The common perception is that knowledge is power.
Or to put it differently, that truth is power and that it hides an ulterior motive:
Truth has the power to offer contentment.

To the human mind all ‘reality’ must have a utilitarian advantage or else it cannot be ‘reality’.

The idea here is that power is not desirable for its own sake but that it too, like faith, is concerned with escaping life’s miseries and inherit suffering, that it masks a death-wish behind a seductive and hypocritical life-affirmation, that it mustn’t be endured but enjoyed.

But at what point do we concede to the notion that what is true must necessarily be advantageous or life-affirming?
Is this not a prejudice which places our needs and well-being as a central theme?

If the universe lumbers along, indifferent about its multiple creations and destructions, then why do we assume that it is concerned with life, or this ephemeral material union that becomes self-consciousness?

Nietzsche proclaimed that “…a spirit might be measured according to how much of the ‘truth’ he would be able to stand – more clearly, to what degree it would need to be watered down, shrouded, sweetened, blunted, and falsified.” – [J39; cf. WM 1041; EH-V 3]

Man enjoys the notion that his well-being is determined by his attitude and that all that is needed is a ‘correct attitude’ to create happiness through meaning.
The underlying motive here is to interpret ‘reality’ in ways that lead to the feeling of contentment; to ‘spin’ the world so that it does not bother our sensibilities and that fits into our desires.
If enough people participate in our perspective then it becomes ‘real’ by default, it becomes Karma, as a self-contained system of inter-relations agreeing on some fundamental ‘truths’ and living as if they were universal.

I have witnessed this first hand when attempting to deconstruct ‘holy’ concepts such as Love, compassion, Equality and many of our modern necessary social illusions.

This human prejudice results in many errors, one basic one being that an opinion concerning truth must necessarily offer an advantage to the one holding it.
This in turn forces us to seek what lies behind an assertion, what the person gains by it, raising questions about his psychology and past.

I would admit that for a mind which holds onto beliefs for their utility it would seem logical to assume the same for all others and it would be wise to search for what use he makes of his convictions.
But, to an honest mind, it isn’t always the case.
Do I only see what I want to?
Do I hold as ‘true’ that which I can use?
Or are certain perceptions, certain skeptical assertions unavoidable, to an honest mind?

To put it plainly, is truth necessarily life-affirming and advantageous or is it, at times, something to be endured and lived with in spite of it?

The idea here is that power is not desirable for its own sake but that it too, like faith, is concerned with escaping life’s miseries and inherit suffering, that it masks a death-wish behind a seductive and hypocritical life-affirmation, that it mustn’t be endured but enjoyed.



I think that one should first ask "what is power?" Does the human mind measure utility according to a universal standard, like beauty, morality and justice, or is it all subjective? We have the problem of ideals and how the ego interprets them. A person with poor standards would fall below societes ideals and hence expectations when it comes to certain things, but easily may be above it in others. There is also the problem of the illusion of power versus real power. The illusion is what gets most people to believe in themselves enough to perform a task on a regular basis if need be and live up to societies expectations. The real power comes when that person raises their standards and expectations above societies and lives up to those. But then, real power can also be fostered by illusive power. If the source of the illusion is beyond societies expectations then the person would have a greater standard by which to measure their exercises of power and so their comfort level for performance would increase. For example, athletes, millionaires, heroes, etc. (the real) as opposed to gangs, druglords, strippers (the illusion)...

The problem of truth, as I see it, is basically this:

Our Western notion of truth is that truth is a set of non-contradictory statements, that truth is absolute and verbalizable.

Plainly put, that there is only one truth about each phenomeon.
Which also means that it is assumed that a phenomenon (person, object, relationship) has a finite, absolute, context-independent self.

Believing in such a self usually offers some comfort and contentment. People seem to be pleased when they make "I am ... You are ..." statements.



To put it plainly, is truth necessarily life-affirming and advantageous or is it, at times, something to be endured and lived with in spite of it?

For one, that depends on which truth about a phenomenon one takes into consideration.
There can be several, even mutually exclusive statements simultaneously true about a phenomenon -- all depending on perspective.
Question is then which perspective is then elected to be the highest standard, by what criteria, and why.


And for two, even all evil is good for something. Everything can be turned into one's advantage, in some way.
Lost your job yesterday? Good, because today, the building you worked in was blown up by terrorists and all the people there killed, while you sat safely in your living room.
Been through a bad relationship? Good, now you have material to study from so as to not make the same mistake again.
And so on.



Do I only see what I want to?

If we'd only see what we want to see, we'd never have the sense of having seen something new and foreign, we could never be surprised.
The stance that one sees only what one wants to see creates the prejudice that everything is already familiar. But people do report of being surprised sometimes, and people also learn, change -- which means they have allowed for a newness, something unpredictable -- they didn't only see what they wanted to see.


Or are certain perceptions, certain skeptical assertions unavoidable, to an honest mind?

Perceptions and assertions like what, for example?

nicholas1M7
I think that one should first ask "what is power?" The only power we have, if that at all, is the one over ourselves.
It is the ability to overcome ourselves.

The ultimate display of power, as I see it, is not control - since this is a form of dependence - but indifference.
One does not control one’s needs but becomes indifferent to them. If he cannot, being a human-being with inherit weaknesses and limitations, one does the next best thing and, like Nietzsche advises, one sublimates them into creative forces.

Some would say that indifference leads to inertia, and thusly nothing is overcome, but this stems from the erroneous assumption that one will always choose to do nothing rather than something when either will do.
Indifference isn’t in relation to an event or an experience but it is in relation to the outcome.

I participate, uncaring about what will occur as a consequence.

Does the human mind measure utility according to a universal standard, like beauty, morality and justice, or is it all subjective?Utility is measured within a context.
Something is useful in relation to a desired goal and within a context of resistances and obstacles concerning it.


water
Our Western notion of truth is that truth is a set of non-contradictory statements, that truth is absolute and verbalizable.Truth, as a concept, is absolute.
Otherwise it isn’t a complete truth.

Whether we have access to it, is another matter.

Plainly put, that there is only one truth about each phenomeon.
Which also means that it is assumed that a phenomenon (person, object, relationship) has a finite, absolute, context-independent self.

Believing in such a self usually offers some comfort and contentment. People seem to be pleased when they make "I am ... You are ..." statements.There is certainly a perspective truth about each phenomenon but this does not exclude the possibility that there is an all-inclusive truth about all phenomena participating in a finite system of inter-relationships.

If the energy in our universe is finite then ……….

Man has no access to ‘truth’ because he is participating in what he seeks to know and because truth is flowing and ever-changing and continuously constructed.
Absolute truth can only be known in hindsight, when it has been constructed and it ceases to be temporal and it becomes historic.
The same can be said for the self or the here and now. All these concepts refer to a generalization in the past.

The problem remains that to then know this ‘truth’ one must have a good memory and access to the complete picture. One must exit the universe to witness it totally, in hindsight and through abstraction or one must freeze time.

The same applies for the more particular experiences.
An event, an experience can only be known in hindsight when it has occurred.
But to know it completely one must possess infallible memory and absolute knowledge of everything that participated in the event.

Nevertheless the mind compensates for its lack my generalizing, simplifying and hypothesizing.
In other words, the conscious mind seeks patterns that can help it construct viable abstractions concerning the totality from a few clues and specificities.

The accuracy of these abstractions determines their validity and their ability to predict events.
Categories are such simplifications of specific phenomena and a generalization of them.

We all have the ability to hypothesize and construct world-views but the one that can incorporate as much detail and nuance and knowledge into his will have a clearer understanding of what the complete picture might be like, in hindsight of course.

Consciousness and intelligence were evolutionary advancement that were meant to steam-line behavior and make a unity more energy efficient.

For one, that depends on which truth about a phenomenon one takes into consideration.
There can be several, even mutually exclusive statements simultaneously true about a phenomenon -- all depending on perspective.
Question is then which perspective is then elected to be the highest standard, by what criteria, and why. The problem with perspectives is that it insinuates that there is no truth but only interpretations of it.
This itself is an absolute assertion of truth.

The idea that human consciousness is limited to a perspective on truth is a logical one.
As participating parts in a whole we can only perceive a tiny portion of it and then extrapolate and guess the rest.

But, like I said, truth may be dynamic.
It is a work in progress and is determined by how the parts interact, either wilfully or not, with one another.
As something dynamic it can be contemplated after the fact.
We construct concepts concerning the ‘self’ or ‘I’ or ‘reality’ from sensual information that has been abstracted after the stimulation has past.

In other words I see a deer when my brain has perceived and analyzed and abstracted the animal and then cross-referenced it and understood it as what it is: a pattern denoting a particular behavioural unity.

The deer I’ve perceived is no longer the same as the one in front of me....but then again...neither am I.
It, like I, has already altered and is different, even if in a minute way.

It’s consistency relies on this unity’s ability to maintain itself within the temporal/spatial flux of the universe as it resists change and battles to remain a cohesion.
This resistance is translated by the conscious mind as need and can become heightened to the degree of suffering. Life, in essence, is a perpetual suffering.

This resistance to the flux creates patterns of behaviour which can be used to create models of reality.
In essence we are constructing reality when, like in Plato’s cave, we watch the flickering shadows and imagine what they might be.

A perspective is deemed superior when it can more thoroughly explain phenomena and use its abstractions to predict future behaviours of said phenomena.

An imbeciles perspective cannot be said to be the equal of a non-imbecile’s perspective for this reason.
If this were not the case then intelligence and consciousness would be inconsequential and it would never offer a survival advantage.
A deer’s “perspective, to pout it bluntly, cannot save it from the lion.
Denial and delusion cannot shelter you from the world, it can only make you ignorant enough to be oblivious to its terrors and dangers and risks.
This is why ignorance and courage are often mistaken for one another.

The most we can say about perspectives is that they are more or less adequate and effective, not that they are arbitrary.

The interesting thing occurs when an incomplete or erroneous perspective gains popularity, for various psychological reasons, and is then made ‘real’ through common acknowledgment.
Common perspectives create the illusion of reality within the group and when nothing external threatens this ‘reality’.

This false ‘reality’, or the imprecise one, is lived as if real, creating a Baudrillardean Simulation, but reveals itself as false in subtle, or not so subtle ways, when it eventually fails or results in catastrophe.

Nature does not forgive stupidity, only man does.

And for two, even all evil is good for something. Everything can be turned into one's advantage, in some way.
Lost your job yesterday? Good, because today, the building you worked in was blown up by terrorists and all the people there killed, while you sat safely in your living room.
Been through a bad relationship? Good, now you have material to study from so as to not make the same mistake again.
And so on.There is no ‘evil’ only information that can be used in multiple ways.

If we'd only see what we want to see, we'd never have the sense of having seen something new and foreign, we could never be surprised.We are “surprised” when our abstractions of truth, created by our limited perspective and determined by our ability to perceive and incorporate as much detail (information) in it is flawed or incomplete or driven by self-interests and when it is dishonest.
Intellectual deceit is the worse human vice. When this self-deceit becomes communal it becomes decadent.

Life disappoints us or it excites us or it flabbergasts us because we are all ignorant of it, to varying degrees.
The unknown confronts us positively or negatively, as the case may be.
Children and fools are the more engaged by life and the more easily entertained by it because they are the most ignorant.

Omniscience, as an imaginary concept representing absolute power, would be indifferent to any information.
It would already know.
Living would be mundane to it.

Perceptions and assertions like what, for example?That life is absurd, or a “…disease only death can cure….”, or that to be truly powerful one must become indifferent to everything and therefore worthy of everything, or that life is best lived when one is willing to give it up at any moment, or that the ultimate unconscious desire of any mind seeking the absolute or revelling in hedonism or wanting to lose itself in a whole or wanting love is to cease becoming and be, or that suffering and life are tautologies and when one attempts to avoid the first one avoids the last …..

That life is absurd, or a “…disease only death can cure….”, or that to be truly powerful one must become indifferent to everything and therefore worthy of everything, or that life is best lived when one is willing to give it up at any moment, or that the ultimate unconscious desire of any mind seeking the absolute or revelling in hedonism or wanting to lose itself in a whole or wanting love is to cease becoming and be, or that suffering and life are tautologies and when one attempts to avoid the first one avoids the last …..

But I don't see a problem with that.

Just take the first example:
Life is: absurd, ugly, beautiful, boring, interesting, tedious, taxing, dull, exciting, full of novelties, meaningful ... and so on.
All these attributes can be true, even though they seem mutually exclusive.

What I find disturbing is not that the negative attributes are true, but I find it disturbing that this whole mixture is true. It would be so much simpler to be able to choose only one set of attributes (only the positive, or only the negative, or only the neutral ones) and call that set "the ultimate truth" -- but I can't do that, I find it presumptuous to do so.

Something interesting. A rarity.
I recall another thread along similar lines, although at first glance it may not seem so.

Tell me something, Satyr.
If this were not the case then intelligence and consciousness would be inconsequential and it would never offer a survival advantage.
Do you see a bell curve in this?

Or to put it differently, that truth is power and that it hides an ulterior motive:
Truth has the power to offer contentment.

Yes.
And because of this, some people declare something to be the truth -- just so that they could get to the contentment that comes with it.
Awful.

Well, well, well the gathering begins.

This forum is like a savannah watering hole.
At times, when the rains don’t come, it grows stale and swampy.
The levels drop and bottom feeders rise to the top.
The river’s edge turns dusty and the desperate congregate for a drop of refreshment.

Then, as the cycle changes, the rains return and a summoning commences.

One needs to quench one’s thirst after a long wandering walk through the desert.
No matter how soothing the heat and solitude might be, even the strongest eventually grow weary.

Something interesting. A rarity.
I recall another thread along similar lines, although at first glance it may not seem so.

Tell me something, Satyr.

Do you see a bell curve in this?Yes.
Although a “bell curve” hints at a pattern of occurrences I do not completely ascribe to when dealing with exceptionally minds.
Here the circumstances that create a certain spirit of being are rare, and much more than mere analytical ability is required.
Potential must be tapped if it is present. If it is not it remains unused.

And?


water
Yes.
And because of this, some people declare something to be the truth -- just so that they could get to the contentment that comes with it.
Awful.Yes, but I think you missed the point.
That men believe what suits them or satisfies their vanity is a given.
That men live in their own reality is also understood.
That men are confined to their perspective and imagine the entirety is also a given.
That men create false realities and then live within them as if they were true is also understood; these realities are called ‘civilization’ or culture.

But that men can escape truth in this way is a naïve opinion.

Like I said a deer cannot perceive or believe a lion away. It can save itself the stress or the anguish of being aware of its own demise or what threatens it, but it cannot alter it through perspective.
The lion doesn’t care if the deer sees it or believes in it or hopes it away.

The best perspective can do is increase or decrease potential by altering attitude or by making the expenditure of mental and physical energies more productive.

I’m saying that ‘truth’, or peering into the unknown, does not promise to offer insights that will necessarily benefit or be life-affirming to you.

Insight, sometimes, must be endured and tamed.
What distinguishes a mind is not its ability to deny or interpret reality conveniently but the ability to admit what is there and then reshape what is detrimental to its well-being into life-affirming or to endure it as it is.

To believe that the universe is a friendly place for life is an absurdity.

I’m saying if you begin your search for ‘truth’ with the motive of achieving happiness or if, in the back of your mind, you secretly want to know and gain power, so as to escape the known, then you are apt to be prejudiced by this ulterior motive.
Then your power and knowledge will be tainted.

I’m saying indifference must be present in any seeking or else one becomes dependant on what is sought.

I’m saying that real courage, confidence, integrity, power are all rooted in indifference.

The best perspective can do is increase or decrease potential by altering attitude or by making the expenditure of mental and physical energies more productive.


A difference in perspective can alter attitude eh? True! Suppose a once normal person accidentally kills someone and has his attitude changed to that of one who no longer percieves life with the same higher value they once did. The person suddenly had a taste of power they never had before and they liked it. Then they are somehow circumstantially given another opportunity to kill at a whim and they do it to experience that power again. There is nothing to stand in that person's way ever, not even the law. So they percieve that they have to continue, that killing is their own pastime, convincing their conscience that with no karma or consequences, there is nothing to say killing is bad. But then with such a permanent effect on life itself, that person's attitude may never change again on the alteration of perspective since any change would wake them up to the horror of themselves and therefore, the only way to really change is to either kill themselves or kill their personas or ego altogether. I.e. To change their attitude they would need to revamp whatever the source of their attitude itself is, and if its impossible, self-annihilation would be the only alternative.

"And" ...
I think tonight I may be back with you on this. Unless there is a good poker tournament happening.

Wow.
The Marquis and Fenris.
Squid Vicious going to be making any cameo appearances too?

If this were not the case then intelligence and consciousness would be inconsequential and it would never offer a survival advantage.

Do you see a bell curve in this?

Yes.
Although a “bell curve” hints at a pattern of occurrences I do not completely ascribe to when dealing with exceptionally minds.
Here the circumstances that create a certain spirit of being are rare, and much more than mere analytical ability is required.
Potential must be tapped if it is present. If it is not it remains unused.

And?

The way I see the bell curve apply to intelligence, consciousness and survival advantage, is that at some point, a greater intelligence and consciousness do not offer a survival advantage anymore, but even become detrimental. If you want to live neatly (neatly by material standards at least) in this world, you have to be a little dumb.



Yes, but I think you missed the point.

No, I was just bitching. Sorry.


That men believe what suits them or satisfies their vanity is a given.
That men live in their own reality is also understood.
That men are confined to their perspective and imagine the entirety is also a given.
That men create false realities and then live within them as if they were true is also understood; these realities are called ‘civilization’ or culture.

But that men can escape truth in this way is a naïve opinion.

Of course. Some people say they know the truth, and that only the truth brings contentment -- and yet their lives demonstrate severe discontent. It must be then that what they claim to be the truth probably isn't that.


I’m saying that ‘truth’, or peering into the unknown, does not promise to offer insights that will necessarily benefit or be life-affirming to you.

Insight, sometimes, must be endured and tamed.
What distinguishes a mind is not its ability to deny or interpret reality conveniently but the ability to admit what is there and then reshape what is detrimental to its well-being into life-affirming or to endure it as it is.

Having myself been the victim of my own clairvoyance, I know this all too well.


I’m saying indifference must be present in any seeking or else one becomes dependant on what is sought.

I’m saying that real courage, confidence, integrity, power are all rooted in indifference.

I don't think that is exact. Indifference implies that one doesn't care whether one gets hurt or not -- like crossing the street and not looking whether a car is speeding toward you. Not a wise thing to do if you want to live to see the fruits of your mental efforts.
I think a better concept than indifference, is equanimity. Equanimity is primarily about having your priorities straight and not bugding from them.

Cameo.
Yes, I suppose it would be seen as that.

I logged on again a couple of days ago, for the first time in quite a while. I looked at two threads - one in which a string of assumptions was presented as fact, and one in which General Philosophy had turned itself into a rap battleground in which the contestants appeared interested in little more than outdoing each other in typing in how tough and violent they were. That was enough, on that occasion.

Then, yesterday, again... and I see this. I had to work, so I thought I'd leave an indication that I'd seen it and was interested. The first reply assumed I was there to drink from an oasis he'd created, the second naming my interest a cameo appearance.

I worked down South not long ago. When circumstances were that I needed to head to Perth for a while, I'd often take a longer route, past a house I remember growing up in. I remember my parents planting the trees there when the house was built. I remember the fields around the property, and I remember the tiny town nearby. I like to see how those saplings have become trees, over the years, almost obscuring the house completely from the road where once it was in plain view.
There are more houses in the town, now. It's grown.

But this is more like seeing a forest razed by bushfire. Grey dirt, ash and blackened stumps.
It is often too easy to say that nothing has changed, as an expression of contempt. But this site has changed. It seems the only things which have not might once have been considered the worst of it.

So, Invert - there was your cameo. As a cameo should be - a short appearance, and little more, from an actor now fading into obscurity. You'll forgive me, I'm sure, if I do not bother to bow on my way out.

water
The way I see the bell curve apply to intelligence, consciousness and survival advantage, is that at some point, a greater intelligence and consciousness do not offer a survival advantage anymore, but even become detrimental. If you want to live neatly (neatly by material standards at least) in this world, you have to be a little dumb.Yes, and here we see the two antipodal manifestations of courage and participation.

One is a derivative of ‘despite knowing’, the other is a derivative of ‘not knowing’.

Both superficially appear the same but are not.

To enjoy or tolerate or accept or act out of ignorance or because of a willful ‘turning away’ and self-blinding is not the same as doing so despite knowing and seeing.

I don't think that is exact. Indifference implies that one doesn't care whether one gets hurt or not -- like crossing the street and not looking whether a car is speeding toward you. Not a wise thing to do if you want to live to see the fruits of your mental efforts.You are making the mistake of assuming that the indifferent man – as much as this type is even possible – would consistently choose to not look both ways when looking both ways would be just as probable.
If I am truly indifferent then both choices of life and death are equally viable.

Furthermore the assumption is made that one will always choose to not participate if he were apathetic.
I participate in a game, uncaring if I win or lose, and I gain a better appreciation of it because of it. My mind ceases being distracted with its hopes and favored outcomes and is completely absorbed by the experience itself.

The opposite of love isn’t hate, since both are passions with a particular interest and dependence.
The master and the slave are both sides of the same coin; both participants in a system of co-dependence.
Indifference, in both cases, is the negation of the system of relationships.
The truly indifferent would just as well play the part of slave as he would of master. He isn’t trapped in an identification and can opt out at any time.

But you allude to the primary human care - I believe Heidegger talked about consciousness as being that which cares – with life itself.

Life results in the experience of consciously perceiving living.

The mind grows attached to the only experience that makes itself possible and, despite its striving to escape the experience of living and an unconscious desire to cease – living which is perpetual need/suffering – it wants to keep the consciousness intact.
This is where the conflict starts and from where human self-contradiction begins.
The comic.
It is this basic want to maintain the experience of living which results in man’s prejudices.

It has been said that the most fulfilling life is the one lived dangerously.
Here we see the connection between living with indifference and the attainment of a pinnacle of the living experience.

I become more worthy of that which I have risen above or I least care about.

See here the connection to confidence and courage.
The confident man, like the courageous one, is so because he cars the least about the outcome of his participation.
We are attracted to aloofness as an expression of a power we want for ourselves.
We desire most that which is least concerned with us because that which is us is a nothing that must be overcome towards a something.

We are forces, out of necessity, to care about our own nothingness because without it our possibilities for becoming are lost.
But when another nothingness shows interest in our own - which we are intimately aware of - then we see it as weakness.

That which sees beyond us we perceive as strong.


invert_nexus
The one consistent thing about your feminine mind is that it never fails to return proceedings back to where it is the most comfortable and the most relevant: being a Bitch is more than an attitude, it is a state of mind.

You so perfectly represent the male – if male you are – which has been feminized and made to behave and think as a woman does, not out of choice, but because it cannot help itself.

In your consistent ‘participation’ it this ‘watering hole’ mire, over the long haul and when those you most wanted to be like had dispersed, in your ‘popping-up’ conveniently with inanities and attention seeking terseness, in your admirations and groveling attempts to make yourself worthy of what you can least cope with and deserve, you show yourself a truly feminine man – a modern man: polite, compassionate, yielding, hypocritical, laconic, simple, needy.


Fenris Wolf
Sometimes a wolf comes to a watering hole to drink. At other times it comes there to hunt.

But it is easily startled and it bolts for cover when noisy rustling promises the appearance of a large herbivore or something terrifyingly carnivorous.

If it runs too quickly it misses the opportunity to see that, sometimes noisy rustling can be caused by a tiny baby deer trapped in the underbrush and trying to escape from its predicament.

Furthermore the assumption is made that one will always choose to not participate if he were apathetic.
I participate in a game, uncaring if I win or lose, and I gain a better appreciation of it because of it. My mind ceases being distracted with its hopes and favored outcomes and is completely absorbed by the experience itself.

Indifference, in both cases, is the negation of the system of relationships.
The truly indifferent would just as well play the part of slave as he would of master. He isn’t trapped in an identification and can opt out at any time.

Technically true, but practically not.

Attaining indifference is not an easy business, a lot needs to be invested into that, and it is not easy to maintain, either -- not as long one is a dependent living being, interconnected with other beings in the nourishment chain.

It would be easy to be indifferent and woom around, merely completely absorbed in the experience, if one were self-sufficient and wouldn't need nourishment (and shelter etc.). But the human body needs to bed fed, sustained, and the same with the state of mind -- hence the particular choice of which experience is feasible, or not.


And for two -- you say such a person is capable of opting out anytime. If one can opt out, this means one has a will, and if one has a will, then one is not indifferent.
But, ah, yes, the paradox.


But you allude to the primary human care - I believe Heidegger talked about consciousness as being that which cares – with life itself.

Life results in the experience of consciously perceiving living.

The mind grows attached to the only experience that makes itself possible and, despite its striving to escape the experience of living and an unconscious desire to cease – living which is perpetual need/suffering – it wants to keep the consciousness intact.
This is where the conflict starts and from where human self-contradiction begins.
The comic.
It is this basic want to maintain the experience of living which results in man’s prejudices.

Okay.


I become more worthy of that which I have risen above or I least care about.

Not okay. I'd love to think like the above, but knowing that I myself am the one who posited the standards, and that I change them over time, it gets ridiculous to think in terms of "rising above" this or that. It inflates my ego terribly.




We are attracted to aloofness as an expression of a power we want for ourselves.
We desire most that which is least concerned with us because that which is us is a nothing that must be overcome towards a something.

We are forces, out of necessity, to care about our own nothingness because without it our possibilities for becoming are lost.
But when another nothingness shows interest in our own - which we are intimately aware of - then we see it as weakness.

That which sees beyond us we perceive as strong.

Yes. I call this martyrdom a-la-carte!

water
Yes, and here we see the two antipodal manifestations of courage and participation.

One is a derivative of ‘despite knowing’, the other is a derivative of ‘not knowing’.

Both superficially appear the same but are not.

To enjoy or tolerate or accept or act out of ignorance or because of a willful ‘turning away’ and self-blinding is not the same as doing so despite knowing and seeing.

You are making the mistake of assuming that the indifferent man – as much as this type is even possible – would consistently choose to not look both ways when looking both ways would be just as probable.
If I am truly indifferent then both choices of life and death are equally viable.

Furthermore the assumption is made that one will always choose to not participate if he were apathetic.
I participate in a game, uncaring if I win or lose, and I gain a better appreciation of it because of it. My mind ceases being distracted with its hopes and favored outcomes and is completely absorbed by the experience itself.

The opposite of love isn’t hate, since both are passions with a particular interest and dependence.
The master and the slave are both sides of the same coin; both participants in a system of co-dependence.
Indifference, in both cases, is the negation of the system of relationships.
The truly indifferent would just as well play the part of slave as he would of master. He isn’t trapped in an identification and can opt out at any time.

But you allude to the primary human care - I believe Heidegger talked about consciousness as being that which cares – with life itself.

Life results in the experience of consciously perceiving living.

The mind grows attached to the only experience that makes itself possible and, despite its striving to escape the experience of living and an unconscious desire to cease – living which is perpetual need/suffering – it wants to keep the consciousness intact.
This is where the conflict starts and from where human self-contradiction begins.
The comic.
It is this basic want to maintain the experience of living which results in man’s prejudices.

It has been said that the most fulfilling life is the one lived dangerously.
Here we see the connection between living with indifference and the attainment of a pinnacle of the living experience.

I become more worthy of that which I have risen above or I least care about.

See here the connection to confidence and courage.
The confident man, like the courageous one, is so because he cars the least about the outcome of his participation.
We are attracted to aloofness as an expression of a power we want for ourselves.
We desire most that which is least concerned with us because that which is us is a nothing that must be overcome towards a something.

We are forces, out of necessity, to care about our own nothingness because without it our possibilities for becoming are lost.
But when another nothingness shows interest in our own - which we are intimately aware of - then we see it as weakness.

That which sees beyond us we perceive as strong.


invert_nexus
The one consistent thing about your feminine mind is that it never fails to return proceedings back to where it is the most comfortable and the most relevant: being a Bitch is more than an attitude, it is a state of mind.

You so perfectly represent the male – if male you are – which has been feminized and made to behave and think as a woman does, not out of choice, but because it cannot help itself.

In your consistent ‘participation’ it this ‘watering hole’ mire, over the long haul and when those you most wanted to be like had dispersed, in your ‘popping-up’ conveniently with inanities and attention seeking terseness, in your admirations and groveling attempts to make yourself worthy of what you can least cope with and deserve, you show yourself a truly feminine man – a modern man: polite, compassionate, yielding, hypocritical, laconic, simple, needy.


Fenris Wolf
Sometimes a wolf comes to a watering hole to drink. At other times it comes there to hunt.

But it is easily startled and it bolts for cover when noisy rustling promises the appearance of a large herbivore or something terrifyingly carnivorous.

If it runs too quickly it misses the opportunity to see that, sometimes noisy rustling can be caused by a tiny baby deer trapped in the underbrush and trying to escape from its predicament.


you alright for oxygen up there.

Fenris,

Didn't mean to drive you off. Was merely surprised, that's all.

the second naming my interest a cameo appearance.

Nah. I meant that Squid would be a cameo. Although, you've posted under two user names in the past several days.

Stick around, man.
Drink from Satyr's hole.

The first reply assumed I was there to drink from an oasis he'd created

Ah. But Satyr is the bringer of Life, yes?
Satyr,

You wound, O Manly Man that you are.
How could you treat me this way?

You know. I still owe you a steak dinner...

Anyway.
Maybe I'll find the time to reply in here. Some interesting facets of conversation, but my time isn't what it once was.

you alright for oxygen up there.Oxygen is fine, but the smell…. :( ?!

How’s it like down there?

I’m sorry, was I supposed to show humility?


water
Attaining indifference is not an easy business, a lot needs to be invested into that, and it is not easy to maintain, either -- not as long one is a dependent living being, interconnected with other beings in the nourishment chain.

It would be easy to be indifferent and woom around, merely completely absorbed in the experience, if one were self-sufficient and wouldn't need nourishment (and shelter etc.). But the human body needs to bed fed, sustained, and the same with the state of mind -- hence the particular choice of which experience is feasible, or not.Like with everything one speaks of degrees not absolutes.

When one wants to be strong or says he’s strong he is not claiming absolute strength but a degree of it that is superior than an average or than another’s.


inverted-sexus
You can drink from my….hole…but just wipe the rim when you’re done.

hahaha, "inverted_sexus". :eek: I could see how that is.

you alright for oxygen up there.

Touché!

Begorrah, we are one miserable bunch here.

How’s it like down there?




i'm not so far down. Still just above the tree line. Enough oxygen though. I have been down there, crawling in the hummus that is, and I was very happy for a few seconds before my mind caught up and I had to climb.

It's the human conditon to climb or clamber along. Better to climb I think, so kudos there. Just be mindful where you take a dump.

If we might declare that all truths correspond to a reality we must face and are, in fact, facing all along, and that fundamentally can delusion offer nothing to us as it does not accord to the reality we exist within, than all truth is by necessity life-affirming, for ignorance would only prohibit the right action and thought that is demanded in our response to the situation. Though it may not be pleasant to know that the road is going to cut out in 50 yards, it is far better to know this and to be able to take evasive action, than to cruise right off the cliff and die a terrible death.

Has anyone ever asked you why you call yourself "Prince James"? Is that like a rip off of Prince the singer? Or your pimp name? Are you using that name so girls on sciforums could be all over you?

So ... this is the official cue for the final derailing of this thread?

water:

"So ... this is the official cue for the final derailing of this thread? "

I truly love you. You are hilarious.

Seriously. I love you. Continue on being as you are. That was a marvelous comment.

nicholas1M7:

"Has anyone ever asked you why you call yourself "Prince James"? Is that like a rip off of Prince the singer? Or your pimp name? Are you using that name so girls on sciforums could be all over you? "

Well, my good man, I never wanted to cause you any sorrow.....I never wanted to cause you any pain...I have thought of only one thing since you left me. I only wanted to see you bathing in the purple rain.

Purple rain, purple rain.

Purple rain...purple rain...

But no, it was not a rip off on Prince - although I rather like Prince, as you might tell - nor is it my pimp name. My pimp name is "Pimpin' James".

As to whether all the girls of Sciforums (which I thought didn't exist apart from Water and C7? I mean, unless we consider Wes a girl...and we all know how THAT ended up...) would be all over me, no. I have natural charm for that. No no no, calling myself a prince only betrays my internal image of myself as royalty. Moreover, it would be rather silly to use the term "God James", although it shan't be long before I undergo apotheosis.

But let us return to the topic at hand.

If I judge this thread correctly, it is about whether or not we can truly state that truth is of value in and of itself, and whether utilitarian motives of humanity ought to prevail, as opposed to reality. I postulate, as I have postulated before, that truth is indee do value itself, as truth is always true, and one cannot rightfully deny it, nor work outside its influence, for even to acecpt an alternative to truth is to accept truth as real, but to deny it.

In essence: This reality is real and we must deal with it.

In a way Nicholas might like: Were Batman to think the world sunshine and flowers, could he retain his vigilante role and bring peace and order to Gotham? No. For in a warped view of reality, he would be paralyzed.

I think that one should first ask "what is power?" Does the human mind measure utility according to a universal standard, like beauty, morality and justice, or is it all subjective? We have the problem of ideals and how the ego interprets them. A person with poor standards would fall below societes ideals and hence expectations when it comes to certain things, but easily may be above it in others. There is also the problem of the illusion of power versus real power. The illusion is what gets most people to believe in themselves enough to perform a task on a regular basis if need be and live up to societies expectations. The real power comes when that person raises their standards and expectations above societies and lives up to those. But then, real power can also be fostered by illusive power. If the source of the illusion is beyond societies expectations then the person would have a greater standard by which to measure their exercises of power and so their comfort level for performance would increase. For example, athletes, millionaires, heroes, etc. (the real) as opposed to gangs, druglords, strippers (the illusion)...
Power is being connected to the power source. The source of our human power comes from our Father. The power that we perceive to have from society is illusional.

Take for example when Mother Earth demonstrates her power: society crumbles in fear seeing that we are powerless to stop her fury. Yet, if we were to stay connected to the true power source of our Father, then it doesn't matter what Mother Earth does.

stanleyg:

"Power is being connected to the power source. The source of our human power comes from our Father. The power that we perceive to have from society is illusional."

Father = God? And in what way and how can we be connected to this Father and whom is he and what proof do you have of his existence? Tell us about this all.

"Take for example when Mother Earth demonstrates her power: society crumbles in fear seeing that we are powerless to stop her fury. Yet, if we were to stay connected to the true power source of our Father, then it doesn't matter what Mother Earth does."

Do not we refute mother Earth everytime we go into our housees? Here we have established our dominion over her influences. Yes, at times she can over ride us, but human power