Southstar, Have you, by any chance, heard of metaphor? Some don't view the bible as literal fact you know. But it does have some interesting turns of phrase with which to apply a metaphor to the world at large. Get a grip, guy. Your apology reminds me of Paul W. Dixon for some reason. You're just missing a PHD and the children will thank you for your assistance in this tragic concern. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Wes: What about them? Ethics is narcissism- that's the whole premise of this thread. Or did it pass by you as well? And who are you to say it isn't? I reiterate- the global man has become a god but only in title; he debuts into this world believing his Bill of Rights travel with him. He feels entitled to a courtesy without having earned it, bemoaning a slap to his face and calls it a Lack of Respect. I marvel at the irony in this, in that mankind all the way up to shortly after the Industrial era death and torture was endemic and a corpse could lay on a street in Midieval France for days without as much registering a second glance. I also marvel at the irony of this heirloom being passed down to him by a hegemeony that, quite frankly, cares very little for him or his name. But when he's murdered watch them scramble for years trying to find out who it was that killed a useless waste, an intoxicated wretch who's never contributed to society. We have become as distant to death as we have from the genital, and by doing so nurtured a strange mystification of it that all you 'normal' people show as Respect for Your Fucking Neighbor. See or no see? So? I'm not advocating murder sprees (however delicious, thats for some other thread). I'm only trying to point out the big joke. But you don't see it, do you? You wouldn't laugh. Lola: Sarcasm bites. Invert Nexus: BINGO. Quite frankly I see it as so: Respect is a simple reflection of what each man feels entitled to, a narcissitic tool we call Ethics. Mankind has become something like a room full of pompous women with big hair and neat makeup, walking around with a nose in the air intimidating the audiance into civility with their presence and someone like Bundy picks one out in the bunch, looks her over for a while sniffing something not right and then reaches out to pull her wig off in public. This is the joke. It is here when he begins laughing. Hackers know of this joke as well. Wolf: He sees them as nothing. In the way the farmer watches his cattle. A plethora of names in their grasping ineptitude: Psychopathic. Morbid. Sadistic. Diseased- and they stick them all in pretty little barbituates they call books that help them sleep at night. I want you all to see that it could, quite simply, be laughing. "What is he? A sadist? A monster? A child that fell through cracks in his childhood?", went the therapist. "No", this thread says in retort " a trickster."
I see it gendy, though i did pass by the message you so clearly solidified "ethics is narcissim". I knew you were getting at something like that but it wasn't solidified perfectly. I tried to make the point that SO IS MURDER, once you're aware self. If you are an animal, and have no real sense of self.. then you don't have to be concerned with ethics. I don't think ethics is narcissm. It's about that whole deal that you are going to now give me hell about again: The cost of society. Part of the price of living with the other humans (to gain the plus from their efforts) is to respect their goddamned right to exist, no matter how repulsive they are to you unless they pose an imminent danger to you.
Given in the spirit of expecting it the fuck back. Ego does not feed unless it expects to be fed, bubba. Expensive narcissism, thy name is Ethics.
I don't think it's the desire to survive that is ego. It's the desire for others to survive that is ego. Or rather ego's concession to this social compact we find ourselves in. I think that most people who do have a... tendendy towards violence and violent thoughts hold these thoughts back because of the threat of punishment. By breaking society's laws, consequences arise. If there were no consequences... how many murders do you think there'd be then?
But doesn't the desire to survive lead directly to my prior statement: "Part of the price of living with the other humans (to gain the plus from their efforts) is to respect their goddamned right to exist, no matter how repulsive they are to you unless they pose an imminent danger to you." ?
Wes: Yeah, silly you. Instinct, with preservation of self being priorty... is, like, totally dissimilar with Ego! Like, yeah! Physical and psychological defense mechanisms are, like, totally not alike! And it breeds a harem of useful cowards. [deleted]
You can quote me to me if you want. I don't think the cost is narcissitic. That I value myself is instinct. If you label that instinct narcissim then you've made up your mind. If "value of self" in any form is narcissim, that's fine.. and valid. However, I believe the intent of the term is to describe those who value themselves above others.. not that they simply place a value on their continued existence.
Here's a point where I really feel in tune with this idea of Gendanken's. I hope she doesn't mind me introducing it in here. It may jibe with those who get ill at imagining murder. The value we in the modern era is so high that there is no price to high to even hope for some type of cure for a terminal illness. People that are dying from a terminal disease are expected to do whatever is in their power to grasp at any chance to extend their lives even another minute. Even if this life extension is spent in the hospital being violently ill, perhaps even more ill than one would feel if nature was allowed to take it's course. Do you follow? The thing about this is, that sure, it's survival instinct. We all want to live. But at what cost? Not only the ill is taken advantage of in situations such as this. But also their families. How many families have bankrupted themselves grasping at straws. Straws that did nothing. Straws that might very well have decreased the quality of someone's final moments. And what happens when they finally pass on? After all this superhuman effort. After all these sacrifices. Death comes. There is no cheating death. It always comes. But, we in our folly think that we are above death. That death has no hold on us. For we are great men. Men of great renown. Giants on the earth. This whole industry of health care makes me sick frankly. This demand for life. There is such a thing as going out gracefully. And this is a thing that is lost on modern humans. At least humans where we live. In other parts of the world, human life is not seen as such a precious thing. It is a commodity and nothing more. (Well, not much more.) And, of course, that's another problem with our view. It's not so much human life that we cherish so greatly. It's the lives of those around us. The lives of our society. Our culture. The rest can go hang for all we care. Especially the slanty-eyed brown-skin people. It is a common complaint around the world that the blood of Americans seems to far more valuable than the blood of any other nationality. So, are you sure it's not narcissism? At least a little?
Wes: Allright, now you're gnawing my insides. I said Ethics was narcissim in that it is not altruism. You're [deleted]. The cost is not what I mentioned. And neither is instinct. You, sir, brought those two terms up in your gibberish. Uno: "Respect is a simple reflection of what each man feels entitled to, a narcissitic tool we call Ethics" - gend Dos: "Ethics is narcissism- that's the whole premise of this thread" - gend Case closed.
Well okay then. So what? I refuted you. If your insides are jumbled up by that, I would look to procuring new insides. That's right, I mentioned it as a refutation of your claims. I am [deleted] to refute you? So be it then. LOL. Marginalizing my refutation of your pretties as 'gibberish' doesn't negate them, but I understand if it makes you feel better. Repeating it doesn't make it better. I think it's full of holes and I pointed them out quite clearly... just for you. You seem to have either missed my point, or you simply don't care for an honest debate. Either way, bring some new material to the table, let it go, or shut the fuck up. Which I have aptly refuted. It can be, but isn't necessarily. Ethics, IMO, is the natural abstract of survival. I think I've demonstrated your misuse of the term "narcissim" quite clearly. Translation, [deleted]. Gotta love ya. You mean "your society is narcissitic so by association, you are too"? Yeah I'm pretty sure it's not necessarily narcissim. Some people are definately narcissitic, but that doesn't render everyone so, regardless of which society to which they are associate. I think when a person wants to survive even under shit circumstance, that is a direct expression of the strength of the survival instinct. Instincts, while common to every member of a species, express themselves subjectively. IMO, that means the individual strives to survive porpotional to the amount of will they have available to survive (in the general case). The person in question might also be narcissitic, but they might be a lot of things. I think when a family doesn't want their family member to die, and is willing to go bankrupt to try to save them... that is an expression of their value of the life in danger. It is because they place a value on that person's existence and perhaps value what they value (the continued existence of the sick or injured person). There are a whole slew of motivations that could be the root of that desire. I'm sure sometimes it's narcissim.. just not necessarily, as it could be a whole shitload of reasons.
Wes[deleted]: You think its full of holes because you're idea of me is clouding your fucking thinking, you [deleted]. I'm being neither arrogant nor dishonest- but to all you pukes who feel I've been in this thread, that's a *you* thing not a *me* thing. Next. Said [deleted]. Is it that you think I see no use for morality? What is it, love- think I'm sitting here thinking myself above ethics? Vert: And how many workers will bear the brunt of tax money like so many mules just so that a comatose cow can live just one more day? This cow who cannot eat, nor, speak, nor move but who in the selfish "lovingness" of its relatives keeping it alive retains that self-imposed trinket of "dignity" mankind must Respect. Here we are back again to our infancy where "primitive savages" worshipped vegetables and cowshit. But now its legislature (the hegemony) and all its valiant slaves paying homage to a useless slab of nothing: the comatose patient. Just like the Aztec, and the Toltec, and the Celtic did in their worship of useless things they called gods. See the irony? Encore: Bundy on entering that hospital room would pull the plug and laugh at the irony as well.
Uh huh. I forgot the the option "vehemently deny and marginalize the opposing perspective". Thanks for demonstrating the option by example. If you can show where my thinking is flawed, surely you can do it without calling me [deleted] in the same conversation. Hey cool I don't need Christy to reproduce anymore. She probably won't be disspointed. Oh? Isn't that somewhat pathological? "it's EVERYONE ELSE! it's not ME". Ah, more empty pointless rhetoric. While I do enjoy your colorful metaphors, you have done exactly SQUAT to show the flaw in my argument. No not at all. I just think you've got this idea in your head and have assumed you're correct because you have it all worked out and it fits into all your other stuff. I don't blame you, but you posted it so I'm going to point out where I think it's flawed. Apparently, that makes you want to run away, point the finger at everyone but you and pretend that nothing reasonable was presented to illustrate the flaw in your argument. As you wish. I'll still love you. It's probably because I'm so damned narcissitic. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! LOL>
Wes: In your seperating instinct from ego. As if the two were dissimilar. You didn't address that, [deleted]. Cute. Ediiting out the "YOU" and substituting it with "EVERYONE ELSE" in order to generalize it. As if I think [deleted]. You're one to talk, Pangloss: "So in the concpetual nodes of a stimulant (the current of a facet of mind, not the sensory abstract ((of which abstract is a pattern of sensory details 'pushed' by code ((and by code meaning in the sense of being encoded)) this mechanism feeds on the concept of others in the network of a current we ride per our calling this Self. Or some shit like that" And you haven't done SQUAT but reinforce something I, them, all of us already know. You've said the same exact shit in a Smoking thread, yes? Here, I'm pointing out irony.. What's funny is that you'll retort with some more [deleted] failing to see where you've erred. Careful on the everyones. I went after Southstar because why? It can't read. I'm going after you because why? Because you're after me to elaborate on something it seems I haven't *only* becuase you failed to address it when I put it on the table. Or perhaps you've gotten lost? Ha. [deleted]
How about this then Gendy: I am in this discussion, as with almost every discussion on sciforums I join, to try to further my understanding of this that or the other. If you are indeed correct that ego is narcissim, then I'd like to understand why exactly. I want to know if it's just your own perspective that colors it that way, or if there is undeniable truth to your words. I realize that to you there probably is and I do find your point interesting, but I've given my rebuttal because it was the first thing that came to mind that seemed to directly and clearly refute your point. Obviously you don't think it does, but instead of demonstrating WHY, you basically said "you're a treachorous, stupid, bias pig who thinks he knows me while you sit there and chew on your hoof". That's entertaining and all, but lacking in substance to demonstrate my error. Certainly you think you've already done so, but I ask that if so, could you attempt to put it more plainly? Perhaps if you see something I haven't considered you could point it out? From the way I read you, I don't think you got my point either. I'm sure we have different conceptions of all of the concepts involved, so it's interesting to me to butt mine up against yours to see how each contort. Perhaps I can see something in yours that mine is missing or vice versa. Maybe not, but at least there will be some contorting.
Allright, game. Loosely defined, narcissim exaggerates Self. It is, quite simply, yet another mechanism in a being's array of mechanisms that propitiates Self. Ego, psychoanalytically speaking, is Self. An intimite privacy apart from the universe, yes? And it seeks to protect itself- you would jump in here and say at the cost of civility. Instinct is, quite simply, an impulse thrust from within. By the Self. What all three have in common is a precious Self nestled in the middle, and survival is the seeking of all three to protect it. This is why your saying this: ...with the added bonus of you being [deleted] at the end was conducive to a flamewar in which, of course, [deleted]. See? I saw your point. And I retorted. I just did not like that you glossed over and did not address it.
I see, you're right. That was incorrect. You DID though, and I didn't argue the point. You took this: I agree that they are the same. That's why I didn't argue against it. I could have sworn I said something about how ego is the direct abstraction of the survival instinct since it makes value of self compulsory (I don't remember where in the conversation). I must have erased it before posting it, thinking it was stretching back into unnecessary crap. You were right, I was simply on crack for a second. Here's what I should have focused on to make the point: I don't agree, because I don't see ego as a necessary predator. Ego in and of itself is simply equivalent to the abstraction of survival. IMO, that ego is was it is does not directly lead to narcissim. You're basically saying that all egos FEED, and a feeding ego is a narcissitic ego, correct? Must the analogy of FEEDing be predatory? I feed a machine parts so that different parts come out, so was it hunting what I fed it? The definition of narcissim might be a predatory ego, but does that imply that all egos are predatory? You offered this: What if it's a tool that each man uses to express his desire to survive? If he desires to survive and is a participant in society (in any way), can he not extend empathy of that desire to the other participants? It's entitlement if you're a narcissist, sure... but is it possible to have empathy? If so can that empathy be a motivating reason to extend one's instinct to another whom we know to share the same instinct? Thanks. No actually it was what I meant based on this: You were speaking to the entire audience. That's "everyone". I said 'you' the first time and realized I'd meant something else so I edited it. It's an art. It's possible. Again that was based on this: LOL. Yeah I know but that wasn't what I meant. I meant that you were saying "if you percieve me as arrogant or dishonest, it's YOU not ME". Because you think I'm so damned smooth. Hehe. I didn't think you were "going after me". I was for a second. Then I came back. Meh.
