gendanken: Leggo my Hegel. No. I don't want to domesticate them, that's what housewives and yuppies do. I want my emotions to be powerful, I want to risk their control over me, I want to be judged as irrational by the languid standards of the emotionally epicene, I want the dullard heirs of Aristotle to question my grip on sanity. But I want this emotional intensity to be rooted in my mind, and only my mind. Have you ever been lonely? Analyze the feeling. It's always just a desire for sex transmuting itself into a need to be around men. Ever emotionally needy? Again, another trick nature uses to get you wanting sex. Seeking intimacy with others is just a trick of the body, driving you towards the security of the group. These, lower, emotions are simply the body harassing the mind so that the meat will be satisfied. Yet emotion is not just an interpretation of physical need, it can also be a product of mental activity. Thinking is an act which quite resembles feeling. Love, for example, is generally a transmutation of libido onto an "appropriate" object, but it can also be the emotion which describes a state of mental communion. I recognize two forms of emotion: that which is mammilian and based on physical urges, and that which is based on the activity of the mind - not just the analytical properties of mind, but the whole mind. My ideal is to purge myself of the first sort of emotions and accept the second sort completely. Rosa: Nice quote.
garbage. the homeless, in their isolatedness, eventually start talking to themselves. not because of a need for sex but rather for companionship. sexual gratification does not require a multitude. functioning upper limbs would suffice
zayev Perhaps, but you will find sex lurking under that shadow, as well. I’m not one to end with the supposition that sex is the primary motivator of man. I believe before sex, is that first of all concerns: survival. Sex is just a strategy towards that end. Xev Beautiful sentiment but I still mourn the loss of consciousness. It’s all I know, it's all I'll ever know. You saying you don't, is not honest. Are you preaching surrender or is it suicide? Ironic, coming from you. It’s what happens to all the offspring of greatness. RosaMagika Where have I spoken about retreating into “peaceful dullness”? You misunderstand parasitism. It’s an action, not inertia.
Oh joy, time to ban you again spooky. How dense can you be? Where do you think the need for companionship comes from? The fact that an isolated human is more vulnerable than a human in a group. Physically, yes. But the drive is to have sex with another. The psychology is there. Why do you think most people chase sex, even when that sex serves no reproductive purpose? Ask them and they'll say it's for pleasure, which is absolute bullshit as masturbation is incredibly more pleasurable than sex. Because the physical need gets translated into emotional garbage. Rather like you - needy, emotional garbage. Wanderer: It might be dishonest, if I'd ever said that I don't. But I didn't, and since you're trying to ascribe words to me that I never authored, the dishonesty is on your part. I don't preach at all. It might indeed be ironic, if it contradicted the substance or words I have put down on this thread. Since it does not, it really isn't. It has nothing to do with the offspring of greatness, and not all those empires were "great" in the first place. They were balless manlings surviving on the labor of slaves. Or can you name an achievement of the Romanovs?
Xev: Sweeet. I thought you said you were Bateman. This captures my platform quite nicely: "“Emotions are automatic consequences of a mind's past conclusions, however that mind has been used or misused in the process of reaching them”" The yuppy and the housewife lead a kind of mongrel lifestyle of contradiction simply because all that is useful has been misused. They are perceptual animals- and so are the roaches in the cupboard. A human being is a conceptual animal- and its this what I exploit, that I'm a conceptual mammal. I know that feelings are obedient with no power to question, so I want to force the question and in doing so define motive. In this I control it, not enhance it. You want to enhance it. Pause. Don't think I'm talking asceticism or strict solitute- that’s a lazy mixture of suspicion and panic. More like alone, yes. Many times. I see what you are saying, but to root all dynamics back to sex has always come off Freudian and Romantic. He labeled communal love as sexual desire "aim-inhibited" Or some such- anyway, I want to disassemble everything in the body and then stick it as a tiny kingdom in the mind since the body is only cheap thrills. A kingdom filled with serfs...kidding. This is why I feel man is not primarily motivated by power or sex - he is different in that he's tormented by psychology. Yes, we can say that. But in mental communion you’re still attached to the body- which is why you only mention men. I get what you are saying- I'm saying that by analyzing every last emotion and making a working vocabulary from the things in there, I've mastered a new language. In this way, if I’m going to get horny its going to be because I want a man and not because he wants me. This would heighten sexuality.
gendanken: To others, yes. But emotions aren't about always other people. Elaborate. Isn't the end result what Spinoza desired, dissection until the emotions lose their potency? Now - I doubt a dissected thing really loses its potency. The un-understandable is not pleasurable. No, I just don't want to fight it. *Shrugs* Solitude is a matter of luxury, not self-discipline. Yes, it does. I don't root them all back to sex, but a lot go into that category. I can't say anything but - Freud was still a cocksucker. On the other hand, many dynamics do go right back to sex. Basically. "Will to power" still works as an explanatory concept. The problem is, one muddles the concept of power overmuch - and truely I am tired of it. I should say most people are simple in that their psychology is completely rooted in the body. Territoriality, aggression, sex, social need, emotional bonding, pleasure-seeking and dominence sum the motivations up. Right? Seeing it as sex is simplistic. But the mind is emergent from this bundle of desires. The body is a meat puppet - the mind is something Other. And yet plauged by those older needs. My solution is not to "embrace my animal nature" but to transcend those needs. Which is a good technique. Is any other way possible?
xev Oh joy, time to ban you again spooky. heh, your little world is full of these unexpected little pleasures ja? How dense can you be? depends, make me a fucking offer Where do you think the need for companionship comes from? hehe. i imagine...fear and anxiety before the need to rut see here, maggot.. Because even a castaway needs companionship, Chuck tries to satisfy the instinctual human longing for connection with others, the third level of Maslow’s hierarchy Chuck creates "Wilson," a companion of sorts, from another of the cargo's treasures--a basketball bearing the Wilson logo. Using blood from one of his wounds, Chuck draws a face on the ball. Wilson becomes his constant companion, his friend in distress, even his alter-ego. When Chuck sets off from the island, he tethers Wilson to the raft. Along the perilous voyage, Chuck constantly "communicates" with Wilson, responding to Wilson's encouragement and admonishments that no doubt represent Chuck's inner voice. When Wilson is lost in a violent storm, Chuck mourns him as if he had lost a dear friend. now, while chuck appears to have kinda lost it, i trust you get the picture. (no, do not rent the movie you dope) hey! according to you...chuck drills hole in wilson and fucks him. haha The fact that an isolated human is more vulnerable than a human in a group. non sequiter aka misfired neuron i dare you to make a connection let me try....hmm..i feel vulnerable so i must fuck Physically, yes. But the drive is to have sex with another. The psychology is there. Why do you think most people chase sex, even when that sex serves no reproductive purpose? Ask them and they'll say it's for pleasure, which is absolute bullshit as masturbation is incredibly more pleasurable than sex. you are not making any real distinction. even if i were to accept the last point, it would in no way preclude me from asserting that i fuck for pleasure. being second best can also translate into explosive orgasms Rather like you - needy, emotional garbage. really? am i that unfathomable lil' xev? i have my achilles heel yet it is a testament to your stupidity that you cannot figure it out. quite unlike you however. you practically bleed your repressions and desires into your postings. its ok tho. it is a general condition of being a clueless teen * i dig that the greek replied. no aura sniffing for him i guess
A while back, in the Being Direct thread, we've postulated the difference between "to not care" and "to be indifferent", Fenris and Invert participated in that. (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=37689&page=18&pp=20 , last post on this page) I'm not sure it is possible to *want* one's emotions to be like that. I doubt that one can be like Patrick Bateman to other people, while not feeling like Patrick Bateman on the inside as well. I posted that passage in repsonse to Xev's postulate that a human must work. Gendanken, Xev, Where do you draw the line between the "mind" and the "body"? I know, the question seems absurdly simple; but I have always thought that the distinction is rather artificial. Considering psychosomatics, the placebo and the nocebo effect, I find it hard to make clear distinctions between the mind and the body. As I see it, this distinction was brought up for distinguishing "more desirable human characteristics" from those "less desireable characteristics" -- and somehow, the "less desireable" became understood to be rooted in the "body", and those "more desireable" became understood to be rooted in the "mind". The distinction was once pragmatic and useful (religious purposes), but nonetheless artificial.
Rosa: Not what I meant. It's a reference to an old conversation between gendanken and myself: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=35176&page=2&pp=20&highlight=Bateman To the point - after reflection the whole idea seems somewhat adolescent. Trying to define yourself - whether through exaggerated self-awareness and Nietzsche or self-pity and Linkin Park cds - generally sounds mawkish. On the other hand, I cannot help myself - I'm wired to try for understanding. A poor way of explaining my theory that doesn't quite work. I don't mean that the instinctive emotions are actually and truely caused by the mechanics of the body, but it seemed a decent way of explaining what I meant - that they are based on the mind's interpretation of physical/instinctive needs.
There's one thing I don't understand (sorry to butt in). How is the 'source of this spontaneity of divergence' due to the 'mediocre' as you put it? And are they really the stabilising factor - or is it just coincedence because there are more of them? Surely there are many rebellious people in positions of influence and design?
Xev: I thought I did. Its objective methodology- the difference between getting carried way by the intoxicants of Bach or Diabolic and knowing its only black notes on paper that produce it. I want to keep those notes in mind when it comes to emotion. Then why say you desired them to be more powerful? No matter- discussing what we've already discussed is smelling like a beat horse. Exactly- he was wrong on many things as you find yourself reading him with suspicion. Frankly, I found him distasteful. Religious propaganda has its place and it should not be philosophy. Neither does sexual propaganda- Fraud can go flush himself. And that wasn't a slip, I intended the misspell. Rosa: Yes, but I still say indifference is generally feigned. The image- a fat pig standing at a pancake house pretending others are not staring at his body aghast. A hateful fixation with the "bourgeoisie" is also a mark of this feigned indifference- its a symptom of an incredible fixation on people. I don’t' know how else to put it, other than a self-administration so powerful that it transcends the body and I can only think of it encapsulated in the mind. One so in tune with itself it scares myself, not others Anyway- seems we've derailed the topic with emotional deconstruction, again, - so for the sake of topic: it seems resentment and rebellion can only thrive in a state of theoretical equality- like a democratic system. The idea is that we are all equally endowed and that the lowliest cripple can aspire to be an Olympian- when he clearly can't. So they coddle him with "special'- "Special Olympics" and "education", problem fixed. Resentment is illegitimate and quite pointless in a system that does not advertise what it does not have- thereby no longer being a theory but a reality. The Hindu caste system would have trouble finding a rebel in their midst, everything is given with no pretty packaging making it more than it is. Therefore, its only Western mentality with its petty ideals that can breed a creature of resentment- its sets up standards achievable by all, men become lazy and no longer feel a need for perfection since now even a cripple can do what he does. And the resentful, in love with perfection, become needy of them for contrast and impetus.
Gendanken: Got it. The emotion thing is dead. I think my point remains that being an emotionally needy creature is more destructive than being a physically needy creature, which was the only reason I brought up the subject. *Shrugs* I didn't see him as particularly religious. I think he just throws God around a lot - not necessarily with feeling. Whatever. Freud was a hack with one or two good ideas, he's only accepted as a great thinker by those who haven't read him. The feminists have hatchet-jobbed the man's work, so I don't see a point to discussing how stupid a jump from "little boys wonder why their sisters don't have penises" to "every male wants to kill his father and sexually possess his mother". Moving on: True, but haven't you yourself made more than a few comments about those bourgouise? More than a few comments about the invalidity of the social structure? Well actually, it is given with religious soporifics to keep the lower castes content. That's some hell of packaging, I'd say. There's no substantial difference between the Indian system and our own. That doesn't follow, surely the special olympian is being coddled, but that would not give any lucid reason to no longer need perfection. For that matter, I don't see much difference between any criticism of our lifestyle and Wanderer's morbid fixation on how it "emasculates" him.
Anyways!!! Back on topic.... Blue_UK A safe and stable environment enables the mind to turn to analysis and internal exploration. If the system is too challenging, it demands full concentration with no time to question self or to turn the eye to the impractical or towards that which does not have immediate ramifications. When the choice is between survival and introspection, survival takes precedence. The masses of the mediocre, expending the full force of their mental capabilities, become completely engrossed with the moral and social challenges of their surroundings, never having the excess intellect to question them or to notice if others do so. In such a world, it is easy to pass unnoticed if you make the requisite gestures of conformity. The average mind can’t fathom anyone confronting the values and standards of its world and so even half-hearted and imperfect stage acting goes unseen. When it is seen, it is ignored, mocked or blamed on mental instability, if it is harmless. If it becomes harmful, it is destroyed or quarantined. The bourgeoisie can only perceive one method of living because they acquire their beliefs from others. No, there are more of them because they are a stabilizing factor. What can be more stabilizing than a multitude of obedient, unquestioning, unaware, blank pages that simply adopt whatever values they find in their environment? Give these masses a political voice, equate them to one another and to those that may posses a higher awareness, feed them dreams, tell them they are worthy and capable of anything, offer them institutional power and privilege as a reward for their discipline, convince them that consumerism and luxury is ‘happiness’ and you have a population of content robots, slaving away and unthinking. Name one. Most are filtered out before they make it that far. What do you think promotions are? Who is promoted but the one mirroring the values and morals of his superior? The safety mechanism of every institution, from the government to the media, is the process of punishments and rewards. Those that slip-up some where along the way, never make it to any place of power. They get passed over by the one that has performed perfectly and has reflected the institutions ideals with precision. Look how in every presidential election the process enables the masses to test and analyze how closely each candidate reflects their beliefs and desires. If a slight divergence is noticed, they never make it to the presidential seat. But besides the electoral process itself, there are a slew of internal checks and measures, where those in power evaluate the one that will lead them before he is allowed to run for office. In today’s world, the position of power has characteristics the individual must live up to.
*Cough* "In such a world, it is easy to pass unnoticed if you make the requisite gestures of conformity." It has something else to do with the constitutional guarentees of the democracy you so malign.
Wanderer, I'm afraid I don't fully accept what you say. This world fully allows for innovation, even if the perpetrator is considered eccentric. Also, being middle class (me?) does not require conformity. Just so we're on solid (consistant) ground, I assume you mean people who are: reasonably well off; social climbers; not stupid but no genius? The only people who 'the masses' might reject would be people who have major idealistic differences like fascism/communism etc. (Which they probably don't understand, anywayPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!)
xev: Ha. Never forget this is the man that attributed our taming of fire to the juvenile need of the male to extinguish flames with his urine. I'll say it for you: Can't you see yourself, Gendanken? Everyone here has criticized infrastructure- it doesn't come from being an intellect, it comes with being human. However- the very few that know me here know that if anything I'm in love with humanity- sky? I see a Boeing. Oceans? I see Titanics. Mountains and quarries, Hannibal and sculpture. We're in incredible species - I see man's highest potential and, however poorly, attempt to actualize it. Every last vein on these hands say I can achieve the powerful- its so easy to be confident, what's not is competence: Humanity has always, always been competent. Its petty men that get in the way with their confidence. That said, I'm way too joyful - more like a trickster than a resentful misanthrope if anything. I certainly don't think so. A caste system says one cannot. An untouchable dies an untouchable. A democratic system says that not only you can but that everyone can- and in doing so its flattened value. If a man looks up and sees a cripple socially promoted- as in affirmative action- then you've denied man any concept of greatness or excellence. If you smear values down to the mediocre than you kill any incentive for improvement or effort a man wishes to put in his work. They like it half baked, they’ll get it half baked. Therefore, those not mediocre are either ridiculed or outcast because they can no longer recognize him as great, but as something to vilify. This is what happens in any system built up on theoretical equality- which is not a caste system.
gendanken: Another goodie. I doubt that. The ordinary human does not really think things like "what is the nature of the social order?" And a caste system says that if you are a good untouchable, you may be reincarnated as something better. An egalitarian system has simular myths, only they are in the realm of physical possibility. The difference is of degree and belief, not really of content. Besides, most egalitarian myths posit something personally difficult and achievable - hard work, self-discipline, playing by the rules or what have you. It does not simply say "you, crack baby, can be a millionaire" but that "you, crack baby, can be a millionaire if..." If anything, a hereditary aristocracy where "value" is treated as innate is more likely to flatten "value" than a system where "value" is treated as something that can be achieved even by the lowly. I daresay it's not that stark. Again, the myth is not "the wretched are deserving" but that "the human spirit is so great, that even the wretched can overcome their wretchedness" Perfection is incentive enough, don't you think? As for getting it half-baked - good, then I do not have to put in much effort. I have my own thoughts on that, I ought to post them some time. I do agree for the most part. I think that remains to be shown.
xev: Fucker named elightened_philosopher6969 posting a snivelling critique on Best TV shows and plutocracies thinks he's fucking extraordinary. I'm talking wannabes. Gotcha. But I'm not concerned with the noumenal- what's the point? Untouchable here, untouchable always. ..........you sell your Self and do like everyone else. My point. No thanks.
gendanken: Right, type in "Baudrillaird nihilism" in google and you get a movie page. Any idiot will tell you how deep and meaningful the "Matrix" trilogy was, limp-wristed baristas can waste a good hour talking about the evolution of the penitentiary, some forlorn Gothic retard can give you his personal take on "transgression" and of course, you can't forget the Jack Keruac-drop out to fight the system- hippie 'tards. Sorry, was that whining? Philosophy wasn't meant for Starbucks patrons and it's always embarassing to see them get their hands on someone meaningful. There should be some consequence - like public mutilation - for dismembering a decent philosopher's ideas. Let them have Plato and Bataille, Descartes and Zizak, but god, somebody do something to make them stop before I bludgeon a stringy-haired postfeminist with her copy of "Sexual Personae" In their minds.... But fuck it, point's made, thread's dead.
::groan::: Couldn't resist: MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA. Or break a fucking spine everytime a smarmy gothboy pollutes Neitszche or some turtle neck wearing piece of shit, usually a professor, comes at you with Khunian bullshit. "The fact of the matter" he says with this look on his face I'd love to tear apart with my bare hands "...is that we're looking at paradigms here. Think bigger" FUCK YOU. *Zizak? I know, but stuck here on a Saturday so......blah.
