

An addict deals with a world it cannot deal with by medicating himself – placing himself in a state of numbness, lethargy, confused, sleepiness.

He does not exit reality – he numbs the organ that makes him conscious of it – the brain.

He is oblivious to the world.

Same applies for the medicating memes, of Nihilism.

Same applies for the purifies, sexless, Platonic idea(l) of love.

It's a mind-numbing oblivion.

 

Φ

Share this post


Link to post
Δημοσίευση σε άλλες σελίδες
Guest Satyr

Symptomology

Φ

A

The old saying "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts" must be modified to "Beware of Nihilists using words".

 

The symptomatology of Nihilism will follow.

It permeates what we call Western Culture, because it has been infected, thousands of years ago, by a mental virus, a memetic pathogen.

The pathogen infest the weakest of the weak, spreading throughout from these vulnerable spots.

It has been called by many names, but the most recent, modern, ones are: Liberalism, Feminism, Marxism, Secular Humanism, and straight out Nihilism.

Past monikers are: Christianity, Monism, Islam, Judaism... the last being the infection point where the virus came into contact with Indo-European, manifested as Hellenism/Pax Romana.   

 

We begin with an inversion of the current definition of Nihilism as the absence of meaning, purpose, morality.

All these being human constructs, noumena (abstractions), with no reference to anything but back to human abstractions. 

These words are used and abused, precisely because they are entirely human constructs.

There is nothing to limit their application.

With nothing apparent to refer to, they are "free" to describe whatever human abstraction man invents.

In the case of morality the word has been detached from its biological function, as a social behaviour enabling cooperative harmonious coexistence, and has been used as a substitute for the other human construct symbolized by the word "God".

 

What will follow is a brief, and helpfully concise description of this mental virus which has now become so ingrained in western minds that we can only call it Modern.

 

 

1

 

Detachment of symbols, metaphors, words from appearances, the real – the phenomenon.

The practice involves the maintenance of words, representing noetic abstractions, in a state of perpetual limbo.

The mind disconnects the symbol from its reference point, and redirects it back to the mind, which is then shared (hive mind) as a community of the like-minded.

Since a reference point is required to substitutes for the one missing, the mind reconnects the abstraction to an emotion, a lower cognitive process, and then supports its word using animal instinctual criteria, then determining it as involved in higher cognition, or it is enlightened, superior, awakened.

This condition of self-referential looping, is considered an ascent, as it is a breaking away from reality, the world, towards the stratosphere of noetic constructs, no longer constricted by the base, earthly, the phenomenon, the apparent – the world.

The effect is that of expansion, of liberation, an emotional (re)action to the detachment, even if noetically, from an indifferent, harsh, threatening, uncertain world of (inter)activity.

This is called Subjectivity.

It is also given many different other labels, which will be explained in another entry.

 

Φ

 

 

 

2

 

Multiplicity as evidence of freedom:

The modern mind correctly assumes that having more options, is a sign of freedom, but it associates a detachment from reality, which limits options, as the epitome of liberation.

The effect is one of multiplicity, void of content.

Whereas minds referring to reality, are limited by this reality which is not in their wilful control, the Nihilist experiences no such constraint.

It can now use words in almost any way he wants, only limited by the central Scripture of words, the Dictionary, and this because his condition is reliant of community which he must remain within and in constant contact with.

His noetic constructs becomes increasingly fantastic, each generation adding more to the mix.

Because realists cannot and will not detach from reality they presume a conspiracy, or an illness, because for them remaining in agreement with another, for any period of time, is a sign of being brainwashed, given the multiplicity of options available to a mind that is no longer attached to reality, and dismisses it as illusion.

For the Nihilist words are games, toys, to be used and then abandoned for others.

The idea of being limited in this is authoritarian, brutal, enslaving.

Change is how the Nihilist experiences its own detachment form reality, only this time it is not forced by an external world, but is governed by internal whims, tastes, sensations, emotions.

The result in a constantly shifting mix of "individuals" with no sense of self, and no world to discipline them, being easily manipulated by clever minds that can now use emotions and their addiction to remaining free form anything real, to direct their activities.

 

Φ

 

 

 

3

 

Uninhibited by anything external, anything outside human brains, the Nihilist uses words with the creativity of a child playing with toys.

It' only limit is imposed by a vague Dictionary definition.

This is why abstractions associates with phenomena can be freed from space/time and placed in any sequence, in any place, with the only guiding principle being emotion, or gratification.

The word's meaning is entirely emotive.

It is judged and justified using pleasure/pain criteria, and in relation to a positive emotion: such as love, compassion, hope, freedom, God, immortality etc.

 

"What feels right is right", as it were, replacing the "might is right" now used as an example of a subjective mind, like their own, imposing their constructs upon others.

At this stage reality has been completely forgotten.

The one challenging their subjective delusions, is automatically someone imposing his subjectivity upon them - authoritarian.

The rule being that the only limiting factor is a Dictionary (or some other word based Scripture, such as Bible, Koran etc.) and the subjectivity of the other.

It is implied that in a community of detached delusional minds the only moral rule is that you do not disturb the other's delusion, and he will not disturb yours.

Debate, conflict is accepted, within limits, but nothing that threatens any subjective delusion will be tolerated.

The practice of debate is only meant to strengthen the bonds that govern this community of detachment, and to reaffirm the "right" to remain as delusional as you wish, if you do not bother the other.

No matter how ridiculous the other's subjectivity is the Nihilist will refrain from exposing his delusion as weak, because this sets him up to be exposed in turn.

Ergo multiplicity is sustained as a symbol of free-thinking – independence meaning free from reality, which most often refers to a determining, immutable past.

The opportunity is taken for the mind to strengthen the detachment from reality, by covering up holes in his mental constructs.

 

Φ

 

 

 

4

 

Another general rule governing Nihilistic discourse, is that you never mention what you, or the other, can do nothing about.

This immediately renders most "negative" aspects of reality as non-applicable, or as part of the unmentionables.

To say something honest, objective, about world or other, must be accompanied with a solution to it–a hope.

The majority of what is perceived is not to be spoken, and he who does must benefit from this unseemly, uncivil, practice.

Therefore, nothing too disturbing is ever permitted entry into the Subjective solipsism of the modern.

What remains of the word world is now only what is, and can and ought to be corrected.

All that is permitted to be spoken of will be solved, resolved, and turned from negative into positive.

Everywhere the modern looks he sees problems that will be solved.

Even the unknown is made known by giving it a label, a symbol, a word: God, Humanity, Universe, Whole, One.

Baptising it with a word makes it intimate, more certain, less threatening.

And so when the word God is discredited it is replaced with a new word, with the same non-referential, emotional, noetic contrivances: morality, humanity, one, order, and so on.

The unknown, the un-knowable, the absent, is made present as abstraction, as feeling, as dictionary entry, word.

 

Φ

 

 

 

5

 

In the either/or dichotomy of simplistic binary logic, what even animals are capable of, the dilemmas arise, and the solutions presents themselves as emotional appeals, and moral options.

The Nihilist taking the only thing he can understand, his own absolutes, his own emotions, and simplicity as a guiding light, assumes that whenever a superior probability is presented it is an expression of an absolute certainty, or of an omniscient truth.

This is also a defensive method, dismissing all superior perspectives on the ground that they are not absolute truths, or accusing them of proposing an absolute truth which is indefensible.

Now their own simplicity can hide behind the common ground of imperfection, for that which is not perfect must be equal.

Either/Or.

With no omniscience, no God, all is relative.

Degrees vanish in relation to a fluctuating world.

All is either/or, and since what is left is nil, then some settle for nil, while the majority, of the more hypocritical kind of Nihilist, settle for emotional justifications–in the absence of absolute knowledge, the deciding factor are emotional.,

Here, because emotions are shared, common, base, all find congruence in the lowest-common-denominator or they are monsters with evil intents. 

 

Φ

 

 

 

6

 

Words are central to the nihilist's psychology.

They are the vehicles of his escape from the base, for him, the earthly, the worldly, and the real.

They are sacred, divine, magical, because they do not have to refer to anything outside his own mind, or the minds of those with whom he shares a vocabulary and an agenda.

 

With words he can dismiss the past/nature, he can reinvent humanity, baptise himself by another term, find justice in a cruel world, find confidence through association – a community of shared linguistics.

The nihilists will detach the word from its reference point or he will slander words altogether, denying them relevance for all minds, for all time.

He will have no trouble comprehending nihilists like himself, but then will feign an inability to comprehend words when they are attaching to the apparent.  

Words are the noetic floating systems he uses to stay adrift in the tumultuous seas of (inter)activity... up there on the surface, hoping no wave will drown him, because he never learned to swim, but only learned how to float... and even floating is given to him, as words with no depth, no substance, no connection to the abyss.

 

Φ

 

 

 

7

 

It is because the nihilist is a self-deluded hypocrite, that he can only comprehend those that challenge his delusions as such.

It is because he dreams of changing the world, if not to escape it, that he can only comprehend others as wishing to change reality, to challenge what is, and not only as those who wish to confront human lies, and to challenge nihilism.

It is because the nihilist is part of a cult of shared self-hate, world-hatred, expressed for the reason already given, in multiple ways, that he can only comprehend those who see reality as it is, as cult members.

It is because he is ill, and feels insecure, and lost, that he can only relate to others on that level.

The nihilist abhors value judgement, in relation to a goal, an object/objective, not of his kind.

This is why he must reduce the objective to an emotion, an appeal to a shared weakness.

God, as universal Truth/love, is shape-shifted to Objective Morality, with good/bad, standing in for God/Satan.

All must refer to this emotional human construct.

To go outside of it, into objectivity, is to place this coward in unknown waters – which must be given a name he can relate to.

Objectivity ceases to be about world, outside human words, hopes, emotions, and is returned back to the familiar territory of mind, noumenon (abstraction).

He can only relate to world through others, and this other is usually some famous figure. 

 

Φ

 

 

 

8

 

 Using others as supportive elements is another Nihilist tendency.

The quickness in referencing credentials, to schooling, trying to impress, or to imply that he knows what he is talking about because he refers to "great" minds, is a symptom of insecurity, because no matter what the Nihilist intuitively senses his own condition.

And so "intellectual discourse", or dialogue, becomes a posturing based on knowing, and on parroting others, and not about personal conceptions about a world all have access to.

The implied elitism, of being part of the few who have access to profound knowledge, contradicts their egalitarian, democratic ethos.

The insinuation is that if you are "trained" sufficiently, infused with the proper understanding of what others said, and told why they said it, in accordance with cultural norms, you can be respected.

The obsession with education, and with reciting knowledge, acquired through second-hand sources, is an indication of a personal failing – ether stupidity, or cowardice in seeing what is always in front of you; requiring no proxy.

Deferring to an authority, if not God then to some famous rich individual which becomes a shared icon, is a way of escaping the natural selection process.

When the mind cannot take responsibility for itself, and feels that it is not up to par, it seeks out an icon to hide behind and to find confidence in.

The proxy is also a potential scapegoat.

If this icon proves to be weak, then he is discarded, and so changing your mind about everything, indicates a reliance on others (power in association), and it also indicated poor judgement.

 

Φ

 

 

 

9

 

Bragging, posturing, inflated egos while ego is denied...

The quickness in which a Modern Nihilist tells you, using words, what he wishes you to believe about him, indicates the reverse of the intended.

It is always the one who will name-drop, will brag about how much he gets laid, how much money he has, what schooling he has, how happy he is, whom he knows, that is the one who is desperate to hide his innate inferiority.

When stressed the fall-back defensive position symbolizes a retreat.

As always words, symbols, references to other minds, is how the Nihilist escapes, or tries to escape the reality of what he is, in relation to world.

Words, once more, come to the rescue, for he can claim whatever he wishes using words, which refer to nothing real, as in behaviour, (inter)action, appearance, apparent.

Using the word "happy" for example, implies what the individual wishes to plant into the other mind as a possibility.

Repeating the word reaffirms it, and the individual hopes the word will root itself in the others mind as a judgement about him.

 

Φ

 

 

 

10

 

Considering the power words have for the Nihilist mind, an almost magical power, exposing him to reality and also offering him a way out, we can understand the love/hate relationship he feels towards them.

Sometimes wanting to discredit them even as tools, and at other times worship them as saviours.

Words are all a nihilist has, since he no longer wants, or cannot, see, and hear, and feel the world directly, but only experience it through proxies.

Because all is via a proxy, all must be increased in volume in sensation, to make him feel something vicariously.

He sacrifices pleasure, at times, just to avoid pain.

Words have the power to make or break him, because he is completely given over to their power.

The magical escape also makes him vulnerable to manipulation, by those who understand what words are: tools.

 

Φ

 

 

 

11

 

The central common them, shared by all nihilists, no matter what method, what words, they use, is a desire to detach from past/nature, and pretend that it no longer applies nor affects them in the present.

World-Hatred often exposing a self-hatred, a disappointment with self as it relates to others, and to the world, is what these nihilists share, no matter what multiplicity of methods they use to detach and discredit and dismiss.

This denouncement of sex, race, of nature, as the sum of all past nurturing, and the hyperinflation of the nurture, the social influence, exposes them as what they are.

The idea(l) that everything from sex (gender) to race, and from homosexuality (sexual mutation, dysfunction) to stupidity (learning disorder), are socially produced is part of this idea that all that nature has rendered can be corrected by the interventions of man – and this will not produce a need for further interventions to deal with the collateral effects of the previous ones.

 

A highly romantic idea(l).

This is sometimes accompanied with a cynical fatalism as in "It will all turn out for the better", or "It's all part of a bigger plan" abandonment to human consults.

The inability to differentiate natural from artificial where world of man is confused for the world itself.

Confusion between the mathematical/geometric method of human cognition with a universal plan, a hidden logic, a reason.

Fatalism as in the faith in this belief, and how it is directed by some underlying will, some reason, some consciousness, some order.

 

Φ

 

 

 

12

 

Confusion between world of man and world itself, where one is but a part of the other, is what underlies this cocooning, matrix-like, subjectivity – this confidence ion words, numbers, symbols.

Responsibility is abandoned. The external other will take care, and all will become as it must.

Man intervenes upon natural processes, creates all sort of collateral effects, encases himself in a symbolic world of his own making, enslaves others to this reference point, and then dreams that in the end nature will clean things up.

No integrity, no honour, no accountability.

The motive here is living a life in ignorant bliss, and the future can take care of itself.

Disconnecting from past, tradition, inheritance, is what creates this me-me, individuality.

A shallow birth to death identity, earmarked by consuming, pleasuring; masturbation of mind and body.

What do lies matter when you die and you hold yourself accountable to nothing and nobody?

All that matters is fooling as many who are alive along with you, as possible: pride of the degenerate.

Eat, drink, fuck, pleasure yourself in any which way, consume and be consumed, use any orifice for any deed, and then die knowing you were not judged and could not be judged by anyone, at any time, for any reason.

Nobody knew you, or could ever understand your complexity.

 

Φ

 

 

 

13

 

One of the nihilist's favourite lies is how complex humanity is, and in particular how complex he is.

He may think all is knowable, but this all never includes him.

He may claim to know a dog better than it knows itself but this never applies to him, in relation to a higher mind.

He cannot be accurately understood, valued, known, unless he tells you himself.

He is true to his own word, because words are magical, mystical and he controls them.

Nobody can judge him, because there is no standard which applies to him... all being subjective standards, he thinks.

No matter what he does, how he behaves, what choices he makes, nothing matters, and all is correctable.

Nothing is determined by the immutable past, forever condemning him to repeat these behaviours, and choices.

He is his own standard.

This is the basic principle of nihilism, with only the golden Rule, the social contract, as the limit.

All is morally maintained.

A Christian threat/promise.

It bleeds over to feminism and the idea that females are complicated, incomprehensible to men... they exists on another plain, a different planet.

This is how female nihilists, modern women, comfort themselves when they behave in contradiction to their social memetic norms, and in accordance to their natural instinctual proclivities.

Why do they change their minds constantly, why do they contradict their words with their actions, why do they do the things they do... nobody knows, nobody can know, they are genius, they are governed by a mysterious logic.

 

Φ

 

 

 

14

 

Victim psychology is the emotional string binding all nihilists into one cohesive group.

There are many shared identifiers, masked as multiplicity and the many ways the real is avoided and escaped, and victim psychology is one of the central themes in their mindset.

First, they are victims of chance, of the world, born as this sex, or that race, born in this situation and that circumstance, born of a past that they do not like nor feel proud of.

If not of the world then they are victim of another, a will outside themselves.

And for this reason, all who expose them to a world that challenges their delusions is the v one victimizing them.

Because all is subjective, in their minds, even evil, immorality, the indifferent unjust world, is also a subjective construct, and they the victim of an evil mind.

 

Φ

 

 

 

15

 

Nihilism or any degree of it, is only viable when there is a protective umbrella, a cocooning will, to protect it from the repercussions of denying, ignoring, dismissing reality.

The natural consequence of any level of detachment from reality is death, or some severe cost.

The only way it can persist and multiply, is because there is an ulterior motive for preserving it.

The only ulterior motive is because of Nihilism delusion and its vulnerability and dependence upon others, to maintain itself.

It is a mental virus propagated and maintained through weakness, dependence, inferiority...which is the majority vote.

 

The "Might is Right" is exposed as belong "Right is Might" and those seeing clearly honestly, have an advantage over those that hide, forget, deny, reject a world they cannot escape.

As always, nihilism inverts concepts.

It presumes that it is because some subjective mind says so that it is subjugated to a world being exposed by such a mind.

It presumes that only hypnosis, trickery, rhetoric, is at play, because for it only words have substance and are real.

It confuses success, dominance, based on clarity, honesty, objectivity, for an imposition of subjectivity, because it requires a mind to direct it, to tell it, to lead it.

He who sees the world as it is, and not as he wishes it were, will succeed within it.

He who is blind to it will accuse the first of being a manipulator, because he denies objectivity so he can only understand dominance subjectively.

In the nihilist's mind the individual decides what is objective, and so objectivity for it is a subjective construct.

It cannot understand a world outside human opinions, determining if these opinions are more, or less accurate.

 

Φ

 

 

 

16

 

One of the first presumptions of the nihilist, one based on all that has already been mentioned, is that all deserves respect, or all is worthy of consideration.

It's logic follows from the either/or foundation – no absolute means all is ignorant, in equal degree, because there is no objective way to determine what is more objective and what is less so – no hierarchies.

The absolute serves two functions: 1] it provides an external logos, an authority, to subjugate all subjectivities to – equality under a one God, a one specialist, a one mind, and 2] in the absence of said absolute external source of authority all are uniformly ignorant, the negative becoming a unifying negative.

No other way to decide is ever explored and accepted.

This is why objective reality must be ridiculed or converted into something they can dismiss as subjective or as a human construct.

Essentially, no matter what you say it is to be taken seriously or as seriously as anything anybody says, and this is most effective when what is said is about something the Nihilist feels insecure about, such as the injustice and cruelty of nature, or the immutability of the past.

To not abide by this parity of deservedness is an aggressive act.

The only deciding factor is majority vote, or some popularly accepted authority figure, which has ceased to be the god-head.

In other word, only via a proxy mind, is the subjective evaluated as superior-inferior, since the objective world cannot be evaluated directly without discovering how indifferent, to subjective interpretation, and cruel, unforgiving, it, the objective world, remains.

Basic things like the evolutionary function of the orifices, and of the sex organs, and how appearances indicate essence, are dismissed on the grounds that no authority has validated this, and there is no real absolute way to determine what is most probable.

In other words, the nihilist chooses to ignore his own sense if this protects him from a disturbing perception.

The matter of complexity enters the scene when the mounting evidence tilts the balance in a direction which the Nihilists does not like.

Now all is too complex to decide.

This is particularly so when it comes to humans.

Nihilist logic indicates that if there is no absolute certainty then all possibilities are equally valid, escaping the obvious.

Once more, more probable versus less probable is dismissed in favour of parity through shared ignorance, or using the negative as an argument for the positive.

Christians claim that in the absence of no evidence disproving their God then all possibilities are open, which then gives credence to the emotional angle, turning it into the decisive component.

 

Φ

 

 

 

17

 

The nihilist contains his thinking within cultural and social realities. He cannot explore further back, discovering from where memes emerge, and how genes manifest as memes, then expressed as principles, ideals, morals, world-views.

For modern all must be the product of a reason, a will, a human motive, and nothing pre-existed the emergence of social and economic systems. This is also part of the inversion. Where memes emerge from genes, in their convoluted minds, the reverse is the case.

All genetics is the products of memes, of socio-economic artifices, and human interventions.

Ergo all is noetic, as in founded on human prejudices, requiring an external god, authority, to validate them.

Millions of years of evolution ignored for the last 2-3 thousands years of human culture.

Therefore, for nihilist’s gender is a human fabrication, having no connection to sexual roles, as these evolved to facilitate reproduction.

This connects to the logic that all orifices are human playthings to be used in whatever way the individual wishes, having to predetermined genetic function and reason for evolving.

And if gender is a human artifice, a social construct, then so is sex, and why not race, and appearance in general.

Now that man can intervene technologically, with techniques, upon the manifestation of thousands of years of evolution, covering them up, nothing is except from human covering-up and correcting.

And when such a mind, raised in sheltering environment, is never made to face the consequences of his own stupidity, he becomes cocky, dismissing suffering, need, war, violence, all that troubles and confronts his ideal world, his desirable reality.

He then accuses others of wanting to change the world, when he's already done so, and is now attempting to complete the task by replacing reality with human artifices.

Unable to complete the task he suffers from the pains of an evil world contradicting his naive premises.

Then the dilemma arises.

 

Φ

 

 

 

18

 

The Nihilist despises every attempt to connect words, to appearances, particularly when dealing with humans.

The attempt itself is ridiculed, because he denies the existence of an objective world which would connect the subjective via a symbol a word.

For instance, gender becomes entirely a human construct, and has no reference to anything outside human brains, and human social conventions.

The discipline of philosophy is about referencing other minds, essentially a discussion about philosophy, and not the world itself, which is rejected as being accessible or approachable.

Also the word "truth" referring to a more accurate description of the real is made into an entirely subjective absolute that can only be imposed and accepted on faith.

To connect the symbol, the abstraction, to a source, the noumenon to the phenomenon, would take away their central method of escape.

First comes the word, and it is the alpha and the omega.

The word is no longer a tool for dealing with the world but a toy, a ploy, a way of dismissing the world by reattaching the symbol the abstraction back to other noetic artifices.

The mission for the nihilist is to retain the word as an abstraction, a human construct, with no reference to anything outside human minds, because only then can he claim that gender, race, as social inventions, and truth, if it is not absolute, is untrue, and so a democratic decision is required, and only then can male/female cease to have any meaning outside social fashions, and only then can the concept "human" be stripped of its original meaning and become a mystical, magical, idea(l), embracing and saving all who are included within its bosom.

The word "philosophy" is of particular interest for us, because its objective has ceased to be clarity about world, or objectivity, which can then result in wisdom, clarity, a useful application, but it has become a discussion about philosophy – philosophy is talk about philosophy, or philosophers, as the subjective mind can only recognize other subjective minds.

As such, any perspective that challenges this delusion is considered aggressive, or based on purely subjective criteria, such as "I say so".

The idea that an opinion, expressing a perspective, is more or less accurate, more or less objective, based on the apparent, the phenomenon, and the indifferent to all subjective perspectives, world of (inter)activity is dismissed so as to maintain the all is subjective universe.

Even the word "world" has come to refer to the human world, and in relation to human constructs.

World now means humanity, and humanity means world. Not humanity as a species, a pattern, within the world, by humanity AS the world.

Gender being now explained as entirely a human artifice, but nothing else, such as morality, or love, or compassion.

Nihilists are selective as to which words are mystical, profound abstractions and which are evil abstractions easily rejected from human discourse.

Words like love, empathy, respect, sex, race, are not permitted to be connected to anything but back to human noumena.

Empiricism has a limit.

 

A cult of victim of weakness.

 

Φ

 

 

 

19

 

An interesting by-product of all of this comes about in time.

The Nihilist begins to believe that denouncing the one who exposes them to an objective world, or a subjective interpretation of world which is more lucid, can protect him from what is being described.

This would be like ridiculing the one who claims death is the end and there is no afterlife because this will ensure an afterlife.

It agrees with the notion that all it takes to change the world is to change your mind.

 

The belief rest on all that has been mentioned, and it has faith in the assumption that if what is being said about the objective world is rejected, ignored, dismissed, that this is an escape from what was being described.

Kill the messenger and the message is dead, but what if the message was accurate?

Have they dealt with reality by slandering the one who exposes them to it?

Sheltering ensures that the immediate effects of being wrong are never experienced as severely, because of the cocooning within humanity, these nihilists fight to preserve, for good reason.

Only within the bosom of a multiplicity of like-minded individuals can the singular person escape the costs and risks of being wrong.

We call this the social safety net.

Every careless, stupid choice, is protected from its own stupidity, propagating the delusion that all perspectives, superior/inferior, are equal, or that the consequences are so minimal as to make the inferior mind arrogant.

Like when a teenager lives under his parent's roof and because he has it easy begins to believe he deserves it, and that it is because of his qualities.

How many times have you heard a female say she intimidates men?

She confuses fear of the institution that is protecting her for fear of her, because of her spirit, her mind etc.

Consider the arrogance of a simpleton who has memorized a few word, references, data, deferring to famous figures or obscure ones to imply a unique understanding, believing that this is philosophy.

This is like an art critique, an art historian, confusing his knowledge for artistry, and including himself amongst the artists he knows by name.

 

Φ

 

 

 

20

 

The importance of words for the nihilist is evident in his desperation to use them to insinuate what he cannot display.

He is quick to accuse the other of what he is most guilty of, he brags, and declares himself victor, trying to implant, with words, what he fears he cannot with deeds.

He never says anything clearly and honestly.

He is always insinuating, laying down an escape route as he slowly creeps forward with words.

He never takes a position. He is always flattering, fawning, implying this and that, at the same time, remaining aloof, and imprecise so that he can never be exposed without him having a plausible deniability.

It is why he talks through proxies.

He is always of two-minds, or more, uncertain sceptical to a cynical degree, insecure and desperate to not lose face.

Humour is how he evades the discomfort of his nature.

A quick, stress releasing, evasion.

He is always potentially joking, or is he being serious?

Depends on the reaction of the other.

He is always joking, or is he?

Nothing is direct and honest about him.

He is a hypocrite and a lair, protecting a weak, fragile ego, from the devastating determinations of nature.

This he calls his complexity.

Nobody can know him can ever see him – he alludes the experts, he mesmerizer all.

He is a mystery wrapped in an enigma, sprinkled with fairy dust.

No category can define him.

Words are toys, and he plays.

The objective is childish escape from the real.

His entire life is a testament to the devastation of this adolescent method.

 

Φ

Share this post


Link to post
Δημοσίευση σε άλλες σελίδες
Guest Satyr

21

 

When the nihilist speaks he speaks about noumena (abstractions) that only exist in human minds, such as equality, justice, morality, fairness, similarity, one/nil, whole, God and so on.

For these concepts there is no external reference.

They exist through sharing, memetic propagation, and are maintained through cultural rules, ideals, traditions, common value standards.

This is why he presumes that all talk about an objective world as outside and indifferent to these human constructs, that what is being discussed in another abstraction with no external reference.

It is because he bases his delusions on "I say so" then supported in "We say so" that he assumes that all perspectives are a declarative "I, or we, say so".

The difference between the two, in his mind, the only difference, is popularity. The quantitative difference in the "we" determines which "we" is validated, and all other standards, particularly those independent from quantitative standards, are to be discounted as evil, or authoritarian.

In such a case, the existence or not of Allah is entirely dependent no how many can be converted to Islam, and whether a child born with mental/physical dysfunctions is to be considered good or bad is a matter of popular support.

This is why he desperately seeks communal approval and he strives to impress the majority, thinking that this has an effect on what is real.

This is why connecting the abstractions that can be connected to phenomena, and ignoring those that only have a reference back to other noetic constructs, causes him distress.

He loses control over good/bad, and their manipulation using emotional techniques.

This is the Bottom-Up thinking which he contradicts with a Top-Down inversion, claiming that both are the same.

From the vantage point of one who is interested in approaching the objective, and avoiding the corruption of subjectivity, as much as possible, all words, symbolizing abstraction, have to be connected to a world independent from all interpretations of it, and those abstractions (noumena) which cannot find such a reference point should be exposed as being pure noetic metaphors, referring back to human abstractions.

Who and what is superior in nature is never in doubt, it is only within Nihilistic social systems protecting weakness, where things become confusing, and are open for debate and verbal acrobatics, including evasion.

The Nihilist can never and will never define his words, or try to connect them to perceived phenomena, because it is precisely that he does not, training them as vague dictionary references with no connection to the real, where he feels independent, strong, clever... safe.

He remains elusive, sceptical, cynical, never taking a stand on anything, never wanting to be clear and direct, always feigning and evading and changing his angles, keeping open as many escape routes as possible.

 

Φ

 

 

 

22

 

For the Nihilist, the modern, good/bad, positive/negative, can only have a subjective meaning.

It is only in relation to human needs, hopes, fears, emotions, where these terms have a meaning, in his mind.

But not in relation to an object/objective, because we also strives for a communal agreement, a universal good/bad, which is so because universe, world automatically means humanity.

Positive/Negative can never, and should never be defined independent from human needs.

And so all becomes a moral issue.

The words are disconnected from pragmatism, from a motive, a particular need, and universalized as in a shared human need, a shared human motive, a shared human idea(l) which is never clarified because this will expose its motives, its essence.

Remember, for him world=humanity.

The shared good/bad is a Super-Subjective reality, independent of the objective world.

Within this shared subjective the rules of existence, can be altered with a political decision.

Killing can be good, and then later it can be bad.

Paedophilia can be bad today and later, years later, it may become good – see homosexuality.

Male/Female may have meaning yesterday and tomorrow they be debunked, redefined, dismissed.

Everything is malleable within the Super-Subjective or what I've called the SuperOrganic.

More so if this SuperOrganic promoted Nihilism internally, to control through uniformity, and contradicts it externally.

All organisms, individuals, included are expected to tow-the-line and agree with the basic truths necessary to maintain internal harmony.

After evolution integrates the individual as a cell is integrated into an organic structure, the conception of world is dominated by SuperOrganic constructs.

This was metaphorically displayed in the movie The Matrix.

For such a cell there is no world outside the organic hierarchies and relationships.

All is organic and all follows the rules the SuperOrganism enforces.

The only distinction within this paradigm is utility, as in more or less useful and more or less harmonious.

What the cell was before it was integrated no longer applies and in time is forgotten.

This is why past is always dismissed, forgotten, denied, and why all words can only refer to noetic artifices. There is no world outside the SuperOrganism within which the organism, the cell, finds power, comfort, utility, safety, meaning, purpose.

SuperOrganism is God, and if God is dead a new SuperOrganism must quickly replace Him.

The cell is unable to give itself meaning, purpose, direction – it entirely dependent, and can no longer function outside the SuperOrganic premises.

Defending the SuperOrganic rules, principles, order, is a matter of survival for it.

 

SuperOrganism= society, culture, socio-economic system – meme.

The genetic has been absorbed into the meme. It has surrendered will, identity, independence, for the sake of survival, and the advantages of synergy–power through association.

Notice that for the nihilist his well-being, his sense of self and his self-evaluation is always a product of other, as in majority, popularity, communal appreciation.

Its particular subjectivity is associated with the SuperSubjectivity.

The world outside, as in objective world independent from subjectivity altogether, is non-existent... and/or evil.

 

Φ

 

 

 

23

 

The Nihilist reduces the topic, the issue, philosophy in general, down to the absurd and then dismisses it as absurd, so as to hide his own intent and his own absurdity.

He creates decay and then uses it to justify his own decay.

To put it more bluntly, he indulges in simplicity and stupidity, and then accuses that which he has reduced to this level of being nothing more than absurd and stupid.

To put it in yet another way, the Modern reduces all to word-games, and then denounces it as only word-play, including all attempts to connect the words being used to what is independent from words.

The cynical motive of the pseudo-intellectual, hedonistic, Modern: by all means hide inferiority.

Find the lowest-common-denominator and build a castle upon it, inviting all to settle down. 

Because when all is levelled down to a uniform stupidity all that remains is masturbation.

 

Φ

 

 

 

24

 

Another example of Nihilistic inverted thinking...

The Modern variant of this mental dis-ease, confuses emoting, emotionally based reasoning, thinking infected with emotional appeals and considerations, with passion, and the passionate defence of objective reasoning.

In his pretentious psyche, to pretend you are aloof, and distant, and cynical, indicates a cold reasoning, which must, obviously, be accompanied with the benefit of the doubt towards every absurdity presented before him as deserving consideration, and respect.

This is almost as insane as their confusion of knowledge with understanding.

Most cannot tell the difference.

It is why they scavenge books and internet spaces for data to present as evidence of their intelligence and quality of mind.

It is also why amongst Modern education, or the correct kind of training, is synonymous with equalizing intelligence, and why credentials and social status is so important when trying to impress them.

He has no other way of determining quality than quantity.

Without an external authority he is unable to say what is more reasonable and what is absurd.

Easily exploited sheeple.

 

Φ

 

 

 

25

 

For the Nihilist his theories are meant for an ideal creature, existing in an ideal world and an ideal universe.

His perspectives are applicable not in the real, but in the surreal, the supra-real, and not in the natural but in the realm of the super-natural.

Once disappointed, and having awakened to his own naiveté, if he ever does, the only other solution is the opposite.

If not the ideal then nothing.

Either/Or.

If no absolute is possible then the nil is all he has.

No gradation.

Absolute 1 and 0.

What can be worse, for him, than a hierarchy where he finds himself at the bottom?

If all cannot find Utopia then all, we all, must be in Dystopia, or if not Paradise where he is also included, then all must be damned to hell.

 

Φ

 

 

 

26

 

For the nihilist math is not another language, using abstractions.

The most abstract language of all is not to be doubted, mostly because it produces techniques and technologies it considers positive.

Yet, he cannot define what one or nil are, nor point to a one or a nil.

It has no ability to comprehend the relationship between an abstraction (noumenon) and the real (phenomenon), or how a static symbol can adequately represent a fluctuating world.

All it knows is that experts, his replacement priests, use these symbols to produce magic.

How science might be directed through funding, when dealing with the socially touchy subjects, is not to be taken into consideration.

All it knows is that 1+1=2, always...when 1 is taken for granted.

Binary brains exporting their dualism imitating organic processes.

Self-referential logic, based on biological methods, replicating biological organs

None of this registers.

 

Φ

 

 

 

27

 

On the lower end of the Nihilistic spectrum we have the absolutists, the either/or fundamentalists with their binary logic and their dualistic certainties.

On the upper end we have the terminally sceptical, the unable to decide between either/or, preferring the continuous state of undecided procrastination.

The first, being the more infantile, live in a black/white world and they conveniently have decided that the truth, as they define it, is on their side – the universe has them as the central theme.

The second are eternally cynical so as to never take a stand.

Everything has its positives and its negatives and they are reluctant to say what is more on the positive side and what is on the negative side.

The concepts of positive/negative fitting conveniently to the previous group's good/evil, with humanity being the core, the balancing point for the entire cosmos.

 

The first are fanatics, and they quickly fall back to reciting the code, as they have learned it.

They identify with WE.

They are always safe within the collective, the herd, the big SuperOrganic Other, the Divine Self.

They accept responsibility through other.

The second are hypocrites, sometimes on this side, then on the other, never actually saying anything directly, clearly, succinctly, indubitably.

They are always on the side of ME, and being on that side, the easiest side to be on, they switch sides, they change their minds, and they never expose themselves to the possibility of hurt, and ridicule, and shame.

They are always safe inside themselves.

They never accept responsibility for anything.

They are always unseen, able to escape detection, nobody has or can ever know them, unable to hold onto ideals not pertaining to their ego.

They consider themselves open-minded because they never decide, and are continuously open to suggestions, which they then de-construct to dismiss, in the event that things become too threatening.

They find pride in being liked by everyone, simply by agreeing with whatever they say.

This is clever, for them: to trick without detection, by telling the other exactly what he wants to hear.

 

Φ

 

 

 

28

 

The Nihilist exists in a reality that only exists as a hypothetical future world, or some hidden world, or a Utopian world populated by ideal humans and ideal creatures with psychologies and behaviors not of this world.

It is the syndrome of Christianity, and Communism, two of the many offspring Nihilism gave birth to.

The Christian and communist fails, (is a sinner, has not been educated/trained sufficiently yet, is unenlightened, has not received the divine light) but the ideal is perfect, meant for perfect creatures constructing a perfect reality.

 

Philosophy becomes a defense of this perfect Utopia against the evil forces of reality that disrupt its development.

Instead of being the discipline that explores and describes the world as honestly and clearly as possible so that then THEN, a human can chart a course, philosophy has become a infantile exploration of the fantastic, the hypothetical, the "what if" and the hidden underneath this brutality this hated by them, world.

As I noted before, the deal is that you will not disturb the delusions of the other and he will not disturb yours, enabling all to exist in their own personal reality.

THIS is what is called subjectivity and why it is so popular among them. This is why perspectivism is a Holy Grail for them, and why an Objective world, other than the one authorized experts offer them, cleaned of anything that may be not politically-correct, and insulting, is attacked as a fabrication.

Only an authorized expert is to be respected as a proxy between them and reality, not only telling them what they sense but what it means.

And my authorized what is meant is that he has been vetted as offering the right kind of analysis.

Many examples of scientists who have not repeated the shared myths and faced personal consequences are available to all.

No man would risk his career, and his family's well-being by saying anything honest about the holy trinity of Modernity: homosexuality, women, and race.

The first has been taken of the list of psychological dysfunctions where it stood for decades.

In a few decades, transsexuals, perhaps even pedophiles can hope for such generosity.

 

Φ

 

 

 

29

 

The Nihilist says nothing outside the norm.

His ideas are common, simple, politically-correct, and fashionable.

His courage is the product of his simplicity.

He can brag about speaking his mind openly because nothing he says diverts from the common, or contradicts the average.

He is dull.

Nothing is controversial about him.

Even his rebelliousness is a pop-cultural imitation.

He is a caricature, his personality retarded in a state of perpetual adolescence - forever young, naive, impressionable, seeking distractions, happiness, intimacy, a purpose, a way to be impressive to the many: marketable.

His public face is his private face, because he is a simpleton.

He has little depth to him.

The private self-suppressed, and left to atrophy, for so long that it has practically vanished, only expressing itself in subtle ways, in dreams, in sexual fantasies, fetishes, in his insatiable need to brag, to stand apart, to be appreciated.

 

A brainwashed idiot has nothing to fear in a totalitarian regime.

He has never had a thought contrary to the shared paradigm.

A black sheep would accuse a wolf of cowardice because the wolf wears sheepskins hiding its true identity when among the white-wool sheep.

 

Φ

 

 

 

30

 

The dependence of the Nihilist, the Modern, upon the herd, is expressed in his definition of nihilism, as a world lacking, meaning, purpose, universal morality and in his devastating emotional reaction to the discovery that the world is like that.

With no God, no authority, to take away the burden of responsibility the Nihilist desperately seeks for a replacement otherness, a substitute absolute concept – from Judeo-Christian he "progresses" towards secular humanism.

The goal is to avoid the natural selection that would impose a personal cost/risk to his every choice.

Instead of "I think" he can only say "We think" or, ideally, "He thinks and I agree".

 

In nature the individual makes choices, and perceives the world (subjective), and then faces the costs and the potential benefits in relation to a fluctuating world of possibilities (objective), but the Modern Nihilist wishes to have another make the choice, the decision, and then spread the cost and the benefits evenly amongst those under his domination.

A sort of intellectual communism.

It is why when God has been reduced to a childish fantasy the Modern replaces the good/evil dualism this symbol represented with a moral/immoral dichotomy, and then demands that another justify and define both for him, having already taken for granted the absolute good/evil, moral/immoral either/or absolutes.

In science the same concepts are represented by an even more abstract symbolism, a more vague language, mathematics.

Here good/evil, moral/immoral, become 1/0, and the magician, holding the deciphering translating power, is no longer the priest, but the expert.

 

Φ

 

 

 

31

 

The Nihilist has inverted the relationship of symbol (word/number) and world.

This inversion is the central defining characteristic of Nihilism, in all its forms. 

It is an inversion of noumenon relating to phenomenon.

The symbol, the word, having been detached from its reference to the apparent, can be used in whatever manner suits the Nihilists motive: his desire to detach from reality and exist within his mind.

This is a movement away from the objective world, towards the subjective interpretation of world which, now, having been stripped of its original intent of representing a world independent from the interpreting mind, becomes a world in itself.

The word, from symbol referring to an abstraction of world, is converted to the world, or it is debased as no more than a plaything to be used in whatever way the mind desires, since, the individual, is protected from its own errors in judgement, or the severity of the consequences of errors are decreased by the collective, within which the word/symbol acquires a new utility other than symbolizing an abstraction of world.

 

The word (noumenon) no longer determined by world (phenomenon), but the world determined by the word.

As such purely human constructs like morality, meaning, one, God, 1/0 are taken as the starting point, to which the world, the apparent must adhere.   

And because the word comes first its place in the causal chain can be chosen at will, just as one chooses where in a sentence to place a word changing the meaning of what is being expressed.

The magical relationship of Nihilist and the words he uses manifests in the belief that if he repeats a sentence long enough, and if others begin to believe him, that this constitutes the realization of what the sentence is symbolizing, or that if he dismisses a phenomenon using only words, that the phenomenon ceases to apply to him, or ceases to exist.

If he is exposed as a hypocrite he will quickly denounce all words as meaningless, and equally disconnected from the world.

Again, if the absolute one, positive, is not to be attained the Nihilist prefers a uniformity of nil, so as to escape the personal implications.

 

Φ

 

 

 

32

 

For the modern civility is a psychological safety-net; a protection from memetic culling, corresponding to the Nihilistic system which provides protective assurances against genetic culling.

Reassured, the Modern can claim anything he wants, to anyone he wants, just as long as he remains civil and within social conventions, and he can expect, nay demand, to be treated with civility and respect no matter how absurd what he is saying is.

In this way the Modern remains immune to his own mental weaknesses, just as physical weaknesses are defended against the worst case scenario by a system of institutionalized protective measures.

Sheltering propagates unfit genes, constantly reintroducing them into the gene pool, so does civility propagate unfit minds, and ideals, constantly reintroducing them into the meme pool.

This constant reintroduction disrupts progress as the same delusions are dealt with repeatedly, when they re-emerge using different words, symbols, metaphors.

The same ideas are reborn using new words, and demand to be considered over and over again.

Civility permits mass participation, by leveling all down to an average where extremes are excluded but everyone mediocre is ensured an expression.  

As a consequence the mediocre are permitted their pride, mistaking institutionalized protections for their own prowess, and all are permitted the illusion of dominance.

 

Φ

 

 

 

33

 

Dialogue with a Modern involves a set-up where the either/or represent the two binary poles of the Nihilistic paradigm.

The dialogue contained within these fabricated premises never exist the nihilistic boundaries which have already been taken for granted as the premise of the either/or dilemma.

For example, a Christian variant of Nihilism will ask if God is good or evil, or if God, the concept, permits free-will.

The question has already presupposed a Christian God as a fact and the dialogue is limited to what has already been established as a given.

A secular humanist will do the same with the concepts of morality, or the value of life, or social equality, and so on.

In this way the Modern believes he is a free-thinker when he’s never dared, or he’s never imagined exiting the cognitive box that limit his considerations.

Furthermore, to refuse to discuss the issues within the premises he has constructed, with the presuppositions already in place, constitutes evidence, for him, of the adversary’s closed-mindedness, or his inability to match him in his philosophical deliberations.

For instance, given the example used, if an Atheist refuses to indulge the Christian in his exploration of God’s nature, a nonsensical premises to begin with, then the Atheist is accused of fearing God, or of lacking the ability to refute the existence of God.

It is a clever mind-game used by the nihilist without even knowing he is doing so.   

 

Φ

 

 

 

34

 

The Modern infected with the Nihilistic virus is not worth discussing anything with.

Having been sheltered, allowing him to formulate and exist within his own subjective reality, all discussions with him concerning the objectively real become centred on his own subjective, self-referential, world view.

Any contact with such a mind, concerning the world, is an exercise in futility.

There is, for him, no external to all subjective positions, objective world, and so you must enter his subjective reality to get through to him, if at all possible, and/or desirable.

The objectivist has, at least, settled on the starting position that both participants in a debate, in any (inter)action, coexist within a shared world, and then they challenge each other's interpretation of it, trying to decide who has the most lucid, most objective, interpretation of it.

No such agreement is possible with a Nihilist, using subjectivity as his shield.

For such a mind the conflict is not over who understands the objective world the best, but whose subjective world is most desirable: from conflict to seduction.

When he accuses others of declaring themselves gods, or gurus, or forcing their subjectivity upon all, he is exposing his own motive, and openly declaring how he thinks.

With no external to all subjective interpretation standard to evaluate which perspective is more objective, more accurate, more lucid, for him the debate is an "I say so" struggle to impose one's Will upon other, and his resistance to an other's "I say so" is considered evidence of spirit; of independent thinking.

Refusal to accept the other's interpretation of the world as superior to his own is, for him, a declaration of sovereignty from all interpretations of world other than his own.

He is his own standard of evaluating.

No God required, and no Objective world either – solipsism.

It is impossible for him to consider the option that an other's subjective interpretation of the objective world can ever be superior to his own, since the "all is subjective" means, for him, all is equally ignorant, weak, dependent, self-referential etc.

He refuses to acknowledge any standard outside subjectivity, and so all debates are a battle of wills.

He avoids defining the terms he uses, because this would demand the placing of the definition within a shared world – if not a shared objective reality then a shared culture, a shared meme.

Disengaging from such minds, as soon as they are identified, is the only option – one it will, undoubtedly, consider a victory, evaluating the other's frustration as the result of his formidable intellectual prowess, his force of will; flattering himself by mistaking the cause.

Φ

 

35

 

What the Modern refuses to do, on a consistent basis, is to define the words he is using.

He is either incapable of doing so, because the words he uses, referring to noumena, are adopted from another, which he parrots without fully understanding the concepts, or because he intuitively feels that doing so will expose the nature of his own thinking, which is no more than emoting, or connecting abstractions back to abstractions that only have meaning within human minds and no reference outside of them.

In the first case he is entirely dependent upon an external source, an authority to give it guidance concerning what it is seeing, thinking, believing.

In the second case, to define the words, symbolizing the abstractions in his mind, would take away the advantage of evasion.

For him words are to be sued as toys, or as methods of evading detachment; of causing confusion so as to not be seen for what you are; what you are within the world.

He will never anchor his words, his abstractions, to the phenomenal world which he feels insecure towards.

He is most insecure here, and here is where he avoids contact.

He prefers the noetic world of abstraction, and when he says world he means the human world of shared subjectivity – the memetic reality he is accustomed to and feels comfortable within.

He will never define a word by connecting it to phenomena not manufactured by human interventions, or which are not entirely noetic inventions with no meaning outside human brains.

If there is one central theme to Modernity, a defining core to Nihilism expressed in its multifarious forms, it is this detachment of abstractions from the world outside human artifices.

This is what they mean by "subjectivity", and why they refuse to accept an objective standard, if not relating to an external consciousness, a God, or the collective consciousness of what is a collective subjectivity, a Nihilistic meme which excludes the world and includes human artifices.

To define the word, which is the Nihilist's greatest weapon, is to cripple him, and his desire to escape, evade, the world as it is outside his needs.

To connect the word, symbolizing the abstraction (noumenmon), to a phenomenon independent from human interventions, is to disarm him of all his contrivances and lies.

His subjectivity would crumble without these noetic frames.

The world, as it is, would be too much for him to bear, outside the sheltering cave of words and symbols, the linguistic cocoon, the all-inclusive, forgiving, tent of Nihilism.

 

Φ

 

36

 

Because the modern's subjectivity is determined and sustained by the collective subjective, his only source of identification, of self-evaluation, is this collective otherness, we call humanity.

With no objective world to draw inspiration from, his only alternatives are what is most common, what the majority concerns itself with – the lowest-common-denominator.

This is most often sex, in our Modern secular times when God has been abandoned as dead.

Sex and the means to accentuate, increase its potency, and its recurrence.

The more sophisticated Modern Nihilist will filter out the vulgarity of the physical act and reduce the identifier to that of pleasure – hedonism.

Hedonism including all forms of self-gratification, free from all objective standards; pleasure idealized, abstracted into a noetic artifice.

To convince as many as possible of what is true for the subjective mind, is fundamental to reaffirm his "reality".

Quantity to substitute for the absence of substance, of quality.

The fewer reference points to reality the Modern’s opinions have, the more it strives to compensate by convincing as many others as possible of their validity. 

With no objective standard outside all human subjectivity to base his evaluations upon all he is left with is this inter-subjective, interdependent solipsism.

It is why he is always civil, polite, flattering, willing to consider the absurd seriously, able to continuously offer the benefit of the doubt, forever occupying itself with the infantile, always emoting, forever indulging in the trivial, and the mundane.

Caught between a refusal of the objective world that would shatter his delusions and a dependence upon others, towards whom he harbours a secret resentment, his only option is for the one that costs him the smallest degree of anxiety, and threatens his untested ego the least.

Seducing as many other humans to his cause, or being included within theirs, is of the utmost importance to the Modern.

Words being grooming externalized, tools of seduction, makes words his artistic focus.

Manipulating words, to create the right effect in other, is the greatest source of pride, for him.

Words that calm, that offer hope, that cultivate positive feelings towards him, as the source of these word; words that comfort, include, trigger emotional responses, are the filaments of his spider's web; the fibres of his comfortable quilt.

 

Φ

 

 

 

37

 

The Modern is most proud of his self-referential logic, failing to understand how its law of non-contradiction is a reference to its internal consistency, once the starting proposition has been established as an absolute given.

For example 1+1=2 is “logical” in that it follows from the presumption of 1/0 binary code, and the law of non-contradiction is a reference to the conclusion being consistent with this presumed starting premise.

The mathematical formula is logical in that it remains true to its presumptions.

This is where the modern surrenders to symbolisms, replacing mythologies with metaphors, and representations.

The numerical value of one is only a symbol of a human abstraction that has no reference outside the human brain, yet for the Modern this abstraction of all abstractions, is taken literally, rather than figuratively.

All modern thinking is contained within this binary 1/0 logic, which is but a continuance of the dualistic good/evil moral code.

The artistic nature of language is lost on the Modern.

That the word, like the number, are but references to noetic models, representing a simplification/generalization of a fluctuating (inter)active world, can never be understood by such an inartistic mind.

The quality of Modern art reflecting this loss of artistic depth.

Immersing himself into the symbolic, he is literally engulfed by its Nihilistic premises, because both one and nil are expressions of an end of existence, when existence is understood as dynamic (inter)activity.

These are the binary boundaries, of the Nihilistic paradigm.

The modern surrenders to them, because he is witless, spared the stress to cultivate his mind, or perish because he is unable to do so, and because they offer an easy certainty of good/bad, negative/positive, noetic artifices.

 

Φ

 

 

 

38

 

For the Modern the positive is an “ought”, a “thou shall”… a commandment, a mission given from above, given from without.

So, where there is only fluidity, he seeks singularities; where there is only diversity, he seeks sameness; where there is indifference, he seeks a will with a motive; where there is fluctuations he seeks the negative/positive.

In its absence of meaning, purpose, wholeness, morality… goodness, as he calls these human projections, he strives towards them in the unknown.

He manufactures them and then places them as noetic direction finders, guaranteeing his eventual attainment of all he desires and is lacking in the world.

And because these constructs are entirely human he is destined to fail, over and over again, only to blame others and not himself and his delusions.

 

Φ

 

 

 

39

 

The loss of God is a seminal point in a Modern’s psyche.

As traumatic as the loss of a parent is to a child, before it has had time to mature.

Maintained in a constant state of adolescence the Modern experiences the “death of god” as a traumatic event in his awakening to reality, if he ever reaches that stage of psychological development at all.

The natural progression from Judeo-Christianity towards secular humanism is a progression from God, as the mitigating will between Modern man and reality, the chaotic, uncertain, world of (inter)activity, towards the adolescent stage of clueless rebelliousness, cynicism, experimentation, careless abandonment, rejection of all external sources of determining power, which would include nature, as the sum of all nurturing, the endless search for identity, which settles on the convenient fashionable identity as self-creation.

Without a Creator God, the modern makes of himself his own Creator.

 

The loss of Divine protection, of man’s previous universal importance, is compensated for in different ways.

The magical power of words, once used in prayer to influence the chaotic unknown, is replaced with the magical power of numbers.

In both cases the utility remains that of mystical intervention upon reality.

Words/Symbols used not as tools but as incantations, offering an entry into the secret world of universal consciousness.

God is replaced by the concept Universe, and given no less a willful existence – numbers become insights into this God’s mind.

Numerical chants.

The loss of God also represents the loss of the go-between man and natural injustices; between man and the “cruel” indifference of reality.

To compensate, the Modern makes all injustice a product of social factors.

Despite the absence of a God the Modern insists on retaining a direct influence over himself, and the immutable, determining past.

For the Modern all unfair natural divergences are no more than by-products of society.

This is why rejection of the past/nature is the necessary path towards his salvation.

He retains the ability to correct these injustices, and return all to its uniform state, which is presupposed as the natural human condition.

Naturally occurring “injustice”, divergence, is correctable when it is reduced to a consequence of society, or human meddling.

Man has fallen into sin, as it were, and must find his way back to the divine path towards godliness – this is enlightenment for the Modern: the continuing eradication of all disparity, suffering, injustice, unfairness, which he himself created, presumably.

Everything from race to sex are placed upon the injustices of human social conventions, and in a remarkable ironic twist, the Modern imposes a social negation of what he has presupposed as being social constructs.

He regains self-control, the ability to intervene upon nature by making it all a social construct, which he can then correct, heal.   

The social activist is a kind of holy man – a monk.

His mission is to return humanity back to its original sacred place: a state of uniform parity where divergence is but a dream, an illusion, and all is One = the Divine mind, in the Judeo-Christian paradigm.

The image of a Modern’s Utopia is no different than the image of a Christian Paradise.

 

Humanity becomes a stand-in for God.

Uniformity is the same as saying absolute order – the leveling of possibilities to a singular absolutely certain probability.

Loss of God’s order is replaced by a human one, where all humans find their place within this Divine concept of “humanity”.

 Everything that stands in the way of this absolute harmony is the evil Satanic.

 

Φ

 

 

 

40

 

The relationship the modern mind has to language is the decisive factor of his subsequent Nihilism; his disconnect from reality, the world, and his alienation from himself, his past, his nature is only possible through his application of language.

For the Modern language is not a reference to reality, it is not a tool, an artistic form representing the world.

For the Modern language is simply a way of connecting to another Modern – a subjective to subjective merging to construct a shared Subjective within which both can find comfort.

This is why quantities of subjectivities are a form of strengthening of the shared Subjective, the inter-subjective, or communal memetic, "real".

All inclusion, governed by the rules of reciprocity (Golden Rule = you do not disturb my delusion and I shall do the same for you), is the herd psychology finding shelter, in the multiplicity which can then exclude the world.

 

Connecting the noumenon to the phenomenon has been replaced with the need to connect the noumenon with another noumenon.

Representing the world is transformed into representing, presenting, self to otherness.

The art of depiction, representation, is transformed into seducing, selling self, impressing.

Engaging, connecting, to the world using the medium of metaphor, words, art, is transformed into an obsession with connecting self with other.

 

Φ

Share this post


Link to post
Δημοσίευση σε άλλες σελίδες
Guest Satyr

41

 

Social conventions, civility, morality, education, are all meant to preserve the sense of parity.

The confusion between knowing and understanding, and the easy access to data, and to narratives explaining their meaning, maintains the illusion of uniform potentials.

The Modern parrots information, most of the time unable to explain them, or offering a learned explanation, and believes he is part of a uniform humanity, having achieved the potential of an idealized, theoretical, human.

A shared knowledge base, interpreted by the experts who step in to conveniently translate any data which may prove socially disruptive, in socially acceptable ways, by covering up the essence of nature and diversity, also demands a common pool of acceptable ambitions.

The utility of the data is funnelled through socially acceptable applications.

What is not marketable to the masses is useless.

 

Civility and conventional modes of behaving is also meant to preserve the illusion of parity by restricting application of understanding to within what is called acceptable limits.

A shared behavioural standard harmonizes the superior with the inferior, since behaviour can be imitated, just as data can be regurgitated.

Training animals to behave human-like is no different than training/educating a Modern to limit his actions, his thinking his language use, his ambitions to within parameters that will include all as potential trainees.

Behavioural standards do more than inhibit the exposure of weakens to its own inferiority, it preserves and cultivates the illusion of genetic parity.

One is expected to treat the other with dignity, respect, no matter how absurd he might be.

One is also expected to contain his thinking, acting to within limits that will not hurt, insult, make someone else uncomfortable.

The weaker one begins to believe that this respect is due to his own qualities, and not because of this imposition of behavioural limits, which also include political-correctness.

In time the weaker ones demand to be taken seriously, to be heard, to be respected, and treated with dignity, believing he deserves this – the sense of entitlement. 

Having never experienced the viciousness of being exposed as a fool, as a weakling, as psychologically stunted, the Modern is captivated by arrogance founded on social conventions.

 

Φ

 

 

 

42

 

Emotion is how a Modern gauges his effect, his utility, his value within the community of like-minded - the herd.

Emotion is what he manipulates and tries to trigger, with every word he uses - words evoking imagery, or feelings, emotions that have not yet been rationalized.

 

Emotion is what he builds upon, and always returns to when faced with conflict, or an objective world indifferent to his emotions.

Emotion is his greatest tool, his biggest weapon, and his greatest vulnerability.

Every resistance to his emoting is judged on emotional grounds, explored for emotional weakness to exploit.

Emotional effect is how he determines his own successes and failures.

 

Emotion is where the noetic refers back to, as if it were some phenomenon out there, independent from human brains.

Emotion is how he is made malleable, and how he remains a manimal.

 

Emotion stimulated by sensations; sensational, impressive, primal triggering mechanisms.

His arguments are always emotive, just as his motives.

He declares himself complex, enlightened, yet he can be summed up when the directing emotion is discovered.

 

Φ

 

 

 

43

 

When a particularly obtuse type of nihilist speaks of reality, of pragmatism, he means emotional.

His every concept must be connected to an emotional circumstance, brought down to an emotive level.

He is unable to understand what God, morality, human means, without an emotional connection.

He must mystify the words, so as to connect them to his emotions. 

He uses the terms "moral/immoral" as universal good/bad concepts, referring back to God/Satan dualism.

He demands a universal application for a human construct, after having dismissed the survival function which depends on the objective, and has no meaning without an objective.

He assumes that an act is, in and of itself, good or evil, without any reference to anything earthly, like a motive, or a goal.

The reference would reduce the concepts to a reality from where these abstractions remain detached.

The only acceptable connection being back to the mind, and to emotion.

Without a God how else can he find a Universal application for good/bad, the polar ends of his stunted mind.

He is obsessed with the concepts.

They are simple, clear, and literal, in his infantile mind.

The concepts of good/bad are pure noetic constructs, abstractions of the highest degree – able to be applied mathematically, like one applies one and nil.

All actions are intrinsically good or evil, in his Christian brain.

No objective required… sort of like God. 

 

Intellectual discourse with him is an acceptance of his nonsensical premises, of either/or absolutes, which is a concession to begin with, and then endless rambling over a ridiculous presupposition.

It would be like debating a child as to whether Santa Claus can deliver presents to every boy and girl on Christmas, or how Santa determines which boy and girl has been good and which bad in the course of the preceding year.

Refusal to engage him on that level is taken as a victory, evidence of his formidable mind.

He is avoided like the intellectual plague that he is by everyone, including other Moderns.

 

Φ

 

44

 

For the typical Modern nihilist, human nature is incomprehensible.

It is why he refuses to accept its existence, as a behavioural pattern.

He not only uses this rejection as a way of avoiding being seen as what he is, but he also uses it to explain why he is obtuse when it comes to other people, and why they surprise and baffle him on a consistent basis.

If there is no other purpose to promote universal behavioural standards then this single one would be enough for the Modern:

With a universal social behavioural norm his obtuseness need not concern itself with the inexplicable.

He expects a particular behaviour, calling it civility, goodness, healthy, normal, and what exceeds this expectation is considered ill.

In the past it was called demonic, or evil.

 

Φ

 

 

 

45

 

There are two, general, types of Modern:

 

1-      The one so simpleminded that he becomes ensconced within linguistic abstractions.

Literally understanding the words being used, and unable to think outside the dualistic premises inherent in human linguistics, as a reflection of human thinking.

The words, symbols, metaphors, acquired a literal substance, which immediately results in paradoxes, when this simple mind is forced to come into contact with the real world.

 

2-      The other is the one whom, after detaching the word, referring to the abstraction, from the real world (noumenon detached from phenomenon), returns it back, but this time within human environments.

The noumenon detached, and instead of reattaching it to the phenomenon, the Modern reattaches it to the shared Subjectivity, which is the Meme.

A noumenon reconnected to a shared noumenon, or an abstraction attached to a shared, communal, abstraction.

If this shared abstraction has no reference outside their shared minds, then it indicated a shared solipsism, the Nihilistic meme.

In this case the modern is certain that it is dealing with the real world, when it has simply replaced its own subjectivity with a shared subjectivity.

 

Φ

 

 

 

46

 

The Modern is so entrapped in linguistics; so mesmerized by abstractions, and their magical efficacy, that when he speaks of a famous figure, such as Nietzsche, he cannot connect him to a past, in Heraclitus, and he certainly cannot go further and connect both Nietzsche and Heraclitus to reality; when he thinks of Rand he cannot connect her to Aristotle, or further back to Parmenides and his monism.

These minds are his only reference point.

Noumenon referring to noumenon, with no exploration of phenomenon; abstracting abstraction with no engagement of world as that which is outside human abstractions. 

 

The Modern’s shallowness is proportional to his reference points.

He chooses to tackle a figure he believes is on his intellectual level, but dares not engage the one who stands behind him, and he most certainly never considers the world directly, for he lacks both the courage and the talent to find any patterns in it, on his own, and he certainly has no courage to come to personal conclusions of his own.

He is entrapped in inter-Subjectivity. 

Consider the intimate reference point of the typical Hedonist.

He cannot even go further than his own mind/body, and the sensations they produce, to engage the world outside of their distracting force.

His skin and skull represent the limit of his comprehension.

The others, the more typical ones, choose to enter the skin and skull of another, preferably a sufficiently infamous figure to cause intimidation in anyone who questions their understanding, or thinks of challenging their understanding.  

 

Φ

 

 

47

 

Another delusion being taken as self-evident amongst Moderns is this idea that nothing general can be said about humans, as there is no human nature, and so a special branch of philosophy has to be invented for every individual, otherwise it is all nonsense.

No category applies to the Modern, according to him. 

So desperate the Modern is to not be seen, to not be judged, by a hypothetical more aware mind, that he must deny all human commonality if it is not based on the immediate, the social, and the meme.

This is why the concept “human” has become a mystical concept – pure abstraction.

Genes are simply irrelevant.

They determine nothing, making each individual a self-referential, unit, of unique complexity, which nobody can ever decipher.

 

The idea is comforting, and useful as an escape tool, an excuse, to such a degree that it has become a staple in Nihilistic delusions. 

To truly understand the individual, according to Moderns, you must ask them, and they will declare what they are and what they think and why they think it.

It is the "I am what I say I am", and without an absolute authority, there is nobody that can disprove it – a "prove a negative" taunt.

It is why they project words into the other's mouth, to lower the other down to their level.

Philosophy, psychology, become non-applicable to them, though they often use it for their own evaluations, and for display. 

They have imagined themselves outside the species, outside behaviour, and have become pure noumenon: each individual an idea(l), defining itself – the essence of Modern pseudo-individuality, and democracy.

"I am what I say I am" and nobody can tell me otherwise.

 

This is what lies at the very heart of the noumenon/phenomenon detachment: the ideal/real divide – the word/world detachment.

It is why they brag, so easily, they declare, and then say no more, they deny, and offer no reasons, they display, using words, always using words to manipulate, as if success using words changes the real about them.

They do not realize that their actions betray them, making their words sound hollow, and making them look ridiculous.

They do not realize that the data they are producing is not limited to what is coming from their mouth, and that, in fact, the words they use are the least relevant when judging them.

They do not realize that it is precisely this denial which makes them all the more transparent.

But even here, in the usage of word, the method, the quality, the structure of syntax; the meanings trying to be proposed, all participate in how the other evaluates them.

Not only what they say but every single detail of activity is part of how they reveal who they truly are. 

Not so complex and mysterious, after all.

Most of it happens on an intuitive level, and why women are masters at it.  

 

Φ

 

 

48

 

The timeless words of a real philosopher...

“Thus a man who thinks for himself only subsequently becomes acquainted with the authorities for his opinions when they serve merely to confirm him therein and to encourage him.

The book-philosopher, on the other hand, starts from those authorities in that he constructs for himself an entire system from the opinions of others which he has collected in the course of his reading.” –Schopenhauer, Arthur

 

Modern schools are full of philosophy students but few philosophers.

The subject of philosophy is the world, but for them the subject of philosophy is philosophy itself.

When they speak of "serious" and/or "stringent" philosophy they mean to remain disciplined to the concepts and jargon of another mind, which they have learned to quote verbatim, even using the terms in the same way the master uses them.

They may not understand the concepts, but they can repeat them precisely.

Evidence of their parroting, and non-understanding is found in their inability to express the same concepts using their own words, or in relation to an others positions, because true understanding of a concept is disciple in the ability to say the same thing using different words, different metaphors, symbols, and similes; the ability to express the same concept using your own words.

Because the world is the subject being explored and words are tools to refer to it.

 

The Modern being simple and dumb, but pretentious and arrogant enough to not be disciplined by the risk of being exposed, can only regurgitate the concept in the exact same way he learned it – because it was not his own, and it still remains alien to him.

The mentor, the teacher, is the proxy which he defers and refers to, stringently remaining true to the words as they were taught to him.

He cannot divert from the text, because he has not made the concept his own. He repeats it, to press, to intimidate, to pretend, knowing that few will challenge him on it, and fewer will have the patience to go through the source material and find out how much of a hypocrite he truly is.

 

“Those who have spent their lives reading and have drawn their wisdom from books resemble men who have acquired precise information about a country from many descriptions of travel. They are able to give much information about things, but at bottom they have really no coherent, clear, and thorough knowledge of the nature of the country.” –Schopenhauer, Arthur

 

The Modern is like a tourist in his own world.

 

Φ

 

49

 

Inversion of Nihilism: over-complicating the simple, and over-simplifying the complex.

When Nihilism morphed from its religious form to its Modern, secular, form, as any virus would, it retained many of its past structures, metaphors, methods, altering them only symbolically, changing the words they are expressed through.

 

For instance, when Marxism took over from Judeo-Christianity, it maintained the holy mysticism, the monistic hierarchy, and the propaganda, the linguistic imagery for passing on its message to the masses it infected.

Convoluting the simplicity of what is being proposed, with jargon, referring and deferring, to the point where if the participants lack the knowledge they can be dismissed as not worth listening to, the usage of flesh and blood idols, as if they had been sanctified by some god, turned into political saints whose mere naming would suffice to imply a point the speaker cannot clarify himself, obfuscation, avoiding clarification, trying to make what is being proposed appear so complex only the chosen, indoctrinated, and trained in the scripture, and part of the holy family tree, can dare to intrude upon.

The concepts are not complex, but trying to keep track of the noetic-strings connecting one definition, with another, a response to it; who said what about who, and what another responded, is the "complexity".

At its base this type of "philosophy" is gossip, remaining completely abstract, never connecting the noumena it is linking together into a webbing, to the real, not because it can and refuses to, but because it cannot, being involved in pure noetic discourse, pure Nihilistic word-games, with no reference to the world outside human contrivances.

 

If you listen to Communists speak it would seem like they were speaking about something profound, deep, intricate, when it has no more intricacy than Christian rituals, and chants.

Keeping track of the saintly interpretation of the shared Idea(l), it being nihilistic, is the only thing complex here.

You would have to study for a long period to grasp what each idol represented within the internet of Nihilism, and how each one participated within the noetic solar-system with the bright sun, in the middle, being the Nil, the life-negating energy of eros/thymos – the passion of construction/destruction.

The web of connections are exclusively noetic, never approaching the phenomenon directly.

An inter-subjective matrix of nouemna, words, definitions, redirecting back to other noumena, other abstractions, some stronger, hubs, from which more connections emerge, attaching to a nexus; the world itself skirted around, knitting a cover to enclose it and never touch it.

The inter-subjective cocoon is a shell hovering around the real, avoiding contact with it, because if it would come into contact with it the Nihilistic shell would shatter, like an empty rotting egg of idea(l)s with no substance, no appearance outside the human SuperOrganic world.

 

Φ

 

 

50

 

The idea that one can escape need/suffering, the very experience of existence, is a presumptuous modern one.

Whether you deny need/suffering, or make excuses for it means nothing to the price that must be paid for existing.

You may numb yourself, you may postpone the inevitable, thusly multiplying the cost you must pay, and you may laugh it off as illusion... but you can never escape it.

The payment may be in one lump sum, including all the suffering that has been avoided up to that point, or it may be paid in small tolerable increments, but it will be paid, one way or another.

In fact, those facing devastating proposal situations can be certain that it is because they've postponed the need/suffering, wither by delusion or by sheltering, offering by a benevolent external force, which will only accentuate the severity of the experience of the first contact with reality.

We can include within this group those who never take responsibility for anything that has ever happened to them, choosing to unburden themselves by placing the cause of need/suffering upon some external other.

With no regrets, and no accountability they will undoubtedly repeat the steps that resulting in their first "negative" experience, only now time would have made it even more severe upon their depleting energies.

With no understanding of world, as it is, they will suffer the results, and then pass it on to their offspring, as an unpaid legacy, which may prove to be lethal with time's multiplying factor.

 

Φ

 

 

51

 

Belief in universal order is a way of sneaking in, through the back, door, and the concept of God – God now given another one of his many names – his multiple names representing the multifariousness of Nihilism free from phenomenal restraints to fantasize the desired in any way possible.

To say that underlying all (inter)actions is a secret order, is like saying that underlying all circumstances, all events, is a purpose, a divine will.

The backdoor avenue also comes with its own scripture – the will of God given a new scientific form, a rational symbolism, but taken as the word of God, rather than man representing that which is fluctuating.

Search for the Divine word of god, has acquired a pseudo-scientific method.

Order, like God, is presupposed, and the word of God, how he reveals Himself to his flock, has taken on a mathematical/geometric mantle.

It is not enough to say all is (inter)acting, and that some (inter)actions are simply void of all possibility of ordering, because that would be threatening to an organism so dependent on ordering.

In the nihilistic dichotomy both ends of the paradigm must be dominated by an absolute, a singularity, reflecting the duality of the nihilistic goal – either in cold or in heat, either in the one or in the nil, shall the end be found; because an end is the ultimate goal of all nihilistic minds, though they may call it Utopia, or dress it up in some other "positive" garb.

What is most terrifying to the Nihilist is not Satan, the evil, the absolute nil, because even here some salvation is expected, and no matter how it is imagined it is always rational, comprehensible, and logical in some way.

What terrifies the Nihilist is the irrational, the incomprehensible, what evades all categories, lacks all pattern to intuit, to abstract it, and then make it "comprehensible”: by giving it a symbol, a word.

Every disaster, illness, devastation, can be endured by such self-hating minds, if it promises some purpose, a meaning, some underlying rationale to make his need/suffering something bearable, to convert everything he is to endure into something he can understand.

Chaos must be reduced to complexity, because the randomness it truly implies is something the modern cannot wrap himself around to a degree where he can tolerate its indifferent brutality.

Order, when it is not found, is postponed, projected as an immanence, a secret hidden awaiting discovery.

Calling chaos a higher degree of order, a more subtle ordering, is how he can deal with its incomprehensibility – the term complexity including hope, progress towards, in its name alone.

The horror of peering into the void has found a jewification to make it something to be endured, then it goes through the baptismal rites of Christian cosmopolitanism: the priestly hierarchy.

Not ordering, in fact, but endless re-ordering of the already ordered.

A shuffling of symmetries – sometimes diminishing and then rising again, as if guided by divine Will.

The implication is that all is salvageable, all has value when it hides some degree of order.

All can be rehabilitated, corrected, resolved – resentiment finds relief in the unknown, the unknowable, which for it has become knowable, comprehensible, potentially understood (faith).

God and man shall one day meet in Paradise.

Has not even Nietzsche been translated into Messianic, Hebrew, terms?

Has he not been made into a false prophet, and placed alongside Jesus, along with Socrates; a harbinger of transhumanism?

Have we not replaced a corporeal messiah with a mechanical one?

As extension of man, techniques/technologies, and the externalization of human processes, as machines, have reinvented Biblical narrative.

Not through the Bible but through science-fiction shall we find freedom from ourselves; an escape from the experience of existing.

The few will one day discover the secret in the word of God, the cosmic text, the meaning in the shapes and symbols.

Hidden order will be revealed.

Then they, like good Christian Priests, will offer it to the dumb masses, as sacramental bread, and wine, of the body and blood of the Christ.

The secret will be absorbed into the collective mind/body, and eternal life, free of need/suffering will one day grace mankind.

Now that even Satan, the chaotic, the incomprehensibly random, the one who convinces man of its absence, has been incorporated into the divine, as another element of the sacred, what can stop man from saving himself from himself?

All he must do is remain faithful, vigilant, and open to suggestions; to the meanings included in the symbols the cosmic offers him.

A reflection of his own mental projections, some kynical dark one might say, but who will listen to "negativity"?

Share this post


Link to post
Δημοσίευση σε άλλες σελίδες
Guest Satyr

Nihilism – Proper

Negating the Real

 

Φ

 

Honest nihilism dispenses with the pretences and surrenders to the void.

There are no attempts to hide this death-wish, by redefining death as a “new beginning.” 

Its self-hatred, and its resentment of all that made it possible, are presented openly and honestly.

 

Φ

 

Very few have the courage to expose themselves as pure Nihilists.

If they are to degrade themselves publicly they want all to follow their example.

Most of them sense the secret Nihilism beneath all these “positive”, pretentious ones, full of good tidings and joyous words; those who have put a smiley face on their existential frown, wearing a brave face, as the example of Modern happiness and health.

Most of these authentic, honest, Nihilists cannot bring themselves to lie, to themselves, most of the time because they are terrible liars.

Their dissatisfaction, and rejection with what is, and has been determined, expresses itself in explicit destructiveness.

If they cannot lie and be happy, in this world, then nobody should be allowed to do so.

Their self-honesty becomes cynicism towards any expression of acceptance of world, and satisfaction with self.

They suspect exaggeration and overestimation/underestimation.  

They always assume it is based on self-deception, wanting to deceive all, so as to make them culpable.

You can always spot a self-deceiving coward. He’s the one who uses words he has no understanding of, and always laughs at himself through others.   

 

Φ

 

Destroying the world would not suffice if it remains intact for another.

The authentic nihilist wants to make reality unlivable for all.

He does not want to remember his own inability to cope. 

 

Φ

 

The expectation that existence would come ready-made for human acceptance produces this sense of disappointment and alienation, tracing back to child-like demands from parental care. 

When an individual is stunted at birth, it never grows out of this preliminary phase in the maturation process.

Its sense of entitlement is transferred from the parents, against whom his ire and resentment was at first directed, to the world.

Existence, for such a spoiled mind, becomes an endless disappointment, and a predictably consistent dissatisfaction with what fails to provide for it what it cannot provide for itself.

But its sense of helplessness and dependence would fail to turn into an idealistic gratification if it did not sell itself as a universal failing which all must surrender to.

The pure nihilist cannot tolerate the possibility that it isn’t the world which is in error, but that it is he, as part of it, which mistakenly demanded, from it, what was never in evidence.

Displeasure with one’s own self, projects an antipathy towards what never was anything more than a figment in the imagination of a needy infantile brain, always demanding from otherness what it could never construct on its own.

The numbing methods of the hypocritical, “positive,” nihilist do not suffice to deal with that rage towards, self, redirected through parent, and then existence.

Rage becomes the only construct, the only creative act of self it can use to fill in the void.

Love’s surrender to otherness, its immersion in the idea and identity of togetherness, is replaced by the singularity of hatred, pushing away in an act of self-maintaining creativity.          

 

Φ

 

Expressing thymotic energies, in conflict with erotic ones, nihilism proper, is the ultimate self-negation; anger avenging itself upon world.

 

 ΦΦΦ 

Share this post


Link to post
Δημοσίευση σε άλλες σελίδες
Guest Satyr

Nil-Nihilism

Reaffirming Existence

 

Φ

 

Nullifying the absent, the nil, is a reaffirmation of the present, the real.

 

Φ

 

The absence of meaning and purpose and universal morals is far from a “negative”.

It is the very essence of positivity.

It permits man to create, and to Will, and to Become, in accordance to his own and for his own.

 

Φ

 

To reaffirm life, one begins by reaffirming self. 

Self, the emergent unity, is the result of existence, of all that preceded it.

This reaffirmation is an act of love.

 

Φ

 

Change is inevitable; order is the exception, it is exceptional.

Life is a ceaseless ordering; a resistance to increasing disordering. 

To hasten change hides a secret desire to be done with order.

A mind that loves itself and life, as the experience of this resistance to disorder, considers pain/suffering as being an unavoidable part of this experience.

It does not enjoy it, nor does it surrender to it… it accepts it as the sensation of its own ordering.   

 

Φ

 

The absence of an absolute does not cause distress in a mind that has come to love life, and that has accepted the necessity of the world, as it is, so as to produce this life.

The absence is an opportunity… the requirement for creation to continue.

 

Φ

 

Specialization in nature indicates a higher risk.
The organism specializes in a world of environmental change, where a sudden shift would prevent the organism from being able to adapt quickly enough to avoid extinction.
In artificial, human environments, this specialization attaches the individual to the group–it is the herd psychology reaching its epitome of dependence.
The individual in modern artificial environments, that reject nature (
nihilistic), identifies itself via its attachments to the group, it identifies with its work, its social niche, its specialized role.
All other specializations (
sexual roles) or identifications (race, culture, etc.) are rejected, to facilitate integration and re-identification – a baptismal rite of entrance into co-dependencies.
The "last man" would be man no longer.

He is now Supra-Man, in that his identity is connected with the group, the SuperOrganism.
Having lost his talent for self-preservation he now dedicates his mental and physical energies–his Will, towards communal necessities, social work, common goods and services–the communal man, the Judeo-Christian, secular humanist, man, is born.
Overman is going beyond this. The SuperOrganism becomes the new environment within which the overman remains distinct... not identifying with his servitude his social role, but using it to gain leisure, to work on himself, to advance beyond.

He becomes parasitical, in regards to the human, in the same way a wolf preys on a herd of elk.
Life being parasitical in that it feeds on itself.
Consciousness, advancing through self-consciousness, has arrived at a state of self-destruction.
Its genetic path is closed. It must find or create a new one... a mimetic one.

The overman splinters off the human herd, as another-than, based on ideals, or mimetic codes, not on genetics.

Its self-awareness has attained a new level of identification.

Shame, guilt, in regards to this independence form the sexual identity of "human" no longer touches him.

He is over these religious crutches.

His identity does not deny the past, his sex, his race, his heritage, but accepts it and goes further... it discriminates where it is made to feel embarrassed for doing so.

Such a man no longer hates his adversary.

He no longer despises the Christian the Jew, because he no longer exists on the same level of consciousness.

They are necessary element sin an environment within which he distinguishes self, as part of but distinct from others.

He is no longer homophobic, misogynistic, anti-Semitic, because he no longer identifies with the category these are sub-categories of.

Their plight is not his plight… their stupidity is their own burden.   

 

Φ

 

The Hellenic man can be imagined using Evola's imagery.

A forward looking surfer of existential turmoil (Flux), not forgetting but cognizant of the forces (Nature, represented as divine) driving him onward (Entropy – increasing Chaos), without his consent, steering himself upon the waves (Will), by balancing himself upon the only thing keeping him afloat: his ascent above the animal, his mind made solid by constant reaffirmation, and ascetic zeal, his reason.

No shore in sight.

The gaze dances from one wave to the next, adjusting balance to meet the next tide; joy in the experience, accepting its final inevitable conclusion as necessary.

Above him, the noumenon, the Idea(l).

Beneath him the infinite abyss of the material, energy, ceaseless (action), the phenomenon, the Real.

The wave rises and rises, reaching its implosive apex, in some future point in space/time, and he, with excitement, rises with it, enjoying the view.

 

He glides upon the real, within the idea(l), reaming in between (masculine/feminine) and neither.

He does not believe in a beginning, nor does he care.

The past is what informs him, guides his balance – the god's whisper into his consciousness their own experiences.

 

Φ

 

I refute, and refuse, all those who preach forgetfulness.

If I wish to honestly know myself, memory is my only instrument.

Memory tested and compared to clarify it.

I will not forget.

My memory is both my identity, and my retribution.

My memory makes of my compassion a gift, from a predictable obligation.

Memory is my discriminating genius.

I will not cross the river Lethe before death… my place is with the living, and here memory is sublime.

 

Φ

 

The linguistic medium utilizes binary thinking, constructing dualities, each presupposes it’s opposite, and both contradicting the perceived, the real, what has come before.

This act is an act of nihilistic rejection.

Whether the “better” is sought back in time, or expected as some coming future, what binds them together is their literal understanding of the tool of language, of the words, to project hope as an antidote to anxiety/fear.

 

With pagan peoples the past was always falling away, distancing the mind from its conception of perfection, from its idea(l), forcing the mind to look forward not in expectation but to find the elements to rebuild this lost past.

For such a psyche the past came to it in the form of allegories, deities, informing it, reminding it, applying force it had to endure, come to terms with, bribe, find an alliance with its mysteriousness.

With moderns the past is a vacation, a walk in the park, a documentary on the screen. He denies past, as if he could so easily escape it, directing its shallow gaze forwards to something coming which must be better than the present because anything would be better than what it experiences around itself.

The word acquires the magical properties of hope.

If you can think of it, conceive it in some ambiguous form, and symbolize it so as to share it and gain support, then it is possible…it has gained potential.

The distant Deity becomes the “word,” with the same mystical, mysterious properties. It has the power of creation, it remains mysterious in its inaccessibility, in its resistance to definitions, in its unreality, and, it offers salvation from the given.       

 

Φ

 

It is precisely because there is no transcendental meaning, no one thing and/or purpose, no universal morality that makes existence a positive, rather than a negative state.

That modern man has been convinced, with relative ease, that the opposite is the case, is owed to the fact of his decline, and the characters that emerge in times of decline.

 

Φ

 

 

 

ΦΦΦ

ΦΦΦ

Share this post


Link to post
Δημοσίευση σε άλλες σελίδες
Guest Satyr

 

Like all men born into this world, each in his own age, we are cast upon a field of battle, some to willfully fight, some to be forced into something they want to avoid and to deny, and some totally oblivious as to the struggle they experience daily.

 

 

Words delivered with machinegun succession, punching holes in the other’s pride, reputations bleeding-out, spilling relevance into the sewers of data deluges; verbal explosions destroying all in their symbolic radius, names hemorrhaging on these new battlefields of the coldest war, a frozen one… a metaphorical one.

Everything is transferred, moved, transposed from one abstraction to another – nothing is, as it seems, nothing means what it says, a pall of vague uncertainty settles over the frontlines: hot-air chemical warfare, choking throats silent; the only conviction that nobody is ever convinced – take no prisoners.

Verbal sniper attacks, character assassinating the leadership, when their words are making an impact, rallying a force for a final push; then, left to ramble on, talking to themselves, or to a select few; a discriminating clique, in a world of “free-speech”, because there is no more danger in emblematic expressions – nobody takes notice when the numbers are not there.

It’s all relative… to numbers.

Propaganda-bombs obliterating entire groups with fiery rhetoric – minds taken hostage, never to be exchanged: no mercy for the enemy, no respect; women and children go first, taken as bounty, and the men left to a slow death on the battlefields of pecuniary tokens, if they cannot be reduced to the level of a woman and/or a child.

Another (re)generation lost, but not dead.

They shuffle on, appearing substantial, but missing internal consistency: empty husks of amalgamated organs lacking order, lacking a shared purpose – loss of meaning is the collateral effect.

The only resources of any value are human organs: humanity is conquered and/or remade into a new construct, stripping it, separating parts, harvesting organs, and then selectively splicing them piece-by-piece, first, past/nature is amputated, burning away its immutable determinism.   

This is the war happening all around us, but goes, mostly, unnoticed by the common mind, anaesthetized to its verbal violence, its insidious linguistics; blind to its destructive continuance, its numbing compassion; deaf to the cries of its casualties, offered another relieving medicating word, to numb the pain and make brain-death tolerable.     

 

 

In the west nihilism is more than a method of enforcing internal cohesion; it has become an obvious assault upon the very roots of Indo-European man, and his Aryan Pagan ancestry.

This is, now, a war of extermination, and the preferred weaponry is memetic symbolizations (words), and a nature (past) which is then denied significance.

 

 

Realists have an objective world as their standard.

Their object/objective is to perceive it as clearly as possible, accounting for subjective corruptions.

Modern nihilists, have no standard to discipline their imaginations.

Their object/objective is to preserve their "right" to think whatever they like.

If they have a shared foundation it is emotion. Their object/objective is to nurture the positive emotions and repress, until they hopefully atrophy, the negative ones.

To the Modern nihilists the Realists seem harsh, and cult-like, in their monomaniacal convergence upon the world as the only standard for determining value; to the Realists the modern nihilists seems flaky, child-like, stunted, in their obsession with emotional criteria and their desire to remain within whatever world they choose to consider best.

It is to be expected that the Realists would agree on the fundamentals concerning a world which does not change so fast as to cease manifesting itself in patterns, and only disagree on what must be done about it, how, or if something must be done at all. 

It is to be expected, as well, that the Modern nihilists living in his own world, would agree to disagree, consider all philosophical debate a game, of little importance, outside ego, and with little relevance because all is a matter of perspective; in this seeming multiplicity of world-views the shared principle is this deserved right to believe in whatever you choose if it does not disturb the others right to do the same.

Individuals, more than a dive and conquer strategy, is now a state of solipsistic delusion.

Any idea(l) that inhibits this free expression of imaginary hopes and desires is considered fascistic, authoritarian... as a mature mind appears to any child.

 

 

No land territories lost or gained, no wealth, no bounty collected.

What is being fought over, is in the mind – meaning.

With it the world is won, or it is lost; destiny is determined. 

 

 

Historical revisionism is related to the (re)definition of words.

Having been detached from the experienced the new narrative now accuses the old one of the reversal of reality.

 

 

Memetic Warfare: When only words are permitted, “shock and awe” become a matter of verbal artistry, and rhetoric the dexterous yielding of a blade.

There will not be much evidence – no blood and guts, or wounded soldiers coming back from the front.

The frontlines are nowhere and everywhere; the weary soldier’s battlefront stare replaced by a smiling soft-gaze peering, emptily, into the distance; crutches will be internal, and wounds exposed using sentences, and gestures.

There will not be many physically dead, in this war.

The killed will remain animated, shuffling to and fro, directed by an external Will, repeating words they do not know; absent in their presence.    

 

 

Scientism, the, so called, Alexandrian culture, has constructed a realm of codes, upon which it believes it has surpassed the chaos and the indifference of the world.

By reducing reality, and man, to a numerical value and a word, with few connective strands to the apparent, it sacrifices the obvious to enjoy the hypothetical. 

 

 

The average, and below average, Modern douche-bag, will approach, some topics, from a psychological perspectives, wanting to silence the source without having to deal with the topic itself.

Such a coward, and a hypocrite, will cast aspersions about the source of his discomfort, trying to shame him into silence, because he either has no clue what is being said and/or he cannot offer a response that would not expose him as what he is.

This provides for some fascinating word-plays.

Such a coward and a douche-bag, will find an insulting and degrading motive in the source of his discomfort, but will seek no such motive in himself and in his own type.

So, when I say fear is the mother of all emotions, this confuses the average moron, because fear was his fall-back accusation.

This forces him towards narcissism, the extreme of love, which he is supposed to defend. But this time it is set as a dysfunction, even if it is a prerequisite for any self-respect, and self-knowledge.

We have it then: if fear cannot be used as a way to dismiss the other, pretending you are courageous when you are truly a coward denying fear in yourself, then love – why not? – will be used.

 

 

The inversion applies to all things the Modern (nihilist) engages is.

With emotions he begins with surrendering to the sensation, and then attempts to rationalize it.

With philosophy he begins with how every concept affects him, personally, on in relation to his place within the group he is dependent upon, before he advances to connecting it with a reality that is indifferent to this concern.

He then takes on this air of passive-aggressive, aloofness, wanting to convey the lie that his position is not emotionally grounded but is totally objective, or he exalts in his subjectivity only defending it as being the limitation no mind can challenge.

He begins with trying to define virtue, before he explores the conditions this virtue is to be applied within.

When he speaks of "world" it is always the man-made world, or the world in relation to human cares, and needs, and ideals.

He constructs his perspectives from this starting conclusion.

He begins with the absolute, only then trying to define and defend it

In all things Top<>Down.

And because he cannot do anything but reason backwards he assumes all are exactly like him.

Every perspective he hears begins with the assumption of an end-game motive, the "what's in it for him?" question.

Just look at how they approach the controversial, to them, issues of sex (male/female, and homosexual matters), and race.

They have no defense other than the motive they accuse the other of, because it is the reason why they believe what they believe, having no argument that does not contradict empiricism to evolution theory.

To put it bluntly, it is because they know, or feel intuitively, that they have no clue why they hold onto the beliefs they were raised on which makes them assume that the same is true for the other.

It is because they feel, intuitively, that the only reason they hold onto their beliefs is because they are popular, they feel good, they are socially acceptable, and because they were raised to consider them fact, that they assume that the same holds true for all who challenge their views.

And, for some few of them, it is because they know that what they repeat daily, as if it were fact, is nothing more than social convention, supported by needs, making the civilization they depend on possible, that they must discredit anyone who punches holes in this communal lie.

And it is because need, fear, anxiety, usurps any honesty they might have that they assume that all perspectives are equally dominated by fear, anxiety and need.

They've repeated the lie for so long that they've forgotten, conveniently, that it is a lie.

They do not even dare to contradict it in private or in situations where objectivity is the highest goal, such as in philosophy.

Philosophy, for them, is a political game of pretentious posturing where one repeats the convenient lie because comfort trumps intellectual integrity.

They dare not admit that most should not be conversing about any philosophy because they are not up to the task; both intellectually and psychologically.

Their "democratic" ethos, built on the social lie, will not have it. It smells of elitism.

Instead they prefer the pretentious angle, where they use big words, metaphorically expressed, deferring stringently to famous figures, remaining obscure, and convoluted, to achieve the same elitist goal without admitting it to the ones they feel superior to but remain polite and kind to.

 

 

The dis-ease has progressed so far that one cannot combat it openly, and honestly.

It has become the new "health" standard, all are compared to, and evaluated against.

All values being comparison.

The leveling idea(l)s, of inversion, have now been ingrained in a populace that can neither defend their own mythologies, nor tolerate any alternative to them.

Those who manipulate maintain this illusion of parity, not rockin' the boat.

If you do not adapt this style of academic obfuscation, using deference to "experts", and multiple obscure references, delivered with heavy doses of metaphor, to hide the simple facts, then you will be accosted by the myriads living in the delusion of genetic parity, and the holy glory of the code.

The Modern academic, the priestly hypocrite, the pseudo-intellectual fake altruist, does so to hide his own anxious simplicity, and his secret uncertain arrogance, that does not agree with the social rule but builds a career on its implications, but if we are to adapt the same methods then it must be only to survive the onslaught.

 

 

The Cold War was the harbinger of the current state of ceaseless war-a psychological war of words allowing only small, short hot flashes.

The Second Great War was the last true war (genetic war), in the sense that it was the last war of opposite ideologies, and world-views rooted in blood and soil, producing different types of humans.

What has followed since has been an initial phase of internal strife, where different variants of the victorious side, competed over the spoils.

In true nihilistic form both sides are part of the same nihilistic paradigm, presenting themselves as each other’s nemesis when they are in agreement concerning the fundamentals.

Having settled on a compromise we are now, in this new millennium, entering the phase of consolidation.

Nihilism has become the method chosen to create internal harmony, and Social-Democracy, coupled with oscillating forms of Capitalism is the chosen method for expunging residual energies.

What’s left of this old war will be fought on the feminine battlefield of words, pretenses, seduction and manipulation – a memetic war.

 

 

A miserly ego will try to slander in order to attain a monopoly.

It is the Judaic method: degrade the real, so as to gain dominion over it; debase the man so as to make him undesirable to all but you, his master.

And if, in the process, you also lose respect, or your evaluation is decreased, then add to it, compensating for the loss of quality with the sheltering multiplicity of quantities.

 

 

The modern coward/weakling will use double standards to remain within his more popular, and comforting, position that "all opinions are equally valid," and, therefore, that "all opinions deserve respect".

To create his worshiped artificial parity he will use more forgiving standards when judging positions he likes, or are so inferior he is not threatened by them, but when judging more threatening opinions he will demand a standard of proof no hypothesis can ever meet, so as to dismiss is as lacking in evidence, the arguments used too inconclusive to consider seriously, and so that it is still just another opinion.

Probability, as in higher/lower, or superior/inferior, come into conflict with his principles of equality in feebleness, in the cult of shared victimhood.

He will admit to a hierarchy of possibility only if the threat to his core principles is minimal, and his comfort zones are not breached, but as soon as he is made uncomfortable, he will run to his safe-zone of absolutes – if there is an absence of absolute evidence, then the opinion is absolutely wrong, or, at least, as probable as any other.

He will oscillate between probabilities and absolutes, as it suits his interests, and seek a nefarious motive behind any theory that hurts his feelings, or that contradicts the common, shared principles he is but one more worshiper of.

 

 

The only thing a sheltered, repressed, mind can do, is turn away, close its ears and eyes – its sensual connectors to the world; accuse the source of the word of hatred to explain the hatred it feels towards what it has buried and forgotten inside of him.

 

 

The "benefit" of the subjective delusion is found in its ability to dismiss all perspectives concerning the objective, on the grounds of its own delusion.

The Modern does not need to comprehend the other to attack him personally, especially when the other is proposing a view that discredits Modern obsession with subjectivity.

Ad hom is both a weapon and a shield for them.

Parity is ensured when inferior minds are not required to display comprehension of that which they hen dismiss and assault.  

In regards to their own adopted, or not, perspective, the same applies.

No understanding needs to be displayed but only implied, using innuendo.

The modern simply retreats to his idea(l) defensive position that all is equally possible when no absolute is possible, or can be known, by all humans, even while claiming that an absolute does exist but is incomprehensible, by all, and can be understood in any way possible.

Common among the Nihilists, other than declarative statements with no supporting arguments or evidence, is the personal attack on the others psychology and his hypothetical motives.

Even in this Nihilists express the common, to them, inversions.

Instead of attacking the individual after the perspective has been thoroughly explored, he attacks the individuals hoping that by slandering the source the perceptive is also dealt with.

 

This is the consequence of his deepest faith: all is perceptive and there is no objective standard to evaluate perspectives, which in laymen's terms means that all perspectives are equal when no absolute exists (pure Nihilism), and/or all is equal when the absolute exists but is for all equally incomprehensible (duplicitous, positive, Nihilism). 

In the former all can be cynically dismissed and reduced to an error, and in the latter the only acceptable standard is human – how it is accepted by the majority based on emotional, hedonistic, self-serving criteria.

 

 

Faced with a reality it cannot deal with, the common mind will opt for the easiest option available to it.

All absolutes are absent, and this would include truth, and any opinion promising it.

The only recourse left for such a coward, desperate to protect its own delusions, is to then cast doubt on what is superior to it.

When it is in doubt, then all that can ever be said is equally in doubt.

The result is parity.

All the weaker position has to do is focus on what is missing in the other: perfection.

This is easy because no absolute certainty exists, and so implying weakness is how cowards imply parity.

They need not argue their point; only attack the other as being in doubt, or hiding a motive.

Once parity is established as a rational proposition, then the deciding factor is feeling, emotion, hope; there the biggest liar and nihilist, always holds the best hand.

 

 

The common mind understands others by using absolute dichotomies.

If it is not something as simple as good/evil, God/Satan, right/left, positive/negative, then it will be something a bit more sophisticates as humble/vain, selfless/selfish, healthy/ill, chaos/order.

Once it has declared its allegiance, or on what side his identity is rooted, you will know where his soft-spot lies.

Manipulating that weakness will be a matter of creativity, and endurance, where adapting to the shifting tides may demand a focus on the object/objective, which is becoming buried in a tide of osculating divergences, using words – focus is essential.

The other has already given you its soft-spot, its basic identifier.

All you must do is follow it back to its roots, despite the idealistic word-games trying to divert and confuse you.

 

 

Human beings have become so narcissistic, so self-involved, that they begin to believe they deserve attention, simply because they speak.

Then they accuse the one ignoring them of being self-involved, simply because he refuses to give respect to what is being repeated so often, that it has become boring.

 

 

Once the others value system has been recognized, you can play into it.

All it takes for a lie to stick is a bit of truth and the others willingness to believe.

In this case no great effort is needed, except in swallowing your pride, and your tongue.

By inflating the value of what is conceded, according to the others already established value system, you can appear more vulnerable than you are.

You will give-up what you do not hold in much esteem, to feed into the others high-esteem; once achieved you can exploit, in any which way you desire, demanding from the other something analogous in value; but, now, in accordance with your value system.

 

 

To the pretentiousness of saying all's well, to avoid the unpleasantness of reality, we can add the pretentiousness of confusing obscurity for higher culture.

Simpletons gathering to share references which are repetitions of an ancient past, that they've "overcome", being that they are so "forward looking."

Wearing their egalitarian pin, of good progressive Democrat, they can then set themselves apart from the common, and the popular, pretending they exist outside its premises, and are not affected by the common man whom they defend as an innocent victim of bad economics.

And what has this "sophistication" resulted in? – an air of humble superiority that repeats the usual, but with more style, and a richer vocabulary.

A learned behavior supposed to convey the feeling of being "above it all", or convey the possibility that more complexities are being included in the analysis, but can never express them.

The usage of less common words to repeat the shared narrative, implying a profound understanding.

Obscurity, once more, used to pretend depth. 

The popular themes, reflecting the old, are preferred, because then they can use in-crowd terminologies to act, as if, they've understood the topic to a greater depth.

Even the "good", benevolent, mind, desperate to protect the herd, is really motivated by a selfish reason.

Protecting the herd is protecting his own identity – one that has picked up more avant guard methods to hide itself but that still feels one of them.

When one insults the common, with honesty, this aping buffoon feels insulted... recognizing himself in the descriptions – if you take away his well-crafted uniform and you stand him before his bathroom mirror naked.

He knows what he is beneath the social lies. 

Don't you know that a hypocrite coward would snobbishly turn his nose up to a conversation on beer, the common man's alcohol, preferring to discuss the ins and outs of current oenology, with an upturned pinky, as he sniffs the liquid like a hog, and with plenty of references to famous sommeliers?

He drinks wines recommended to him, and then repeats the critiques, using the appropriate jargon, as if he can also taste a hint of Jasmin in his mouthful, a subtle fruitiness, like kiwi, on his tongue, or he can smell a bit of the French sun in the wine he paid so much money for. 

But if you dig you'll discover that the hypocrite has the palate of a chimpanzee, and only uses wine as decor, or an accessory to his fake image.

His opinion is mostly regurgitated from second-sources, because he keeps up-to-date with the trending views, being that he is so progressive and modern.

He likes older art forms, contradicting his modern obsessions, because he has a larger pool of critiques to parrot from, whereas the more common, latest releases leave him with only his all too average mind to draw inspiration from.

And his analysis of the old is always in tune with the current, because the critiques he regurgitates attempt to integrate the old into the present narrative.

He's no different than a beer guzzling average man.

The only thing progressive about him is the newer techniques he's learned to hide this fact.

 

 

When a mind has been encased within a mindset, very little overview is required.

It is self-referential, when self exceeds its boundaries and when it has become an idea(l).

More importantly it is self-correcting, and self-censoring, because it cannot think outside the boundaries it considers self-evident, and logical; feeling ashamed when it dares, or when it is forced to.

To resolve the stress, if it is ever exposed to the real, or to an alternative perception of the real which comes into direct conflict with its own ideal, it damns the other for forcing it to exceed its self-evident boundaries of what it accuses itself, within its own logic.

 

 

Pagans may introduce an idea(l) which cannot but include the elements required to bring it about – no matter how cruel and "inhuman" these would seem to the average humanist.

Nihilists, whether they are of the Judeo-Christian or secular humanist variety, avoid such complications by simply ignoring the past, and the world as it is

Their "paradise", or their "paradise on some future, immanent, earth" does not consider the past applicable, and more so it ignores the real, outside its memetic parameters.

For them the preferred world comes with little cost, as does the maintenance of it, after it, miraculously, does come.

It is more benefit than cost, and so seductive that no mind, born and raised within a sheltering social construct, force-fed what it already wants to believe is so, would reject.

When such minds come across those who do reject these unrealistic, delusional, constructs, as no more than pipe-dreams used to control the masses, they (re)act in the only way you would expect an animal to (re)act to a otherness it has no knowledge or understanding of – its prepares for a fight/flight outcome, but to preserve its own ideology, it projects, upon the source of its distress, all the feelings it wishes to deny in itself, so as to then preserve the "purity" of its own cause.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Δημοσίευση σε άλλες σελίδες
Guest Satyr

Skeptics and Cynics

 

A skeptic is one who will doubt all data, and all theories/opinions, so as to place them within a hierarchy of superior/inferior probability, knowing that all absolutes are absent.

The skeptic will adjust his thinking/behaving accordingly.

A cynic, in the modern definition of the term, is one who has already that all opinions are invalid, on an equal basis, and all that it needs to do is find the weakness in them.

If it cannot level all theories into equally invalid it must attack the source to find the material to do so. 

The modern cynic has already established its lowest-common-denominator position; the one which places it within its comfort zone, as these have been determined in time.

It will never accept any position which will force it to adjust a thing, beyond its comfort level; it will, therefore, adjust its arguments to discredit the proposed thesis in a way that will minimize its own efforts.

It already knows there is no absolute truth, and, for this reason, there can never be a perfect theory/opinion, so all it has to do is find the cracks, the weaknesses, in the proposition to justify its inaction, remaining unmoved.   

Modern cynicism depends on ordered, stable, predictable environments, and, for this reason, you will find it in defense of the status quo, whatever it may be at whatever given time and place.

To best avoid effort it resorts to accepting the lowest, possible, common denominator as a starting proposition, making it its idea(l).

The more primal and easy to accept it is, all the more it can accept it as its foundation.

For this reason a modern cynic has no difficulty accepting self-evident biological, evolution theories, as fact, if they do not propose an advance, and/or advantage, a hypothetical, based on them.

They want to remain there, and will refuse to move from there.

 

 

What moderns mean when they use the word "freedom" is liberation from the past/nature, and all the possible dire consequences their choices might produce–freedom from responsibility, unless the outcomes are "positive".

They are so protected that their choices are not only limited but also guaranteed to not result in anything life threatening.

They are free of care, of anxiety/fear, since nothing they do will cost more than what they can pay, and what remains is some obscure, theoretical, benefit.

They become jaded, cynical of anything proposing a cost.

 

Being care-free is a condition we know as immaturity; a psychology in a perpetual state of childhood.

It's that naiveté, that retardation in development, which they must defend as "innocent," offering their choices an added layer of protective distance.

 

 

The modern coward/weakling will use double standards to remain within his more popular, and comforting, position that "all opinions are equally valid," and, therefore, that "all opinions deserve respect".

To create his worshiped artificial parity he will use more forgiving standards when judging positions he likes, or are so inferior he is not threatened by them, but when judging more threatening opinions he will demand a standard of proof no hypothesis can ever meet, so as to dismiss is as lacking in evidence, the arguments used too inconclusive to consider seriously, and so that it is still just another opinion.

Probability, as in higher/lower, or superior/inferior, come into conflict with his principles of equality in feebleness, in the cult of shared victimhood.

He will admit to a hierarchy of possibility only if the threat to his core principles is minimal, and his comfort zones are not breached, but as soon as he is made uncomfortable, he will run to his safe-zone of absolutes – if there is an absence of absolute evidence, then the opinion is absolutely wrong, or, at least, as probable as any other.

He will oscillate between probabilities and absolutes, as it suits his interests, and seek a nefarious motive behind any theory that hurts his feelings, or that contradicts the common, shared principles he is but one more worshiper of.

 

 

The average modern mind has no ability to think outside of the parameters it was raised within.

It has no ability to project, using its imagination, outside its comfort zones, and if it can, the projections take-on a hue of the fantastic, the ridiculous, so as to discredit them.

For example, when confronting liberal imbeciles, professing their conviction that appearances do not matter, and that "all" deserve love, with the application of this belief in a real-life act of giving sex to a random homeless man, because most of these imbeciles are female, I receive the usual evasive assaults.

Their beliefs, being noetic, cannot be applied.

They remain, like all aspects of Judeo-Christian nihilism (Marxism, Liberalism, Christianity etc.), purely theoretical. 

Another example is the modern understanding of cost/benefit.

The modern can pretend to be open to change and to possibilities, an enlightened mind, all brave and cocky, when the possibilities are controlled within the boundaries it was raised in.

It understands gain as a possible loss so minimal, that all gain is an automatic plus.

They would never risk losing what they hold dear, for any potential gain.

They remain conservative in this.

They want more...for nothing more.

Only when the risks and potential costs are regulated by a system they then pretend to rebel against, do they "open up" and become "progressives".

When the costs are limited by human intervention then they can convince themselves that they are open to life, and to all potential possibilities.

Their spontaneity, and care-free "courage," turns to fear, then anger, when you place them in a situation where no protective embrace hovers over them, restricting the possible costs to them.

They can jump into the void, all brave and open armed, if they know a net is placed beneath their childish play. 

The modern mind is progressive and it embraces change only when this is contained within human constructs of human decency, morality, social norms.

They want a win<>win scenario, where the potential loss is always within acceptable limits.

They want to take, to be given, without much more than their smile as a payment... because they deserve it.

They think they are strong, independent, when they remain under the umbrella of what is considered acceptable, humane, civil, or normal.

Then they deride this umbrella, because their mind cannot think outside of its cover–they dream of walking in the rain without getting wet, and certainty without the risk of a drowning.

They have been born and raised within human environments for so long that they forget what chaos means; they deny what natural selection entails.

 

Retardation

Ask a modern retard what his ideals would produce, and you'll receive a litany of befits with inconsequential costs and risks; something minor to pretend objectivity has been desired.

Remind him/her of any potential costs and risk, beyond this scope of the acceptable, outside of his sheltered box, and he'll accuse you of pessimism, cynicism, fascism, closed-minded conservatism.

A child only knows of the play, the fun, the joy, the pleasure.

For a child, his welfare is a universal fact. 

He must gain more than he loses, all the time.

Remind a female about what the potential costs and risks are for expressing her sexuality, or acting like a slut in public are – even in these regulated human environments – and see what happens.

She'll call you a misogynist, a redneck, a cultural dinosaur.

Ask her if she would support male sexual advantages, with the same passion for human freedom, and see how quickly she become hysterical, calling "rape!!" to some invisible entity...for support.

 

Lesson...

When you come across someone who thinks (s)he can receive something profound, for next to nothing, then, no matter the words, you know you are in contact with a retarded spirit, born and raised within a privileged, sheltered world of predictable outcomes. Such a mind hates predictability, worshiping spontaneity, and yet depends on its comforting restrictions.

Satyr is here to remind them of the opposite.

Whether conspicuous or not, every gain entails a loss – most probably a greater potential loss than the potential gain.

Finding it is their problem.

Consider a hypothetical female who, having been raised within privileged – for her – conditions, where her actions are protected from the repercussions, where her ploys have never faced the full extent of the possible, living in a controlled, predictable world she then rebels against and feels bored within, begins to feel arrogant because of this artificial situation.

Having been raised amongst castrated males, or males who had to pretend, and who must restrict their options, in regards to hers, she begins to feel strong, invincible, clever.

Imagine, such a woman, or man, coming across a reality full of potential repercussions which are no longer restricted by human rules, human morals, human controls, human interventions

How care-free, and spontaneous, would (s)he be then?

Would she exit her safety place, her home, wearing a provocative dress, confident that she can deal with any male advance?

Would she be certain that her games would be as effective against men as they have been against boys (men-children), and/or tamed manimals, trained to behave, and to feel shame when and if they do not?

Would she feel superior to men, calling herself an independent, strong woman?

 

Liberals, and even those who do not identify with the label but have become accustomed to liberal environments, mistake human environments, strictly regulated systems (they then think they are against), for reality; they begin to mistake this controlled human world for reality, for nature, to the point where when they say "world" what they mean is humanity.

In here they can pretend to be just about anything: man, woman, beast and/or child, alien...clown.

They dream of anarchism, or deregulation, and they imagine freedom as some win<>win scenario, because their experiences are restricted to human systems.

For them all taste is the same, because no taste ever bears a price they would consider unbearable.

Nothing they do have restrictions because nothing they do is outside the social norms, and none of it matters.

For them all is relative, in a benevolent way, because no perspective has ever been permitted to bear the brunt of its own judgments.

Add to this the delusion that all deserve this and that, and mostly care and love, and you see how all is deteriorating towards an infantile game, played by stunted adults, who are no more than infants in psychology.

Now, ape, woman, and child, commune.

They see in each other themselves.

 

 

In my experience I've discovered that people want to reveal themselves to others – they almost demand that they are given the opportunity to do so.

The first presupposition here is that there is a distance between self and otherness and what we portray to the other as self and what we hide form the other.

Social interaction always demands a degree of self-hiding, or of wearing masks not only as a reflection of the other(s), but also of the environment, the socioeconomic, and cultural environment and the ideals, the types it presents as ideal. 

This is what creates the first fissures in the mind, around puberty, where the individual begins to discover that (s)he cannot be totally honest but must repress and suppress aspects in the self which would cost him socially.

This is the beginning of socially produced schizophrenia, and lies at the root of Freud's comments on society and its discontents.

The environment, expressed through peer pressures, imposes upon the individual a behavioral standard, a social persona.

The individual in the early stages of its development is still immature, it barely knows himself enough to resist.

This is the time when the weak-minded accept the persona imposed upon them by others, as this has been imposed upon them.

If the individual has not developed its own sense of self to a degree where it can offer some resistance its psyche is completely taken over by this externally determined sense of self, along with the type of person it is to be.

If the individual has already developed its sense of self then a conflict may arise.

The individual developing this alternative identity can be the result of these factors:

 

1- Genetics.

Self-consciousness is a sophistication of consciousness.

Not all are gifted with equal measures of this introspective, self-aware, genetic mutation.

 

2- Circumstance

A child may be forced to move into a different environment, a different culture than the one it developed its sense of self in. this offers it a perspective eon this alien social and cultural environment of a detached, objective, observer.

 

3- Family

Family and in particular a strong father figure. The father figure, if he is a carrier of a meme which is contradicts the prevailing cultural ideals, or when the father figure is a strong role model, rivaling in impact the institutionalized, abstracted, masculine role model.

Share this post


Link to post
Δημοσίευση σε άλλες σελίδες
Guest Satyr

 

Psychological "fissures," may develop into great chasms, or totally splits in personality, depending on the strength of the individual’s character, the level of peer pressure experienced, and the difference between the present social and cultural environment and the alternative one.

Like I said, in weaker minds with a low sense of self, or a retarded development of identity, most often in young children or females, this may not cause problems, as the imposed persona, and identity, takes over where they is only a void – it full-fills a need.

In stronger minds it may cause two (re)actions:

The mind may turn inward, becoming more solitary, sensing a stress between this outward persona (s)he is forced to play, and the inner persona (s)he identifies with.

This is the division between the public and the private identity.

In the simpler mind, or one imposed upon early on before it had time to develop an alternate, to the present one, persona, the private and public persona merge into one.

Slight inner conflicts may arise causing dreams, psychological issues, inner confusion, but this only when the public persona is forced to adopt an identity which is contrary to instincts: the psychology developed due to naturally selected types, or a persona which is the outcome of genetics, or inheritance.

The innate when conflicting with the idealized, will result in subconscious turmoil, manifesting in a sense of unease/restlessness, addiction, sexual obsession or sexual fetishes and/or dysfunctions.

Contrary to public opinion, when a mind is in a state of emotional distress, or when it under the influence of a drug (alcohol), the conditions are optimal for exposing this private self, from behind the facade of the public self, if and where this private self has not been stunted to a degree where nothing is left but primordial instinct – in this last case, the individual may revert to some primal condition.

 

The other option is to pretend.

The mind, seeing the difference between what is expected of it and what it is, may choose to play the part without truly buying into it.

This may manifest as cynicism, anti-social behavior, a solitary existence, and an objective perspective. 

I believe that the small distance between genius and madness is rooted in this (re)action, or adaptation, of the private self, the hidden self, from the public one.

Any break in the public persona's facade, offering a glimpse into the private persona's character, may be perceived, by another, as a form of madness, especially when this hidden part contradicts the public persona.

 

 

It is always those who cannot create, cannot write, or paint, or think outside the social and cultural box, the norms, that most complain about the popular forms of creativity, as they experience them, and have access to them.

They are the harshest critics, because there is always an element of resentment, of an inferiority complex wanting to avenge itself.

But their critical harshness is very particular.

They find the repetitive reaffirmation of what they hold dear, and consider self-evident and necessary, as exciting, when it is presented to them in a variety of ways, but are quick to become bored by anything contrary to it.

The dullard is easily amused by the same, when it simply reminds him of his sameness, and the dullness this produces, but cannot tolerate anything which reminds him of a difference, because then it becomes annoyingly repetitive.

Dullness is only acceptable when it produces that flow of endorphins that help the dullard escape his dullness. 

The dull ones usually expect to be serviced, to be taken care of.

They want to be given new things, be stimulated in new ways, be inspired by the unique, like a baby would, because they are dull and empty inside; they are bored with themselves and the world they feel comfortable within.

The dull world they reaffirm daily with their dull mind, and expect it to reciprocate in kind.

For these dullards, the unique is not only possible but expected. Better to be vulgar and idiotic than to be boring, when boredom is the world they live, and have immersed themselves within.

All is dull because they are dull, and they associate with dullness.

 

The dullard expects to be entrained, and whatever threatens its dull existence is called exactly what it fears is prevalent in their own dullness: ennui.

The dullard projects its dullness outward, wanting to turn the different into something it can deal with: the dull.

Boredom is not only its preferred state but a defensive mechanism.

They want to be awoken from their lethargy by new, more creatively dull ways.

They want excitement when it leads back to boredom.

They want the different when it leads back to the usual.

Packaging is what they crave.

New and exciting ways to package the same crap.

They want dullards stimulating them out of their shared condition with harmless, fantastically, childish ways.

For them change is preferable, only if it does not change what they consider fundamental, and self-evident.

They want change, the different, but only when it does not surpass a limit they share with the dullards that surround them.

If it is not absolutely different then it must be one of the same.

Sameness is the dullards narcotic.

They want a more creative way of dealing with their dullness.

Change is desirable because it is always within the context of what they consider manageable.

What exceeds it will be accused of dullness, or avoided, preferring the harmless kind of repetitive dullness they think is exciting.

They expect the different, in a world of change, because they are trapped in a cocoon of conformity which they both depend upon and despise, unable to decide is stress is preferable to boredom.

Their dullness insists and demands the same.

It feels entitled to taste the same in a variety of different ways.

 

The world is constant change, this is its nature, but they do not simply wish for any-old change, but a particular, by-the-book, sort of change, where the return to the dull usual is also part of the expected, unstated, deal.

They want opinions to change, only if this change is superficial, because they think this is open-mindedness, and because they expect reality to be so dynamic that nothing ever holds true for any period of time, unless it is frightening.

When it is frightening then they demand that it changes, to get rid of its threat.

Then they expect immediate, change, back to the usual, but packaged differently so the appearance of accepting change is retained.

For the dullard, their safety-net are these expectations for that which threatens to alter, and by "alter" the dullard means change to harmonize with its own dullness.

For a dullard, change is a code word, meaning that what threatens its comfortable ennui must change to adhere to a different variant of his own dullness.

It wants change within boundaries.

 

Have you seen them flock to movie theaters and to new book releases?

The same shit delivered in a different book-cover, and with a different title.

They love change, theoretically, because the present, the real, is so distasteful to them, and so unflattering to them and to their lineage; but not just any change will do.

For them change is synonymous with good, or tasteful variety.

A buffet of edible differences, which all remain edible and digestible.

Their stomach, their constitution, is a gauge of what is acceptable and what is not.

Though entropy means increasing negativity, in regards to human needs, for the dullard, being that he is dimwitted, changes can only promise goodness, for anything, but anything, is better than what is – so thinks the fool.

Hope is the dullards aphrodisiac.

Blind, naive hope, the antidote to fear.

What do we call blind naive hope?

Faith.

The dullard must have faith.

He hates the past, because it made him dull, the progeny of a long line of dullards, and he despises the present; because it is how he lives this dull past... so his only hope is in the future.

The future is where he places his faith, his hope.

He remains fearless towards it because for the dullard, the divine can only bring goodness.

It is part of his naiveté.

For the secular dullard, the one who has enlightened his way out of Monotheistic dullness, the future is what takes its place.

What else can the changing present bring but a future full of benevolent, kind, goodness, eventually to become dull?

 

 

The individual manifestation of the same nihilistic uniformity will not be able to think outside its jaded, cynical premises.

Its cynicism is a defensive mechanism, while, at the same time, it remains fixed on the same, old, popular “truisms,” it was originally seduced by.

Its sense of divergence is only for show, because it cannot and will not, let go of the foundational, common ground, the popular decree.

Its uniqueness, its individuation, is only superficial, and this is why it sees superficiality in every appearance, and every expression of divergence.

It hold the other up against the standard of either/or.

The “either” is always the common, popular, self-evident, ground, the unifying foundation.

This is its starting absolute, position. To this the '”or” must present itself as its equal.

To the “either” the “or” must present an equal, absolute, popular, position.

The modern, nihilist, posits its own quantitative, standard as the measure of any qualitative challenge.

It erases it by imposing upon it the very measure it has taken for granted.

 

To absoluteness, even in certainty as it is measured quantitatively, it must, it demands, an equal measure.

This it calls substantive.

Such a nihilistic mind has no response to the real other than a community of nihilistic, commentating, replies, which it presents as the standard, by which all is measured, and as an example of health.

Illness is, in this way, transformed into a new definition of health.

Who is to challenge it, if the ill are used as the deciding factor?

The one who is ill finds in his, increasingly popular, increasing in numbers, illness, an argument defending its own illness.

The simulation finds in its own self a reason to maintain itself.

The artifice, having excluded all conceptions other than the human, fabrications that comfort and flatter, finds in its community of shared delusions, an argument for a position that only has merit within human artifices.

In short, the coward finds amongst a community of cowards, an argument defending cowardice.

The courageous, as that which affirms fear and that, despite it, acts, is slandered and diminished.

It is ridiculed.

The only courage which is acceptable is the one which denies the presence of fear, or of a threat. The cowardly defensive act of delusion is presented, as an act of bravery.

Anything other than this is to be dismissed, in any way possible, so as to hide the cowardice in the act itself.

 

 

When a nihilist uses the plural he means the singular, he means himself.

For such a mind the other is his identity, and so doing “good” to others, is really a way of doing good to self.

For him, self is aligned with other. He feels ashamed of thinking in the singular, and so he must always defuse self in plurality; he must mask ego as this concern for a communal good.

It is sinful to be selfish, and so he must hide selfishness with some hyperbole, some fake concern for otherness, when it is truly a concern for self.

The nihilist, if he wishes to remain true to his own delusion, his own ideal, must preserve the sense of ego-less, selflessness.

For him this is the first step towards salvation.

Therefore, he must hide his ego and selfishness, beneath ideals, hyperbole, and ambiguity.

 

 

To the common buffoon, the typical moron, a sense of common deference must be maintained.

No matter how stupid (s)he might be, it is the possibility, the temporal projection of infinity, the unrestricted imagination, of the uniform equalization of infinite, the absolute probability, that must be retained.

It does not matter what is more or less probable, just as long as an infinitesimal, spark of possibility is retained, which is the saving grace, the divine, the mystical and forever possible, which is saved, and offers safety. 

Through the slightest of doubt, the slightest of hope, the determined is twisted to the divinely salvageable.

It does not matter how deranged, unfit, stupid, you are, just as long as a small sliver of hope remains.

In this slightest of small, slivers, an entire galaxy of possibilities can be created.

Probability does not matter, just as long as the possible remains.

It is this, and only this, infinitesimal, degree, of doubt that suffices.

 

 

Ironic, that the source of the terminology would be part of its premises – but, perhaps not so ironic after all.

Solipsism is also part of it.

The obsession with the erotic element in human nature is to be expected.

Sex is the most appealing response to one’s own mortality, and unlike thymos, the alternative, it also offers the benefit of mutually supportive networks, and relieving sharing of the woes.

The eroticization of psychotherapy falls into line with the overall feminization of man, and his institutionalized state.

When only the feminine is permitted sexual expression, freed from the costs and risks, eros becomes the only concept to be used when trying to understand man and how to “heal” him from himself.

Nobody but a Jew, Freud, could have brought the sexual to such a state of obsessiveness. The Jews, in the states, do not only dominate entertainment but also its seedier underbelly, the pornography industry.

In Berlin before the war, Jews also ran the hidden culture of decadence.

With Freud the source of the ailment also becomes the solution.

Though practicing a very strict code of sexual conduct within the community, towards the goyim anything goes.

Reduced to the level of mindless, casual, stress-relieving, copulation, man remains a consumer of a service.

The psychotherapist offers him a consumer solution to his shopping obsessiveness. A consumer of goods must not only consume but he must be trained and directed to consume properly and productively.

The need is not delved into. Only its products, its desires, and eroticism are dealt with. Not to be corrected but to be directed towards whatever is proper for any given cultural period.

A psychologist is someone who studies market forces.

A therapist is the one who harmonizes them with social needs.

 

 

No matter what they say, one cannot gain, grow, if one does not first defend, maintain, protect.

Entropy is the clue.

In an environment of change is what is resisted, if we hope to gain the means and the energies to direct towards a desirable goal, a growth.

Change happens whether we like it or not, whether we urge it on or resist it. 

Order, on the other hand requires force, energy, struggle, agon.

Order is pattern, and life is an ordering.

Not Being but Becoming.

 

No walls, no limits: no choice.

Without a skin and bone, without walls, there are no doors, no windows...no senses, no potential to choose.

You cannot assimilate, accumulate, energies so as to overflow with them if there is no containment.

The organism the organizing, becoming, begins with the defensive action of self-preservation. Without it nothing else is possible for it.

If the body does not continuously defend itself against viruses, does not close itself off from the world so as to have a choice as to what it permits in, if it does not constantly repair the damage done by entropy, by change, by time, then it has no choice, no future, no potential growth, expansion, creation, procreation.

 

It is swept away by the tides.

 

And who speaks in terms of openness, of abandonment to the tides, who worships change?

Yes the sheltered, protected, dependent, nihilist.

For him annulling all that stands in the way of his total integration within the safety of a larger, more resistant, super-organism is called negative, and the one exposing his mind to it is the pessimist.

 

 

The simpler a mind is the less it is able to imagine what is antipathetic to it, or what is extremely alien to it.

For it empathy can only come through sympathy, not from antipathy.

The world must be understood from a "positive," to itself, perspective.

To get into another's mind will always entail going through your own projections, which must remain self-flattering, and self-pitying.

Sympathy is the projection of self-pity upon another.

 

To the nihilist mind one can only pity one's self within such a world, and any mind forced to exist in it.

It wishes to merge with it, erotically, and disappear in the new unity; hoping relief will come of it.

The idea of thymotic, antipathy, this pushing away from what reminds the self of what it does not wish to identify with, becoming honest in the process, such a mind cannot relate to.

For a nihilist honesty on this level would mean self-knowledge, self-honesty, to an uncomfortable degree.

Discomfort is what it avoids. 

He despises nature and self, and so he must detach himself from it.

Detachment takes-on the method of using proxies – engaging self, and the world, via another.

The mind cannot turn a critical eye upon itself, above a certain level of tolerance, which would lead to anger and the change, the reaction to self requires to control or to reject the part one does not wish to identify with, and so it projects this self-hatred, "freeing" himself from it, and placing all that he hates about self, and nature, upon the other – the scapegoat.

Satan is such a proxy for the Judeo-Christian.

 

There is no possibility of self-growth, self-honesty, as the "problem" is now outside of self. It is the world’s problem or another’s issue.

This is why for the modern nihilist the world is always what must be changed, in relation to his preferences, rather than changing self in relation to the world.

 

 

Every mind is a self-contained organ.

It received input either internally, form the nervous system and its connection to the entity of processes (organic interactivity), as well as from external sources- through the sense organ – exposing it to interactivity outside its wilful domain.

 

---The organism begins with what it knows, to understand the alien other, or the unknown otherness.

The first thing it knows, or can know, is self... or the sum of all processes participating in the emergent unity it calls self.

To whatever degree it is self-aware (know thyself) determines its awareness and/or understanding of otherness.

If this sense of self is intervened upon, by an external will, which shapes it, then this sense of self will direct its understanding of otherness.

 

---When incomplete self-knowledge, or self-acceptance, is absent transference of sensation occurs.

This is also known as "projecting", and it is a normal part of all knowing/understanding.

The other causes certain sensations, emotions, in the organism which it cannot resist or explain.

In order to make them comprehensible the brain transfers the source of these sensations/emotions outside of itself, placing a necessary distance which is then confused as being unrelated to self.

The sensation/emotion is blamed on the otherness, turning it into its "motive", offering the possibility of understanding.

The sensations/emotions produced by the otherness – whether intentionally or not – are then blamed on this otherness, through transference.

The self rejects the "negativity" of otherness (pain, need, suffering, threat, fear...) by placing it as something external from itself.

The brain projects itself in the other's position, and taking itself as the standard, imagines its own sensations/emotions if it were saying/doing/acting in whatever way confronts it.

This is the first stage of empathy.

 

---The brain must find something positive to feed on, in the otherness.

It uses its sense of self, and its past experiences to navigate it towards patterns that have, in the past, offered it a benefit.

It directs itself away from patterns which in its experiences have given it a negative outcome.

Sensations and emotions are how it gauges the positive/negative nature of otherness, having no other standard but this simplistic, animalistic, naturally evolved one.

In the "positive" it sees itself, as a partaker, or as one and the same.

In the "negative" is sees the alien other, as what must be rejected, escaped, forgotten... the eternally different.

 

---The (inter)action of self with otherness, whether this be an organism, a phenomenon, or an idea, exposes the nature of the individual.

The (re)action, emotional or physical, towards this otherness, now exposing itself as known, by connecting it to personal experiences and self-knowledge, reveals the core psychology of the organism.

 

 

Two types of minds, determining their masculine/feminine nature:

 

1-Those who find identity, self-worth, pride, vicariously through others.

2-Those who find identity self-worth, pride, in others.

 

The first accept the prevailing status quo, positioning themselves within it as second-hand participants.

Their understanding of thinking is one where one simply adopts one or the other, already established, ideologies/dogmas, philosophies, as your own.

The second position themselves in reality, the world, as they experience it first-hand.

Others are parts of the experienced environments that inform them of themselves in relation.

 

The first know words, the labels, the language... but when they do not fully understand–they know – because they've adopted what they could not find, create, on their own.

The second have their personal experiences and how their minds understood them; they found patterns in them – which were then informed, supported or contradicted by others.

This makes their position less certain from a social perspective, but more personal. 

 

The first defers, refers (regurgitates, name-drops, parrots), to other sources... transferring his own self-worth, and will, to an otherness.

The otherness usually offers a "positive" return, in the form of emotion.

Therefore, the most popular authorities are those with a "positive", to the majority, message, or perspective.

The second refer to sensual, aesthetic, empirical data, only using other sources to bolster his convictions – either by challenging them or by lending them credence through agreement.

The emotional appeal is of secondary importance.

If it is not they quickly become part of the first more popular group.

 

 

The projection of motive upon the other is the clearest indication of identity.

The brain places itself in the others position and imagines itself if it thought, behaved, acted, in the manner it perceives.

It then tries to comprehend the alien, unknown, otherness, using this construct.

Its own motives, if it were in the other's position, then become the other's motives.

The unknown otherness becomes less stressful through this transference of emotion/motive.

If the other offers a "positive" emotional possibility, no such evaluation is required. The motives of the "positive" source are rarely, if ever, questioned by the average mind. They are taken for granted, as "truth", resulting in a shared delusion which now defends itself against any "negative" possibilities with a shared, communal, transference of motive.

 

 

Knowledge: Data, code, information... maintain in memory

Two forms: first-hand (experiences, sensation, perceptions), second-hand (experiences, sensation, perceptions, encoded and adopted)

Understanding: patterns in the known.

These can be directed towards the unknown, otherness, or future... the unknown, as a projection of probabilities in the possibilities.

 

The most widespread misunderstanding of knowledge is that knowing is equivalent to understanding. Not that knowledge can, or might, lead to understanding, but that knowing and understanding are tautologies.

This factors into the modern access to information offering the illusion of parity in intelligence.

In these times the collective unconscious has been mitigated by a collective conscious, with this confusion between knowing and understanding.

Education becomes a method of integrating into this emergent mimetic consciousness, as a specialized worker.

To know the words, the methodology, the practice, the precedent, and to follow it, has replaced understanding, as the recognition of patterns within the environment, using personal effort.

If one knows, holds in memory, the codes, the communal words, and can refer and defer to them, sometimes repeating them verbatim, then this is sufficient to be called a "thinker".

To "think" is now the wilful, and enthusiastic, inclusion of your brain, as a conduit for the spread of communal data.

As data is disseminated, evenly, parity in knowing is achieved.

All participants can now find self-worth, pride, in being part of this communal process.

The individual finds value not as an individual but as a participant who repeats, supports, promotes, the communal codes, principles, the shared knowledge – production/consumption turning quantities into qualities.

 

 

As it pertains to "philosophy".

 

When many use the term "philosophy" what they mean is a deference/reference, to famous philosophical schools of thought.

An academic form where one knows the words, the terms, the titles, though he may have no clue about the content, the substance, how this refers and defers to reality.

This is a reference/deference to other minds... a transference of will (along with the costs and risks and benefits).

It's an engagement of reality through a middle-mind.

All have a philosophy, as this simply indicates a relationship of mind to otherness.

We all have a way of interpreting phenomena... and we all like to think that we love wisdom.

There is not a mind alive which either directly or indirectly does not relate to reality.

But when the simpler mind uses the term he thinks of it only from the perspective of a knower, of what is "established" or popular, or marketable... and what is most marketable is what promises the most benefit, without the costs, and no risks.

Therefore, the risk of exposing yourself as a simpleton is reduced when you become an advocate of another's thinking.

All this requires is knowing... memorizing, deferring/referring, to the authority source.

The mind then hopes that it does not come across another mind who has more knowledge of the authorities thinking, or that can connect this thinking to reality. Then it can repeat the words, the titles, without having to apply them in reality, because application would require understanding – understanding not only the ideas being repeated, and adopted as one's own from an external source, but of reality itself, which is independent of all perspectives and opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Δημοσίευση σε άλλες σελίδες
Guest Satyr

 

Laconic...

There are two reasons to remain brief in your analysis of complex issues:

 

1- You understand the issue so well that you can reduce it down to its basic elements, and then share it with those who are on your level.

This does not work when addressing a vaster populace, with varying degrees of intelligence, knowledge, and understanding.

If you are trying to reach more people then this method would prove detrimental to your motives.

If, like some thinkers in history, you are motivated to avoid engaging the average simpleton, and to address those on your level directly, then remaining laconic, and vague, to them, while comprehensible to those on your level, is best served laconic methods.

The usage of mediums which all have access forces such a method to adopt ways that go over the head of the mediocre mind.

 

2- You have no understanding and remain trite because you cannot explain why you think the way you think.

When pushed you refer, and defer, or you resort to humour, or some other redirecting strategy, not wanting to be exposed as what you are. 

This method is useful when you are trying to mask ignorance and simplicity, behind deferring insinuations that you cannot defend.

Using fancy words masks this simplicity in thinking further, trying to intimidate the average person from questioning you, and so uncovering your simplicity.

The previous functions in the same way modern art attains value, as in high price tags, or market value: popular appeal, acceptance – quantitative over qualitative substance.

The regurgitating mind, need not understand anything, only imply, just as the modern artist need not draw or create anything one can recognize, only allude to it.

The modern artist sets-up his authority by finding the right agent which will raise his social status, and along with it the price of any crap he calls "his art."

 

The "creator" relies on the modern value of fame and peer pressure to impose the creativity upon the observer. The observer not wanting to look foolish will project upon any crap, the famous artists puts on display, his own ideas...he becomes the artist.

The "value" he sees is his own projection.

In the case of modern "thinkers" the fame cannot be earned but only acquired through association.

He will place himself as a follower of some famous figure, and from him he will find authority in fame.

No personal contribution is required once this connection, feminine in its methodology, is established. The "modern mind" need only allude to the thoughts of the famous figure, without having to display any understanding of them.

The observer, not wanting to seem ignorant and foolish himself, will not challenge the assertion offered if it is accompanied by a reference which alludes to understanding.

He does not have the understanding, himself, to question the other's ignorance, and so both participate, as with the case of modern art, in this mutually supporting condition of delusional insinuation... lacking any substance.

Except for the emotional reward.

Both gain social status if the fame is high enough.

At this point each will serve as a defender of the other, since the disruption of the illusion will expose them to the reality of who they are.

 

=========

 

The easiest way to determine this ruse is to evaluate the degree of reference to reality the artist or "thinker" is displaying.

The more disconnected it is from the world as it is perceived, and relies on referring and deferring to the mind of another, or to a social codependency, the more disconnected he is form what he is offering.

The "modern artist" has nothing to present, but only to sell, by manipulating the observer on an emotional level.

The "modern thinker", the so called "philosopher", has nothing to say, except exploit human emotion, by using human vanity, and certain words full of socially constructed emotional contexts.

 

 

The irony of actions being more honest than words is that the common mind, thinking he is alluding detection by using words, some vague and obscure so as to pretend complexity, is really exposing himself in ways he may not be immediately aware of.

 

"The company you keep...."

 

 

Sex, being the only biological answer we have to mortality, is a central component in human psychology.

It can reduce our anxiety concerning our inevitable demise.

But in these days of repressed sexuality, and uncontrolled reproduction, bringing about all sorts of mutations which are never culled out of the human gene-pool, sex, and its many expressions can act as an indirect indicator of internal psychological/mental processes.

To put it bluntly, the form one's sexual fantasies take, exposes the hidden, subconscious, nature of the individual.

The brain being a central hub for the nervous system, and the nervous system being a sensory network passing data to the brain from external – through the sense organs – and internal sources, processes data and interprets them with images, colours, shapes, and then with symbols – such as words, language, numbers.

These images, symbols can be harvested from the data the brain receives through the sense organs, of the external world, can be used to interpret, represent, internal neurological impulses, data influxes.

Organic (inter)actions can produce in the brain a neurological, and psychological (re)action.

If the neurological data are sexual in nature then the images, symbols, sometimes experiences in dreams, become manifestation of sexual discomfort, dis-ease, dissatisfaction.

 

=======

 

Imagination takes the experienced and projects it as an immanent probability, into the unknown, yet to be, future.

It evolved to offer the organism an advantage by efficiently focusing energies; the more precise the organisms interpretations of reality, all the more accurate its projections, making its preparatory expenditure of energies – its pre-emptive activities – more effective.

Fantasy is imagination detached from reality.

The more detached the imagination becomes, taking the experienced, the interpreted, the perceived patterns, and combining them in ways that refer to nothing outside the brain, the more 'fantastic' the projections – fantasy.

When the organism is sheltered, not facing the immediate repercussions of its own detached projections, then fantasy becomes an indulgence used by those wanting to detach from reality so as to psychologically rest.

The relieving sensation, felt as pleasure – pleasure being the temporary abatement of need/suffering – become addictive.

Fantasy becomes an inebriating escape from a stressful reality, alleviating anxiety.

 

When fantasy and sex combine, then fantasy becomes a method of alleviating sexual realities – a way of escaping the reality of sex.

The form this fantasy takes, sometimes going so far as to become a role-playing game, expresses the particular mind's sexual anxieties, pointing to the source of its deepest sexual needs.

 

 

Female sexuality is "feared", or it causes anxiety in males, in the same way nature is feared.

It is the relentlessness, the cold decree of nature selecting who goes on, which woman represents.

Like nature woman had to be tamed, mastered, by men to make order possible – nature being this slow decline towards chaos.

 

The masculine elements in females had to be nurtured, accentuated, and equalized, as much as possible, with those of the average male, by emasculating men in the process... this in modern systems.

 

Female sexuality is about sampling as much genetic variations as possible... every 6-7 years.

In primate social groups the female uses sex as a method of creating and maintaining alliances.

She gives into beta-males or inferior males so as to keep them on her side.

 

Ludovici thinks this means she has no taste.

I disagree.

Female taste is aesthetic... she appreciates symmetry in form and, more importantly, in mind.

But being that she must find what is superior she cannot fully understand what attracts her, so she must rely on clues such as resource control, humour, beauty, popularity etc.

She feels things, not really understanding why.

This is what a female considers "love" or her "emotional" connection... also called by many other terms: chemistry being one.

This instinctive attraction to power makes her an easy mimetic convert.

In nihilistic cultures, such as the modern one, this places her in opposition to her own sexuality, her own intuitions... ergo she says one thing, in agreement with cultural norms, and then acts in contradiction to it, in accordance to her emotional, instinctive drives.

This is the "distance" you speak of... and the source of this continuously "searching for herself" we see women repeat in pop-culture.

 

 

Female sexuality is better suited for marriage because of the very nature of her sexual role.

A female is burdened, by her role, by gestation and weaning – gestation continued out of the womb – placing her, for a period of time, at the mercy of others.

The social factor is important to the female sex, and she can easily transfer this dependence, tolerance, to a single entity, a mate.

This only lasts for as long as it takes for a human infant to mature to the point of being sufficiently self-reliant.

In a feminized culture this is where the spiritual aspect of sex comes from.

Because, for the female, sex is also about creating and maintaining social bonds and the reproductive purpose can lose its relevance, if, like in present environments, there are population and resource stresses present.

 

 

The individual will present himself/herself, in the way he wishes to be perceived, accentuating, sometimes to the extreme, the parts of himself he feels the most insecure about.

This part of him must be acknowledged but not taken literally – it should be placed as a background, and not considered part of the foreground.

This is simply the outer manifestation of a self he has built since adolescence, when he became aware that he could not be himself, all the time.

The role was adopted from circumstance. He was thrust into it, and he simple played along, altering the image slightly to fit into the persona he wished to project, and the one he could play-out convincingly, given the particular strengths and weaknesses he was born with.

To this outer shell, this foreground, the hyperbole, one must juxtapose those instances when he drops his guard, due to comfort levels rising, being introspective, not realizing he is being watched, or when dominated by strong emotion, shattering the social image with an internal truth.

From this comparison one can determine the inner core of the individual.

 

 

Taking advantage of a perceived weakness is a more honest representation of character than the fake compassion, and social etiquette, a mind has been trained to act out every day.

Once the vulnerability exposes itself the need in the individual, that pick-up on it, takes over – lit becomes irresistible to it.

Not wanting to scare the vulnerable one back into hiding, forcing it to become defensive, a passive demeanour is adopted, with casual insinuations, testing the waters, trying to get closer; wanting to see more, smell more.

From a third-party vantage point two individuals are exposed.

The obvious one, who in its need of help uncovers its wounds... but also the one who wishes to take advantage, to feed on those wounds, holding himself back only because he does not wish to make himself obvious.

Have you seen a mother bird feigning a broken wing to distract a cat away from her nest?

The cat cannot help but fall for the ruse every time.

 

 

Easiest way to ingratiate another towards you is self-deprecation which does not go over the top.

It gives the impression of humility, the ability to take a joke, the sense that you do not take yourself seriously, that you aren't stuck up or a snob.

 

 

What many men call "progress" is only their forced adjustment to the tides of change.

They are like a river walker who tries to maintain his balance in the water's course.

At the flow alters his environment he struggles to remain afoot, and this struggle in relation to change he cannot control, nor stop, but only endure, he calls a "step forward".

 

 

The average, modern, western, male, moron who lacks the mind to be interesting, will resort to a simple ruse:

Use words that imply understanding, avoid elaborating, and remain ambiguous to the point where you play with the probing exploratory judgements of others.

The ruse is meant to attract attention, particularly female attention, and it indicates a desire to find what he cannot find in his immediate surroundings.

Such a mind will never say anything above its ability.

Its words will be on the level of its intellect... and its pronouncements will always tend towards the mediocre.

But if it must pretend to be more than what it is, besides the casual name-dropping, references to famous titles, words connected to interesting concepts etc., he will remain obscure, using humour to avoid being exposed as what he is.

In fact humour will be a sign that he is feeling uncomfortable, that he has strayed out of his comfort zone, and wishes to return the situation back to the mundane, the cute, the meaningless banter, full of sexual innuendoes, where he feels more comfortable.

If he offers pompous declarations of his brilliance it will be with an air of boyish playfulness... seeding a possibility he can deny was his intention.

He can then turn the tables, accusing the other, who tried to uncover his pretence, of being jealous, or obsessing, or reading too much into it... or whatever.

His mystique will increase amongst those who are simpler than he is.

The only thing you will never find such a mind doing is uttering a phrase, using his own words, which is remotely interesting to anyone above his level, or beyond the popular, the usual, the mediocre; to explain this inability, and if pressured, he will become dismissive of ideas which he will claim he "knows" but has gone beyond – indifference is also cool.

 

 

The only certain thing is that all have some form of insecurity which they hide from others, and that they are reminded of it every time they come across someone who is superior to them in the one area they feel the most insecure about... leading to resentment or an inspiration or infatuation of some sort.

For instance, my own interest in humanity and human nature, wanting to observe the average in their multifaceted behaviours is based on insecurity in relation to a world where humanity encompasses me forcing me to deal with it.

There is no escaping mediocrity, unless one wishes to live as a hermit.

 

It's the democratic, liberal, nature of my environment, though hypocritically so, that makes the base a matter I must spend time analysing.

They would be the species occupying the same spaces as I, in an urban jungle. No matter how inferior they might be on their own, in numbers they must be considered a force...

Self-Deprecation also makes the other feel more trusting, opening himself up to you.

It's a way to peer into what he hides.

Another advantage is that gives you the opportunity to ridicule what you despise by turning it into a joke, through imitation.

I've mentioned this elsewhere... the comedian – stand-up comic – always begins with a period of self-abasement, which then opens the audience up to what will follow...which is insulting to most of them.

The comedian can now tell his audience what he really thinks of them by directing some of the assaults upon himself.

He becomes the representation of them... and he lets himself have it.

The audience knows, intuitively, they are being insulted, that they are being exposed to the truth about themselves, and to the realization that their pretences are insufficient, that others can see them as the hypocrites that they are, but they cannot do anything about it, and this causes stress, anxiety... so they release the stress energy in laughter.

And, like you said, the same method is used by modern politicians.

They pretend to be like the common douche-bag which they have little if any respect for... so as to them use them.

The Christian church did the same... and so did Marxism

 

 

With moderns, of the liberal type, the comedy acts as this stress reliever... a redirection when they come across their own reflection... when they realize that they can be seen, by some, and that their bullshit pretend personae, full of bluster and bragging, and posturing, is not effective enough to convince everyone.

We must keep in mind that "everyone' is an important concept for the modern...because more is more, and all must buy into the lie – in one's own vicinity – or else the spell is broken.

They try to use others on their level as a way of escaping into the multiplicity of the herd, out of the spotlight.

They want attention but only if the light shines on their personae and not them as they are in their nature.

They want their act, their pretence, their performance, to be admired; while their true self lies hidden in the shadows... they hide it from themselves, no less, because this makes the act more convincing.

They are about the performance, performing... which then can be redirected towards production, producing.

A producer and a performer sell a product, and so an audience, a buyer in multitudes, is how to evaluate their performance, their production value. 

 

The pretence is really a way of protecting who they really are.

So, someone bragging about his sex-life is hiding something in relation to sex, and someone bragging about their creativity is really masking insecurity about their creative talents, in relation to another.

All value judgements are comparisons, so the individual is always comparing self with another.

If the other being idolized is some caricature which is not real – such as a pop-cultural icon who has built an unreal image of his identity – then this insecurity is deep and endless. 

Modern minds compare themselves to these cultural caricatures, that are fabrications of an image-making industry... and so their insecurity runs deep and can never be surpassed.

This is why bragging and posturing becomes a part of modern personalities.

But what works on others cannot work on self.

The self intuits its own lies, at the same time being convinced of their superficial validity (compartmentalization, schizophrenia)... and knows that what it is trying to convince others about is not a fact.

The self feels the bullshit it is selling as a social image mirroring the idol it is emulating, and feels a bit ashamed, embarrassed... it deals with it using drugs, alcohol, or some other form of escapism.

 

 

Have you seen a rat suddenly exposed to the light, as it comfortably roamed around the kitchen floor all confident and undisturbed?

It momentarily freezes, its energies gathering for the fight/flight.

Then, having decided on the less costly option, it scurries for the shadows.

Does it stay there?

Never.

The need to come out again and feed is too strong.

It waits, and waits, until the light it turned off again.

Then cautiously, it creeps back out, gaining confidence by the minute... until the light opens again.

 

 

The study of human psychology is the bedrock upon which we can build our understanding of human constructs.

The methods used by an individual to hide, to redirect, to protect and to expose, his most vulnerable core, how this displays the very essence of the individual because it exposes what he most values in himself, and feels the most vulnerable about; the way individuals gather data, how they use otherness to fabricate a persona, an image... all that is essential if we are to understand culture, how civilizations construct their own image, what they hide and how... how they create concession and spread data, what they think of reality, and how they relate to it, and so on.

The Meme<>Gene continuum.

 

 

How controversial a subject is will be based on popular beliefs.

The more a position contradicts the common, the popular, the settled; all the more it will rouse disdain, emotional reactions, and attacks on a personal level.

The subject will become another adolescent game of popular appeal, where the reader, the audience, becomes the focus rather than the topic being explored.

In open forums, or in public spaces, to avoid this predictable outcome – if one wishes to avoid it rather than to produce it as part of some tactic – using more subtle, laconic, artistic language will make your position clear to the few who possess the wit to understand while, at the same time, excluding the rabble who will consider it confusing and gibberish, losing interest in time.

If, on the other hand, your goal is to cause a stir, so as to observe the reactions, and study the common man and how he "thinks" then clear, direct, and vulgar language is required, because it is the only kind he can understand completely.

Prepare for personal assault... but, if you are already prepared for it, this will not matter.

 

 

The weaker mind, the weaker position, will always defer to some hypothetical external source of strength and validation.

It will not, and cannot, support its own beliefs, in most cases because they are adopted and accepted on emotional grounds.

For example, in the controversial subject of human intelligence, the allusion to some authority always comes up.

The defenders of equal potentials in this area of human nature will not be able to explain how intelligence evolves, or why it evolves, if it is so ubiquitous and uniformly distributed within the human population, nor how other organisms do not also share in this shared potential.

They will claim a superior understanding of evolution theory and then fail to prove it by answering very simple questions requiring their own judgment to apply this understanding they profess.

The usual method, one, the simplest among them, turn to quickly, is sarcasm, innuendos directed on the person, internet jargon pretending understanding they cannot apply, deference to the hypothetical silent audience as in "everybody knows...” begging for support, and emotional appeals (shame, love, hate, morality, justice, compassion etc.)

 

 

Never doubt the force of reciprocity amongst the herd members.

The need to preserve social status will force them to return a gift given, no more or less than they will be forced to return a slight offered.

A hurt received will be returned, sooner or later, in an indirect way.

 

 

The female psyche will never forget nor forgive, within social contexts, or within the contexts it can comprehend, anything or anyone which diminishes them within those contexts.

Exposing the methods is a form of diminishing, as it reduces their effect and effectiveness.

Demystifying females, for example, will, most certainly, result in a reciprocal attempt to use your nature to slander you, even if your nature is not denied, nor has ever been denied.

The hypocrite, dependent on pretences, will then try to threaten the one exposing him/her, as what they are as opposed to what they are not, by using what the other admits as an insult, though it was never denied nor hidden.

For example, exposing a liar as the liar that he is will undoubtedly result in an attempt to return what has caused pain.

The hypocrite, taking himself as an example, will then use what was given to him, freely, as an insult, because he cannot imagine anyone exposing himself openly.

He will use what he was given, as a weapon, not fully comprehending why anyone would give him such ammunition.

In his world all is pretence, and so he will not recall that he was told, openly what he now embers as something he discovered as hidden.

His world rotates around social graces, platitudes, bullshit civility, so anything honest, direct, will not register as anything but pretence, humour, a lie.

 

 

All people, all minds, begin with the known.

What is known is the past, and what is known is known to a greater or lesser degree of precision.

That which is most intimate to all minds is self.

For non-self-conscious species knowledge is totally experienced, it is personal, or it is innate, intuitive, instinctive, inherited as genetic automatism.

In species, such as homo sapiens where self-consciousness has developed to a degree, this knowledge of the past, of one's own nature, informs an individual's experiences with the world and an individual's genetic automatism.

It adds to the brains ability to project by using self as a sounding board.

Knowing Thyself is a reference to this self-consciousness.

In most cases the mind simply takes what is most intimate to it and projects it, as it is, in the degree it is found in him, upon the alien other, so as to make the other known, less alien, and less of a source of anxiety – by doing so they expose themselves, or their own self-consciousness.

A more sophisticated application of the very same process would demand a refined self-consciousness, where it is used to then adjust these projections using close observation of the other's behavior.

We, as humans, are more or less similar, and where we differ is not in substance but in degree.

The adjustment of self-knowledge, personal experiences, second-hand experiences (knowledge), so as to make the projection more precise, requires direct, sensual, personal observation.

One takes what is intimate, what is known in himself, his self-knowledge, and modifies the degree and the balances of interaction in the alien other by observing this other's actions.

If one does not make these adjustments in degree what he does is project self upon the other.

Because most lack self-knowledge or the ability to perform this modification what they do is they take what little they know of themselves, and/or their personal experiences, and/or what they've learned from others, and they project it as is.

They take themselves, understand themselves using an other's methodology, and then place themselves in another's circumstances, without making the appropriate, necessary, adjustments.

Instead of understanding otherness what they do is they expose self, using a proxy mind that furnishes them with the categories, the technical jargon, and the methodology.

Possessing a very unrefined self-consciousness, or lacking the courage to fully explore and accept self, as it is, they cannot discern themselves in the projections, and so they cannot eliminate from their projections their intuitive, or second-hand, understanding of self.

Their understanding of the other is, therefore, corrupted by what are in them... usually emotional, and libidinal, energies.

 

 

Best way to estimate if the other actually understands the things he is defending, is to pressure him to defend his own positions.

If he defers to a study, some essay, he has no clue.

If he uses words, technical jargon, or refers to a famous figure, he has no clue.

If he quickly turns the focus upon you, trying to threaten you, indirectly, so that you stop pursuing the matter, he has no clue.

If he deflects, using humor, makes an excuse to leave, he has no clue.

In our age of information accessibility, and with declining ability to process data, one must guard against the modern mind.

It parrots, trying to remain true to the script it thinks will include it amongst the many, amongst the normal ones.

We are all influenced by mentors, teachers, perspectives, but if you cannot defend your own views, then you’d not really understand what you claim to think... you simply regurgitate, for the sake of inclusion, or to construct and maintain an image.

 

 

Best way to determine if the other is being dominated, given that the ego may stand in the way of a more direct and honest method, is to see how he uses your arguments, adopts your conclusions, shapes his own beliefs by replacing your words with his own.

 

 

Whether it be true or not, the mind will interpret the feelings the other is producing in him as the intent, the motive, and will react accordingly.

This can only occur in a mind who is not fully aware of itself, as in it does know itself.

To know one's self is to separate, filter out, one's own sensations, interests, emotions, from the otherness you are evaluating.

You are still using self as a starting point, the experiences you juxtapose otherness upon, but only from a distance, placing the otherness in the forefront and using self, knowledge of self, personal experiences, as the background.

Like an image, a form, casts a shadow on the background, so too will the other's nature stand-out, as the backdrop recedes.

The peripheral will be cut-away... leaving a general outline.

 

The biggest mistake made by the average mind, is when it does not fully know, or accept, itself. In this case the elements belonging to self cannot be separated from its perception of otherness.

The foreground, of his personal experiences, interests, emotions, along with the vague conception of self, will become the foreground, and the otherness will recede as the background.

He will then confuse his imagined projection of self, upon the otherness, as the essence of the otherness.

 

 

When people think "appearance" they immediately think "still picture", image.

 

Appearance is movement, activity...

Photographs must be compared to an action, such as a thinking process.

Sometimes past actions become imprinted in the appearance, but this takes time, and it depends on the impact the action/experience had on the individual.

Appearance always follows, and so a beautiful woman suffering from AIDS will appear healthy, pretty, vibrant, because the illness her past, has yet to impact her appearance. As time goes on the past appears like a photograph being developed in a dark-room.

The past slowly emerges into the present, which is no more than a more immediate past; it accumulates there.

How we look, our interactivity is an expression of the aggregate past.

We wear our past....

Our personal past, our experiences, but also our inherited past: genes being inherited experiences (inter-activities).

We are this inherited past as it has been shaped (altered, morphed, changed) with the personal past.

 

-----------------------------

 

In a sense appearance, a still-shot, like in a picture, is frozen time-space, minus the dimension of existence (movement, activity).

It can only capture a part of the essence... like a picture of a random tree can only capture part of what it is to be a tree.

Movement, activity – thinking being a hidden form of it one can only access via the expression of language or through art – is the best way to experience the others nature... his spirit of Becoming.

 

 

When a child is hurt, it goes running to the adult, the authority, and the reliable, responsible ones.

It never questions its own motives, practices, judgments.

It externalizes the cause, first, and seeks support where the threat/pain came from.

 

 

Some people experience the world through Biblical scripture...others use Astrological charts, others use Jungian categories, others use philosophical schools, and so on.

Basically there are two ways of engaging the world, corresponding to the two brain hemispheres, and the two sexes, and in the dualism the brain evolved to utilize so as to simplify the fluid into static models: abstractions.

Our organic structures, their interactions, hierarchies... how different organs within the organism relate, and the environment determines our personality.

We are born with the instinctive predisposition to self-maintain, to grow using the access energies once self-maintenance is accomplished, within the time/space frame of our awareness (this is a crucial point deciding how secure we are and how we utilize our excess energies), to seek self via others (a particularity of social species, with a heightened sense of self-consciousness), determining how much validation, social support, we need, and how much our sense of self-worth is tied-up in the judgments of others... and finally we are born with a libidinal energy, associated with the previously mentioned desire to release, expunge, accumulated energies, towards creativity, procreativity, control, growth, expansion etc.

The dominating power of each predisposition (drive), within us is inherited as an organic potential, nurtured within a particular environment.

 

One method is intuitive.

One may not know exactly how or why but they feel things, informing them of the essence of otherness.

This feeling is a product of the past: past experiences or inherited experiences, through the genes.

Organic

The other is more rational.

One may not be able to translate the environment, otherness, immediately, easily, but one can fall back on text, or script, or a system (s)he has trained himself to follow.

The understanding is a product of the past, as well: past second-hand experiences, inherited as knowledge.

Academic

A combination of the two is usually the rule, with some extreme cases representing both types being rare.

The extent, to which one dominates, takes precedence, over the other, decides the method each individual uses to approach the unknown otherness.

 

 

Heidegger, Martin wrote:

    “Freedom is only to be found where there is a burden to be shouldered. In creative achievement this burden always represents an imperative and a need that weighs upon man’s overall mood, so that he comes to be in a mood of melancholy.

    All creative action resides in a mood of melancholy [schwermut], whether we are clearly aware of the fact or not, whether we speak at length about it or not. All creative action resides in a mood of melancholy, but this is not to say that everyone in a melancholic mood is creative.

    Aristotle already recognized this connection between creativity and melancholia when he asked the question: Δια τι παντες οσοι περιτοι γεγονσιν ανδρες η κατα φιλοσοφιαν η πολιτικην η ποιησιν η τεχνας φαινονται μελανχολικοι οντες: Why is it that all those men who have achieved exceptional things, whether in philosophy, in politics, in poetry, or in the arts, are clearly melancholics?

    Aristotle explicitly mentions Empedocles, Socrates, and Plato in this context.

    (Aristotle also distinguishes between μελανχολια δια φυσιν and a μελανχολια δια νοσον).

 

Understanding the above quote will contribute to your understanding of modernity, the current western psychology/psychosis.

 

 

When adapting, it may become necessary to fall back.

This is crucial when you come into contact with a character that has been watching, or is a bit more cynical and clever, in a sociological sense, than the common.

Falling back involves relinquishing a position of power – as in a battlefield or on a chess board – to gain a strategic advantage.

By "falling back", by retreating, you seemingly admit a weakness, to the opponent, feeding into his hopes and fears.

Then you play it on, stoking the flames of his anxieties, to where hyperbole takes over, and he begins to overestimate himself, and underestimate you; a difficult time, to swallow your pride, and remain silent.

It's when the other side gains confidence, which he already presupposed by engaging you in the first place, when he begins to slip-up, and surrender some of the self-discipline his early anxiety forced upon him.

He will begin to exaggerate his own strength, in relation to you, underestimating you in proportion to the degree he now thinks he overestimated it before.

Depending on your motive... this is the time to use subtlety.

 

 

The simple have no way to express their convictions. They feel them in their bones, and the feeling has not translated into a lucid concept.

Their words are always artistic, elusive, vague, hinting at their sensations, but still void of lucidity.

They remain Laconic, for the same reason the Spartans did – to coin the term – because they are hiding something.

The Spartans cultivated invincibility, protecting a city with no walls.

To speak too much, like the Athenians, would expose them and their weaknesses.

So, they used few words, preferring to allow the other to inflate them into whatever their psychology, fed by Spartan legend, directed them towards.

The practice is used by the weak of mind, as a method of hiding something... only in their case it is rare that they will, like the Spartans, have deeds to back up their fame.

Few words are not always a sign of depth; verbal dearth is not necessarily a result of aloofness.

 

 

Sometimes weakness laughs at what it has come in contact with on numerous occasions, but has yet to find a response to.

His nervous reaction releases anxiety, and also implies a potential he cannot deliver with words.

Weakness laughs when what it finds terrifying, terrible, beyond its strength, has become known to him.

It tries to ridicule it emotionally, because it cannot do so rationally.

 

 

To know things is to recite them, to repeat them from memory, to follow a text.

To understand things is to find patterns in them, to connect these patterns in alternative ways.

You can know something without understanding it.

The usage of feeling as an argument in the defense of what is known is a way of implying that what you feel, and cannot explain, justifies you holding onto your beliefs without having to justify them.

In this case, remaining distant and vague is not a method, but a necessity.

 

 

Some approach you feeling invulnerable behind their exoskeleton of shiny, impressive, armor.

It is one they’ve purchased, piece by piece, and then built in the quiet of their secret armory, or it is one they were handed, second hand, by a parent or mentor.

Their skin is soft, underneath, the metal shell.

The absence of nerve endings in the metal, a technological numbness, a fabricated detachment, they think is power.

They have confidence, courage placed upon their armor, and behind the protective layer, the same fragile organism shivers when ire scrapes against it.

They have worn this contraption for a long time, changing it, only, as fashion demands; adding to it, to keep it updated with the most current innovations.

Now their robotic movements are considered graceful, the noise they make is muffled by the head-piece, creating a silence inside.

Appearance, now, is, for them, this plated contraption.

They've forgotten what their skin looks like, smelling only their sweat within its confines.

Everything they see is rigid, definite, hard, because they've forgotten the suppleness of flexible skin.

No matter how safe they feel, if you stand back and see them lurching your way, you'll see flesh peeking through the parts where the divided metal plates meet, trying to form a smooth whole.

 

 

Have you heard an ape link a few rhymes together, and call it art?

It's like a brush stroke, made in haste, upon a blank canvas, sold to the highest bidder.

The "artist" lives on innuendo.

They see more than he, and with the right attitude, a glance, a manager, and a wardrobe, he may convince them that they cannot see it all; that there's more to it than its simplicity.

That's when the pocket-books open wide, and he mind-rapes them, using their own pompousness.

It takes a certain kind of arrogance – one laced with humility, if you pardon my contradiction – to turn one’s head and laugh at the display.

Oh, they will accuse him of vulgarity, of primitive crassness, of uncultivated aesthetics, but he is beyond their reputations and their verbal methodologies.

He stopped buying the fame and fortune lies... and now it no longer worries him.

When you're not selling anything, you need not buy anything... not just... any... thing.

 

 

When a woman begins to think and to relate to a man as she would a boy, reminding him of this status, and relegating him to that position of guidance seeker, behind her motherly skirts, then her intentions for him cease to be directed by her sexual impulses.

He has become a potential friend, beta-male ally, a hanger-on she might settle for when nothing much is available.

 

 

The fool is always misunderstood.

He is either a buffoon, with nothing much to say, or he uses an economics if words to remain uninterested in the outcome, whatever it might be.

He speaks, but not clearly, nor with his own words.

He defers himself, or speaks in that Delphic style, the Jews adopted for their own texts, to pretend to be wise when he is ignorant and desperate for help.

 

 

When a needy fool has nothing to say and nowhere to go, he prances about nervously, trying to expend his unfocused energies upon some pointless activity.

If he is noticed, he may wish to retain this attention, finding in it a purpose in itself, by leaping into the air, juggling items it happens upon, or by practicing some acrobatics.

He is not doing anything, nor saying much at all.

And if he is to be accused of trying to imply something he will deny it with a passion.

He has found his purpose – his means which need not lead to an end.

Why did Diogenes masturbate in the town square?

 

 

The cynic insists that the other attempt to justify his claims, knowing that no position is free from flaws.

His motive is to denounce any proposition which would expose his own thoughtlessness as just, and as good a position as any.

This is how a negative can be used to level all into a positive uniformity.

 

Socrates used this technique to seed doubt in the minds of those that would take advantage of human folly, and the weaknesses of their fellow countrymen.

Having attained some wisdom in his travels he returned to his city with an appreciation for ignorance amongst those who did not possess the character necessary to handle insights into the human condition.

So we are told by Plato.

Later Nietzsche, and Strauss, amongst others, would come to a similar realization.

 

 

The coward, afraid of angering the gods, will deny himself the sacred practice of passing judgment, fearing that some karmic bad faith will cloud his blue skies, and lightning will strike him dead.

He prefers to utilize his mind in the most unobtrusive ways, not insisting on anything, placing his faith on chance.

Then he feels in-tune with his own meekness, knowing that whatever evils might befall him afterwards he can always blame it on injustice, and the evils of other men, feeling the victim that deserves better.

 

 

The compulsion to appear spontaneous might be connected to two psychological undercurrents:

 

1- A naiveté trying to turn a weakness into a charming strength – a shallow existence living on the compulsions of the moment, hypothetically in the moment because the sources of the impulses are never traced back to their origins.

A marketer's dream.

 

2- The second reason can be connected to Modernity and its obsession over youth and trying to remain youthful.

The ideal of remaining as innocent, carefree, careless, as possible, translated in the excitement of not being aware of your own next choice.

The natural ordering of an organism sheltered from the severity of the act, can now indulge in unstructured reactivity to whims.

Flavors of the month, the charms of unpredictability turning simplicity into a pretend complexity, boredom with one's self and with modern life's time-clock consistency...

 

For the mind seduced by the idea of randomness there is no rhyme nor reason to anything it does or thinks or chooses, as any given time: a desire to escape the order of things, if only with symbolic hypothetical random choices.

The order might be that of social constructs, manmade order (society, culture, morality, etiquette, and so on) or a more profound order, that of nature (sex, race, etc.)

The outcome is an evasive play.

No organism can exist without order, unless it has become mad, where mental order has ceased to be present.

The mind, psychologically driven, to preserve the child's excitement of early life, indulges in willful, subconsciously planned, and always symbolic, never overly costly, acts of hypothetical randomness.

This becomes their pattern.

Share this post


Link to post
Δημοσίευση σε άλλες σελίδες
Guest Satyr

 

Perspectivism as a Psychosis

Any critique exposing the nature of a behavior, a value standard, is to be considered an attack, a rejection, an annulment.

The "positive" must be brought to the forefront, and the "negative" pushed back, in time/space, until it is no more than a distant memory now overcome.

The mind hypnotized in positivity, as a sensation of its own righteousness, its need made sacred; flattery, surrender to the pleasant, avoidance and disregard, degradation, of what breaks the spell.

Who but a vile, evil, Devil, would cast a shadow on the goodness of the divine?

 

 

Greed: the psychosis of our post-modern capitalistic age.

Open markets, to compensate for closed minds.

The Apollonian motto “μηδέν άγαν on its head. 

Hedonism is materialistic greed translated into a spiritual/emotional desire.

"Less is more" becomes "More is never enough"... never enough to fill the internal void, to cover the gaping wound.

Contentment in discontentment.

The "grass is always greener... " an endless search for the next luscious pasture becoming the end in itself.

No weeds are seen. The grass is greener up until the belly is full.

An insatiable appetite satisfied by nothing... seduced by the next fad, the next "best thing".

The absence of self-knowledge makes the search spasmodic, confused, and inefficient – a child spontaneously surrendering to its innate, unexplored need.

Everything, anything, becomes a potential for satisfaction

 

 

The meek one finds strength in the other's weakness.

(S)He must reduce all to a level where it is non-threatening, thinking the end result will appeal to his/her nature, but, instead, (s)he is disillusioned by it.

The feminine approach to power.

She wants what she is dissatisfied with, what can never be what she dreams it to be, but instead of taking responsibility for the outcome she blames it on this other, for never fulfilling her needs, for never living up to her expectations, for never satisfying her totally; blames the other for never reaching the ends that would gratify her completely.

 

Cynicism helps her cope, escaping culpability.

She focuses on the means, the pleasure of the reduction, the shallow moment, the sensation, the leveling, before the end leaves her hungering for what she thinks she wants but really does not.

She does not question her own ideals, the meme dominating her spirit, but only refuses her nature, the gene, not wanting to see herself as only that, not wanting to accept it as part of her identity.

She protects what she sees herself in, and because it is like her it never seduces her.

It always disappoints.

It becomes something to pity, to defend, to shelter, keeping it out of the world's burning light.

Only the perfect, the god-like will suffice, and if it fails to attain that height, she will ridicule it with glee, reducing it with her cynical scorn to the contemptible so as to justify her fantastic ideal, which is never fulfilling.

Her every word is a blade, a bite.

She imagines them cutting deep.

She finds pleasure in the fantasy.

 

 

The simple mind may display a child-like arrogance, a careless confidence, exalted in this day and age.

It is fearless when it underestimates other, or overestimates self in relation to other.

Their fallback position is that of naive ignorance.

Swagger turns to a plea, or a defensive accusation proclaiming innocence.

Once the awareness that they are way over their head begins to set in, bravado changes to benevolent ribbing, simplicity of motives, a child-like intent, and they defensively accuse the other of paranoia, or of bullying.

Their aggression, having remained ambiguous, can claim an absence of motive when all it lacked was preparation and precision.

They've been misunderstood, mistaken for something they are not, their words misinterpreted, their essence overestimated by the other – error displaced, shame averted.

The shame is upon the other, who mistook them for something else.

The tail lowers itself from the height, to a position comfortably covering the hind quarters, and the head lowers trying to appear smaller.

Passive aggressiveness now morphs into passive humility.

The aggression is transferred upon the other, who misread the signs, the symbolisms, and the words.

The other has overreacted... the other is acting under false premises.

The victim returns to its place; the place from where it acted, wanting to assert itself, to find relief, vengeance... to put the other in its place.

 

 

Humility is the expected demeanor amongst the moderns

Overt humility, covering a covert arrogance.

They value honesty, but not if it forces them to prove their worth by the other confronting them with a direct challenge.

Everything must remain on the subtle-side... all innuendo and implications.

Displays of superiority, though denied, must have a shared standard.

In most cases it is money, privilege, social status, networking, toys... family.

The other must be put in his place, down below, but not in a way that would insult him openly, forcing him into a defensive stance; anger, violence, an insult dealt must be returned.

Everything must remain amicable, on the surface, retaining that quality of denial, as a fallback position.

 

 

Compartmentalization permits the possibility of accepting two contradictory idea(l)s, simultaneously, and/or applying two standards to determine a probability within the infinite possibility of the unknown.

This produces an incoherence of mind.

The individual is not burdened by the need to integrate his perspectives into a harmonious mutually supportable whole – it lacks integrity.

The division permits the discrepancy between ideal and real, or between words and actions, resulting in a cynical defensiveness, falling back upon the absurd, the comedic, so as to dispel the internal frictions, releasing the stresses being accumulated.

 

 

Materialism= in the absence, or degradation of family, of that connection to a broader relationship with reality, materialism takes its place; money is a communal hug, a parent's pride in you.

We find individuals surrounding themselves with evidence of a missing family's love, finding their place using substitutions.

 

 

Being "open", is being uncommitted, of two, or more, minds, in a perpetual state of confusion, acting on impulse, instinct, spontaneous (re)actions to unforeseen reality.

The appeal of youthful fearlessness, exploring the world under the watchful eye of a parent.

Family is too restricting when weaning never reaches its conclusion. The community becomes the family; the institution becomes the surrogate parent.

The child leaves home, disconnecting from the biological conduit of family, replacing its dependence with the abstraction of State, Nation, Idea, money being an idea.

The loss of family, as a reliable structure, buffering between self and otherness, creates this insatiable need to find a replacement, and/or to numb one's self (hedonism), from the sensation of solitude.

 

 

Disconnection from nature can manifest in different ways.

 

History loses its tangible effect, becoming a dry recitation of dates and events, that have no meaning in the present; they do not apply – further disconnect, alienation.

The past is dead. One visits it, places flowers, reminisces, cries, laughs, and then returns to the present, the immediate, and the daily life... the Modern.

The schism is present in these daily events, this constant walking away, forgetting.

 

Surrogate sources of self-knowledge, self-appreciation, self-exploration, are found.

Essentially, what is meant by a disconnection from nature (past), is a disconnection from self; the immediate, in dimensional terms (time/space) cut-off, cut-away, from its broader, wider base.

A pyramid peak, with an eye, levitating above the pyramid base.

The superficial self, the monad, the “me for my own sake”.

The absence creates a vacuum requiring (full)filling, and like everything missing, being missed, it becomes idealized, purified by its non-presence.

The idealization can produce love and/or hate – a relationship between the immediate with the absent, the unknown, forgotten.

If the ideals fail to satisfy, or prove to be lacking, resentment turns to cynical indifference, disillusionment.

 

 

Serving the same ingredients in a different manner is almost as important as how you prepare them.

Same food, same ingredients, prepared in a different way, will produce a different reaction. Presented in a different way will, also, result in a different appreciation of the dish.

The eyes eat before the mouth tastes.

It is unhindered by volume, because its repository is the brain.

The eyes, assesses the edibility of what is before it.

The other senses add their own information.

A sensual cornucopia precedes the final deconstruction, in the digestive system.

 

Same applies in the area of ideas – nutrition for the mind.

The same elements, presented raw, unmixed, unprepared, not presented in their sauce, their spices, not deconstructed by the first step of cooking, and then not presented in the proper style, the dish, will be rejected.

You can say the exact same thing using a different word combination, a slightly different style, and the other might consider it, mentally chew on it, tasting it; say it in a different way and he will spit it out, or refuse to put it inside his mouth, his space/time.

Present fresher, healthier nutrients, alongside decayed, unhealthy ones, but prepared, spiced, and presented in a less enticing manner, and the other will choose the inferior dish.

A boy exposed to an idea(l) by a man will react to it differently than if it is presented to him by a woman.

This, fact, alone, exposes the recipient: his appetites, digestive system, his peptic constitution, his palate's sensitivity.

 

 

What feels vulnerable must be made to feel safe.

A woman, a feminine psychology, is attracted to the bad boy's indifference, and, at the same time, wants his deference.

The play of opposites.

To be strong and weak, only for her, only towards her.

To be appealing to many, but reserved for one.

A woman wants a man who is resistant to seduction, except her own.

A "stallion" only she can ride.

 

A man wants a whore, his private whore, behind the screens, and a Valkyrie on the dance-floors, his queen, to make the boys cringe.

Someone to share a glimpse, a smile, a snicker, when they speak in both text and subtext when on the public dance-floors.

 

 

The self, its inherited or experienced, (inter)actions with the otherness, discovers self as an otherness.

The exploratory stage of self-consciousness commences.

The otherness can now be understood, not only by perceiving patterns in its (inter)activity (behavior), but by relating these (inter)activities back to the most intimate, and immediate, part of existence, the emergent self.

The self cannot comprehend anything that departs from this reference point, and even here its sophistication (imagination, ability to project and perceive more subtle patterns in self and other) determines its perspective and its understanding of the alien, unknown, otherness.

It is itself, its own sounding board.

The consciousness, self-consciousness, dynamic is part of the dualism.

This is particularly limiting when the circumstances, the environment, does not permit a direct and obvious, cost for being mistaken.

The error can be perpetuated, supported by the same error being perpetuated, because it is easy to make.

The narrative becomes common, in this way.

Self-flattery, denial, fear being denied its merit and its presence, becomes an easy method of understanding other.

 

 

Honesty is valued, by the ignorant, and simple, because for them honesty can only expose flattering, sympathetic, common grounds.

The only honesty the common mind wants is the one that either flatters it or allows a window open for it to escape or to grow.

Too much intimacy leads to disillusionment... a demystification which by reducing the anxiety, reduces respect.

This is particularly true today, where rituals and rights, enforced by community reduces options, and so reduces the risks, anxiety, the potential costs.

What castrates a man is that the cost to all options, except the allowable, has made them impractical, unless the man is insane.

Parity accomplished.

Now his words become laughable.

Too little disclosure and you are a coward, suffering from intimacy/trust issues; too much and you might be exposed as a weakling, or, a psychopath.

To tread that fine line, by remaining right in the middle, makes you a healthy soul.

 

 

Honesty expresses the concept of disclosure, of aletheia.

The more discriminating the taste, the more acute the senses, the more refined the concept of intimacy becomes.

For a moron, admitting that he is afraid of heights constituted a big revelation, a trust given... because it is simple... and has nothing more to expose about itself.

If you could ask a dog what it likes, so as to expose itself in trust, what would it say?

 

"I like to chase balls... lick my anus, sniff stuff, eat... etc."

Not only is the dog simple, and there is not much to its psychology, its self-awareness, but you can know it better than it can ever know itself.

For the dog you are like it.

You are the same.

It would consider you arrogant if you told it that you considered it inferior.

It would call you a specialist, a bigot, someone who is ill, who hate it...and so on.

It would understand you no its level.

 

 

The word “cynic,” and/or “cynical,” is used by many as the modern man often uses words like “sexist,” and “racist,” and “homophobe”.

It’s a way of shaming the other, by implying that there is something wrong with them, without having to provide evidence, or arguments.

It’s an easy way to disarm without having to fight.

 

With the term “cynic,” the dog-like behavior suffices to cause the effect.

It is, also, often used in the place of the simpler, less intellectual term “pessimist”.

Like the terms sexist, racist, homophobe and pessimist, they refer to an exaggerated reaction to reality; the reaction is deemed to be exaggerated due to the shared environment we all live in, establishing a median level of anxiety/fear (stress) that, if exceeded, must be a product of a dysfunction.

But, like the terms previously mentioned, it, also, refers to a rational (re)action to reality, that may, or may not, be pragmatic because of human interventions.

 

In some cases any opinion that exceeds the median level of understanding, or alludes to a hypothesis that might raise the median level of anxiety/care/stress to where it is considered problematic, contributing to social disharmony and a loss of productivity, is included under the same title.

The exposure of the average mind to any possibility it has not considered, or it rejects because it raises its anxiety levels by contradicting its motives, is automatically blamed on the one who exposes, rather than on what is being exposed.

So, breaking the shared mythology will get you accused of cynicism, including you amongst those who simply see the dark cloud within every silver lining.

Any rational exploration of race, and/or sex, and/or homosexuality, will always produce an automatic comparison to the irrational manifestations of these perceptions.

The practice imitates the inclusion of all unproven scenarios under the title "conspiracy theories" as a way of "throwing out the baby with the bathwater".

 

By calling someone sexist, the imagery provided by pop-culture discredits the speaker.

By calling him racist, the redneck/skinhead, Neanderthal, uneducated, buffoon, is brought to mind.

By calling him a homophobe some buttoned-up, sexually repressed, anal conservative is imagined.

By calling them a pessimist, or a cynic, some depressive social outcast comes to mind, masturbating in public and living like an animal, in a best case scenario. At worse some teenage socially inept crybaby, comes to mind.

All expressions of positions that can provide an opportunity to label them using any of these words, is appreciated. It reaffirms the shared goodness of the ones who then laugh, without actually having to address the issues.

The arguments, the reasoning, the thinking involved are inconsequential.

The standard being used to measure validity is how it makes us, or the average mind, feel, or on what side of the median it falls on.

If the sensation is a negative one, or one going above the median, then the hypothesis is pessimistic, cynical, a downer.

As a side-note – going on the positive side of the median emotional scale will get you the label of naïve, but also a go-getter, a cute, optimistic soul, that brings joy to the darkest spirit with its childish ways.

 

 

When it comes to females one thing must be kept in mind: they come at you from a position of weakness... in every field except sex.

And in sex, and through sex, they find their self-wroth... while making it seem like it is you who must find it there, through them.

Though they feel more pleasure in the act of copulation, than any man can, it is you who will be the one who is made to feel more in need of it.

She wants to fuck you, but only after she makes it seem like you, the man, wants it more – she, but a passive recipient of pleasure, doing you a favor, enduring your primal nature...then judging you on your performance.

Because even though a man is driven by sexual pleasure, it is woman who judges him by her pleasure, as if a man would give a shit about it, and not the outcome for him. 

The end becomes her pleasure, and not his.

Therefore pleasure is an end in itself, because that's where a woman's identity dwells... and still it is man, the true male, who is primitive and base, not her.

This turning of the tables is where a female finds her intellectual merit.

No matter how smart the man is, if she can fool him, in this way, then she is his better.

 

 

The moment someone approaches a phenomenon from the point of view of a "problem" requiring a final and complete resolution, a fact needing to be corrected, a behavior that must be justified morally, a "why?" that must be given a final answer without a hint of uncertainty, (s)he has already presented himself, whether he is aware of it or not, as nothing more than a nihilist.

Whatever form, and symbol, this nihilism may take is only interesting when trying to determine the pathways towards self-negation this particular mind has taken, and is insignificant when considering the bigger picture.

 

 

Each mind approaches a concept, a phenomenon, an idea(l), an object/objective from the direction of his/her greatest insecurity.

As a man turns in the direction of his wound, when he is threatened, so does he turn and gather, from the psychological wound, the need, most delicate within him.

He might think he is making some salient points, relevant to the topic, when he is not, or is making points based on a misunderstanding of the topic, demanding, a reply.

 

 

People have such a low, and selective, sense of themselves that when you imitate them, to their face, they think you are being genuine.

For instance, when imitating someone's verbal acrobatics, his/her simplicity and transparent evasion strategies, (s)he will accuse you of duplicity, and describe you, using the most insulting words... essentially describing themselves, through you.

 

Example...

I remember one time I came across this one douche-bag who kept denying he said what he did, and pretended he was always misunderstood, but not once would he clarify.

He would say something, and when you exposed how stupid it was, he would claim that he did not mean it in that way, but he would never clarify what he did mean.

 

After a few dozen times of this crap, I decided that the only way to deal with a coward and idiot like that was to imitate him.

So, I would say something and then when the other called me on it I would deny that I meant it in the way he thought... but never clarified.

When the douche-bag eventually called me a coward and a hypocrite, it was brilliant.

The lesson?

Never trouble yourself with cowards and imbeciles. They have a variety of defensive strategies, one of which is retaining plausible deniabilty.

Trying to talk sense with them is futile, and it will only lead to frustration.

They discuss in bad faith.

Their motive is not clarity.

Best you can do is to make him expose himself, or use him in some other way.

 

 

No matter how sophisticated an individual appears to be, thinks he is, wishes he were...beneath the learned gestures, words, the clothes, the impressive institutional status, the gimmicks, the politeness, he is, most often, primitive and base.

In fact you can almost be assured that the moment the other claims to be complex, that he is truly simple.

The simpler he is, the more complex he will imply that he is. 

He is mysterious to himself, and so he assumes that he can know himself better than another, therefore he is too complicated to be understood by another.

In some cases the assumption of complexity is about trying to explain why he believes in one thing, and yet acts in antithesis to it.

He cannot deal with the contradiction between his conception of self, shallow as it may be, and the reality of self, as it is exposed in his actions, his secret thoughts, his automatic, emotional, reactions.

His identifier as "complex" is really a self-defensive mechanism where he must assume there is more going on in him, than he is aware, trying to deal with actions and thoughts he is trained to feel ashamed of.

Here, the other simplifying him confronts his excuse.

The other becomes his conscience... his self-consciousness that dare not speak. 

So, remember, that like the primitive man who had to put a human face on what confronted him in nature, the modern man cannot accept his own feebleness as a product of nature – he being an agency of nature.

He must accuse a human for his own nature, so as to assault and threaten, and project, and, in this way, cleanse himself.

Example...

When females try to understand why they evolved to be so physically and mentally feeble, in comparison to the male, in potential, she will have to anthropomorphize a natural result of sexual specialization.

For her, it is the man, or THE MAN, who made her uncreative, simple, sexually oriented, physically weak, cunning, and so on...

Not man manipulating what nature has produced, as men always do, but that man invented her as she is.

She will take credit for the things she likes and blame the man for the things she does not.

Ergo... why is a female vulnerable to male dominance?

Because man did this to her.

 

 

A dream may expose the conscious mind to subconscious goings on – a little message by the sum of all organic processes, which are automatic and subtle and go unnoticed, to a conscious mind burdened with more pressing and difficult tasks.

An individual's sexual proclivities, his/her sexual fantasies will do more than expose his libidinal tastes; it will uncover secret psychological underpinnings that will remain, for the most part, mysterious, and the source of nervous snickering.

It should not surprise, therefore, if I say that in a positive to action world, lacking all moral universities, all transcendental purposes and singular meanings, that it is the projection of the object/objective, in the form of an idea(l), a goal, an end, that displays the very essence of the mind that creates and flings it ahead, or that has adopted it because it was told it is the only choice.

If I am told that God is the object/objective to be striven for, then I know with whom I am dealing with.

If I am told pleasure is the end, then I immediately peek into the hidden crevices of a mind that may not be able to see for itself what it is, and what caused it to be this way.

If I come across a pedophile that has no problem admitting that having sex with prepubescent children is his life's mission, then I know with what kind of man I am dealing with.

Same can be said for any end proposed as THE end, or as a ”thuo shalt”, absolute end, a universal, end no man should turn away from.     

It is because the absolute is absent, man feeling it as NEED, and can be called what is lacking, from an organic perspective, which makes the projected object/objective, whatever form it might take, the projection of the organism's deepest most revealing spirit of Becoming. 

I've said it so often and misunderstood just as often, that it's becoming comical now.

It is not the attainment of the projected absent absolute, which is the decisive part in understanding the organism involved in its pursuit, in its "towards..." but it is the desire to attain it, even if for a short while, which is the revelatory particle.

Why?

Because, want is a manufactured desire, based on the promised fulfillment of multiple needs, directly or not, and desire is a libidinal form of the organic, and need is the sensation of existing.

What you desire points towards the goal, the motive, the hoped for destination...but it also points back towards the absence from where it exploded, as a hunger.

The particular form this hunger takes is not accidental.

It is the product of the organism's entire past – its nature.

The difference between higher and lower taste being the organism's ability to discern nuances in the desired, the wanted, the needed, making it more or less discriminating.

Finally...

A guru may meditate, trying to detach himself from his own corporeal needs, and in the meantime his heart pumps blood, his immune system is fighting off infectious diseases, his lunges are oxygenating his blood. He is in a trance, detached not from reality, from the world, but from his own sensation of it. 

An animal in the throws on frenzy devours flesh, not concerned with anything but the sensation of feeding, and another might be consumed by the sexual frenzy and not sense any fear when it acts, but their inability to be self-conscious does not make them any less needy; and when I can meditate on an urn and lose myself in a melody, I am not lost to the need/desire that brought me here to enjoy... but only lost in the ecstasy, a libidinal frenzy, where I detach myself from myself... losing self-consciousness, taken over by passion, emotion, a meditative trance – but I never lose consciousness, no more than an animal caught up in its hormone frenzy loses what it never had: a sense of self.

In that moment when my consciousness is absorbed by the object/objective of my projected need, and self-consciousness subsides... is needed done with?

Has the Flux, need is the interpretation of, ceased?

Have I stepped out of the world, or am I simply numb to it or distracted so that I do not notice?

He who thinks the lack, the absence, need is the sensation of, is gone because he is not conscious of it, and has told me everything I need to know about him/her.

The rest is filling in minor detail, to complete the outline.

 

 

A miserly ego will try to slander in order to attain a monopoly.

It is the Judaic method: degrade the real, so as to gain dominion over it; debase the man so as to make him undesirable to all but you, his master.

And if, in the process, you also lose respect, or your evaluation is decreased, then add to it, compensating for the loss of quality with the sheltering multiplicity of quantities.

 

 

The mind/body dualism, having been projected as a God/Man, or ideal/real dichotomy did not end with the demise of "God".

It simply changed labels–it was modernized, and secularized.

If you delve deeply enough you will find it beneath every modern conception of reality, going all the way back to the language of math and its binary 1/0 foundations.

With modernity the feminized spirit is dominated by the masculine form of nihilism: towards absolute order.

Without god, humanity becomes the new Ideal – the pure, ethereal, concept.

And man, strives towards the presupposition of omniscience; all that is, can be known.

And instead of God we have the monad, the god-particle, the completed M-Theory.

In the meantime, and having put the past in disrepute, if it exceeds the official narrative and contradicts current morays, man projects ends in the objects/objectives he constructs.

No longer sing-posts, symbols, metaphors, but ends in themselves.

The mind/body enters the paradigm as a way of making the noumenon dislodge itself from its role as a representation of phenomenon.

Human becomes other than animal.

Pleasure need not be a degree of need/suffering.

Beauty need not be symmetry displaying genetic health.

 

 

The common man, torn between his masculine and feminine drives, divided in a schizophrenic ideal/real dichotomy, and if he endured the first glimpse, will find any imposition into his will intrusive, and any refusal to direct his will as a failing.

The loss of the orienting either/or absolutes, with their easy ambiguities, will result in an initial disorientation, resulting in anxiety and heightened fear.

At this point most will return back to the certainty of dualism, and linguistic literalness.

When the real world is revealed to him he must be given direction while, at the same time, in a manner where his own inability to see does not shame him.

The revelation must be done in a way where he becomes convinced that he had seen all along; that what he was exposed to him had already been seen.

But his inability to translate what he sees, or to find a direction within it, will expose his lie.

The agency of what is revealed will either be accused of wanting to be a guru, a manipulator, because at this point it is easier to take on that role among the lost, or will be accused to failing to offer guidance, of being an adequate leader, by pointing to a direction towards.

To those who have no talent in seeing, and having been given insight, the danger now begins.

The either/or dichotomies will lead them to an “either,” of total despair, or to an “or,” of total detachment from reality.

To thread the ego's needle, once more, subtlety must be employed.

 

 

Nicholls, Angus wrote:

“Schiller’s account of Goethe’s decidedly sensuous interpretation of Kant leads to the central ambiguity in Goethe’s Kantianism. This ambiguity exemplifies the way in which Goethe tended to use philosophy for his own purposes, regardless of the prevailing orthodox interpretations of certain thinkers.

While Schiller appears to have been an orthodox disciple of Kant, Goethe, especially during the 1790s, simply latched on to those aspects of the Kantian philosophy that best fitted in with his own developing ideas about subjectivity.” --- Goethe's Interpretation of the Daemonic

 

The opposite of this is what is most common.

Whereas, Goethe, and any sensible man, reads authors as a hunter seeks prey, the common man only wishes to parrot and to be consumed by the dead thinker, rather than consume him – the academic spirit.

Nicholls, Angus wrote:

“Here Goethe finds himself on similar terrain to that which he traversed in “Der Versuch als Vermittler von Objekt und Subjekt.” In that essay Goethe drew attention to the “innere Feinde” that threaten the scientist at the point of transition from empirical evidence to judgment.

It is again these inner enemies that Goethe highlights in “Erfahrung und Wissenschaft” when he notes the scientific temptation to arrive at a “konstantes Phänomen,” and thus to erect an ideal around which to organize and interpret one’s empirical observations. But later in the essay, Goethe seems to regard the inner tendency toward an ideal model to be a necessary evil of any scientific enterprise. If the minute particulars of the natural objects in question are overlooked in the quest for a universal model, then, says Goethe, this is simply a reflection of the necessary inexactness of scientific cognition.”

And in this transition from sensual, empirical, to judgment, subjective, where the common man cannot take the leap and settles for whatever is most popular in his time and place.

 

 

Being absolutist thinkers, people are unable to fully grasp the idea of process, and/or fluidity.

It is counter-intuitive for them, to conceive of fluidity without taking absolutes as literal.

How could, after all, a tool dependent on static, simplified/generalized, ambiguous models, make the contemplative leap, using these abstractions, towards a dynamic, fluid state?

This inability expresses itself in many ways, but one of the ways it exposes its limitations is when every conception of a process of ascent or of descent is envisioned as an absolute here and now.

The Christian, for example, demands the "missing link", because how from chimp/human ancestry we come to a human, is not only inconceivably, and contrary to the way he thinks, but his fear that this might be fact, pushes him to easy rejections of the possibility.

The secular humanist variant of the same psychology will consider any description of cultural decline, and any criticism of the present, as a threatening affront to his comfort zones, and inconceivable as a process of decline, rather than a presence of absolute degradation.

For example, any description of the current situation in the west, as in the midst of decay, or in the process of feminization, and decadence, can be challenged on the grounds that the process has not attained an absolute state, but still retains indication of that which is in decline – this can be used as evidence that the decline, as with the evolution from common ancestor to chimp and human, is not occurring, because in the process of degradation some residual remnants persist in time, slowly fading but still present.

And so, the common man comforts himself in the midst of decay, that change is still an ascent, and progress always a positive movement towards the better, because no matter how "bad" things become, there will always be a yin in the yang to give him that glimmer of hope that things are otherwise, and no matter how dark it becomes there will always be a feint light he can turn into a distant brilliant sun.

 

 

The libidinal energies expose the essence of a person, and of a people – a culture.

It is the accumulated energies of need, fermenting within an organism (Superorganism) affected by the particularities of internal hierarchies – in the individual organ relationships, in the SuperOrganism institutional relationships.

The pressure of these accumulated energies is released in procreative and creative expression – in the sexual manifesting as fantasies and fetishism, and in the creative as art.

Art identifies the spirit of a people, within a given time/space period.

Its vulgarities, symmetries, obscenities, beauties; its popular appeal and what is censored never to find expression except in underground secret galleries.

 

 

All people require managing.

Whether they are “high maintenance” or “low maintenance” is a determination produced by the relationship between how much of you they demand, and how much you are willing, and able, to give.

Females, no matter how “independent”, or “low maintenance” they might be – from a material, or a psychological/emotional point of view, will always be a distraction, because of the nature of sexual relationships, and of the female sex.

When the physical dominates, the mental, recedes to the background; when the mental dominates, the physical recedes to the background.

When the focus is intellectual then any physical component will distract the mind, redirecting energies away from the object/objective; when the focus is physical then any mental component will distract the mind, redirecting energies away from the object/objective.

The mind is always a funnel focusing the energies of the organism, as a lens focuses light. 

 

 

Love reduces the boundaries/distances between self and other, producing a third identity through the merger – self fleeing from self into the alien by focusing on the similarities; exaggerating them to bring them into the forefront of its consciousness: a projected, into the future, object/objective (extroverted).

Hate increases the boundaries/distances between self and other, producing self-identifying clarity amongst otherness – self fleeing from otherness by focusing on the differences; exaggerating them to bring them into the forefront of its consciousness: a projected, into the past, object/objective (introverted).

Consciousness depends on divergence to produce I/Other dichotomies – the foundation of life, therefore, the former must proceed from the latter, as a way of coping; an alternate survival mechanism.

Consciousness is a forever looking-back, introverting away from the intrusive otherness, by assimilating it into its abstracting, ordering, processes.

Love is a self-annihilating disposition, if its motive is to become immersed/assimilated by an otherness; if it is also accompanied by some degree of hatred, it wishes to assimilate otherness into itself – converting the other into its own, by adapting it to its own processes.

Hatred is a self-asserting disposition, if its motive is to detach itself from otherness; if it is also accompanied by some degree of love, it wishes to distance other so as to appreciate itself in relation to it.       

 

 

All people struggle to gain the upper-hand, in relation to an otherness.

If they cannot find it using the physical then they seek for it in the intellectual; if not in the intellectual then they search for an advantage in the physical.

When their search is futile, or denied to them, they search for a way out.

Perhaps, much of modern spirituality can be summed with this continuous searching. 

 

 

Modern man is trapped within Abrahamic conceptions.

He cannot think of an affront without the evocation of sin.

Where a natural man thinks of human hubris, when judging his own actions, the Modern man degrades himself further, taking on the burden of a primordial act he then reaffirms with his own actions – the difference being that whereas hubris is protected from its own consequences by human interventions, further increasing the magnitude of the affront, sin is only made possible because of these human interventions, and has no meaning outside of them. 

 

 

The mind has formidable defensive tools to protect itself from reality, or to increase its chances of surviving within reality.

The brain is a tool of survival.

It did not evolve to offer the organism clarity and objectivity; it evolved to offer the organism a more efficient way of dealing with stresses, with needs; it evolved to satisfy needs and not to attain lucidity.

Trivers mentions how clarity is not the goal of the mind, if this clarity is detrimental to the organism's survival, and describes how in the "conflict" produced by sexual relationships, the escalation of “weaponry” begins with the lie (hyperbole), proceeds to the perception of the lie (awareness of deceit – cynicism), and then increases the stakes, by reducing the "tells" the lie produces, by then believing in one's own lie (delusion, madness).

Self-delusion, self-deceit, turns out to be a survival method when the environment is governed by the need to impress, or to become convincing to another who has also evolved the capacity to recognize deceit.

It would not be much of a stretch to then conclude that if self-delusion, in relation to the concept of God, is beneficial to the organism's mental health, that no amount of reasoning, or lucid arguments, will ever convince such a mind to give-up the lie it so desperately needs to remain sane, and to survive existence.

When it comes to aging, or cultural decline, the refusal to acknowledge what is occurring is part of the same psychological defensive method.

Like an old man (organism) refusing to accept his decline towards death, finding in his life something to refuse the inevitable, a culture (Superorganism) in decline grasps upon the increasingly rare energies within it, to justify a refusal to accept the cyclical nature of life, and by extension, of culture.

The need to remain convinced that we are living in the "best of all possible worlds" leads us to the easy acceptance of a lie, supported by a majority; a majority which lends credence to the lie's veracity, or its utility, by reinforcing it through repetition.

Once the lie has become self-replicating, offering itself as a coping method, then anyone who exposes the lie, or hints at uncovering it, is the most hated one – the insane one.

His "insanity" is not a mental fact, but it is a possible outcome of what he is offering, in antithesis to the shared delusion and its promise of eternal health; his presumed "hatred" is not his own, but one directed at him from those who feel vulnerable without the support of the shared lie.

An old man, if he is afraid of dying, will go to great lengths to refuse his declining state.

On some mornings, when he awakes feeling good, energetic, confident, he will convince himself that he is not aging, and this lie he will carry in his memory to survive those days when he awakes feeling the weight of the years upon his bones.

The same holds true for a declining civilization.

Its participants, fearing the demise of all they have become accustomed to, and hold dear (comfort, habituation) will find the exception to the rule to convince themselves that civilizations last forever; they will seek out evidence that art is not in decline, and they will forget that all things must die, in a slow process of deterioration.

These self-deceiving ones will hate anyone who reminds them of the opposite, accusing them of pessimism, or of ulterior motives; ironically, accusing them of delusion and living in their own world.

They will not be able to survive the acceptance of mortality, or of cultural degradation, because hope springs eternal, and dies last, despite the inevitable.

 

 

Paranoia is a modern word describing a baseless fear.

Considered from an evolutionary perspective, fear evolves to increase survivability; a response to the uncertain, to the unknown otherness–scepticism, and cynicism are products of “paranoia.” 

To lean towards the “negative” increases the potential to survive the unexpected.

But in heterogeneous, systems populated by myriads of unknown others, within shrinking spaces, it can come into conflict with the social necessity to integrate, to become assimilated, and to remain tolerant of the other’s proximity.

 

Paranoia has become a psychological term describing more than the mentally dysfunctional. It now describes anyone refusing to drop his guard, to become “open”, to tear down his “walls,” to tolerate the other’s proximity, to accept the other’s presence as non-threatening and not stressful, to become intimate by exposing yourself with no reservations.

Paranoia has become a word similar to “conspiracy”, as an extension of it – because to believe in conspiracies you cannot prove is to be paranoid in relation to the official narrative.

Skepticism, in the social sphere, is now baptized “paranoia”, placing it within the shadow of shame – cynicism.  

To err on the side of caution is no longer acceptable, because only naïveté can produce the harmony of unrestrained interactivity the modern system depends upon.

Complete disclosure, the death of the private man, or his integration into the character, the public face, within nothing inside to contradict it: a husk covered by a social avatar, repeating the “self-evident truths”, without a hint of doubt.     

 

 

We can trace the beginning of the end of traditionalism back to the oedipal mythology.

Modern man was born there.

Free from his father, who he murders in a symbolic act of detachment, he surrenders to the frenzy of pleasing himself, eventually perpetrating the most horrendous act of sexual degradation by marrying his own mother – out of ignorance.

Tradition gave direction, and offered meaning, through the rites of passage, to those who were not as clever as Oedipus, who used words to circumvent the necessity of the act.

Now liberated from this paternal support, they surrender to hedonism and materialism, eventually suffering the wrath of Apollo, for their hubris.

 

 

To close the distance between logos and mythos, and/or the noumenon and the phenomenon, the mind must think artistically, in the sense that it must attempt to represent the counter-intuitive in intuited ways, symbolizing the fluid using static forms.

In this, only metaphor and mythos can help, and only the daemon can even begin to consider it a possibility; here where the philosophical mind reveals itself as what cannot be taught, but only imitated.

 

 

A word refers to a mental model (abstraction), which is a simplified/generalized interpretation of a phenomenon, therefore a word is a projection of a mental construct, and of the processes that made it possible, including the (re)action to the phenomenon on an emotional, sensual, level.

The particular word used to describe a concept, its place within a sentence, the accompanying words used to support it, is a projection of the mind's inner workings – it is intentional, even if the intent may not be conscious in the mind using the word(s).

In fact, the less conscious a mind is of its own intentions, its own motives, all the more clearly it reveals itself through its words.

 

 

The average refuses to see the condescending, power, dynamics in pity, when directed as someone they feel superior to.

Then, they contradict themselves, when the other is someone they feel inferior to; when they feel vulnerable before them – expressing the same notion of pity in a condescending way which exposes how they truly think of it – even if intuitively.

 

 

The Modern prefers to remain on the level of emotions (subjectivity), because only there can he defend his own positions against those that threaten to expose them for what they are.

His "positive" emotional appeal, to the seductive erotic spectrum of emotions, can withstand the "negativity" of the thymotic emotional spectrum – and in its primal forms it may appear more rational because of the underlying survival advantages it offers, and due to the fact that the erotic evolves as a more sophisticated form of survival.

To keep those primitive motives hidden the Modern sanctifies the erotic, raising it up to the level of sacred idea(l), where the honest, less duplicitous, brutality of the thymotic cannot soil its sacredness.

But on a purely, unemotional, rational (objective) basis the Modern's world-view cannot deal with any honest analysis. It will refuse to explain its positions using reason; its positions will revert to innate emotional criteria, time after time, when it is confronted with the cold, brutality of reason.

It will always try to describe the sacrilegious opponent as one of the simpler, unsophisticated, emotional brutes it has acquired (training/education) some formidable defenses against.

No matter what is being said, the Modern will return the discourse to the emotional, where it feels it has an advantage against those primitive, skin-head, redneck, brutes. If, and when, he realizes the other is not amongst those he has learned to dismiss easily, with the help of the social/cultural training he has received, he will either flee, using some convenient excuse, or he will insist on lowering the debate back down to his emotional comfort zone.

In comparison to the simpler thymotic type the effete erotic Modern feels enlightened–made light, unburdened, de-stressed (fearless, careless, naive, innocent).

Lucid, unemotional, cold, reason brings back the stress.

The Modern applies it selectively.

 

 

Realists have an objective world as their standard.

Their object/objective is to perceive it as clearly as possible, accounting for subjective corruptions.

Modern nihilists, have no standard to discipline their imaginations.

Their object/objective is to preserve their "right" to think whatever they like.

If they have a shared foundation it is emotion.

Their object/objective is to nurture the positive emotions and repress, until they hopefully atrophy, the negative ones.

To the Modern nihilists the Realists seem harsh, and cult-like, in their monomaniacal convergence upon the world as the only standard for determining value; to the Realists the modern nihilists seems flaky, child-like, stunted, in their obsession with emotional criteria and their desire to remain within whatever world they choose to consider best.

It is to be expected that the Realists would agree on the fundamentals concerning a world which does not change so fast as to cease manifesting itself in patterns, and only disagree on what must be done about it, how, or if something must be done at all.

It is to be expected, as well, that the Modern nihilists living in their own world, would agree to disagree, consider all philosophical debate a game, of little importance, outside ego, and with little relevance because all is a matter of perspective; in this seeming multiplicity of world-views the shared principle is this deserved right to believe in whatever you choose if it does not disturb the others right to do the same.

Individualism, more than a divide and conquer strategy, is now a state of solipsistic delusion.

Any idea(l) that inhibits this free expression of imaginary hopes and desires is considered fascistic, authoritarian... as a mature mind appears to any child.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Δημοσίευση σε άλλες σελίδες
Guest Satyr

Vetting

Once work, career, functionality, become the only distinguishing markers of identity, and all other natural ones are discredited, dismissed, and slandered by associating them with anxiety/fear producing idea(l)s, the individual can only evaluate himself within this productivity and, as an extension of this, within his consuming potentials –consuming being a reference to his access to resources.

The control mechanism does not need to micromanage every social (inter)action, as the system becomes efficient, in time, by the production of the types of members and ideas it needs to automate its processes.

This is also how an Organism functions: most of the processes are automatic and the organism need not be conscious of them, unless they become problematic.

Less sophisticated methods of overt control are left behind and the SuperOrganism "progresses" towards increasingly sophisticated expressions of its authoritarian dominance – the overt becomes coverts and the conspiracy theories must be ridicules by being included into a single term associating the ridiculous with the plausible so as to dismiss both without having to respond to the plausible.

We are now entering into the next stage of mass population control.

The sense of free-will permeates the cellular structure as a shared comforting mythology.

Those who buy into the systemic hierarchy excel, achieving positions of increasing authority (through association). They, now, act as control mechanisms, filtering out all those who cannot accept and adapt to the SuperOrganism's structures and principles. These "middle-management" cells ("individuals") demand of those they judge that they pay the cost of ascending that they did, sometimes demanding far more as a form of repressed anger against their submissiveness – an externalized resentment for what they were forced to endure, thinking they would be happier at the end.

You'll find many disillusioned career men, living lives of "quiet desperation" enforcing a stricter code of conduct upon their underlings, while, at the same time, retaining the conviction that their choices were the only "good" choices.

Each ascent up the social ladder follows a long period of vetting, so by the time one reaches the upper levels he is deemed to be totally dependable and loyal. His costs are returned as luxuries–access to resources displayed as his social net-worth.

All the more submissive such a man was to the system, the institution he served, all the more he can now unleash all that repressed rage that has accumulated along the way.

He now becomes a high-valued commodity; because within this SuperOrganic structure what sells is what is valuable.

Need becomes another self-censoring factor.

The organism must satisfy needs – particularly the sexual one, because the rest are easily dealt with through dedicated, consistent work.

The organism, the male one in particular, is now entirely focused on increasing his sexual appeal, and the only way to do this is through the established processes.

Sex becomes the central motivating force, and once more, everything is feminized, when the only form of seduction permitted within these contexts is the feminine one.

We return to female popularity contests.

Market value is a representation of popular appeal.

Only if you sell are you worth something, and the money you receive by feeding into mass appeal represents your net-worth.

Does not a woman take notice of a man only if he is with another female?

Does not his attractiveness rise, no matter how he appears, by how the female at his arm compares with her own attractiveness, based on her self-evaluation?

Work ethic becomes a term denoting the degree of need present in the individual to do what (s)he must do to function harmoniously and raise his/her sexual potentials within the SuperOrganism structures.

Females adjust easily, for reasons explained elsewhere, so this becomes a matter of male adaptability, resulting in excluding most males form the gene pool, and the particular traits that characterize them.

Social eugenics with no direct oversight–all which is required is to indoctrinate females into the SuperOrganism's authority turning them into sexual vetting mechanisms or sexual memetic filtering agencies.

How much of the male's inherited traits are in conflict with this demand for self-repression, and how much he is willing to pay to attract a female and then keep her happy, are decisive factors in this game.

 

 

The absence of an absolute became the “negativity” of the real.

No universal meaning, no truth, no morality, no singular values, meant a nothingness for those that needed something outside themselves to belong to – to give themselves over to, and disappear within.

The “positivity” of possibility, this absence permits, is reborn as the nil of existential angst searching for the guiding light of purpose outside itself.

And the inversion, feeding on human fears and the hope it grabs upon to cope, establishes itself as the definition.

Melancholy turns to irony, and those who despise authoritarians and uniformity, seek a universal to give themselves to – individuality no longer individuation, but a scramble to be perceived as separate from what you’ve disappeared within.

When the nil has been inverted then all human conceptions follow, trapping all minds who desperately want to escape the nausea of freedom in a soothing embrace.

But in a cost/benefit context, who asks what the costs are for such wonderful benefits?

A monster.      

 

 

Apathy is the only goal for the modern.

To remain detached, indifferent to everything except his immediate gratification.

Not indifference due to an overcoming of dependence, but indifference as the surrender to dependence.

He demands the absolute, the certain, the perfect, or else he will remain as he is: unmoved.

Perspecrtivism, relativism, is how he avoids taking a stand, other than where he is. 

He is a cynic, jaded; he believes in nothing other than himself and his hungers.

 

 

The good/evil, God/Satan, dynamic is replaced by the either/or, one/nil secularized form.

The modern is lenient with his intellectual explorations, until they hit too close to home. If they remain abstract and detached enough from his immediate interests he can entertain any absurdity with the aloof charisma of an English gentleman.

But when the theory approaches his home, his core, then he demands absolutes.

His controlled image is shattered in frothing accusations.

He will then attempt to salvage his broken image with another display of his selective generosity: he will consider the possibility if total certainty is provided, otherwise he will dismiss it and settle back into his comfortable armchair, pipe in hand.

 

 

The modern cynic:

Give him an absolute, an 'either' he cannot deny, 'or' he will remain as he is-the status quo huger.

The nihilist will pronounce all of existence meaningless... not once considering himself as a creator of meaning.

He wants to be given... to find it ready-made, and then it must have the omnipotence, omniscience of a Jew God... a monopolizing ONE, otherwise he opts for the NIL where he need not do a thing but wait for the end.

The hedonist variant opts for spending this waiting time, this state of limbo between absolutes, in an opium den, shitfaced out of existence; in a bar, drunk on chemical joy, where he loves all, or he cries in public, bravely exposing his inner sadness.

 

The world imploded into a four dimensional box = no past (heritage, nature, ancestry), no future other than some fantastic coming perfection of frost or fire…

   

Fire and Ice

Some say the world will end in fire,

Some say in ice.

From what I've tasted of desire

I hold with those who favor fire.

But if it had to perish twice,

I think I know enough of hate

To say that for destruction ice

Is also great

And would suffice.

 

-Robert Frost

 

I am my own value standard.

I exist in a box with well-crafted boundaries.

 

 

The modern in his obsession, thinks that Democratic rule applies to perspectives.

If he saves the majority from a perspective then the perspective, no matter its merit, no longer applies; if he discredits the perspective, using whatever method he can, then the perspective is rendered harmless – quantities over qualities.

His task, as always, is to gain communal consent, mistaking the world of men with the world at large.

 

 

The humanist, despite his rhetoric about progress and enlightenment, is really a conservative.

He wants to conserve the idea(l) of being human.

He does not want to surpass it and become more; he wants to return to the core principles that maintain it as a one, a singular unity; he wants to detach these core principles from the natural so that they can no longer divide with their brutal proclivities, and raise them to the status of divine where they can act as a beacon for lost souls; calling towards it the inferior and unfit.

That beacon is his en-lightenment: to make light, airy, noetic, spiritual, pure abstraction by cleaning away all the dirty, muddy, stuff of the soil, the earth; he wants to nurture nature away, and leave a pristine, innocent, clean, idea(l) in its stead; an idea(l) that can be appropriated, and imitated, by everyone.

He calls this humanitarianism, or gives it some new label to hide its common roots in the psyche.

He calls it selfless when he does all of this to grant himself the "right" to remain untroubled by the indifferent world before man intervened upon it; he calls it progress to describe the slow ascent into the beyond where all advancement requires an easy change in perspective.

He does not want change, he wants to exalt his condition; he wants to arrest evolution so that he becomes the “last” rung in the ladder of time; he wants to participate and move forward as one monolithic unity, where the idea of individuality becomes another game of shadows, and hidden honesty.

The only change he worships is the change in mind that keeps him adapting to a world that cares not for human deceptions. 

 

 

The Jew is but that member of an ancient Egyptian tribe of slaves that managed to invert its shameful state into a prideful choseness; twisting their genetic weakness into a memetic strength – a strength founded on manipulating the weaknesses it accepted as its identifiers.

It is a meme wanting to become a gene, but only partially achieving it; a meme wanting to escape genes, and only partially achieving it; a meme wanting to make of genes a uniformity so as to disappear within them, and only partially achieving it.

Jews never fully become a people – they remain an idea(l) that imposes itself upon others, through the weakest points in the psyche.

Its memetic appeal is one of seductive promise.

Amongst growing masses of feeble-minded, effete, slaves, what could be more appealing than an idea(l), a memetic identifier, that promises an escape from Egypt, and an eternal journey in the deserts of time, with only God as its lord and master?

God, that eternal projection of the perfect man; the idea(l) Man, which no real man can ever challenge.

This is the appeal of the nihilistic idea(l): it is so other-worldy, and so full of potential benefits, that no earthly idea(l) can ever stand up to it.

When self-affirmation becomes another form of self-flattery; this need to reinterpret the past in a way that the present is absolved of all burdens, then it becomes a subjective tool of evading the indifference of an objective world – the noumenon no longer motivated to refer to the phenomenon, but to circumvent it, bury it, explain it away, forget it...interpret it in ways that sooth and comfort.

The Jew makes psychology his weapon because it is primarily a psychological disposition.

 

 

What happens to a people who have castrated themselves from time; have uprooted themselves from the earth; have turned themselves into pure noesis to escape the world in which they remain inferior?

In time, when they regain the psychological fortitude to attempt a reattachment to the earth, contradicting their identity and their history, they discover they’ve lost the interest in returning to where they will forever remain at the bottom.

They have disconnected and found there their strength to cope.

What remains to be done is to detach all from the earth; castrating and disconnecting all others from their only source of power and identity; casting them into the ethereal, noetic, idealizing, linguistic spaces where these ancient people hold the advantage of experience.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Δημοσίευση σε άλλες σελίδες
Guest Satyr

Value in relation to Time

 

1- We value what promises to lengthen the preservation of order in time; a measure of its resistance to entropy, to temporal attrition; its resistance to Flux, the constant (inter)activity of existence.

We value what offers us strength, power, constitution; what increases our order, making it more resistant and more beautiful to behold; we value what differentiates us from chaos and the increasing randomness, or what is superior, in order/symmetry to that of another.

 

2- We value what is rare, in time: an ephemeral form of order/symmetry which surprises us with its appearance, and graces us with its temporary inspiration; a reminder of our own ephemeral ordering within the Flux.

We value those delicate forms of symmetry/order/beauty because they remind us that within the increasing randomness, and chaos, order is still possible.

 

3- We value what we refuse to compromise; what we refuse to forfeit so that we may increase our presence in time.

In this case our willingness to sacrifice time, and our own ephemeral order within the Flux, to preserve what we consider a fundamental part of this ordering, is what gives what gives value.

This is a product of nobility, built upon self-knowledge.

That which we value is our core identifier.

If it has no relation to 1 & 2 then it is a subjective idea(l), with little objective value.

 

The projected subjective idea(l) is a value yet to be tested – yet to be evaluated pragmatically – if it has no connections to the sensually perceived or to the past, from where we draw all our experience/knowledge.

The more detached from the sensual, the past/nature, an idea(l) is, all the more fantastic it is.

The more contrary to the sensual, from the past/nature, an idea(l) is, all the more nihilistic it is.

Value in time, is a product of coveting and of being reminded of our own essence.

 

 

The Jews hate Christianity because it made a mockery of their choseness; it broke their monopoly on salvation.

They had to kill the Jew who sampled Hellenic openness, Hellenic generosity, because misers hate the ones who make of their riches an impoverishment.

 

 

The miserly spirit covets what it does not possess; it covets what it cannot find in itself.

Then it turns outwards to gratify its needs, and it amasses, it appropriates, it steals and lies and takes, to fill the gap in itself.

The Jew, finding nothing in self (sum of all nurturing = nature), sought to fill in this void with otherness; with things, and individuals, and ideas, expressed with words that had no connection to the real.

Where no earthly king would value them, they sought their King of kings in the beyond; when nothing in their past made them feel proud, they sought self-esteem in the immediate, the hedonistic and materialistic, or in the future, the immanent, the coming messiah, the coming day of reckoning, the coming "better world"; when no power could be found within them, amongst them, they sought it in the divine Other, and placed themselves at His feet as his preferred kind; when honesty was too painful and the world too indifferent, they sought salvation in duplicity and in faked altruism, selling one thing and buying another; when they were hated for it, they made hate their defining emotion: they the eternal, innocent, victims of human depravity; and when their lies took hold amongst the multitudes who had been allowed to live, without earning it, then they sought a way out of the paradox in words.

 

 

Self-Affirmation is to accept the entirety of your past/nature as necessary in your presence; your appearance, your phenomenon now discovered noetically.

One does not choose this past, nor does one will it.

One only chooses to uncover it, discover it, see it, or hide from it, bury it, turn away from it and forget it.

To affirm is to accept what has already been decided, accenting it as both benefit and burden; as both restriction and expansion of probabilities.

One does not choose self; one affirms what self has become, by accepting all that participating in its becoming; its presence. 

Self-Chosseness, to affirm being chosen, is to affirm another's will.

To be chosen, or one of the chosen, is to be chosen by another.

You were chosen by some "other", not by your own will, but by an alien will.

You did not choose yourself; yourself was chosen for you.

To affirm this choice, of another, is to feel pride in being one of those chosen: the feminine psychology; power through proxy, identity in association.

 

One does not have a choice over what this past/nature is, but only a choice over how much of it one will strive to know, and how much of it he will accept.

To be chosen, to find identity in being amongst the chosen, is to be affirmed by another – egoism via otherness; hypocrisy of humility, the cowardice of the meek.

Sell non-egotism, selflessness, while you redirect yours through a convenient abstraction.

 

 

A stunted psychology can be called retarded, or child-like.

In a male this retardation of development is what is called feminization; to be male, in biology and appearance, but to preserve a child-like, feminine, psychology.

Amongst animals we call it domestication.

When it comes to humans there are many terms for it: institutionalization, feminization, domestication, retardation, Modernity, Nihilism etc.

 

Nihilism is the term I think encompasses all of them.

I used to use feminization, focusing on the sexual component, but I've since discovered that the root is in this psychological dogma; this memetic family, that rejects reality as the meaningless, purposelessness absence of absolutes, which forces a growth and creativity/pro-creativity, interest in how things are, engagement with the real world, in self-knowledge, in an imposition of will based on foundations upon the world of the unknown, uncertain phenomena (apparent), and which settles for the easy word-games, the shallow, the child-like innocence, the victim identity, this chosen by a stronger entity, this belonging to something better so as to remain the same, resulting in stagnation.

The War like no Other is the engagement of these forces on their level.

It is "like no other" for this reason alone.

War inverted, in practice, like the dogma that underlies all of these Nihilistic idea(l)s.

The “war” is against Nihilism, in all its forms.

It comes in many forms precisely because it is unbound by reality; it need not adhere to any shared world; it can invent whatever it wishes, and seek a following amongst those who also need to escape.

This detachment from the indifferent, fluctuating, objective world is what its members consider their “liberation”.

Unbound they can fantasize anything into existence; using words, spread it as another self-help manual, and then consider this conflict between delusions their open-mindedness.

It is “like no other” because it is a Cold War, a war over hearts and minds; a war of words.   

 

 

Hyperbole is always the most important part of a Modern's life.

Anything to raise him out of his mediocrity and his everyday dullness.

There is nothing in him to find. He needs an external stimulation.

With hyperbole only hyperbole will do.

Either to feed into it, or to respond to it.

 

 

"Death before dishonor" has changed meanings in our day.

The ways of the warrior now include the ways of the wench.

It's what decay has brought about: fatherless boys trying to define manhood using their mother's example, then trying to reconcile it with some text in a book.

In an age where nothing of nobility remains, all that does remain is the way of women.

It is a War like no Other.

 

 

Harvie in his book Melancholy and the Critique of Modernity reminds us...

    “Doubt in the sense of systematic doubt—reflection—is a specifically modern phenomenon.

Ancient philosophy had begun with wonder, which is a form of immediacy. Doubt, however, introduces a fundamental dichotomy into existence, and creates a distance between the person and his thought world. The peculiarity of Johannes is that he maintains an immediate relation to doubt, that he can use it as a support for, rather than the subversion of, actuality. Doubt, for Johannes, is always something interesting.

The possibility of both reflective doubt and doubt proper can be traced to the condition of modernity which has fostered the emergence of new forms of individualism. The specifically modern form of individualism had, in turn, encouraged a false conception of universality as a directly inaccessible realm of abstraction to which thought was joined as a kind of bridge.

In this context reflective doubt was a way of ‘negating’ the specific and particular qualification of the individual that tied him or her to a specific situation and a particular thought. Johannes, alternatively, practices a kind of interested doubt which seeks to idealize, rather than to abolish, the moment. He moves abruptly between a contingent and particular starting point to a conceptual universal. Doubt carries him ‘up’, and elevates him into a sphere of non-existence, only to drag him back again, and almost at once, to an existence he cannot forget, and which can never wholly be mastered conceptually.” – Harvie, Ferguson

 

Cynicism relates to this detaching starting position.

When the "bridge" is shaky what is left is a turning back, a turning inward... back to the noumenon, or to the sensation/emotion which now becomes the destination.

The world (phenomenon, the apparent) is left out of reach.

Man implodes.

The only wonder left is wonder with one's self – the infinite depths of human complexity; the unsatisfied longing for what is inaccessible.

The bridge is too shaky.

Who can trust it?

The passive-aggression of "good enough".

 

 

Lack is a reference to the noetic which, when taken literally, is absent, and not to the phenomenon which the noumenon symbolizes (represents, abstracts, interprets).

When the noumenon is taken literally and not as a dynamic process, a noetic interpretation of a phenomenon (what is apparent), then the paradoxes emerge and nihilism, as a self-deluding, comforting, escape, is made possible. 

The leap from the interpretive to the apparent is hard to make... and most Moderns choose to never attempt it, or to only do so selectively.   

For example, the concept of morality is never connected to the world experienced.

The concept becomes ambiguous, abstracted, pure noumenon, where the word, symbolizing it, never refers to anything outside the human mind.

Same can be said for any concept, abstraction, feeling, emotion; anything the mind produces in relation to the experienced.

The words never connect to anything real... anything empirical, any phenomenon; they remain words referring back to the mind where they refer, again, back to the mind.

The emotion of “love,” for example, is never connected to something pragmatic, something about survival, about evolution, reality, nature.

Hate is...

Hate is immediately, and easily, connected to it...

All, so called, "negative" concepts are, in a heartbeat.

It's the dichotomy of primal and ethereal: mind/body, good/evil, is divided into a neat Judeo-Christian package.

But, for the modern, never love.

Love becomes pure idea(l); a clean, pristine, concept, unconnected to anything of the world, the mud, the real.

Like objective morality, or humanity, or individuality, or freedom, or male/female, or sex etc.

It's how Moderns retain this illusion of enlightenment.

Their principles are based on concepts which are pure, clean, totally abstracted, sanctified in the mind as noumenon – unrelated to phenomenon.

A projection into the future, beyond, where the past, is severed away, leaving only the individual, as the starting point, and the idea(l), as the holy object/objective in some future time/space.

Hate can be reconnected to its primal roots in fear but never love.

Love has become sacred: unmotivated, selfless, and fearless.

Fear is now rejected as its source, turning love as fear's opposite, when, in fact, love's opposite is hate... and both love/hate are rooted in fear/anxiety.

 

The Modern's sacred cows are all concepts which have been detached from their earthly, "dirty", primitive (nature/past in other words), foundations.

They have become pure noumenon; thought looping back upon it, circumventing the sensual and empirical, and landing back in the noumenon, where emotion gives them substance.

The only phenomenon to be considered is the one supporting this process. 

Any phenomenon, anything real, which is indifferent to human desires, ideals, hopes, fears, which does not support this self-referential looping back, is dismissed as superficial, and/or too "negative", or ignored and forgotten. 

Suddenly reality is not so indifferent to human ideals. Reality morphs to meet human expectations.

Suddenly the entire world is in collusion with the human will, and humanity is its focus. 

Try discussing objective reality with a Modern.

He will immediately assume you are talking about human reality.

For him to discuss the world is to discuss the human world... like the American can never think outside of Americanisms: the human world, for him, IS the American world.

Americanism is a further fragmentation of Modern secular humanism: the self-choseness, of the mind deciding that it is, indeed, the center of all.

Not that man must adapt to the world but that there is nothing outside the manmade world...and then, for the American, there is no world outside the American world.

Everything refers back to the idea(l) which has already been taken for granted: Top<>Down thinking.

Not 'this is the world and here is how human ideas fit into it', but 'here is a manmade world, a perspective, a variant, and here is how everything else fits into it'.

The human emotions, pleasures, become THE defining idea(l).

Not how these sensations, thoughts, emotions are produced and why, but they become the end in itself.

The world within which they manifest, is unimportant.

 

Forget about the solipsism and the madness this implied.

But let's focus on utility.

Whom does this process benefit? 

And when the noumenon becomes the reference point, leaving out entirely or selectively, the phenomenon that oftentimes contradicts it, and then the WORD becomes the central code.

A word which symbolizes a human constructs that has no reference outside the human brain.

Like morality, love, equality, fairness, humanity... and so on.

Not morality as a survival method; an evolutionary adaptation which makes social, cooperative, survival strategies possible, but morality, as some god; a clean, sacred, idea, that refers to nowhere but back to the human skull.

Human interests, expressed through human morals, are universal rules.

 

And what happens then?

Conflict, of course, because each skull, having dismissed all objective reference points as the deciding factor, thinks of its own skull as the universal reference point.

And what happens when the mind is detached from reality?

Multiplicity, of course...

What is order?

The restriction of possibility.

What is disorder?

Yes... you are getting there.

Once the mind has been "liberated" from the objective world, which is cold and indifferent towards it, any idea will do.

All ideas become possible.

Enter persepctivism.

Endless conflict.

Plurality of delusions... Democracy.

How does one reconcile all these detached from reality concepts?

Equality... tolerance... rights.

Some of these concepts already cleansed of all worldly attachments.

All are subjective delusions, ergo all deserve to exist in whatever delusion they wish....

The only rule?

Do not think, do, say, anything to disrupt this communion of retardation.

Democracy of equals... as in equally retarded.

 

What can be more controllable than myriads of such solipsistic, self-referential, hedonistic, detached, ego-less, minds?

Only bovines and ants.

 

 

Our anti-Nihilistic war must begin on the battlefield where Nihilism emerges as a plausible option, using the Nihilistic weaponry: words, language, abstraction detached from experience, resulting in an in-congruence between the real and the ideal, oftentimes so extreme as to result in a psychotic schism.

We will become its antithesis; the negation of negation: words, referring to abstractions, attaching to empiricism, to reality, to sensual experience.

 

The word, symbolizing the abstraction (noumenon) must be reattached to the phenomenon, to whatever degree it can.

Words, referring to concepts, such as love, human, equality, morality, must be given a pragmatic utility, and a reference in the empirical, the natural – because nature is always perceived as a looking back, and the perception of patterns. The deeper back one goes to sample samples the more concrete the awareness of the past becomes.

If the concept cannot be attached to anything real, (empirical, sensually experienced, objective), then it must be abandoned as a purely human construct – pure self-referential subjectivity, undisturbed by anything real.

And of the concepts already being detached from reality, in Modern systems, a process of reattachment must become our resistance to the nihilistic trend.

 

 

To begin to construct one must deconstruct what is already present.

This either prepares the environment for a solid foundation to be laid down, and/or it destroys that constructs that have already been built and would not support what will be built in their place.

Because Modernity, and its underlying nihilism, is founded on noetic construct, and the words symbolizing them, to lay down the groundwork before building is to proceed, one must undo what has been done. In this case the words being used must be reattached to the phenomena they were supposed to refer to when they were detached.

This reattachment of words, and the concepts they represent, to the empirical, the phenomenon, is the beginning of reconstruction, which will be, for those raised in a world where the words remained detached and purified in their comforting disconnect, a destructive process.

So be it.

In the course of tearing down the Modern edifice a man had been living in, he may discover that an ancient structure is already present deep in the ground; buried, and forgotten, for years, beneath his previous gaudy construct: something sturdy and ancient – still standing underneath the dirt – something beautiful.

The deeper he digs to lay down his foundation, so that they can remain strong and able to support more mas, the more likely he is to find that one has already been built for him; awaiting for him to rediscover it.

 

 

Whatever form the absent absolute takes, and whatever word is used to symbolize it, it, nevertheless, always remains an unattainable end, sometimes full of the dread of negative energy, and at other times full of the seductive power of the positive promise.

It can take on any form because it is absent, and forever in the beyond, or in the immanent future.

If it becomes detached from its source, its original utility, it can become a vehicle of escape, of surrender, of self-negating delusion. It is a noetic device (noumenon) and as such it is flexible, and free, when it no longer refers to a phenomenon, and it has lost its primary utility.

It can be called an idea(l) to encompass its multiplicities, or an object/objective, to insinuate its evasive projections, but it remains always absent, and this absence man can feel inside of himself as longing (when it is intellectual and spiritual – memetic), or as need (when it is visceral and organic – genetic).

And when this absent absolute is imagined as the opposite of what is perceived; when the phenomenon is inverted to accommodate the desirable abstraction, then it can be a positive kind of self-negation, and hatred of life and of self, as its representation.

And when the absent absolute is understood in linguistic terms, reflecting mental models that correspond to nothing actual, nothing experienced, and then it becomes a source of paradox, and a stimulation to ridicule.

Because between the objective world of fluctuating, dynamic, processes, and the subjective brain, foraging for order, the pattern is frozen in space/time, and turned into a thing, an abstraction, that can be manipulated, and codified and simplified and incorporated into a world-view.

And after the interpreting is done the mind forgets that it has constructed this model to understand and to cope with the phenomenon that remains forever mysterious and uncertain, and indifferent to human projections.

And that is when God becomes a word, and the word becomes God.

 

 

What is “lack” if not the sensation of longing and need, the mind feels in its innermost becoming, as the absence of its own being?

What is lack but the feeling of uncertainty, of fluctuating changes the organism must deal with if it is to continue becoming; if it is to remain a continuity?

What is lack but the call to action; the sensation of agon that may lead to destruction or construction; to disorganization, or to a superior form of organization?

What is lack but the absence of what man craves, desires, needs, but has not?

What is lack but that which forces the mind to project what is missing, as an object/objective, calling it “power”, “life”, “value”, “God”, “being”, “one”, “whole”, and in the striving towards it to find purpose and meaning, and in taking it literally as an end, to find relief in surrender and immersion and escape though an idealized otherness?

What is lack but the spaces of possibility, opening up to human creativity, turning them to probability?  

What is lack but the nihilistic spark, desperately wanting to implode space/time into a restricting singularity, an absolute, or the death wish wanting to dilute itself in its absence? 

For the pagan, lack is the crest of the wave he balances upon.

 

 

In our "current" Modern age, Nihilism is the best means of ensuring internal harmony, in a world of shrinking spaces and nowhere to stake your claim except within the system itself. 

Not only are words inverted, but the term "nihilist" is also inverted, creating a linguistic confusion only the official text can resolve; because words only refer to text, or to abstractions (noumenon), and have no claim on the phenomenon.

But more than this, the starting point is not the world itself, but man, and man's tools for engaging the world – language and words.

We have the age of the code, the man of the book; the people of the book, by the book, for the book.

All is in reference to a book, a text, a writer.

The world engaged through a proxy: words referring to abstractions (noumena) and to nothing outside of the human mind.

The phenomenon recedes, as the world fades back, and man, using language, artistic tools, exists within his own artifices = art imitating art, simulations of simulation.

 

The starting presupposition is man himself – man as subject with himself as the object.

No world as objective, dynamic, always fleeing, reality, forcing the subject to adapt, to struggle towards...

All is subjective, and so all is equally valuable, when the world has creased to have an impact; when man exists within his own reality: a matrix battery to run the infrastructure.

And his reward?

Primal pleasures with no end outside themselves; the luxury of living within one’s own contraptions, when the bills are paid and nobody is disturbed.

The happy escape from the immutable, inescapable, past/nature – escape from stress and suffering, and from the indifferent, uncertainty of a world that continues on.

Man defining himself as if he was born a clean slate, expecting all to play along, or face the karma retaliations.

Man valuing himself just because he is, and because he can value, carelessly – a child's tale. 

In the man-world all is future – an eternal towards with no binding, demanding, limiting past.

Everything full of unbridled promise.

The closets the Modern comes to acknowledging the past is in the immediacy of his needs.

Needs so easily satisfied, when he's paid his bills and disturbed nobody, that he becomes bored, cynical, demanding, expecting... dull.

 

A dullard existing in a universe of hopefulness, because hope, as the antidote to anxiety/fear, is the looking forth in expectation, and in this world with no past/nature, this means nothing can be "negative" towards any hope, any projected future, and any expectation.

Natural selection, ignored out of existence – forgotten and "overcome".

All is plausible, if you believe, if you have faith.

No sex, no race, no history, no genetics... all is memetics; the only meme acceptable is the one of all-inclusive, nature-denouncing, hope.

All concepts become spiritual, magical, free from all worldly roots; everything is constantly being reborn, as there is no past to be its cause, except for the most immediate, the nurturing: a tiny, selective, fragment of the sum of all nurturing.

Little, outside the service provider, is left to make anyone feel bad, feel anxious and afraid, feel pressured to adapt.

Man makes of himself the center of reality, and then declares all others arrogant, self-centered, and narcissistic.

He declares himself valuable, smart, strong, worthy, because he says so; because he believes so, with all his heart... and who will tell him otherwise when nothing of the real is permitted access?

He has rights, and is born with dignity; he has potential no less than any other. 

Not "I am what I am not" but "I am because I am".

Man's thought becoming man's own otherness.

And when the identity is lost in this self-referential delusion, all projected idea(l)s, as object/objectives to strive towards, become narcissistic, self-gratifying, delusions, where the only antagonist is not the other who lives in a world of his own, but the one who shatters the spell, and breaks the social contract.

Philosophy as a sharing of schizophrenic experiences.

"Here is what I think, and here is what you think and both are respectable" or "here is what he thought, and what I think through him".

Philosophy as sharing, not as intellectual competition.

And the world goes by like a river all are floating upon but none can see from the islands of their mind.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Δημοσίευση σε άλλες σελίδες
Guest Satyr

Implosive/Explosive

Cult of Victims: those chosen to suffer, and find identity in being chosen by an Other, giving this inevitability a meaning and a value, implodes, under the pressures of its own, all-encompassing, temporal mass, into the singularity of self (Modern individuality) where suffering finds salvation in endless self-gratification; a black hole pulling everything into itself, allowing very little, but the radiating energies of its consuming, to escape.

In both cases the implosion is a falling into, or towards a coming state of certainty and perfection.

The alternative to this, is a past, pushing, spilling forth, exploding towards an unknown, and uncertain, “yet to be”.

 

 

The agon converts from hot to cold, from masculine to feminine, from aggressive to passive aggressive, from a phenomenon expression, to a noetic expression – from swords to pens, and from physical to mental... a war of words.

And along with it the territories, where this agon takes place and the goals, alter accordingly. 

 

 

The objective is to the subjective as the phenomenon is to the noumenon.

One is dynamic and continuously altering, being a term describing (inter)activity, which is never ending.

The other is a static representation, continuously being updated and connected in a linear fashion, but remaining a generalization/simplification.

To the subjective mind the objective world is continuously falling away (infinite), and can only be comprehended by enclosing it within a noetic construct (finite).

The subjective mind is continuously constructing the idea(l) (abstraction) to deal with the real (dynamic).

Nihilism emerges as the idea(l) which contradicts the perceived real – it is an idea(l) which rather than attempting to cover the distance between noumenon and phenomenon, and be a mechanism for adapting, becomes a noetic projection either hoping for an end to the entire process, or constructing abstractions that oppose the real, or invert it so as to create the concept of a hidden, more real, reality.

The facility with which the mind can take its own noetic devices literally, and imagine an inversion of a real world, that cannot be dealt with so easily, makes this practice seductive, and those who can offer it to those with a lesser talent for it become saviours, or priests representing salvation.

The phenomenon, being the sum of all patterns perceived and encompassed in a simplified/generalized thingness, may be so problematic to the noumenon that it can only escape its implications by being reduced to an illusion, or by being converted to its opposite. The conversion occurs during the process of simplification/generalization, and afterwards when it is selectively incorporated into an idea(l) which is then projected into the “beyond” or the future as the absolute negation of all that is perceived or as the fulfillment of all which is absent in the experienced.

The “positive” nihilistic idea(l) gathers in numbers what it cannot produce in qualities. It is dependent on fate, and belief, because outside the mind it has no reference point.

Language is its only foundation, and words the metaphorical bricks it uses to build its sheltering temples, gathering within its own constructs the numbers required to remain viable.             

 

 

Morality is placing man, as a representative of life, at the center of the universe, and then concluding that what benefits man, in regards to a specific idea(l) (object/objective), must be a cosmic “good”, and what threatens man must be a cosmic “evil”.

Once this leap of faith is achieved – based on narcissistic arrogance making it all the more easily acceptable – then the idea(l) that man’s interests, pleasures, and organic needs are part of a universal mystical rule can also be embraced without a second thought.

Use the term “world” and most often the other will assume you mean the human world of morals, ideals and hopes.

Use the word “objective” and automatically it is converted to human subjectivity without any existence outside the human brain.

Any attempt to bridge the existential distance between objective and subjective is either considered too impossible to be attempted, or too worthless to matter.

Every human dialogue becomes a debate over which subjectivity is most “positive” to theoretical human beings in the past, present and/or future, and conveniently avoids any discussion of reality beyond human desire.

Not even the attempt to approach objectivity is tolerated for long.

If you cannot provide an absolute objectivity then the group would rather settle for a community of shared subjective equality, because in almost every case it satisfies some personal interest.            

 

 

We live in an age where all that it takes is one person being hurt by a comment, a description of reality, a perspective, no matter how accurate and lucid it is, to make this description evil and intolerable.

If you do not hide it in pretend humour then it must be buried in pretend humility.

The ones secretly, or not, agreeing with it have to distance themselves, in case they are also associated with the source.

It’s not intentional, it’s intuitive; an expected automatic (re)action.  

The wrath of the herd will hang like a blade over you, if you dare to cross that communal line; each member, being hurt, adding to the weight stressing the proverbial cord preventing it from slashing into your head.

This is herd morality.

This is “objective morality”, as it is called by the obtuse.

A manmade line in the existential sand; an emotion placed on a pedestal determining towards which direction the balance of what is considered appropriate and true will fall, or determining what is to be called good and bad.

Censorship is inevitable, though never overt.

It’s this silent decree decided by the majority, or any institution representing it in a, so called, “Democracy”.

Lowest-common-denominator is but the beginning of what occurs as a consequence: a slow, increasingly lowering, deterioration into mundane babbling, and repeating what is considered, at any given time period, appropriate and acceptable; a continuous repetition of words immune to this control because the source is dead and infamous.        

 

 

To the subjective, emotional, mind, anything exceeding its capacity to process, and/or to endure, will be understood as a product of “negativity,” reflecting the indifference and coldness of the world towards life.

To deal with it, it will fall back on what is most familiar to it, and explain the possibility away by deconstructing the source rather than the idea(l), to lower it to a level it can process.

Its ability to understand is limited by its psychology, giving it an advantage on a very pragmatic, immediate, level.

Anything, or anyone, reflecting the complexity, indifference, and unpredictability of the world will be dismissed as “ill” so as to then dismiss the reflection which causes such stress, and suffering.

The source, instead of being the conduit of a world unconcerned with human needs, will become the focus of its wrath.

(S)He will be the anthropic, demonic, face representing a reality he, or she, cannot escape. He, or she, will despise the voice, rather than the message which cannot be denied. 

His hatred towards the world will find a face, a focus, a name, and he will unleash his resentment upon it.

At the point he, or she, will expose the fullness of his/her nature, and there will be nothing left to expose but minor details and trivial excuses.

No, posturing, no words, no names, no images, will suffice to undo what has been done.

His/Her hatred for life and for self will be as clear as daylight.     

 

 

Ethics is the connective code between morality, evolved within a natural environment, and an idea(l), projected as a desirable goal, establishing an immediately applicable behavioral rule.

If this connection is severed by being detached from the past, it is nihilistic, in that it projects, using an ethical system unconnected to nature, a future which contradicts it, or is totally alien to it – it is ethos disconnected from a pragmatic moral grounding.

To assume that this is universal is to totally dismiss the source, and its necessity’s reason. 

 

 

A man always holds himself accountable to his ethical principles, because these keep him in-line with the idea(l) he wishes to live-up to, or to approach.

If the idea(l) is nihilistic, by being disconnected and contrary to what is real, then the ethical system will also have to be detached from any morality in the past/nature, and be totally preoccupied with the future, coming, idea(l): the progressive aspect of nihilism = to strive and hope for what has never been, and may never be.

The set-up is meant to produce guilt, and sinfulness.   

 

 

The need to disconnect from reality, to contradict it and dismiss it as inconsequential, expresses itself in the moral and value systems which always place an emotional component to compensate for the loss of attachment to reality, and the desire to approach an objective understanding of self and the world that makes it possible.

The subjective mind will always revert all to the comfortably subjective paradigm, by using human artifices, such as values, morals and idea(l)s which have no meaning outside human brains, because they are human artifices.

The subjective, being a human construct, must be integrated in multifariousness where all becomes too ambiguous to be considered superior/inferior, or to exhibit any variants in subjectivity as it relates to objectivity.

The objective world, though dynamic, is not so fluctuating as to be completely inapproachable.

It fluctuates but still retains, in relation to human lifespans, a predictable consistency.

The subjective mind must ignore this so as to return to its desirable relativity where no perspective is ever to be considered superior to another, beyond any point in space/time.

The objective world must be rejected as too mysterious to be taken into account, so as to return the discussion to that of pure subjectivity, where emotion becomes a deciding factor. The indifference to human needs world is taken out of the process, leaving human subjectivity to battle it out over which offers the most comforting and love and compassion.  

Once this is established the dialogue becomes one of subjective emotional preferences, where some agreement can be achieved, simply because of a past/nature which is conveniently, and ironically, ignored, to make the outcome seem rational, or a result of pure, cold, logic.

When discussing morals the conversation is really about ethics (encoded, social, rules), projected as some kind of universal rule (as in godly decree).

The past/nature is ignored because then the source and purpose for morality must be dealt with, and then incorporated to any dialogue and any subsequent projection of an idea(l).

This, too, is a form of purifying the noumenon by detaching it from the phenomenon; sanctifying it to where it can be placed on a universal, hole, pedestal.      

 

 

Morality, and the ethical system that comes from it, is what a man accepts as necessary for him to attain the idea(l) he aspires to attain.

He holds himself accountable to himself, if this is a result of his personal struggles and in the know thyself, and he holds himself accountable to otherness when it is not.

God is this otherness.

 

 

The moralizer cannot think outside if his own cage – particularly if he is of the nihilistic variant which is obsessed with escaping or ignoring objectivity because it is too indifferent, too harsh or too evasive and uncertain.

Everything he comes across has a moral value, or else it is worthless.

He demands, from the other, to compete with him on moral grounds… in other words on purely subjective, emotional, grounds.

All the while, he isn’t really interested in morality and how it evolved, or what purpose it evolved to serve, but is really an ethicist, with an appetite for “thou shalt nots” and “thuo shalts” based on no more than subjective criteria… in other words on pure emotional, self-gratifying, criteria, and words written on stone.

 

 

This is a spiritual war, not a religious one, and certainly not a materialistic one.

What we struggle to preserve is our ancestry, our past, our nature, and this is the only meaning to the word “spirit” we can give, because when we say “spirit”, or “soul,” we mean the continuum of circumstances that made our appearance possible; we hold the spirit of our ancestors not as something external to ourselves, but as the most intimate aspect of what we call “I”.

When we use these words properly we take them away from those who have despoiled them with their life-hating mysticism, and we return them to their rightful place within our very becoming.

We, individually, are each the manifestation of this spirit of Becoming, this organic soul that struggles in time and for time.

In this regard we must receive guidance from our spiritual brother in arms, Julius Evola, and his analysis of war – in his treatise The Metaphysics of War.

We know now that this many-times declared war, increasing in intensity to become “hot” and then decreasing to become “cold”; sometimes a war using blades but most often one using no more than words; sometimes turning civil, and then uncivil, is more than a war for survival and over land and wealth.

This war is a war over our hearts and minds.

It is a war of integrity, honor, and spiritual continuity.  

We fight not only for ourselves but for our blood.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Δημοσίευση σε άλλες σελίδες
Guest Satyr

Cultivated Curses

γνθι σεαυτόν

 

And if we mortal men shall be cast in the role of devils, then let us wear that horned crown well, for our gods are many and of this world, and our blood is thicker than oil upon this fine earth, and our eyes see further in the sunlight.

Let us march under the banner they gave back to us, thinking we would be ashamed to bear it, and let us do so as legions, for though we are few we remain proud to be distinctly men in a world of uniform multiplicities.

We bite of the forbidden fruit and stake our claim, all as one but not the same.

We are the nightmares, though human, all too human, savoring sweetness and swallowing the bitter.

Let us grasp without squeezing, kill and die without kneeling, and let our δαιμονιο, springing to and fro without warning, become legendfor we are legion.

 

 

Most, these days, discuss about a concept without actually practicing what the word symbolizing the concept, refers to.

Not only do they talk about love, wanting to appear in tune with the prevailing altruism, but, wanting to also appear cultivated they talk about art, and they talk about philosophy, and essentially they talk about nothing – nothing but the word.

 

 

How would a nihilist, denying the nature of reality, survive within it?

By contradicting himself, by lying, by using double standards and then excusing himself from being judged in accordance with his own morals.

Detaching from a world indifferent to your well-being, may presuppose a naive belief that world is benevolent, or, at least, balanced towards your interests, but if this belief is taken to heart, you will suffer.

At some point the Nihilists idealism succumbs to basic survival, and the one professing universal "love" goes off to kill on behalf of his own "love", and the one believing in life after death must be given an excuse not to commit suicide, and the madman living in his own reality must accuse others, as agencies of this denied reality, of all kinds of nasty things, never self as mistaken, as insane, and the hypocrite declaring appearances as being superficial and not judging "books" by their covers, presumably only books, then judges using appearance every single day of his life, or he suffers the consequences.

 

More than sheltering, protecting insanity from itself, the nihilist has to contradict his own principles to get by in a world he wants to be partially blind to.

His romantic idealism may work when surrounded by those who care for his well-being, or share in his insanity, and if he is also protected from himself, but for how long?

Youthful idealism is replaced by the sobriety of maturity.

Not always lucid, but clever enough to apply his earlier idealism selectively.

An older man has picked up methods he did not have when younger, to remain as detached as possible, because his need to escape remains.

His constitution that could not tolerate world, if anything, wanes, over time, and he has to lie more cleverly to himself, acquiring some tricks to be more convincing, or an entourage of the like-minded where his lies are humoured and shared and offered positive reinforcement.

Word-games, verbal acrobatics, as I've called them, where words remain vague to preserve their flexibility, or used to flip around contexts chasing your tail in circles, are the most valuable tool in a modern's tool-belt.

Without them he would go insane.

Words, as symbols, engulfing him in a uni-verse of supporting semiotics.

But his symbols have no power outside his mind, forcing him to seek like-minded individuals, creating a self-referential community of Nihilists, detaching, in unison, from a distressful world still indifferent to their well-being.

In the presence of such company the lie, the delusion, is no longer a source of shame, but of pride.

Christians who follow the "love thy neighbour" command, gleefully advocating capital punishment, and war against infidels.

This is mass-madness.

A collective of detached from reality minds rallying each other into fits of raging madness, in contradiction to their own principles, ideals, morals.

 

Yes, a nihilist, a modern, can verbally say anything, living in his own subjective world, but he must act contrary to his own words, if he is to survive in a world where rejection of “what is” is followed by a severe cost.

Modern systems, Modern mindsets, are all about pretenses and the perfect lie.

Faked civility, faked interest, faked altruism, faked morality, faked intelligence, faked humility, and faked pride.

They contradict themselves constantly, using cynicism to redirect and cover up guilt and shame. Those few who do not they call saints, or martyrs, and in private they call them fools

 

 

A Modern wishes for change in the same way a mortal wishes for death.

Both assume that it results in a more desirable outcome than what they are forced to endure, in the real, present.

Both death, and change, are inevitable, and yet both flirt with it, so as to feel what they are missing, exposing a sense of dissatisfaction no amount of word-play can hide.

The suicidal mortal would rather die than endure life, as it is, just as the modern would rather face the uncertain future than endure the determining, past, as it has manifested in his presence.

 

 

I set myself up as the satanic accuser, a demonic spirit of retribution, trying to dig out nobility from those who lived in shame; wanting to manipulate what preachers and rabbis had turned into guilt to agitate the worker spirit.

Then, I discovered how shameless the world was, using shame only to escape its shamelessness, and realized how alien to nobility the average man remains, and how words, for such as he, are but a means of detachment from himself and his shameless existence.

 

 

It really doesn’t matter what word/symbol you use to represent the experienced, the apparent, since the word does not alter the experience of it

If you call a rose a sunflower, will not change the experience of what it means to be a rose, and how you relate to it. 

You may call the world perfect, complete, or whatever comforts you the most, and this still does not alter the experience of need/suffering, and the sense of un-fulfillment characterizing the human condition and consciousness of existence, in general.

The Nihilist is a master in baptismal rites, and in giving phenomenon new noetic names/symbols, but if man is a product of reality, reflecting the essence of the world, then the world is unfulfilled, incomplete, ephemeral, lacking in all that man considers “positive”, and more than just lacking self-awareness; it is ephemeral, fluctuating, determined by past, and dissatisfied with presence.

If man is a part, representing the theoretical whole, then self, as phenomenon, exposes the world like no noetic simplification/generalization ever could.

No matter how desperately man wishes he were eternal, his mortality is a phenomenon he cannot simply ignore as fake, and his ignorance cannot be explained as some vast testing phase where man earns his immortality.

The only way to deal with the failure of baptism to cleanse the phenomenon of its “sinful” essence, is to then declare the experience illusion; some grand scheme, a trick that may, or may not, be the product of a conscious Deity, a directing Will.

Whether they choose the religious, or the secular nihilistic path is of little consequence to the outcome.

The noumenon cannot correct, or alter the phenomenon, unless it can intervene upon it via another phenomenon.

All the noumenon can do is numb the mind, immerse it in self-referential abstractions, and shelter it from a world that cares not for its noetic constructs and its hopes and dreams and projections.

If you rename a tiger a worm, this does not change the probability of its effect upon your feeble frame.  

If man is, indeed, a part of existence, experiencing it and self as the essence of what world is, then the sensation of need/suffering cannot be dismissed as illusion, without exposing self as no more than a religious fanatic not really interested in reality but only in how to escape it, while, at the same time, not losing it.

This duplicity in motive is typical of all nihilists, for amongst them humility becomes pride, and pride humility; war becomes peace, and peace war; strength becomes weakens, and weakness strength; pleasure becomes pain, and pain becomes pleasure.

In general all is inverted, or made reversible (perspectivism) including beauty, power, time, order, awareness, and so on.   

And if in this obsession to reverse reality the nihilist also reverses the causal chain, which we experience as linear time, it is only to be expected.

Then consciousness precedes the emergence of brain; value precedes judgment; will precedes consciousness, Being precedes Becoming, and the singular precedes multiplicity.

The representation of the apparent, the noumenon symbolizing the phenomenon, cannot alter the apparent phenomenon by simply altering itself, particularly when this noumenon proposes the idea that phenomenon is illusion, and that it is world, rather than it being representation, interpretation, of world.

 

 

No victory, no honor, no final resolution; all I am is a soldier swinging away, with my sword of choice, cutting away cowards, slicing away at beasts, offering my own justice, to a world that knows of none.

No remembrance necessary.

I did the only thing I could do, the only thing my nature permitted me to do: I remained true to who and what I was.

I fought in an unwinnable war, against a formidable foe, and I stood fast; I made my existence, small as it was, count, like a pebble in a stream.

I started a ripple.

 

 

The Modern buffoon stands up and pronounces himself a King, a nobleman, a spirit deserving salvation, denouncing any indifferent, to his prayers, objective world, outside the premises that provide him with this privilege to make such audacious claims.

Subjectivity is how human perspectivism, a weakness and an organic limit, is turned into a sanctifying libation – an expansive relief.

Who dares disturb this catholic ritual?

 

 

How do you persuade anyone of anything if he is addicted to what he's already decided is best for him, given the circumstances?

When emotion, how he feels about it, is the deciding factor, the standard of evaluating quality is not shared, and because it is not shared, and still remains irrelevant, it is just as plausible as any other.

He can continue living in whatever delusion he prefers, if this is the case.

This man finds relief in remaining irrelevant.

He can laugh away anything, because he is so desperate about his comfortable state of delusion, knowing that it does not affect a single thing outside of his simple brain.

But here's where Satyr has the upper hand.

He describes the world as it is, not as he wishes it was, or hopes it will be.

And because he makes of himself a conduit through which reality shines through, and because reality is indifferent to human bull, and human hopes and emotions and dream and expectations, he becomes the focus, and the refection – both god and devil...man and beast.

If his human part can endure the threats, and the hatred, the taunts and insinuations and social costs, then his beastly side can find relief.

It's easy, you see, if you realize how base and insignificant human costs are, to the bigger picture.

 

 

Between a man's idea(l) object/objective and the real of his presence and the past he is the manifestation of, lies a world that cannot be escaped, nor ignored, unless one lives in a fortress of self-referential, communal schizophrenia, populated by simpletons and lost souls, stumbling, like zombies, here and there, desperately seeking something stable to grab onto.  

If you are clever, here is where you can intervene and direct them, to and fro, because they know not where the hell they are going, or why.

 

 

Temptation of the nihilistic thinker...

To tell his own the soothing words they want to hear to remain the source of their thinking.

What other way to seduce the desperate than to offer him a comforting alternative out of his desperation?

What demon did Jesus go into the desert to exorcize?

What guilt tore at his soul?

 

 

The need to belong, to be included, to be appreciated is so strong in the human that all concepts, and the words referring to them implode to fit into the most immediate circumstances and utilities.

The psychological gravity pulls everything down, towards it, reducing it, simplifying, it, fitting it into the most immediate time/space necessities.

As the mass increases not even light can escape its pull.

All that belong to it become trapped in a self-referential universe, tending towards a singularity.

Reference points invert, leading back towards what produced them.

Nothing can escape this exponentially increasing power of mass.

Ideas lose their contact with reality, the cosmos, outside the gravity-well of massive community need.

They fall into themselves.

 

 

Between utility and need something stands, unyielding: pride.

 

 

The desire to be seen, to be appreciated by others, is already strong in the genetic code of the social animal, but it reaches its peak in paradoxical obsessive height when it is also driven to immerse itself in the group and find strength, comfort, support, guidance, self-esteem, there.

Trapped between two desires it settles for threading the needle, and repeating the same shared ideals by suing different words and imagery, so as to both reinforce bonds and distinguish self within them.

With shared uniforming nihilism paradoxes are created which must then be rectified with compartmentalized thinking, schizophrenic behavior, and a social code that denies the other the "right" to expose what remains concealed, for good reason.

Accusations of fear, against those that remind it of its own vulnerability is the first defensive move; then accusations of not being "unique" is the second.

The other must impress to such a degree that abandoning the delusion becomes the only option, otherwise it justifies remaining as he is, where he is.

But nobody can impress the cynical, or those who having discovered the absolute wills settle for nothing less than that.

It's an attempt to reduce the threatening other to something intimate, and to also hide its own weakness behind passive-aggression.

 

The Christian will say that being faithful is the "hard road" when he is confronted with the possibility that he is using religion to find an easy solution to his existential anxieties.

But how hard can sacrificing reason and integrity be to someone who has little of it, or who is burdened with a fear that far exceeds what his reason and integrity promise to provide for him?

His only line of defense is using his own fear as an attack, and to dismiss other as unimpressive, when he tells him of a reality that is right in front of him but that he cannot face without his intervening delusions.

The solution is always popularity.

Falling into the arms of the many that share and can relate – calling it "truth" and validation. 

 

 

Twenty years of drought…twenty years of parched skin beneath a blistering sun; chapped lips sucking on my own sweat, swallowing the spittle instead.

And then the sight of a tiny pool of muddied liquid; a puddle of murky hope.

I bend and drink deeply, rejoicing over my good luck, when a drop strikes the dark surface, sending ripples across its dwindling edges.

I look up, surprised, to a darkening sky; a cloud unleashing its heavenly burden upon my withering soul.

I turn and with my body I cover the puddle.

 

 

One can never, of course, dismiss the world or escape it one can only conceal it or reveal it, primarily to one's self.

Suffering is not to be surrendered to but acknowledged as the necessary consequence of an ordering self in the disordering world; the sensation of existing, of Becoming, (inter)acting.

To embrace this is not to submit to it but to accept it as what it is.

To define the word by connecting to the noetic symbolism to the phenomenon is not to give-into what is being acknowledged as real.

One also embraces the past no matter how insulting and/or "negative" it might be, using the ideals one aspires towards.

This "embracing" is a taking into account, a taking-in, so as to then begin to deal with it.

This is bottom<>up thinking (reasoning) rather than top<>down thinking (justifying).

One begins with what is, and what is can only be perceived as what has been.

This "has been", this past/nature, cannot be escaped, corrected, erased, but only accepted as a starting point, from where the mind can direct itself towards an object/objective; towards an idea(l) that enhances the aspects of this past it wishes to preserve, and that decreases the effect of the aspects it wishes to make amends for, or it wishes to compensate for.

If this past/nature is dismissed or partially embraced the projection will be foolish, a delusion equal to the amount of data being ignored and/or remaining ignorant about.

A projection of an object/objective that will disappoint if it does not result in the opposite of what it was supposed to be.

Projecting the absurd is a way of remaining forever disillusioned and hopeful; forever not disappointed in the endless expectation of what is unrealistic, a noumenon so detached from the phenomenon that it is the annulment of what is experienced (essence of nihilism), or what is past/nature.

This knowing, accepting, and embracing, is the very essence of nobility.

A nobleman ennobles the past his past/nature, that insults, and degrades him, in relation to his projected idea(l), by taking it into himself and controlling it; directing it towards his own object/objective so as to turn it into a necessary part of the process of Becoming.

This making of one's self a conduit, a nexus, where the past aligns itself with a desirable, projected idea(l).

Anything else is delusion, escapism, nihilism to the core.

It's easy to project a hypothetical desirable object/objective, and idealize it when you've forgotten, dismissed, discounted, rejected, your past/nature either entirely or selectively.

A child can invent itself every morning if it forgets what it pretend to be the day before, and because it is as easy as child's play it appeals to the infantile and the retarded in development' those born and raised within sheltered environments where the world is always surprising and victimizing them, and they hold themselves unaccountable.

This War like no Other is a war over "hearts and minds" where the seductive appeal of remaining child-like of simply indulging without care or forethought, is used to manipulate minds not used to any level of need/suffering above what the system permits, turning them into delicate spirits that cannot tolerate anything over this socially cultivated median level of (memetic) pain tolerance.

The idea(l) of declaring yourself smart, or noble, of simply believing whatever you like or that makes you feel good and valuable, with no external to self standard, is another instance of perspectivism: the games children play when they are bored with themselves or seek to escape their circumstances.

It is misconstrued as an internal source of self-validation, when it is simply solipsism and arrogance reaching an apex of self-gratification.

 

 

Know what's sad about a clown?

It's that he laughs at those who laugh at him, forgetting that amongst them sit those few who find him pathetic for wanting to make others laugh by reducing himself to a clown.

 

 

There was a time when a man was held accountable for the actions of his wife, and his children.

But we live in a shameless world of idiots and charlatans, wondering why things have turned out as they have.

Without shame man holds himself accountable to nothing.

No, not shame before others, but shame before his idea(l)s, before his ancestors, before the kin he will father and may never meet.

To remain shameless, and then declare yourself noble, is disgusting; the epitome of modern detachment, and the shallow culture of "me".

Such psyche's find solace in remaining in the shadow of strangers.

Like females, with no father, and with no dominating male, whoring themselves from one masculine entity to another.

And with no father figure they never grow out of this phase, because only a real father would want his own son, his own blood, to surpass him and to become more than he ever could have been.

 

A male offers direction... even if he is a lesser man.

A female, left to her own devices, reverts to the usual natural selection game of change and of primal intuitive (re)actions, where pleasure, and emotions, and the immediate, loom supreme.

 

 

What better payback, response, to a base (m)animal, than silence?

To let it suffer the fullness of its essence, without intervening, without saying a word, without the slightest indication of care... simply watching.

Is not stupidity its own worse punishment; one that only those who do not suffer from it can truly appreciate?

 

 

Nobility, like kindness, like intelligence, like dignity, is not something you can learn and then imitate, without it becoming noticeable to those who are truly it.

You can only convince those who share in your imitation, because they, too, wish for you to remain, or to at least pretend to be, convinced with their pretense.

Certain traits, associated with these terms, can only be inherited, genetically, and only faked, learned, imitated, memetically, if they are valued within the particular culture, this meme is manifesting itself through.

It's this desire to disassociate the concept, the word, from the reality of what it symbolizes, that leads to this community of pretentious imitators, living with the belief that they can be what they wish to be, simply by pretending to be it.

This is why word, representing these concepts, built upon the experienced past/nature, must be detached from a world that remains indifferent to human pretenses.

 

 

Storms upon the mountaintops can no longer hide the absence of temples there.

The golden city was stormed and its cellars have been found to be empty of all but maggots and beggars with nowhere else to go.

With subtle deliberate steps this breed has barricaded itself against the coming rains and they now expel anyone who speaks of the cleansing properties of water.

Soon the filth will be washed away with nothing but the smell left behind, before the winds take it, and these walls will once more invite new minds to imagine marble temples upon the mountaintops.

 

 

What power do words have to a man who has understood them?

They act like smoke and mirrors, trying to take distract his gaze from what lies beyond them, and in between them.

 

 

What power do words have to a man who has understood them?

They act like smoke and mirrors, trying to distract his gaze from what lies beyond them, and in between them.

 

 

Some use words to reveal, to expose, to illuminate; others use words to conceal, to hide, to cast a shadow.

Those who know the difference find the latter to be the worst kind of human, because the more they conceal the more they reveal, and in their need what is hidden inside of them, even from themselves, shines brightly... and then why it is concealed is made obvious.

 

 

Beware of the dog that does not bark, because the one that does is telling you to stay away because you scare it.

The barking dog is dangerous only if you corner it, and will run if you leave it an opening; the silent one comes straight at you, without making a sound.

 

 

A fake image can only last as long as there is no contact, because the moment contact is made, and with time, it falls apart, leaving in its stead the true essence of the one using it to conceal. 

The mind that cannot think only has images.

It uses words with such a lack of artistry that he exposes himself as being vulgar and base, to the core.

He can only impress those who are like him, and is so doing, he also exposes them.

 

 

What can be uglier than a pretty shell opening up to let go of its internal rot?

A pretty cadaver decaying from the inside out.

What can be more beautiful than a noble, symmetrical, spirit?

Not time, nor disease, can decrease its appeal.

Every time it opens up you want to be engulfed by its grace. 

 

 

When I chance upon a photo of myself, as a young boy, my eyes become hands caressing him with kindness, and I embrace him with love.

The distance of time is covered, I feel, because the little boy smiles back inside of me.

In between the self-hatred of projecting the idea(l) into some unapproachable beyond reality, resulting in a lifetime of slavish, self-deprecating, shame, and the secular self-congratulating, "I am, already, a master of my domain, because I say so", and "I am valuable and an overman, and good, simply because I used words to call myself that" guaranteed by an all-inclusive, self-referential, system, then defended with a passion, we have a world which is indifferent to both escapist attitudes.

 

 

The coward thinks that simply by declaring himself noble or strong, or smart, he has already taken the first step towards self-actualization.

He is master of himself, he thinks, and so I am a world upon myself... luckily no n nature/past is ever permitted to bust that delusional bubble.

He thinks he is “free" because no external to himself standard enters his abode to disrupt his masturbation.

The walls are built and maintained by others, with his participatory offerings, and so he begins to feel liberated within their premises.

Here, he can pretend to be anything and anyone, at any time, if and only if this pretense does not disturb the other patrons from their self-gratifying personal labors.

how vengeful they become when the bubble is burst and they suddenly become exposed to a reality that does not give a flying shit about what fantasies they use to 'get-off' with themselves.

In a world where "all deserve" they, too, deserve their privacy.

 

 

We've had to hide in corners, muffle our human words with grunts and shuffling, coming out only in the daytime when they sleep.

Because, when they get the smell of you, as healthy blood, their hunger for it takes over, and they come salivating, and dry-boned, wanting a taste of the “real stuff”.

Take the poison they call medicine and they will taste your dying in your sweat, leaving you alone with time.

Only their hunger for vengeance can overpower their hunger for flesh; the disease of the mind, still holding on to the diseased body.

They will wait, surrounding you with laughter, their toothy grins dripping with sarcastic venom.

Killing you will return them to their silent vigilance.

Decayed meat, bumping into sky-rises of glass and steel, rubbing against decaying meat – the dead have their own impotent pleasures – wound rubbing on wound, bone splintering on bone.

Shhhhh, keep quiet and be still.

They are attracted to rhythms and graceful movement.

Mask and muffle, use saliva-drenched grunts to hide your words within.

To not dance, stagger.

Let them sniff you, if you've taken your medicine.

They will not harm the dead, or the dying.

They will not consume their own, not because of some moral qualm, morals are nothing but dead words for them, but because there is no nutrition in rotten meat.

 

 

A man looks upon a boy as what he once was, and is no longer.

And what he was not he can piece together from experience.

A boy looks upon a man as what he is not but wishes to be.

And what he does not want to be he has no experience in avoiding.

 

 

I know that all of it, unavoidably, has led me here.

I've nudged my life along with careful pushes and controlled pulls willing, when I knew not what I was doing, exactly this.

Having come so far and wanting to complete the task I guard my progress, like a lucid gatekeeper guards against unwanted intruders, and I horde my treasures, like an old miser.

My generosity has turned vindictive and my once open heart clenches at the slightest unexpected gesture.

I have more to lose now and less strength to recover.

Yes, I admit it, my door is closed and I can only take so much from unwanted guests and nosy interlopers.

 

 

When an answer to a question has no consequences from a world indifferent to it, then the speaker can live in the luxury of being protected from his/her own error in judgment.

 

 

A man builds a home with thick walls, and sturdy doors and windows.

He invites only his friends and those he trusts into his home.

But a man also knows there is a world beyond his home's interior spaces.

He wishes to remain in touch with this world so as to prepare his walls, and to adjust his doors and windows.

He builds a courtyard where all kinds of creatures pass through.

He studies these creatures to better understand them, and to help him adjust his home's sturdiness, and the methods he uses to keep the dirt out, and to determine who can be worthy of invitation.

When he is done watching, he pauses at the door, before going through it, wiping his shoes on the mat he built for this purpose.

He fears no dirt, because he knows it and how it gets through using crevices.

He cleans house often.

And if he gets a bit of dust on his clothes he knows he can wash it off.

 

 

The bad thinker prefers ambiguity for the same reason the bad artist prefers abstract art forms.

 

 

The demand for perfection is usually based on a premeditated rejection, even if unconscious.

By observing the pattern of where this demand waxes and wanes, its application, one can determine the other's motives, and the double-standards being used to direct them towards their object/objective.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Δημοσίευση σε άλλες σελίδες
Guest Satyr

When does the old Socratic taunt "I know that I know nothing" become an excuse to remain humbly ignorant?

Fear of being discovered as being skeptical and uncertain of your own positions, is what Socrates played upon.

What he "knew, but didn't" was human weakness, and how most adopt opinions in the same way they adopt fashion-wear.

Imperfection is part of all existence. We need because we lack... and what we lack is non-existent, it is non-existence, so we can refer to it using any projected, ambiguity we like.

We seek knowledge because we are ignorant.

We seek strength, freedom, and power because we are weak and dependent.

 

To be alive is to feel that lack, and to know it as being you in the river's flow, swimming against it.

This is not to mean that we are so equally.

This is where the Judeo-Christian laughs in that sarcastic tone, because he has surrendered to his own weakness, and only reminds the world that he will pull it down with him.

His “reality” is somewhere outside this one.

He is scornful towards the living because he is already dead where it counts.

After all, all you need to discredit an opinion is to find a small flaw in it, just as all you need to laugh at beauty is to find a hair out of place.

It is of no concern to the inferior if his own hair is a mess, or missing entirely, if he only finds that strand out of place.

Then the world is torn down and he rejoices in the arrogance of those who are beautiful but will rot in the ground, just like he will, or that are smarter than he can ever be, but still fail to be gods.

 

 

Usually, a good mother is appreciated more while she is still there; a good father after he is gone.

 

 

Only a child who forgives its parents for their humanity grows to become an adult; those that don’t live out their lives in their shadow, blaming and cursing exactly what they cannot accept in themselves.

They remain forever children, insecure, scared, controlled by rage and constantly trying to deny and overcome their past.

 

 

Weakness before the world needs its victory dance before man, or any representation of the world.

Let them dance, if applying the world’s final solution is no longer an immediate option.

It will be one that comes later.

 

 

Requiem to a Fool

 

An error, once made, perpetuates, builds momentum, and takes its own course, dragging the perpetrator along with it.

He can no longer hold it back, or reverse it, even if during its course he recognizes it for what it was: a foolish mistake.

He can only follow it towards its inevitable conclusion.

His ego will have no less, because, for him, it is better to deny a mistake, and save his image, than to deny the consequences that will come of it, and save his skin.

 

 

Boredom is what the institutionalized mind calls its containment.

It can only think within the walls, and soon he runs out of bricks to count.

It can only find value in others, and soon he finds everyone around him is just as bored as he is because he is next to them.

Between the either/or of stress or ennui, the dullard chooses what is closest to his heart.

He reduces all to the mundane, and then finds it all too little.

 

Once a whore gets used to the first excitement of being open to all pricks, she begins to lose interest.

For the modern man the world is only the world of man.

He dedicates himself to fitting into it, and discovers that it’s easier than he originally thought, and far less fulfilling.

Poor, sad, whore.

You've made of your passions a plaything, a narcotic, a product, and look at the bed you now lay in: you made it, now sleep in it, and dream of the coming morning.

If and when it comes – hope that the sun never rises – who would want to lie down with a whore who gave herself and of herself, so freely and so cheaply?

 

 

If you wish to sell your thoughts to those who may value them then you must understand the demographic you are appealing to.

To sell to the many, makes sure that if you cannot offer the fantastic, the supernatural, then refrain from being descriptive.

Being popular means you have to do the leg work for them.

Be prescriptive.

A nice, soothing, cheap, elixir, that will anaesthetize that pesky inner turmoil, will do.

You know the kind.

The ones you gave yourself, but have now become immune to.

Let them be your new drug.

Know your target audience.

Look in the mirror.

 

 

When reason cannot be used to deal with a concept then emotion is surrendered to.

Violent force, or the threat of it, is used to cope with what the mind cannot, and the one making us feel weak and vulnerable must be made into a devil with all the characteristics we despise in ourselves.

The weak expose themselves, in this manner.

They come out of hiding, placing upon the other what is in them, then attacking it with vulgarity and viciousness.

 

 

What does a man, a father do?

He seeds, and let’s go.

He does not stifle his child's development, he does not impose himself upon its course, he guides, teaches, seeds his mind with a possibility, and then lets it free... wanting to enjoy watching it (inter)act independently.

What father would slaughter his son's will; enslave it to another's will, even if this other is himself?

What man would be so depraved as to sacrifice his own child to his own need?

 

 

What now?

I've turned myself into a notary managing an existential portfolio and a cataloger of life scribbling away at my notes, uncertain if they will ever be read… not even if they deserve to be.

 

 

Breaking codes, breaking news, breaking boundaries, the mind wishes to break free.

But not really, not everyone.

Breaking things may get you in trouble. You might have to face the consequences or the exposure to that which you were stuck in before you broke it.

 

Be happy to do what most do... and simply break wind.

Smell that inner rot.

Imagine it hiding little seedlings, promising flowery blooms, on that pile of shit you carry around inside of you. 

 

 

Equal and opposite reaction: When a mind is awakened, either gradually or suddenly, to the cold reality of an unpredictable, mostly threatening and indifferent world, its anxiety will grow in an inverse proportion to its ability to cope with this conscious or intuited awareness.

This, if left unchecked, can reach an extreme, at which point it can push the mind towards madness or suicidal despair and self-hating nihilism or, as is often the case, it can produce an equal and opposite reaction of exaggerated hopefulness.

This inflated hope, in stark opposition to this growing unjustifiable, irrational despair – a despair sparked, perhaps, by some traumatic event that has exposed the mind to its own vulnerability – can, and does, defend the mind’s stability, protecting it from its own awareness, by creating an equally unjustifiable and irrational confidence.

We call this irrational expectation faith.

 

 

The common man comforts himself by fading into a whole.

A prostitute, for example, will tell herself that all females are whores, like her.

Her cheapness will not factor into her judgments.

That she gives away for a few bucks what others demand a high price for, does not compute in her mental register.

She keeps it simple, because she is a simpleton.

All are whores, or they are virgins.

A mental whore, a liberal mind, is not far from this paradigm.

He can relate, and that's why whores, and all forms of degenerates, are near and dear to his heart.

He also wants to sell, as cheaply as possible, to please, and to find value in the other, like a ten-dollar whore does.

What is cheap is popular.

Whores like other whores.

For him, if you are not giving it away, to anyone, you must be a repressed virgin.

For the progressive, mental whore, if you withhold trust, love, compassion, respect, you must be ill; you must be repressing, not giving any of it away, hoarding it like a miser, or you must be too afraid to spread your legs, like whores do with such comfortable experience.

 

 

And what of these dreamscapes I’ve built on doubt and quiet despair?

What will become of them and their silent suffering?

Unsung lines to an unwritten song.

I sit and watch people strolling down McGill Street, from a sidewalk bistro; gentle notes from a Jazz trio carry my thoughts and a pigeon lands and scavenges a meal; so many storylines to reconcile.

In the intertwining jumble I’m left in confused solitude.

Wanting and cringing at the thought of a companion – distracting and accentuating my loneliness.

I take a swig from my beer and I feel better.

The pigeon takes flight and the musicians take a break...the silence returns, comforting and brutal, like slavery.

 

 

Suddenly when the old priestly collar is ripped off, guilt is denied its power, and nihilism burns away those childhood fats that were once important to bring about maturity, a man might find himself alone amongst the ruins, lost to all meanings and gasping for air in the light of his own possibilities.

Fear will grip the heart, Sartre warns, as often happens when a child first leaves the comforts of his father’s abode, and a desire to return might seduce him back.

Go on, he must, or else let him become a servant in his own home!

Suddenly the old identifications fail to inspire warmth and looking around a man might find himself walking amongst alien creatures that resemble him, in form, but have little else in common with his sense of self. 

Solitude will fill his lungs, Nietzsche warns, as happens when one experiences the burdens of becoming, and a desire to lose himself in the crowd will entice him back.

Go on, he must, or else let him drown himself in the cooking pots of his master.

 

 

Lick your lips; they’re getting dry after pressing on so many parched hands; not to mention those appendages that little boys measure themselves by.

Sophomoric simplicity – the phenomenon is reduced to a single, or two, parts and entire worlds will be built upon their hard, indubitable, certainty.

Just make sure they are the “right” parts, otherwise the chalice’s nectar will taste like it is sweet wine, when it is poison, and all else will turn to vinegar, making salvation more of a myth than it actually is.

It wasn’t supposed to be easier than this… how else would all but a few deserve it and, then, what would this make of you?

 

 

In the quickness of the smut I slow my pace down to a meandering, and I loiter around with a strut and an extended down-turned finger tucked in my torn pocket, scratching those parts that still itch in secret longing.

So much ado… and nothing.

I bite my tongue, forcing it against my cheek every time hyperbole runs amuck, trying to turn a ramble into a rumble and a quickstep dance to the death.

Give me nice and steady, with a bit of heady delight, drinking in the details where the moment comes unexpectedly pleasing and surprises me sweetly, rather than with the bite of a disappointment, caused by imaginations inflated with helium making the voice sound ridiculous… applause breaks included.

You can always count on the dull to go off into hysterics and the wounded to offer inflamed infectious infantile incongruities… all with-in… followed with the usual excuses and explanations as to how or why everything turned out to be less than it was supposed to.

I’ve seen these romantics and shrill tones of “positivity” lose composure in the midst of things, only because they denied themselves the advantage of considering, beforehand, all the possible “negative” outcomes. That’s when panic sets in and they go about flailing insults towards anyone, offering explanations for their failures, where once a guarantee of success occupied their minds.

And I…having considered the possibilities, particularly the ones I would prefer to ignore as they did, remain comfortable wearing the name of “cynic” with some pride, because it was given to me by those that now despair and avert their gaze from my gleeful stare.

 

 

Sing me a new song, motherfuckers; sing me a new sampling of an ancient rhythm.

A new dawn is approaching, now that all the bullshit has been wiped clean and my head is surfacing again.

I feel alive, like I always do at the dawn of a new day, all fresh and awake – my mind once more free from the madness and with none of those earlier hang-ups.

I feel strong.

I sense it in my strut, in the furrow of my brow, in the way my shoulders hang further back than they usually do, my chest confronting this damn world with its vermin and those little boys who grow too tall for their own heads but fall so fast when the time comes to prove themselves worthy.

If only a man’s quality could be measured in inches and pounds alone.

I’ve lived this shit before... countless times.

The appearance never fully lives-up to the essence, because no matter what I’ve told them about all that metaphysical crap, I left out one key factor – the one which can mask a diseased snatch beneath a symmetrical face or a coward behind a square jaw – one crucial element in all this big post-modern game, making it all a matter of immediate translations, if not only about immediate gratifications, and not theoretics and learned symbolisms: The apparent always represents the past, and not the ongoing flow of existence.

Consciousness always lags behind, and the extent that it does determines the quality of the perception in question.

It is only when it accumulates that it leaves its aggregate traces behind – traces that can then be measured and interpreted by a capable eye – and not all eyes are equally capable.

Only imagination can compensate… and then with doubt.

Particularly in this day and age of artificial enhancements – including the book-smarts these boys purchase at the bookstores or get for free on-line – the apparent is rarely the actual. 

One has to cut through all the bullshit to even get a glimpse of the real.

This is why beauty only signifies a previous genetic suitability, but not necessarily a current one, and certainly not a mental fitness.

Do I not wish to put myself to the test, all 210 pounds of me, against these flimsy cardboard cut-outs, longingly offering their own dimensions as an indication of some value they would never dare put to the test, if it ever came down to it and all the rules were left behind?

There was a time when I did do just that – my baby face, my quick smile and friendliness, my ability to mold myself to the other’s tastes being misconstrued as a weakness by those that had to prove themselves my better. 

They were quickly corrected.

Not once did any of them dare test my rectitude.

But my situation has changed and my responsibilities now prevent me from fully exploring their fertility.

I can only sit back and watch them huffing and puffing and bragging and lying and declaring and playing those parts, and measuring those extremities, and using words they don’t get… oh they know them, but they don’t understand them.

Like the word “respect”.

What do the ones that have no understanding of dignity or who have little experience with fear know about respect?

Their “courage” is based on never having tasted their own death approaching or having never confronted a threat that cared not for their comments and their pretentious civility and their vile good manners and their measurements and looks.

It is another one of those words they throw around to sound smart or normal or sensitive… like the word “love” is used to make women feel less sluttish than they really are.

This too I can only allow life to teach them, as it inevitably will.

 

 

What of the deranged child who, finding himself in a world of paraplegics chooses to have sport, with them, pushing them down steep inclines, and secretly greasing their wheels with feces?

I would have chastised, such a child, back when I was a child myself, but having been brought up in this crippled world, that wanted me bedridden and comatose, I have come to know the real humility and charity of the sickly.

They would sooner break your knees that allow you to run around their rotating spokes.

 

 

One must be forgiving to one's neighbors, lest he face a similar treatment.

If wrath is to be exposed, then it must only be directed to those you fall outside the shared narrative, and the social agreements.

I'll not speak of your lies, if you do not speak of mine... so let us rejoice in our shared, declarations of value and mirth and happiness.

And if he drops his pants in public, once in a while, who, but I, shall stoop to pull them up, around his exposed arse, before he regrets it, too much, the next morning.

It comforts me to see him in such a condition, because it makes me feel less hopeless and ashamed.

Facing myself in the mirror, day in and day out, has become a burden. I require the help of my neighbor, no less pathetic than I am, to validate my condition and to make me feel not so insecure.

I know that he will not let me down, if he wants to be confident that I will not let him slip.

The silence is deafening.

All we can do now, to meet each other's eyes, is speak of the weather, and our children, and the game last night.

Who, but an insane person, would break such a holy covenant?

 

 

In this age of Dionysian ecstasy, wallowing in inebriated states of self-flattering, drunken stupor, the echo of "I luv ya man" is followed by a poker-faced regurgitation over a communal toilet.

We wake up the next morning with a terrible headache promising ourselves that we will never succumb to the temptation again, but by noontime, once life has slapped us across the face, our boss has given us a verbal wedgy and our neighbor has, almost, begged us to break one of the Ten Commandments, we find ourselves heading towards mother's little cupboard, to pull out the tried and tested little plastic bottle of chemical happiness, just to make it through the evening.

Shall I offer you my cold-shower, before you go back to sleep, all wet, and cold, and alone, despite the body beside you?

Don't pull back the sheets, you might find that it's been brain-dead for a long, long time.

The cadaver moves, like you do, like a zombie, but it is cold and animated by an innate hunger; a longing for some flesh and bones, and hot, steamy blood.

Why does it not turn to you, all jagged teeth and empty eyes?

Because you are one of them.

Can you not see the reflection of yourself in its needy eyes?

 

 

The shift (evolution) from genetics to memetics has liberated the body from its tasks.

The mind takes over, sometimes fleeing in fantasy, technologies become its mode of escape.

But machinery can be a trap.

The mind, still a product of evolution, prefers the path-of-least-resistance.

Technology is easy, because it is provided, already-made, accessible for a bit of time exchange.

Money is time abstracted, and then codified. You acquire it by giving parts of your life, and you use it to buy your life back.

This is where it becomes seductive.

If you can buy your life back, then why not buy another life, a more desirable self, past, future?

The ones offering you this “temporal service” do not care what time you buy, with the time you've already sold to them, just as long as it does not contradict their monopoly.

You give them portions of your life, and in return they give you the "right" to pretend to be anything, anyone, if it does not come into conflict with their arrangement with others.

Wanting to find yourself in this reality is counterproductive.

Your identity must only come from the ones who provide you with the services, and anything outside of that will only cause problems.

 

 

If you're going to spread your legs for me, my dear, then go all the way.

I promise not to reveal the secrets we share, to those that will not understand them.

 

I'll respect you, because I respect honesty, and those who are genuine.

 

If you're going to suck my dick, my dear, then I expect complete surrender, and nothing less.

We live in a world of dishonesty, of pretense, of prancers and dancers.

I will risk my own life, in this world that does not permit my kind, if only you give yourself totally, honestly, without reservations.

Trust goes both ways.

If I am to be myself, with you, then you must, do the same, with me.

Our secrets will be our own.

If you are going to offer me access to the insides of your physical being, then I expect no less in regards to your mind, your spirit, and your soul.

The world is full of faking-it, of words with no deeds, of emptiness.

I would rather satisfy myself, if you cannot provide something above the mediocre, the mundane, and the commonplace.

To be superficial is of no interest to one as I.

I find enough pleasure in myself, in being with myself, in pleasuring myself, in enjoying who I am.

 

Will you expand this experience or will you diminish it with your bullshit modern morality and your secular insecurities?

I can get that anywhere.

A whore can offer me this.

No, I want something exceptional.

Not only honesty, in the intellectual sense, I want the genuine, the authentic, in every sense of the word.

Can you give me that?

If not, then ta, ta, I am sufficient in myself.

Why would I need a distraction?

 

 

Rhetoric and theoretical crap, aside.

The moment you make sticking a penis up your rectum, or rubbing clitoris,' a respectable life-choice, you are on shaky empirical ground. 

Let's, fuckin', forget ideologies, the ‘what is fair,’ and focus on the deed itself.

We can forgive the female her sexual exuberance, and say that hedonistic simulation, in the form of clitoric simulation is worthy of forgetting. If she can receive cock in her very being, what more is rubbing a small part of her against that of another?

This, in particular, given the female's nature, is of small importance.

It only fails on a purposeful perspective, and it exposes itself as a hedonistic waste of time.

But then consider the masculine form of the mutation, and think what 'taking it up the rectum' means, simply from a pragmatic point of view.

There is a "man,” with a penis, allowing another man to insert his own penis up an orifice meant for excreting feces or organic, oxidated, poisonous, bio-matter. 

Then, there is a "male,” inserting a phallus in his mouth, to make it excrete bio-matter meant for fertilization in an orifice used for acquiring oxygen and nutrient. 

Sure, progress, and all that crap, but how do you justify an evolutionary method being used for human comfort and human hedonistic escapism?

Just from an objective point of view the method seems un-hygienic, to say the least.

I would say disgusting, but that would be called "hateful" and homophobic.

Let us take consuming feces, as an extreme example.

Who would say that those who are addicted to consuming feces are not-normal, or that those disgusted by it, are afraid of it, or "ill," because they find it repugnant?

The one who was born with the mutation that makes him addicted to consuming human feces is to be called "normal" and the one disgusted by it will be called abnormal?

Where is the line drawn?

The solution?

Make eating shit not about nutrition, but about some spiritual, connectivity, via the digestive system of the other.

I, supposedly, consume the other's feces, to be imbued by his/her essence; to connect with him/her on a level never achieved by any other before - a spiritual connection, using bio-matter excrement as the medium.

You can justify anything, no? 

Forgive me, you ill, healthy ones, but I'm about to vomit.

 

 

Having, now, entered firmly into the age of nihilism, where all values are reversed and nature is redefined to human, slavish standards, we may say that we are in the age of Abraham, or all those spiritual offshoots associated with his effete capitulation of his own blood to that of an invisible voice – flesh submitting to words, genes submitting to memes.

To speak to those engulfed by its premises, of anything contrary or outside its contexts, is to seek ridicule, hatred, and social condemnation.

In this age of Abraham all must offer their own flesh and blood to the idea, the word, the Deity of the code.

How interesting that Islam, one third of that Abrahamic triad, would become the symbol of western, Judeo-Christian, fear, and hatred.

Once Communism stopped being the other side of the same coin, Islam takes over than part, descending further down the line; does towards that point of common ground, that lowest-common-denominator.

When dualism is all that is, then the either/or can become a singularity, governed by an opposition in words, but not in essence.

Economics, having been settled, makes way to spirituality... to the very sense of identification.

Once done, what will be left but mindless drones, and the walking-dead – idiocy mumbling the same shit, over and over again.

The submission comes easy to the feeble and the cowardly, for they have the most to gain and the least to lose from it.

 

 

A modern Nihilist comes across a piece of shit on the road and steps back, not wanting to hurt the turd.

The further back he steps the more similarity with himself he sees.

“Look…” he says “… the turd is brown, like my eyes, like my hair, it must be like me. It is similar to me.

When I have a bowel movement the same smells comes from my anus, so my inside, my inner self is like that piece of shit.”

The further back he steps, the more distance he gains, the more detached he becomes, all the more that piece of shit appears similar to him.

It’s form, its color, its existence. That piece of shit is like him; he is one with it.

The piece of shit and he, are one of the same; of the same substance, of the same kind.

He recognizes himself in the turd; he identifies with it. He feels for it.

That turd could have been him, if it was nurtured in the right way. It was by accident that it lies there, all smelly and ugly, and he came across it. It’s not the turd’s fault that it is a turd, no more than the Nihilist is to blame for his own nature.

He rejects the past, and the responsibility of having to deal with it. He is free from it.

Appearances are superficial, the piece of shit and he, are united.

He rejects the word “turd”.

He is god's excrement, His creation.

All he must do is crawl up that sacred asshole and return to his rightful place. 

Dare call him a turd, and see how fast he reacts.

Whoever denies being a turd is only compensating for being one.

All are united in turdiness, but some are filled with ego and reject this shared feces identity.

What is worse than a turd, for a turd? Someone who denies being one.

The nihilist empathizes with the turd. He connects with it on a deeper level, beyond the apparent.

There lays a turd, that could have been a flower, if it was treated properly, and is destined to become part of a flower bed.

The nihilist sees himself in the piece of shit.

We must take his word on it and know that the nihilist is a turd. 

A utilitarian realist comes across the turd and he thinks:

“Hey look! A piece of shit.

I wonder what use I can make of it?

Maybe I can grow a flower on its decaying mass? Maybe I can sidestep it and avoid getting it on my shows?” He thinks nothing more.

 

When I come across a piece of shit I think like the utilitarian realist does, only I can also understand the Nihilist’s position, and take him at his own word.

I refuse the identification because I wish to be more than a piece of shit, but if the nihilist thinks of himself as one, can relate to one, then I cannot deny this self-identification. I too consider the Nihilist a piece of shit, that could have more, if only, and that may, one day, in part fertilize a flower.

I can relate to the nihilist’s attempt to lower me to his level of shitiness, and I most certainly feel the shit in me, and know that one day I will become fertilizer for plants, but right now I am anything but a piece of shit.

When I empathize I do not sympathize.

Not always.

I choose to have higher standards.

I will it.          

 

 

The French post-war intelligentsia, are the favourite lollipop of the American, academic, liberal think-tanks.

Foucault, Derrida, Lacan... steer away from that unwanted one Baurdillard.

One can read a woman, Paglia, to get an answer to that one.

 

Some Americans like to pretend they are thinking when they use French words, with a French savoir faire, nonchalance.

It's very chic.

They are lost in the sewer, and the only ones they impress are the brunch, urban, nouveau riche, but feeling guilty about it, set, of New World school systems, and their Ivy League charisma, with the four-year Ph.D. hanging on the wall.

You want to smell shit, perfumed and well-quaffed?

Listen for that wench, wearing trousers, sipping on a Martini in some cocktail party, with her pet husband wagging his tail in a $10,000 suit, he just threw on that morning, casually mentioning one of the exotic European accented names, as if by accident.

She'll have that half-lid smile, shadowed by a $300 haircut, and she'll know all the names, to open all the doors.

Want to see a walking cadaver, with a skull rotting from the inside out?

 

 

Despair and neediness, grips the soul when, unable to have an effect upon the world, it finds solace in producing an effect, no matter how slight or how contrived, upon others.

A compromise.

Unable to pull that which makes it feel insecure down it settles for producing a (re)action in it.

Some passion, some hint of care it can then grasp and inflate, until what frightens it is lost in hyperbole. 

 

 

Race is that other part of the liberal agendas steamrolling process, which sort of goes away, as they desperately want to ignore it and settle it as a given.

Sex and homosexuality, are the other two symbols of modern social advocacy, dreaming of levelling mankind to a word: humanity.

Monotheism, is only the spiritual mind-fart, of the same Nihilistic hot-air balloon.

God, replaced by humanity, is certainly not dead. He was prematurely declared so by someone who hoped it were true.

No, like the Mafia, God went legit.

He came down from the "beyond" as the Cosa Nostra crawled out of the underworld, put on a new suit, got a haircut, hired some Jew lawyers, and repackaged Himself.

He went through the laundry, cleaned himself up, and shrunk down to an idea(l).

But he still retained the same characteristics, surprisingly, changing only the symbols, the codes, the names, the words, being used.

We've all witnessed the bullshit surrounding the term "human.”

It's as if one is using a holy word, which stands above and beyond the "dirty, ugly" world, most of us, here, call reality.

Once the term "human" is used, a whole other set of rules apply.

Race?

No, only race as it applies to human, matters. It has magical qualities.

It does not mean type, but something else, something so mystifying, none of these dolts can define or describe it... you must feel it in your heart.

To understand the incomprehensibility of Jesus you must first accept him into your heart, we were told once... and now the same applies for this watered-down, earthly sacred word.

How can you understand God by studying Creation?

Animals do not suffice to explain the magnitude of magic surrounding the homo sapient.

And no, these humble ones are not arrogantly trying to compensate for personal insecurities, by projecting value upon an abstraction they can then curl themselves within and disappear.

They know how evolution works, because they've declared it so, and they've memorized the words, and can repeat them by-heart, from the heart, but cannot actually explain how species splinter-off from a common ancestor, or how environment only affects body but not mind... or why there is such a duality at all.

All they know is that humanity is complex, and this alone makes any judgments about them inadequate and blasphemous, like trying to get into the mind of God.

Man is so complex, in fact that no category applies: female, male, stupid, smart, and no method is successful in controlling their complexity.

And, like all holy words it has its own list of evil ones to accentuate its goodness.

No argument I required when you take the Deity's name in vain, and you call upon the Devil: Hitler, Nazi... it will be enough to make hearts cringe and minds flutter in disgust.

Why think when you can simply use a prayer to cast off evilness: homophobe, sexist, misogynist, racist!!! Be gone evil one, you will not seduce me with your lies!!!!!

 

Chant, chant, I am a child of God, I am special, I am good, I am valuable, I matter, I belong...yes I AM human.

Well, except human.

That word always applies and encompasses the entirety of this complexity, like the word GOD.

 

 

The fool is always misunderstood.

He is either a buffoon, with nothing much to say, or he uses an economics if words to remain uninterested in the outcome, whatever it might be.

He speaks, but not clearly, nor with his own words.

He defers himself, or speaks in that Delphic style, the Jews adopted for their own texts, to pretend to be wise when he is ignorant and desperate for help.

 

 

When a woman begins to think and to relate to a man as she would a boy, reminding him of this status, and relegating him to that position of guidance seeker, behind her motherly skirts, then her intentions for him cease to be directed by her sexual impulses.

He has become a potential friend, beta-male ally, a hanger-on she might settle for when nothing much is available.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Δημοσίευση σε άλλες σελίδες
Guest Satyr

When a needy fool has nothing to say and nowhere to go, he prances about nervously, trying to expend his unfocused energies upon some pointless activity.

If he is noticed, he may wish to retain this attention, finding in it a purpose in itself, by leaping into the air, juggling items it happens upon, or by practicing some acrobatics.

He is not doing anything, nor saying much at all.

And if he is to be accused of trying to imply something he will deny it with a passion.

He has found his purpose – his means which need not lead to an end.

Why did Diogenes masturbate in the town square?

Repeating spilled sperm.

 

 

The cynic insists that the other attempt to justify his claims, knowing that no position is free from flaws.

His motive is to denounce any proposition which would expose his own thoughtlessness as just, and as good a position as any.

This is how a negative can be used to level all into a positive uniformity.

Socrates used this technique to seed doubt in the minds of those that would take advantage of human folly, and the weaknesses of their fellow countrymen.

Having attained some wisdom in his travels he returned to his city with an appreciation for ignorance amongst those who did not possess the character necessary to handle insights into the human condition.

So we are told by Plato.

Later Nietzsche, and Strauss, amongst others, would come to a similar realization.

 

 

The coward, afraid of angering the gods, will deny himself the sacred practice of passing judgment, fearing that some karmic bad faith will cloud his blue skies, and lightning will strike him dead.

He prefers to utilize his mind in the most unobtrusive ways, not insisting on anything, placing his faith on chance.

Then he feels in-tune with his own meekness, knowing that whatever evils might befall him afterwards he can always blame it on injustice, and the evils of other men, feeling the victim that deserves better. 

 

 

What understanding does a dog have of its own impulses?

It acts on them, with the purity of an animal, never knowing the ends to his means, settling for the means themselves.

If a bitch knew the outcome of a male’s intrusion, would she, so easily, give herself over to the pleasure of his penetration?

 

 

It is best to avoid the myriads of genetic by-products of human depravity.

Best to only keep to your own, in your own time, at your own pace.

But if you are forced to deal with these recyclable human pollutants, try to remain as curt as possible, never speaking much about yourself and always redirecting the focus upon them; always offer them self-deprecating hyperbole, to feed into their delusions and to play along with their lies.

 

 

The absence of absolutes can only be described using absolutes.

Human thinking is founded on its fabrications of what it cannot find, but desperately needs, and language reflects its ambiguity and this innate desire for completion.

It requires a particular artistic surpassing of linguistic, mental dualistic forms, to catch a sidelong glimpse of what this means. 

 

 

A female is never emancipated from masculinity; she simply changes alliances and finds a new male to give herself to.

When such an inspirational male is not available to her, in her immediate surroundings, she settles for an imagined, invisible, abstraction of a man, and is no less satisfied.

 

 

One does not hate one’s enemies, in a way where the emotion overpowers him.

One is thankful for them, for without disease, the pleasure of ease is impossible; without death, life is impossible; without weakness, strength is impossible; without discontentment, contentment is impossible.

 

 

I have failed to internalize the teachings of my time.

I refuse to cast away my pride as another vice I should refuse.

My pride is what keeps me striving to overcome the weaknesses I feel inside of me; it is my ego refusing to lie down and weep, or die.

 

 

The absence of an absolute state, of a Being, makes of all projections of it an idea(l) one strives towards but never attains.

Strength, in this case, becomes the striving towards omnipotence and knowledge the striving towards omniscience.

 

 

Strength can be better appreciated as a measurement of weakness in relation and in comparison to another.

 

 

There is only one tribe in history – a singular successful tribe of its type – which begins as an idea and then attempts to become a fact; which begins as a meme and then tries to impose itself upon the world as a gene; which begins as a seductive denial of life and reality, and then morphs into this self-contradicting monstrosity.

They are not to be hated or pitied, for this feeds into their unifying paradigm. They are to be forcefully and consistently rejected, as one rejects a virus.      

 

 

We might divide man, in the usual dualism that comes so naturally to him, into two psychological groups, in regards to freedom:

The first, being those who think that they are already free, and only need to be awakened to the fact; a motion, demanding nothing more than a slapping of one’s own face, and a thrashing about in numbness.

The second, being those who think they are not free, nor that they can ever be totally so, and must pursue freedom, as a predator chases its prey.

Who shall decide which one is more noble and closer to the real?

One sleeps, slapping himself silly, not feeling a thing; the other races into the woods, saliva dripping from his teeth, almost tasting the flesh.

Let me be a runner, because this world is too beautiful to be nothing more than a dream, and the flesh... the flesh promises so much more.  

 

 

When love lost its immediate severity, it became the refuge of degenerates, and hypocrites; it became a toy to be played with.  

 

 

Love of life is love of self.

The other becomes that which confronts and challenges; what threatens with assimilation.

The self keeps the other away, in this way distinguishing and defining who and what it is.

Self is constant stress; it is the perception of its own unstable, imperfect, incomplete state.

In the east it would be called “empty.” 

 

 

Kindness is often mistaken for weakness, by the same type of mind that mistakes ignorance for courage. For the same reasons, indifference is mistaken for timidity, because one uses one’s self to understand the always alien other, and this understanding can never exceed this limit; the understanding twists around the individual’s self-awareness and self-assessment; its honesty, clarity, and inter-relating structures.

The typical mind discovers self, and determines self-worth through the other, creating a self-referential ring contained within social dynamics – this is how the SuperOrganism starts to form its outer boundaries, its encompassing, porous, hide: it circles back upon itself in a continuity it calls infinite.   

 

 

To know yourself you must peer into the past through your very being, your ongoing becoming, finding there fleeting images and subtle sensations which may not always be comforting and soothing and noble. 

Do you have the courage to peer further or will you turn away choosing to only remember the things you felt good about? 

If you have not looked into yourself, into your past, and not felt despair and an inclination towards suicide… then you have not looked deep enough or you have not looked boldly enough.   

 

 

Demystification: the leveling down of reality expressed as a need to reduce it to a thing, eliminating it as a source of anxiety, producing respect.

The mind ashamed of its nature dreams of tearing down the world to where it finds a common grounding in the base.

The cynic makes everything into a joke; he diminishes the fluid, turning it into an object, and then he ridicules it, bringing it closer, making it more intimate – something lovable because now he can relate to it.    

 

 

The negative will always surpass the positive for it is the tranquil waters of the ocean all rivers wash into after a short tumultuous journey downwards.

The ways these waters rise up into the atmosphere as mists falling as snows on the mountain peaks, is the mystery nobody can ever know, because the knowing itself would contradict it. 

 

 

“Once detachment, viveka, is interpreted mainly in this internal sense, it appears perhaps easier to achieve it today than in more normal and traditional civilization.

One who is still an ‘Aryan’ spirit in a large European or American city, with its skyscrapers and asphalt, with its politics and sport, with tis crowds who dance and shout, with tis exponents of secular culture and soulless science and so on – among all this he may feel himself more alone and detached and nomad than he would have done in the time of the Buddha, in conditions of physical isolation and of actual wandering.

The greatest difficulty, in this respect, lies in giving the sense of internal isolation, which today may occur to many almost spontaneously, a positive, full, simple, and transparent character, with elimination of all traces of aridity, melancholy, discord, or anxiety.

Solitude should not be a burden, something that is suffered, that is borne involuntarily, or in which refuge is taken by force of circumstances, but rather, a natural, simple, and free disposition.” – Evola, Julius

 

If you cannot be by yourself, then you cannot be.

 

 

Surrounded by the regurgitating, sampling, repeating, machines of modernity, feeding simple minds with the words and confidence they need to remain safe in their delusions, one cannot do more than repeat the positions none of them can respond to without repeating and exposing themselves as what they are.

All you must do is repeat your positions based on perception and reality, without having to go too deep into the subject, to witness their responses that use the same tactics, the same words, as if they were reading from the same script, and that never, ever, actually respond to the challenge.   

 

 

Do you wish to be liked?

Well then, try to always focus all interactions upon the other, rarely speak of yourself, allow them to direct the topic and if it is directed towards you, in some probing way, try to be curt and ambiguous.

Allow the other to brag, self-flatter, name-drop, promote and delude him or herself and only play along, making the appropriate remarks at the appropriate pauses, nodding your head, and maintaining eye contact.

If you can do this for any prolonged period of time you will be adored and, in time, trusted.

If not, then tell them to fuck themselves, expose their bullshit and mock their duplicity… and then face the consequences.

Patience is the most necessary attribute in any social endeavor. Not even intelligence can compare to it in significance.

 

 

Objectivity is a motive – a willful movement towards.

It consists in the effort to place the standard for evaluating self and reality outside the human mind.

Subjectivity is easy; it is primal, and natural – it is demanding in that it needs to be protected for it to remain viable or demanding in that it needs to perceive as objectively as possible, breaking free from its subjective comfort.

The object/objective is what makes the demand, and the subjective mind feels it as need/suffering, and fear/anxiety.

Subjectivity, the self, the noumenon, is what is confronted by objectivity, by the objective, by phenomenon (the apparent) which is unknown and forever unknowable, in a complete, perfect, sense.

 

The object/objective is what the subject moves towards, never able to complete the approach, but only cover a distance towards it.

The distance is this disconnection between the ideal and the real; it is the human condition, the solitude of conscious existence; it is existential angst produced by the friction this movement produces.

Self-consciousness also experiences this detached distance from its own consciousness.

 

 

Few have the broadness of mind to find self-control and balance, in the infinite possibilities their perceptions expose them to.

The many narrow of mind must be given an external and immediate source of anxiety to keep them in check – and so for the few fear is something that is earth-bound and that can be dealt with, whereas for the others it is forever unsurpassable.  

 

 

Genes are about phenomena becoming noumena.

Memes are about noumena becoming phenomena.

 

 

The mind exposes its inner-workings, its undisclosed processes, by the emphasis it puts on perceptions of otherness.

For the more feminine-minded the emphasis, no matter the topic, is always emotional.

The automatic (re)action to stimuli, where inner organic processes mingle with external perceptions, always direct the mind towards the emotional, the social, and its relationship with the otherness.

No detached appreciation is possible; no reason with no personal investment.

The mind is taken over by the emotion, and all is perceived through the emotive lens, the instinct, the self-interest, the socialized component.       

 

 

The mind perceives the world and, as it is its wont to do, it tries to determine how to deal with it.

The most honest, courageous, mind separates reality into what can be dealt with in the immediate, what can be postponed for later, and what cannot be dealt with neither in the immediate nor in a foreseeable future. It directs its efforts towards the former, and accepts the latter as part of the factors it must take into consideration when doing so.

The weak, cowardly, mind, only accepts the immediately, and easily, correctable, and if it gains some spirit and integrity with age, it may venture to postpone some solutions for the future, but it will never, and can never, accept what it cannot find a solution to; for that category it uses the mutually supportable solution of denial, forgetting, ignorance, dismissal, sarcasm, ridicule, cynicism, or any emotional crutch that will provide it with an immediate, and easy solution.

The “mutually supportable” part of it is the most crucial, because it creates a screen of validation behind which such a mind can hide amongst the masses of its own kind.     

 

 

The only thing progressive about “progressives”, in relation to modern definitions of conservatives, is that they’ve progressed, gone ahead, adopted more sophisticated, up-dated, methods to escape reality, to deny nature, to justify their Nihilism.

They remain open to newer methods for doing just that. 

 

 

All knowing comes from the negative, as all gnosis starts from ignorance.

What I am is that which I know I am not; that which I am not, is that which I know I am.

 

 

To live well is to live unencumbered by the needless.

To live with fewer needs is to live lightly. 

 

 

Consciousness precedes self-consciousness, and so self-knowledge is preceded by experience/knowledge.

To go deeper into self is to go further back to what preceded your consciousness.  

 

 

Those who feel the most embarrassed about themselves, insecure about their higher cognitive potentials, those who feel ashamed of their past, will want to pull everything down to its lowest common denominator.

Only then do they feel secure, proud, happy.

 

 

Experience is the product of first-hand interactions with the world; knowledge is the inherited, second-hand interactions of others.

The latter is easier to acquire and so less reliable and more difficult to apply, yet, if it is mastered it offers a quicker way towards superior awareness.  

 

 

If there be a Will that can be called “free”, without it meaning a forgetting, a self-annulment, and a detachment from reality, then it can only find affirmation as a preparation for the unforeseeable future.

Only when the Will liberates itself from its automatic reactions through stringent asceticism can it impose itself on its own nature as a directing force.

The freed will imposes itself on the automated, instilling a new set of habits that can become, in time, automatic, innate, themselves.    

 

 

Asceticism: The Will imposes a limit to its instinctive (inter)activity.

In time, and with repetitive consistency, this replaces the previous automatic responses to unforeseen stimuli – emotions are to be included into this category of automatic (re)actions.

Only this can be called free-will, and it is what masculine spirit is all about: the rational imposition of the will over innate, naturally evolved behaviors. 

 

 

Man shows reverence for what is most alien to him, towards what lays outside his field of understanding.

Both demons and saints are forms of erotic reverence, seducing the feminine in man.

But when man appreciates critically, he acknowledges himself in the other, and not what he lacks in himself; he does not demonize, nor sanctify… he only (re)cognizes.

 

 

The brain is so desperate for order, to find patterns, in a universe lacking absolutes, that it constructs them, when they are missing.

It then confuses its own constructs, taking on the form of a metaphor, a symbol, an abstraction, for their presence independent from his own creative, ordering, brain.

What follows is infinite regress towards receding paradoxes.

 

 

A paradox is the experience of your idea(l)s, represented by symbols, crashing into an indifferent, fluid, reality.

 

 

If the “medium is the message,” then Indo-European culture has slowly entrapped itself in a bipolar version of a singular message.

 

 

Opposites unite in the same place where they are born and cast in the role of antagonists: in the human mind.

Between them the world ebbs and flows in multiplicities of (inter)actions.

 

 

Freedom, in whatever form it takes and within what predetermined parameters it emerges, remains free up until the moment it becomes an act.

Once this possibility, this option, manifests into an action it ceases to be free.

Action, behavior, becomes an invested option the moment it turns from a possibility into an application.  

 

 

Freedom, if understood correctly, and if fully accepted, is less about the possible options – which are always predetermined – and more about acceptance of the potential consequences of applying these predetermined options pragmatically.

 

 

When a noble man speaks of freedom, he does not mean from himself, from his past, from his nature.

When a noble man speaks of freedom, he does not mean death as a polymorphous liberator from the world that made him.

When a noble man speaks of freedom, he does not mean from his senses, from his memories, from his reason.

When a noble man speaks of freedom he means from other men, and the contrivances they invent to enslave his spirit, and to harness his will to their own.

 

The noble man leaves that kind of freedom to his lesser.

 

 

Agape is about exploring the past so that it can be preserved in the future; it's about reaffirming what has been so that it is not lost.

Eros is about projecting into the future what is most immediate, often-times disregarding the past out of necessity.

Eros detaches from the past so as to project an idealized version of what it lacks into the future.

Eroticism is an idealized projection of a presence detached from its historical content; it is organs with no unity, blind need with no care, no consideration, and no motive beyond its immediacy.

Eros is need serving a past it is ignorant of.

The perfect tool for manipulation.

 

 

The senses are outwardly focused and so their intent is to perceive the alien, the other.

The perception of self begins as an otherness which must be made familiar. 

 

 

Fear is the mother of all emotions, as it is the normal anxiety produced by the perception of otherness.

Will is the father which gives this wild female a direction.  

 

 

Respect is rooted in anxiety.

One respects the one that can potentially deny him something he values. 

 

 

All value judgments are comparisons and so no perfection and no absolute should be sought in them, but only the superior and the inferior in regards to a defined intent.

 

 

The aggregate energies at a Will’s disposal determine its force because the Will is no more than the focus of an organism’s synergy.

To know yourself is to know what energies are available to your Will. 

 

 

It is possible for an individual organism to possess the potential for a greater force than an organism with more energy/mass at its disposal.

A superior focus, using the sharpening tool of the Will, can direct a superior impact upon an object/objective, whereas an inferior focus loses force by its lack of direction.    

 

 

To know who and what you are, you must know who and what has preceded you, and who and what has made you possible.

Self-knowledge is this endless pursuit of an identity through the knowledge, and the acceptance of one’s past.

Without the courage of acceptance all knowledge is rendered useless.  

 

 

A man does not cast off blind as to where he is going, nor does he accept a direction offered to him by strangers seducing him with easy pleasures.

A man finds in his past the binding ideals of his ancestors, cleans and polishes them from whatever dirt may have covered them in time, until they shine as bright as when they were first born, and then he flings them forward as beacons to light his way.

 

 

Firsthand knowledge (experience) is preferable to second-hand experience (knowledge); for rare is the man who learns quickest from the mistakes of others and rarer still the man who understands what he has learned. 

 

 

Similarity is an evaluation made after divergence has been recognized.

 

 

When I (re)cognize I cognize what I already know. This can be nothing other than that which I can ever know with any degree of certitude: Self.

Therefore what I see in the other which is familiar is no more than what I already know about myself.  

 

 

Empathy does not automatically result in sympathy.

It is often that part of ourselves that we see in the other which is the part we despise the most in ourselves, because it is that part which we have overcome, become masters of, or are in the process of doing so. 

 

 

If you are not a female, looking for a means to reproduce what you lack in yourself, then you must be a male either looking for a friend, to ally yourself with, or looking for a foe, to test yourself against.

So what are you?

 

 

When all around they clamor to convince you that lowering parapets represents the peak of enlightenment, of courageous openness to the world, trying to convince you to abandon your distinguishing awareness, make sure to thicken your walls further and to raise your defenses higher still.

There is no choice without a restricting barrier; there is no perception without the cognition of divergence. 

 

 

Understanding is improved in proportion to the possibilities we can connect to our knowing. 

 

 

I refute, and refuse, all those who preach forgetfulness.

If I wish to honestly know myself, memory is my only instrument.

Memory tested and compared to clarify it.

I will not forget.

I will (re)call what has been pushed away; I will (re)member what is being dismembered.

My memory is both my identity, and my retribution.

My memory makes of my compassion a gift, from a predictable obligation.

Memory is my discriminating genius.

I will not cross the river Lethe before death… my place is with the living, and here memory is sublime.

 

 

The Ideal represents a possible correction of the real; a projected, desirable, hoped for, alternative future, to the determining, unalterable, inescapable past.

It is also an indication of the mind’s dissatisfaction with the world.

The more detached from the sensually perceived real an Ideal is, the more fantastic it is in relation to the world as it is, all the more it reflects the mind’s hatred of self and of everything that made it possible.  

 

 

The Idealist will consider all challenges, contradictions, to his preferred future an annulment of them, though his own Ideal is no more than an annulment of the world, as it is, and of everything that made it and him possible.

In this way Nihilism is turned into a “happy positive”, seducing many children with its fantastic fantasies, when in fact it hides a deep, mature, resentment of the past (nature).

 

 

To want to change the past is to wish for one’s own negation.

To want to reinterpret the past in the most favorable, flattering, comforting ways, is to wish to adjust self, and the world, to a coming, more “perfect”, more desirable, state – a projection of a probable hope to deal with the present anxiety.  

 

 

All is in Flux; all is changing.

Therefore, all demands a constant reaffirmation.

 

 

With eros, as that found between frenzied, lustful, lovers, one seeks in the other what one lacks in one’s self; one seeks to absorb him/her or to be absorbed by him/her.

The male being inclined to the former and the female being inclined to the latter.

It essentially describes a process of consuming need.

With agape, as that found between loyal, rational, friends, one seeks to attach but retain distinction; one seeks to interact but to remain separate.

Agape is a window, a door, in the individual’s fortifications, offering the choice to let in or to keep out; bestowing honor to the one permitted to enter, and retaining the option to throw out the garbage. 

It essentially describes a process of controlled need.

 

 

A noble mind strives to improve self in relation to the world, not the world in relation to self.

In so doing he also alters the world he participates in, not by force but by example.

In this case it is a need forced upon the individual due to the fluidity of the world, to which (s)he must constantly adjust to – it embraces activity only striving to keep-up with its frequency.

In the other case it is a need to arrest the changing of the world, to create a static state, ending all actions – the cessation of existence.   

 

 

The rejection of manmade artifices is not a rejection of the world, no more than the rejection of an absurd, infantile, idealism is a rejection of reality.

To negate the negating is to affirm a positive.

 

 

Many confuse the world of man with the world at large, owing to the fact that they are so engulfed in institutionalized fantasy, so immersed in sheltering solipsism and nullifying narcissism that they have lost all contact with the real, and can no longer relate to the world outside of this manmade caricature of it.

 

 

Blood is made into water by those who cannot stand the sight of their own.

 

 

Excess develops habituation with it; habituation develops dependence, through repetition.

The price is independence. 

 

 

Suffering is an excess of need; need leads to action.

The excess of need can only be dealt with through action, setting the groundwork for growth.

But action should be arrested when growth is achieved, for if it is indulged in excessively and for its own sake, without focus, it stretches one’s resources and is always accompanied by an increase in the potential for future need/suffering.   

 

 

Excessive contentment leads to stagnation which results in atrophy.

Given that the world is in constant Flux, atrophy inevitably leads to increased suffering and, if not endured, to a certain death.

 

 

Stress is the only way to grow, because from a breaking a healing begins.

Make sure this stress does not break you completely.

 

 

Many acquaintances offer access to multiple social possibilities, but, in the meantime, they demand constant maintenance and an ongoing cost so as to preserve this access.   

 

 

In speaking the truth great reservation must be applied, for not all can bear it.

One must make sure that one speaks of the truth to those few who can pay the price in hearing it.

To all others a partial truth, partial lie, must be offered; to each according to their strength of spirit and their constitution.

Some truths are too dangerous to be shared with no sense of measure. 

 

 

Increasing possibilities tend, progressively, towards what life would call the negative, yet most prefer to evaluate only the potential positives.

This is why most consider possibility an encouraging notion, and suffer no tension in considering it.

For the naïve, progress is the fugitive contemplation of the multitudes of optimistic likelihoods, and is not troubled by anything else besides.

For such as him, existence is always full of unfortunate surprises which he can never make sense of but finds happy ways to excuse himself from.  

 

 

People, in this age, deny the relevance of appearance yet spend inexorable amounts of time and resources trying to fabricate and maintain an image which is supposed to represent an essence, a fabricated personae, they wish to portray as their preferred identity.

The ease with which they can paint-over, groom, style, tug and pull, clothe in fabric, nip and tuck in modifying ways, merely reinforces their hoped for belief that all appearance is superficial rather than a manifestation of their entire past.

The ease by which they can hide, and mask, and alter, and bury, retells the comforting story that the past is insignificant and irrelevant, nature being landscaped, with willful nurturing, out of existence; but that they even wish to hide, and mask, and alter, and bury tells them nothing.

The magician must accept the real before he can redirect the eye away from it.

There is always an element of unconscious admittance in every act of pretense and trickery.    

 

 

There are no such things as constructive or destructive emotions.

All emotions are potentially both, and neither.

The difference between constructive and destructive, in this case, is determined on control and balance – in other words on application.

 

 

Consciousness is a looking back.

The level of consciousness, its sophistication, is a measure of how far one can look back to find useful patterns so as to apply them in the immediate, or to project them towards the distant.

Ergo the depth or shallowness of a conscious mind is determined by how far back it can delve to sample experience/knowledge – it is the product of clear, brave, honest, detailed, memory.

 

 

When observing a group of monkeys do not be surprised if your trope is mis-taken for their troop.

Being observed, once the initial anxiety passes, becomes a joy for the ones who wish to be seen, but not too deeply.

Your interests, like gazing into one's eyes, may, at first, be a source of anxiety. Then, once time passes, and no perceived harm has been done, the gaze turns to desire; the monkey begins to look back, wanting to see itself in the reflection.

It's only when the initial gaze has taken a nasty turn that the mind behind the gaze must be made a monster to be blinded or hidden from.

His stare turns to flattery, and insecurity becomes an accusation.

 

 

Love, and the modern mythology now connected to it, is the replacement method of ensuring the same outcome Paternalism and religious dogma did in the past.

It has about the same success.

 

 

The self, its inherited or experienced, (inter)actions with the otherness, discovers self as an otherness.

The exploratory stage of self-consciousness commences.

The otherness can now be understood, not only by perceiving patterns in its (inter)activity (behavior), but by relating these (inter)activities back to the most intimate, and immediate, part of existence, the emergent self.

The self cannot comprehend anything that departs from this reference point, and even here its sophistication (imagination, ability to project and perceive more subtle patterns in self and other) determines its perspective and its understanding of the alien, unknown, otherness.

It is itself, its own sounding boar(d).

The consciousness, self-consciousness’s, dynamic is part of the dualism.

 

This is particularly limiting when the circumstances, the environment, does not permit a direct and obvious, cost for being mistaken. The error can be perpetuated, supported by the same error being perpetuated, because it is easy to make.

The narrative becomes common, in this way.

Self-flattery, denial, fear being denied its merit and its presence, becomes an easy method of understanding other.

 

 

Beneath the sex, the lies, the faces, the vanity, the social characters and personality, the familiarity unfamiliar hides.

Man, in every aspect of his Becoming, his living agon, is a relationship with his own death.

 

 

Honesty is valued, by the ignorant, and simple, because for them honesty can only expose flattering, sympathetic, common grounds.

The only honesty the common mind wants is the one that either flatters it or allows a window open for it to escape or to grow.

Too much intimacy leads to disillusionment... a demystification which by reducing the anxiety, reduces respect.

This is particularly true today, where rituals and rights, enforced by community reduces options, and so reduces the risks, anxiety, the potential costs.

What castrates a man is that the cost to all options, except the allowable, has made them impractical, unless the man is insane.

Parity accomplished.

Now his words become laughable.

Too little disclosure and you are a coward, suffering from intimacy/trust issues; too much and you might be exposed as a weakling, or, a psychopath.

To tread that fine line, by remaining right in the middle, makes you a healthy soul.

 

 

The moment someone approaches a phenomenon from the point of view of a "problem" requiring a final and complete resolution, a fact needing to be corrected, a behavior that must be justified morally, a "why?" that must be given a final answer without a hint of uncertainty, (s)he has already presented himself, whether he is aware of it or not, as nothing more than a nihilist.

 

Whatever form, and symbol, this nihilism takes is only interesting when trying to determine the pathways towards self-negation this particular mind has taken, and is insignificant when considering the bigger picture.

 

 

Just as man's love of self can go through a proxy other, so can a man's hate of self finds a similar indirect route.

In both cases the other, most similar to him, is a personification, a stand-in, for the world that confronts him, and is alien to him.

When such people speak of the world they always mean the human paradigm, and cannot comprehend a love of life, of the experience of the world, outside of it; when they speak of misanthropy, in their mind, it always implies hatred of life and of the world that made it possible.

Their understanding of the world goes through and returns back to the most intimate part of it.

For them, the objective is a myth, because all is equally subjective, and they like it that way.

Better a known "evil" than an unknown one.

Better a familiar negative, than an unpredictable, indifferent, one.

Better a face with a name than a faceless, chaotic, world.

How does one attack what he cannot face?

 

 

"Yes-men" find validation amongst other Yes-men, and pride in being the best at saying "Yes" to their common values.

Their "Yes" is but a "Nay" to all others, and it is this "Nay" that divides and distinguishes one from the other.

All "Yeses" begin with a negation.

 

 

Strength need not flaunt itself.

It is confident in its abilities, and its potentials, as these compare to those of others.

A physically strong man is gentle, because his strength is obvious.

A beautiful man is self-effacing because his beauty is indisputable.

Weakness compensates in the direction it feels the most vulnerable, in comparison to another.

The direction the flaunt, the posturing, the exaggeration takes, exposes the nature of the vulnerability, the sense of inferiority, being felt.

Sometimes the individual may use flaunting, bragging, posturing, exhibitionism, to redirect the others gaze away from where (s)he feels weak, and vulnerable, and inferior.

But the redirection will begin and return to the source of insecurity; it will circle around it, in a protective (re)cycling.

 

 

We show how vulnerable we feel before existence when we prefer to imitate another, remaining in his shadow, finding ways to preserve our ego there, rather than taking the risk and engaging reality directly and with no intermediating others.

In the first case we can always blame another if reality proves to be too much; in the second there is nobody to blame but the world itself.

 

 

The moment the subjective mind approached the objective world and said "That cares for me and for my well-being" the end of thinking began.

Fear prostrated itself before the unknown.

When it changed its mind and said "That is my creation" then arrogance multiplied mindlessness, and stupidity reached a new high.

Fear made itself more vulnerable to what dominated it.

 

 

It is logically consistent with man's innate reasoning that the patterns that produced life, and then the brain to reason, would also develop a system of expression, a language, which reflects this self-referential internally consistent system.

But this form of simplification/generalization is inconsistent with the world's dynamism.

Much of what we perceive contradicts how we symbolize it, and it is always incomplete, because most of reality is inconceivable to an organism that can only perceive patterns and those only if they fall within the boundaries of its sensual acuity, as this has been determined by evolution.

Evolution, nature, cares not for lucidity and logic, but only about survival and fitness, and so it only develops the level of sensual awareness and reasoning which is useful towards this end.

It does not waste energies, nor does it evolve awareness that may require a cost that would decrease the organism's survivability potential.

To go further than this internally consistent innate method one must evolve beyond the survival motive.

 

 

If you find value, self-esteem, identity in the word, the number, or in any symbol for that matter, then your worth, and your effect, is contained within this symbolism.

If you are lucky you might find happiness amongst those who live, exclusively, within this world of symbolic, noetic devices.

Be careful you do not become arrogant, when you've lived there for too long, and stray outside this world, because you are in for a lesson you might not survive.

 

 

 

No need to over-think it...

The biggest idiot in the group will be the first to use the word "genius" in reference to himself.

 

 

Nietzsche, Friedrich wrote:

    “If you go to see the woman, do not forget the whip.”

 

Slight modification to this, bringing it up-to-speed with modern realities...

 

Satyr wrote:

    “If you go to see the woman, do not forget the lawyer.”

 

 

If you dress and act in a way that accentuates your sexual attributes, do not be surprised if you are acknowledged sexually.

If you are surprised, then you are either a hypocrite, of the self-deceiving worse kind, or a moron, of the increasingly average kind.

 

 

Inversion of violence...

The weak, if it is not forced to submit against its will, submits by doing violence upon its master.

It degrades what it surrenders to.

A woman, if not taken by force (rape, paternalism), but seduced, lowers the seductive one to a level she can relate to – she makes of him an intimate other.

Then, accepting him inside of her is less of an affront to her ego.

He is she, and she is he.

 

 

 

How does one enjoy vinegar, as he did before, when he's had a taste of the godly nectar?

No need to be snobbish, one enjoys what he's got, but in the back of his mind the memory of that higher experience lingers.

His standards of measurement have been stretched and what was once at the top falls to the middle.

With our palates stimulated, and our bellies full, a new need captures us.

A longing for the rare; a desire for the idea(l).

We consume in search for it. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Δημοσίευση σε άλλες σελίδες
Guest Satyr

Musings

Laconic Elegies

 

A renaissance when twilight approaches.

Mysterious shadows fill my horizons from once intimate objects and I’m left reminiscing about the day gone by. That’s when my eyes mellow with nostalgia and tears fill my vision with images of the past. The daytime heat eventually breaks and growing quietness wets my senses, soaking them deep into my bones.

How wonderful to have seen the morning, bright and promising, full of freshness and burgeoning expectation.

How I long to be back there, empty and hungering fulfillment; energy waiting to be tapped. Soon the day rolls by, bringing with it disappointments, revelations and the unexpected; each adding its own weight upon you and slowing you down, but also fortifying you with reflections. And, in the evening, the need to sit and digest; a calm indifference offering serenity and the confidence of one that desires no more and has nothing to lose.

 

 

Why do you think I cried when joy danced in the dusk and I was taken by the moment?

Because it passes never to return again; because it taunts me with its promise and then leaves me gasping for what I can never have; because it smiles, like a vengeful lover, as she walks away.

 

 

 One must experience a second birth after the one imposed upon man without his consent; a memetic rebirth to replace the one imposed upon him when he was genetically unable to withstand – a wilful, conscious one.

A rebirth no less tearful, traumatic, and uncertain.

Before it, one must end in the intellectual death of his first birthing, and emerge, as a phoenix, from the ashes of his adoption to rediscover his genetic past, and within it, the memes that belong to it.

 

 

In that lonely time of dying, after the body has gone through the struggle, and then settles down, turning inward, turning back, accepting its fate, then, it may experience its final epiphany; one never to be shared, never to be contemplated, forever lost in time in that final moment of realization.

In that final moment the mind would have lost all fear of dying, having experienced the worse of living.

It would have become unafraid of life, as it slips away.

What a tragedy! What a comedy, to vanish in a final fit of laughter, which no one will hear.

Shall we do our laughing beforehand? 

 

 

As the distance between the present and the near-absolute order (Big Bang) increases the possibilities of life emerging, as an echo of this probability that restricts possibility.

Man distances himself from "God", the near-absolute singularity, in which he's discovered imperfections (Satan), when once he was "perfect", and then declares himself a coming god.

His adolescent bravado, the product of disillusionment and untested self-knowledge wants to appropriate his father's ways into his own ascent towards godliness.

The further away from the masculine order he goes the closer towards the chaos of the feminine randomness he reaches.

Here, in between the masculine and the feminine life is possible. In that almost balanced state where the father's order, his limiting probability, no longer inhibit the emergence of new order, as an echo of Himself, and the mother's chaos is not strong enough to level all patterns of probability into uniform possibility.

The echoes of near-absolute order combine with the coming near-absolute randomness of chaotic near-infinite possibilities, and life is born.

 

 

Our mysteries do not require a "beyond" or an "above", nor are we mesmerized and seduced by the products of our own interpretations, attempting to bridge the gap, to fall victim to their easy promises.

Our spirituality is born of our worldly experiences and our direct and honest engagement with reality.

What then is mystifying about the world, in relation to man?

It's fluidity.

When entropy is increasing the emergent (re)action to it of ordering will contradict the flow of time.

How does one adequately capture fluidity, fluctuations of (inter)activity, with static, symbols?

How does one adequately represent the dynamic by using simplifying/generalizing abstractions?

 

Something is lost in the translation, and this lost something is what mystifies us, and what we try to (re)cover using more subtle, clever artistry.

Man, as a living organism, an ordering, is attracted by and only interested in ordering – in patterns, and in symmetry.

As a product of ordering he lives within a universe of ordering – a lingering afterglow of that near-absolute singularity he has called "God", and the "prime mover", and is now calling the "Big Bang".

As self-organizing emergent unity he can only exist in a world that makes sense to him, using the processes (methods) that expose him to what is most like him.

The world makes sense within the translations of reality reflecting his own essence.

But, as chaos increases, and ordering slowly declines, man finds himself a stranger in a strange world.

Things have not progressed enough to where the world becomes nonsensical, but, already, his increasing awareness has exposed him to subtle signs of a coming counter-intuitive reality.

As chaos is approached the randomness will make comprehension impossible, or, should I say, highly improbable.

If man's organic order survives long enough, man may find himself in a world that makes no sense to him – a hellish world.

This is the coming of the Dark Age, out of which a new beginning will emerge.

But chaos has been with us since the dawn of time... it is the nil, in the one, which explodes into time-space possibilities, gradually expanding, growing.

It has been symbolized as the ‘Satanic principle’, the "evil" in the "goodness," both benefactor, because without it man and consciousness would be impossible, and antagonist, pulling apart what it has made possible, the moment it is birthed.

And this temporally measured effect is what man feels resentiment towards, according to Nietzsche... setting-up the "yay saying" of the coming "overman", who (re)cognizes the necessity of this process of need/suffering, and inevitable demise, embracing it as indispensable, as unavoidable, as his very nature.

And here is where the truly healthy man finds his spirituality.

Not to cower before and surrender to, but to worship as necessary, as both benefactor and antagonist.

The gods, for this healthier, more child-like, man were representations of the counter-intuitive; associated with Jaynes' "bicameral mind", as a by-product of man's emerging self-consciousness, relating to consciousness as an alien in his own body – producing this mind/body dichotomy still burdening modern man with its schizophrenic cries for help.

We now see it on the periphery of human scientific insight, when man is confronted with a mystifying world that contradicts this "middle world" as Dawkins called it, of human sensuality.

Human artifices, human tools, such as words and numbers, fall apart before this underlying, increasing randomness... this coming chaos.

Man is terrified of it, wanting to discover some pattern in it to save himself from what he cannot fully fathom.

"Complex" he calls it, insinuating hidden, subtle, patterns, where he might find salvation; something intuitive, rational, to manipulate, to know and then to dominate.

Share this post


Link to post
Δημοσίευση σε άλλες σελίδες
Guest Satyr

The Past

The past hides behind the thin veneer of the present. As time passes new layers of reality are added on top of what was -in some places thicker and in others fine and transparent- burying it beneath sediment of change.

From the time one is born until one's death this cycle of alteration replaces an individual’s reality, forcing him to re-establish connections to it or reinvent himself so as to maintain relevance and comfort. But, as age begins to affect adaptability and as one's waning strengths condemn him to fall behind in this struggle, the individual eventually wakes up in surroundings totally alien to him.

The world as he knows it is gone, or rather it is buried there, in front of him, behind the surfaces but completely out of reach. Sometimes, here and there, due to the thinness of the subsequent layers of progress, some remnants of his past show through and fill him with sentimentality, nostalgia and a sense of loss and alienation.

This process of consistent change is more pronounced or more noticeable in environments with a rich historic past, such as Greece, where ancient monuments very often stand side-by-side with more modern structures, or where previous cultural norms co-exist and often compete with more recent ones. It is in such places that an underlying sadness and fatalism accompanies every individual through the course of his life.

Change is exaggerated in a patchwork of not-so-buried pasts, where contrasts and juxtapositions are imposed daily on the senses.

Every human being is himself a product of his time. He mirrors the musical and artistic tastes of his history; he represents the behavioral and moral rules of his past – most often of his youth, in which time an individual becomes a willing and vulnerable recipient of external influences.

In due course he finds himself to be also a remnant of a bygone age and an artifact of the world, now called "ancient" or "old".

For most the boundaries between past, present and future are well-defined and stand in sharp contrast to one another.

For them the sensual input of any given moment defines their position in history and determines the course of their actions.

The past is but a shadow in their mind; a source of recollection filtered through the distorting forces of remembrance but condemned to dwindle in significance as the temporal distance is increased between each moment.

The future becomes an imagined supposition to be planned for but not to be overly preoccupied with.

What is to come can only be thought of as mirroring what has been, or will be exaggerated and glorified through human need and hope.

For some few though, for those sensitive artistic restless souls that float in a timeless limbo, the past present and future intertwine in a distracting jumble of chaos.

They not only exist in every instance of their past but can project themselves to an unknown future.

Share this post


Link to post
Δημοσίευση σε άλλες σελίδες
Guest Satyr

Wine & Whiners

Fools are like sub-standard wines.

A fine wine is to be uncorked on special occasions, allowing it to first mix with the air before you sip it carefully, sampling its many subtle flavors and nuanced textures. It takes a delicate, patient, palate to fully appreciate its warming effects.

The less than fine wine is unscrewed, taken down in large needy gulps, quickly trying to attain its promised heady rush and avoid the tasteless undertones that may turn your delicate stomach.

When empty it is discarded and another bottle is impatiently reached for before the inebriation subsides and the aftertaste reminds you of the coming headache.

 

 

I write sonnets as I walk – entire poems stream through me, essays are started and finished, under starlit skies or a slow autumn drizzle, hoping they will still be with me by the time I return home to give them skin and bones with ink and paper.

But my mind falters and as I rush to save them they slip away, leaving only bits and pieces behind, and the feeling that inspired them.

They fade and I cannot decide if their perfection was real or only in my mind.

 

 

What foolishness to expect a man to fight against ghosts, to expect a man to use a sword against an idea.

The dis-ease has spread too far.

Quantities overwhelm qualities.

To remain true to my own ideals, I cannot strive to change the world, such as it is.

Though it is a human contrivance, I must adapt to its fabricated premises, if I am to survive within it, and preserve what I consider valuable.

Do I wish to change the world?

No, this is what foolish nihilists would want me to do; this is the only way they can comprehend me.

Their desire to alter the past informs their present.

They wish me to break myself against the impossible, to feel as miserable as they do.

My goal is adaptive.

I cannot change the wave, I cannot stop the tide, and I can only ride it, like Evola advised.

Others have already exposed morality and re-evaluated it, returning it to its natural place.

My goal is to do the same with perception.

Too many still identify, and associate, with what is now no longer in play.

Now, is the time, to become more discriminating, to become more refined with our self-consciousness and our sense of self; now, is the time, to go deeper, leaving behind these childish visions of sameness, and find a more precise similarity.

They have done some of the work for us, in their desperation to free themselves from the past. They’ve reduced sex to a habit.

Well, let us grab onto that destruction, meant to liberate from natural specialized roles, and then let us go further by denying their attachment to that other sexual category of human.

If sex is not enough to define a person, then neither is human, for it too is a sexual category.

Time to become more conscious of the creatures that surround us and appear to be similar, if one does not look too closely.

They want me to become a martyr, but I am too clever for their messianic tricks.

No change required except in perspective.

No change necessary except a sharpening of the mind's discriminating ways.

The world, as they’ve made it, is fine – it will implode on its own, in time, without any help from us.

It is an artifice, and it cannot withstand nature.

 Change is not a virtue, it is inevitable.

It IS existence.

Time to begin constructing a new order, in the coming debris of failed uniformity. That too is already on its way, and like all human interventions, we must simply nudge it along.

I do not seek change in otherness, only they dream of such infantile things.

I seek a transfiguration of identity within the inevitable.

Since they want it so, then so be it.

There are no humans, no categories to restrict us.

We are individuals bonding under a shared idea(l).

They’ve made humanity into a joke: a hobby, a garment to be patched into a uniform quilt for warmth, but with no substance.

So be it.

They will think that we, like them, wish to change the world – the world they have created – and this is where they will fall into error.

When a hunter looks into the jungle, he does not dream of changing it, he observes, evaluates, determines the players and his place within it.

He values according to utility, and if it is loyal friends that he seeks, then it is on merit, on trust built over time; on shared idea(l)s that he will judge them on.

 

You see a community of humans?

I see a concrete jungle full of creatures that must be defined according to more than appearance, because they have told us that appearances are illusions and superficial.

They made humanity an idea(l), and so be it.

My ideals go further than the sexual and the emotional. 

So be it, but let us not forget, like they do.

More than on appearances, can you see the virus in their mind?

 

What is a meme, but that which directs the gene, often in harmony but, in their case, in disharmony?

If we are to harmonize with an older rhythm what they’ve harmonized with the modern, the base, out of tune with the past, then let us tap into those genes, listen to their rhythms, and connect them with the meme which follows the beat.

Everything I write is an observation.

Not a hope, not a preference, not a complaint.

This is why I never offer advice and solutions, as some ask me to.

My solution requires a shift in identity.

I do not expect that more than a small, a very small, minority is up to this task.

But I never stop looking, and searching.

Surprisingly, I’ve found a few.                       

 

 

In every crisis there is opportunity, as the Japanese say.

And we are certainly living in an age of crisis, because the wars change but they never stop, and this is a different kind of conflict creating its own brand of crisis.

A Pagan loves nature, and this world, being primarily a product of man, and man being an agent of nature, is part of the existential deal.

Not surrender, but Stoicism.

The concept of artificiality is meant to clarify the parts of the environment which are man-made – it is meant to identify the human constructs and put them in their rightful place.

The system, being all-levelling, as it is, has done much of the dirty work for us.

We will not get into the question as to why or if it is guided by a motive, and is part of a conspiracy, nor will we speculate on if it is only a consequence of larger populations being forced to coexist within shrinking space... which are then manipulated by those in power.

This is not for the moment, out focus.

What matters here is the inescapable given, because if there were an alternative we would have taken it, instead of being forced to analyze the situation, the environment, so as to adapt and survive within it, while still preserving what we hold near and dear.

The other alternative of escaping into fantasy, into navel-gazing, into forgetfulness and ignorance, we leave for the feeble.

We are Pagans, and we choose to live whatever time we have, with our eyes open.

 

If you are a true Pagan then the goal here is not to change the world, or the humans that populate it; it is not to be a saviour, a martyr for those who deserve nothing but scorn.

Let Jews and Christians think along those lines.

We are not two-faced.

These creatures deserve everything they get, especially when they have wished it so with such unbending fervour.

As I said there is a challenge present, a threat if you will, but also an opportunity.

The goal, as I see it, is to explore, understand, analyze, in an attempt to survive within this environment.

Death is inevitable, the question is:

"What will you do with the time you have?"

The unconscious state where neither pain nor sorrow nor need touches you is already on its way, what do you wish to do now, while your sensations offer you the possibility of a choice?

They, like I said, already do the dirty work for us.

They tell us exactly who and what they are.

They expose themselves to us, willingly, but shyly.

All we must learn is to read the signs, and listen, and see, and hear, and sense.

 

-Already we see in MRA a forced exclusion of males from the genetic pool, minimizing sexual competition and leaving females desperately trying to bring into harmony their natural desires, and their cultural ambitions – their genes and their memes.

This is a temporal struggle, and we must recognize it as such.

These excluded, expendable, males rationalize it as a "turning away" to reduce the shame. 

They then use shame as a defensive shield, accusing the other of trying to force it upon them what bubbles-up internally when they are reminded of the truth of their situation and the "choices" they've made to deal with them.

This opens up opportunities in the sexual arena, or any area these herds find pleasure in.

Where the water buffalo go, the lions follow, or they die.

 

-Already they've discredited male and female sexual types, which means that without knowing it, or understanding why, they've also discredited this all-encompassing identification with the other sexual category which male/female are mere sub-categories of: Humanity.

The label has lost all substance and has become as empty of meaning as the female/male refinements of this biological category they now embrace for warmth.

Then they wonder why they feel so void, so lost, so unsatisfied.

Then they wonder why they need constant stimulation, constant distraction, and constant human contact.

 

-Already they've discredited appearance, made the senses into tools of deceit, which not only makes them blind, in theory, but also it feeds into what was previously stated.

Because appearance can no longer be used to judge, in theory (idealism), then female male is a nonsensical term, for them... but it follows that is also so for the term human.

 

The erasing of genes from the field of vision, from perception, leaves only the meme to identify a phenomenon, at least when it comes to the already shaky category of human.

This does not mean that the genes no longer apply, but only that these herds can no longer use them to understand.

This is to our advantage.

They've placed themselves in a self-blinding meme, where being obtuse and dull is a virtue.

The self-contradiction should be ignored, as much as they ignore it.

It should become this unspoken, underlying, perception that everyone pretends to ignore.

It's part of their social conventions, the bullshyte of their respect and civility.

You can't 'call them on it' because they'll get upset and they will begin looking at you with suspicion.

It is enough to keep it in mind.         

 

-Already they've told you all you need to know when dealing with them.

Their love, friendship, loyalty is shallow and cannot be trusted, nor taken seriously.

They are emotional vampires and prostitution is how they get their fill.

 

They must love everyone, if they are to remain true to their own bullshyte, or, at least, they must pretend.

Whores who sell themselves for practically nothing...in theory.

Here, too, their lies and bullshyte is part of the equation.

Their words are without substance, because they refer to nothing real, nothing outside their tiny brains.

Nothing they say has any value. The words are easy and ephemeral, just as their understanding of them is shallow.

Their actions are more important.

They toss words around without understanding them without defining them, and without care.

They usually use words to justify, and hide their actions.

They are careless, like children, and their words reflects this carefree, superficiality.

Also, like children, it is its simplicity which makes them dangerous.

Not intentionally, but due to their stupidity, and the rage they will be governed by when their eroticism is denied sublimation.

For them words are used to create an immediate and superficial effect; an atmosphere.

There's no cost to them, because they never follow through with actions, and so they cast words about freely and with naive disregard.

And the more they talk, the more patterns in their speech you can find.

Patterns exposing what is really going on behind those dull stares and fake smiles.

Not the words themselves, but the in-between, the pauses, the gestures, the repetition, the tone, the cycles, the face.

Share this post


Link to post
Δημοσίευση σε άλλες σελίδες
Guest Satyr

Flutes of Pan

I let go, again…

 

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;

Or close the wall up with our English dead.

In peace there's nothing so becomes a man

As modest stillness and humility:

But when the blast of war blows in our ears,

Then imitate the action of the tiger;

Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,

Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;

Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;

Let pry through the portage of the head

Like the brass cannon; let the brow o'erwhelm it

As fearfully as doth a galled rock

-Shakespeare

 

Dancing on the edge of insanity, like a dainty prima donna, wearing my heart upon my sleeves.

I abandoned myself to the flutes of Pan, the madness of his pipes making me drunk with desire, like I once had, not so long ago, back when the recklessness still hadn’t been beaten out of me.

Serves me right, I say, a man of my age so casually dismissing those brutal lessons at the hands of lesser beings.

But still it is I who dared, once more, to feel – to feel the sweet caress and the tender promise, knowing full well that such fickle things don’t last after the night is gone and the daylight casts its harshness upon the faces that seemed mystical in the moonlight.

I throw the die, clenching the teeth of a repeat loser, dreaming of my ‘big win’: that fabled prize that would finally heal my cynical soul; that diamond in the ruff; that one and only angel that did not sell herself to the next best thing with the flippancy of a street-walker.

And what if I’ve been brave and patient, when bruised and battered, expecting the unexpected and finding nothing more than the usual; wanting so very little and getting nothing in return?

Bitter words upon white paper, scribbled by an aging hand in the twilight of solitude; still wanting the improbable, but preferring loneliness over a few empty words of “I love you” offered in adolescent haste by those that have no reference point other than the deserts of their modern lifestyles that makes a mockery of all things noble – those that, for this reason, can never appreciate the value of integrity, or the binding power of trust, or the beauty of loyalty. 

What a fucking wasteland.

What a damned recyclable world of hollow beer-cans and disposable rags.

And this emptiness I feel is nothing in comparison to theirs.

No magic can restore what has never been whole; no faith can grow a limb that never was.

I, at the very least, can walk with my head held high, knowing that my emotions, no matter how overwhelming, were never given so cheaply to any passerby.

Even my hate has a higher price.

Ha! A pathetic victory dance upon the embers of my own burned down castle. These dramatics go unnoticed in these busy streets of consumers and consumed – hungry lustful animals, wearing Armani suits and painted faces, pretending they are somebodies.

All of it but external effects when inside a terrible void no eye could stand to peer into for very long without going insane; a gaping hole accepting any garbage that has the shiny finish of a new automobile.

Measure the immeasurable with inches and live on the insinuations.

 

Let us not mention dignity, best to use a profanity than to utter such hallowed, now hollow, words here.

The silence will be deafening – you might hear your heart beating.

Thing is, there’s no real room for someone like me – there never was.

I made some cursory room within urban profusion, secluding myself within smaller and smaller spaces – so as to be allowed to breathe freely – letting only my mind soar above the turmoil.

I made due.

I built myself a quiet place in the midst of all this chaos, only venturing out for short periods of time due to necessity, only to return to my serenity.

It was enough.

Everything else I already possess.

I keep it all locked-up in my mind, where nobody would ever care to look, letting only pieces out, when I am in the mood for some mischief.

And they covet it, like vultures circling a dying wolf – only this wolf isn’t dead, yet, and his teeth, if worn are still sharp.

But I faltered.

My control wavers when I feel so much about so very little.

A damn song can cloud my eyes and the wails of a dog can clench my heart. I feel my spirit rise up at the sight of a fluttering bird, and a rustling tree can ease me to contentment.

It’s taken me decades of self-imposed discipline to teach myself the art of cruelty, and even now I perform it with half a heart and an absent mind.

I’ve had to learn to beat back these beasts of burden, and even now I ache when my blows fall too close to their inflated soft underbellies.

 

Time to replenish these batteries, of mine.

Time to find joy in the simple and the honest and the direct.

Time to love myself unconditionally, like nobody else will ever do.

Time to let go and let things happen.

Time to be alone, as I always was, as I always will be.

Amen.

Useless to rub salt upon these cauterized wounds.

They’ve been scorched so many times in the past that the nerve endings are now buried beneath layers upon layers of scar tissue.

Only the deepest cuts, the ones that can pierce through all that hard surface, might still find those soft spots that still lie underneath.

 

 

There are no levels of depravity many men will not stoop to, to win favor from a beautiful well-endowed woman; there are no levels of depravity many women will not lower themselves to, to win favor from a powerful well-connected man.

In fact one can more clearly observe one’s true nature from this fact alone.

No principles, no ideals, no reason, no words can survive the desperate nature of the degenerate.

For them all these take a back-seat to basic instincts, and from seemingly civil, rational beings they are returned to the state of unabashed beastliness which is closest to their true character.

When the madness dissipates and they regain their brittle senses they forget or they justify or they solemnly swear to never submit again… but they always do.

This is how flimsy the divide between nature and man’s civilization is.

Share this post


Link to post
Δημοσίευση σε άλλες σελίδες

ΒΟΗΘΕΙΣΤΕ ΤΟ HELLENISM.NET!

Εάν σας ενδιαφέρει να γίνετε ενεργό μέλος του Hellenism.Net σαν moderator στο forum, ή αν σας ενδιαφέρει να γράφετε άρθρα/κείμενα στους λογαριασμούς Facebook, Twitter και Google+ του Hellenism.Net, ή αν ασχολείστε με προγραμματισμό ιστοσελίδων, τότε επικοινωνήστε μαζί μας!

Χρειαζόμαστε εθελοντές για να κρατησουμε το  Hellenism.Net ζωντανό!

Follow us

Hellenism.Net Facebook Feed

×
×
  • Create New...