Respect is a modern luxury

Quite.

And, it's far too late and my eyes are far too blurry to deal with your post at the moment. I'll deal with three points now and save the rest for later. Shit, I still got to get to Gendanken's post so far back there.


First. "Fenris is no blind fool" was not mollification. Not in the least. You are an expert pattern finder. You've discerned several obscure patterns since my getting to know of you. One very obscure one having to with apostrophes. I still marvel at that. And have no doubts that you are absolutely right about it.

Respect given where respect is due is all that is.



Second. As to me demanding respect? No, I don't demand that either. Again, I would like it, but that has nothing to do with anything. Que sera sera.




Third. The "major contributor" thing. You misunderstood. I didn't point anyone anywhere. This other pointed me towards the thread. And I responded that I knew all about it because I was a major contributor. Who was it? Raithere? Where was it? In here or in murder? Too late and my mind is getting wiggly. I am almost certain that I didn't misunderstand the situation. I know for a fact that I didn't bring the thread up. It was brought up by the other.




I'll respond more tomorrow. I'm beat.



Edit: Found it. It was Raithere in this thread. His original [post=653454]post[/post] to me. My [post=654110]post[/post] back to him.

Perhaps it came off a bit prideful. Meh. Who knows? I don't think I meant it that way. Just pointing out that I knew all about that thread already. That's all.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh. My.

Indifference. The absence of interest, opinion or feeling. -- Says my dictionary.
How is it absence of interest, opinion or feeling if you are talking about it?

Of course, I can take it as I will, thank you. And you will have the terminal word on how things are.

Oh, yes. And good old William, for example, wrote whatever he wrote because "that's how the words fell".

My emotional illogic. I see.

I have been in this debate from the beginning, mind you.

You "happened" to me.

Amazing that there are people like you.

And what is wrong with stating one's intents obvioulsy?

You really cannot tell shit from gold.
Oh, and it is not *your* fault, it is the interpreter's.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Rosa Magika:

This is getting tiresome. I was being self-disparaging with those statements.

So blah. In other words claiming to be honest is blah. You were correct. Sheesh.

"So what?" was directed at you but it still conceded your point.

Oh, yes. That's me. The great terminator. I judge who is right and who is wrong. Just as I once sat upon a high throne calling down judgements on the parasitic race of cats.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Cmon. Seriously. Do I have to put IMO everywhere? IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO Or how about to add insult to injury and make it IMHO IMHO IMHO

Look. Once again. The indifference that I claimed was about whether Fenris believes or doesn't believe, likes or doesn't like, the fact that I am an honest person. This indifference doesn't automatically extend to everything. In fact, it's quite obvious that it doesn't. I do care about many things. The discussion in this thread being one of them.

Wow. What a compliment. Comparing me to "good old Wlliam". Reminds me of a time you compared me with Yeats. You really think I'm something special, don't you? Time to write that play I suppose. Or maybe the great sonnet?

And besides, who are you to claim that the words didn't just fall where they fell with good old William's writing? Is it possible that he was a spontaneous writer? Do you think that he spent hours writing up outlines and diagrams and yadda yadda? Or did he just start going and ended up with what he ended up with? I don't know. Do you? Does anyone?

Definitely something is going on with you. You have always been a good debater before, but since this issue of cat killing has come up, it seems to me that your arguments have gone down the toilet. I suppose you just don't devote yourself to arguing with me? Because you don't care anymore? I don't know. But there is definitely something going on with you.

Yes, you have. And I wasn't telling you to butt out. I was commenting on the fact that you are taking remarks made about one thing and extending them to a completely different subject.

Let's look, shall we?

The comment about what the hell do you have to do with branch of the debate was in regards to this statement by you.

You wait for us to say something. You say my name 5 times in one single post, just to make sure I would reply. ​

Which was in response to this statement by me:

"I don't care." ​

Now, this statement by me was in regards to Fenris liking or not liking my honesty.
That's it.
You seek to extend it to a whole other realm of which I wasn't talking about.
Hence the statement, "What the hell do you have to do with it?" Not you as a participant in the debate, but you as the subject of the debate.

Oh. Look at me. The force of nature that overtook Rosa like a hurricane.

Rosa. You happened to yourself. My opinion.

Oh. Such logic. You are really shining tonight. A credit to your gender. Can we get some applause for the girl? Anyone? Anyone?

That's the bloody point!!!! He didn't!!! He came in and attacked a perceived weakness. That's what annoyed me. AAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

Rosa. Rosa. Rosa. Rosa. Rosa. Rosa. Was that enough fucking Rosas yet?

I AM THE INTERPRETER!!!! THE INTERPRETER IS ME!!!! I"M NOT BLAMING OTHER!!!! I BLAME MYSELF!!!!!!!

Someone definitely can't tell shit from gold around here. That's for damn sure. Pity. You used to be so good at it. Oh well. That's the way it goes I suppose. I really hope you pull yourself together eventually. Seriously. I'm not trying to wound you or attack you or any bullshit. Your arguments in this thread have degenerated the most that I've ever seen arguments degenerate in my time here. From an intelligent person anyway. I have seen others with less than normal intelligence descend into such illogical maelstroms. But your descent is disturbing.



Can I get some outside confirmation of this? Please? I can't be the only one here who sees this.



And, by the way. Let's go back to the quote that you used. Shall we? Since your reply had nothing to say about it. Let me elucidate on it myself.

Now. What is the kernel that we're talking about here? It is Gendanken's attacking me with the idea of hypercivility and needing people and being a spineless worm. All having to do with my politeness, niceness, respectfulness, etc... So, the question is (to my mind) are these things good...? Or bad...? Is it strength...? Or is it weakness...?

Also, I attacked Gendanken with accusations of basically the opposite. Of being cold and heartless. I attacked her with the idea of Nietzsche's horse. Etc... Now. The question is (to my mind) is this good...? Or bad...? Is it strength...? Or is it weakness...?

Now. In my opinion. My personal opinion. The answer to these questions is somewhere in the middle. Now. If you have been following along with the excellent (IMO) discussion that Fenris and I have been having, he raised the question on whether I dismissed looking within myself to see an overabundance of the kernel of truth which Gendanken used to attack me because it was in jest, an insignificant thing. Which I denied, by the way. I didn't dismiss it. I don't dismiss. And I also raised the point that it goes both ways and asked whether Gendanken dismissed looking within herself to see my kernels of truth which I attacked her. And I personally believe that the answer is no, she did not dismiss it. But, only she can answer that.

Fenris is of the opinion that "how much" is a more important question. Meaning how much do I need others? How much do I need politeness and civility. This is doubtlessly a good question too, but less important to my mind than the nature of the beast. And, if his question is to be asked, shoudn't it also be applied equally? To both myself and Gendanken as it is we who were exchanging these kernels of truth?

Can you see now? A bit? Is it somewhat clearer?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Gendanken,

Actually, I haven't read much philosophy in general. I know mostly my own. I've read a bit of this and that. But, the most I've read is Nietzsche. Hence, my using quotes by him at times. Rare times, I'm sure you agree.

As an aside, that's why I come here. To gain knowledge of the philosophy of others. Living and dead. I've tried a few other philosophers and just found their work boring and puerile. So, I hope to get a taste of different philosophies before running to the library to gather a more selective group of material.

Good point on passion clouding reason. Why didn't I use it? Because the context I brought him in was to address your 'abandoning' me. I thought the bridge concept fit rather nicely in there so there it is.

But, now that you mention it. That would make an excellent case against Rosa's apparent degeneration. However, wouldn't that be a critique of Nietzsche rather than using Nietzsche himself?

His delight in 'hatred' would have been an excellent argument against you. A shame that I didn't think of it. Too late now. It might be a fault of the translation that I have. Kaufmann is said to have translated Nietzsche to reduce this delight in 'hatred'. He comes off more emotionless. But, perhaps the intent is still between the lines?

You mean as in the troll beneath the bridge? A lesson in evil? Hitler and the nazi movement was this centuries great evil (also others less publicized of course) but that is from a previous generation. This is why nowadays, cat-killers are equated with nazis because the face of evil is not known. It is seperated by time and space. A monster must come every generation to rape and pillage. To show what evil is. To make all the good little boys and girls cry and realize that to be good possesses some value.

Is this your intent? Not to glorify evil, per se, but to show that one cannot have light without darkness?

What, exactly, is that end? And what, exactly, is evil?

Evil being an end, I suppose that would make it a dead end. Again to carry on the Nietzsche bridge analogy, "What is best in man is that he is a bridge and not an end. What can be loved in man is that he is an overture and a going under."

I dislike ends. Speaking of this makes me reconsider my words in the Murder thread. Speaking of ends and means. I wonder if I didn't make a mistake in there? Perhaps those ends are not truly ends? Merely a means to a new end? I shall have to reevaluate. Hmm.

I'm sure you mean in the best sense of the word.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I note that you would butcher my mind and my embryonic mind at that. Brings to mind the psychological murder of which we have spoken. Was this your intent?

You then, of course, speak of consequence to bring the point to physical murder. But, I do wonder...

And, perhaps we would murder each other?

Oh, I know what you were getting at. But, I ignored it as I was concentrating on vitriol at the time.

This goes back to the 'proud fiend' of the Look of Other Eyes. And also goes back to the danger inherent in such a path. But, this is the only path available to some. Dipping their heads too long into the paths of others can cause bad results. Perhaps even inspiring a murder spree.

And the problem with creating a demesne imbued with one's own rules? The fact that there is a social structure in which we live, like it or not. Our rules are limited by their rules. We can do what we will as long as we don't get caught.

Another problem with this mentality is the closedness of it. I've spoken of the higher man in here with Fenris. This holding of one's work sacred from other eyes. I envision a great loss of knowledge should this attitude become wide-spread. Don't you?

I still say that it is not so easy to know oneself. That it may very well be the hardest thing to know on Earth. The knowing of the self. But, the above is perhaps the most... provoking thing you've said on this subject.

"he does not seek to flatten himself or others to his constitution."​

This allowing of self and others to be self. It sounds so alluring. As it was designed to be, of course. But, how realizable is it?

Is it possible for man to reach a state where the vast majority of it's people are these true selves? Doubtful, isn't it? It must, by necessity, be limited to a few. And in this way, it minimizes the damage done to knowledge by the closedness of these selves. If closedness, as confucious spoke of, were to be the norm of such groups, that is. It would also minimize other social damage that would be done by the few. If the whole of humanity were like this, I could easily see the end of humanity. But, if it were limited to a few, then why not? There are also problems involving being feared by the 'normals' and such. The witch trials are not so far distant, you know.

"Respect from this type of human is no luxury, it is a binding privilege."​

Is this the loyalty you spoke of in Murder? Or something else? How binding?

Really, Gendanken. You've practically closed the case with this statement. I hope you wrote this down. It is possibly the best I've seen you write. It's beauty and simplicity didn't hit me until I sat here trying to analyze it. I'm almost speechless. It solidifies so much of what we have been speaking of the last couple of weeks. And to think, it came from vitriol.

 

Fenris,

I tend to believe that our own motives are at times more elusive than the motives of others.

When judging others, we cannot forget the circumstances in which they are being judged. Certainly, we tend to project ourselves into others. Our motivations into their motivations. This cannot be entirely avoided except by the closest of scrutiny. A scrutiny that would slow us and our thoughts to a crawl. This loop of which you speak.

I am taking the above quote to be speaking of how I judged you as a man of brittle pride. And also how I judged your 'circling in for the kill' in Murder. That by saying these things about you. I have said them about me. Definitely given me things to think about. But, one cannot forget the circumstances of both jibes. Both spawn from the actions you made in Murder. The way in which you cut through all the intermediary discussion and went straight for the heart. You went straight to a post where it seemed that Gendanken and I had parted ways to comment on. You then chose to find a few other statements where I had been 'inconsistent'. This immediately after a post by Gendanken where she was extremely perturbed and accused me of inconsistency. How should I have taken it? How would you have taken it?

And then add to this the seeming attack you make upon me in this thread. No real mention of the topic or subject matter. Merely a "Heh. You're made of glass." I had wondered if you wouldn't come in sooner. While the vitriol was still pouring. Yet, you waited til the situation had been cleared up. This suggested to me that it was a matter of pride. Plus, glass and brittle pride just seemed to go together.

Rationalization? Probably. At least somewhat. Who can say?

Too right. Before stumbling onto this place, I have, of course, made several attempts to converse on matters of import (to me) in the real world. And, of course, was met with blank stares of confusion and outright aggression in some cases. But, I'm also guilty of discussing things in here that are worthy of cell phones. So, I can't judge others who do as well. Although, there are those who discuss only such mundane and inane matters. They are a different manner. The cesspool used to be full of them, but the conversation has slackened over the past month or so.

Sorry. Didn't follow that thread. Before my time. I'll check it out and comment more later.

Makes sense. But there are things lost in the translation at times. It turns into mysticism. Learning to do things without learning the reasoning behind them. Perhaps useful over the short term such as in the case of a single 'apprentice' learning from a single 'master'. But, that apprentice will someday be a master and so on. Over time, the reasoning behind the original technique is in danger of becoming wholly abstract. This is leading me to think of Gendanken's Spandrel. Hmmm.

I don't wholly agree with it either. I am guilty of too much participation at times. Look at my post count, for christ's sake. The answer would seem to lie somewhere in between. As always. Or perhaps, using Rosa's holistic diagram, in the upper loop but still correlating to the middle way.

Rambling? Am I rubbing off on you?

Interesting. And it of course leads to issues that might be better spoken of elsewhere. But, if you are claiming that you don't speak from hurt. Then you've been hurt an awful long time. 200 some odd posts in the better part of a year? I can't conceive it. But look at mine. Post whore that I am.

I would think that you are more of the third type. The deep delver. But, one must shake off the paralysis that affects one or one might be paralyzed forever.

I personally find myself becoming more... more what? More fulfilled? No. Crap. Can't think of the word. My ideas become better fleshed out in speaking them. In putting them on display so that others can come through with Occam's razor and snicker snack them. And it seems selfish only to eat and not to provide your own food for others. This place is a pot-luck dinner. A batch of stone soup. One must ante up. Or at least I must.

Never have I denied that. Except in this thread where she seems to have degenerated. Note that I said A major contributor. Not THE major contributor.

Perhaps so. I'm relatively new to this intellectual conversationalism. I have not had much opportunity to hone my skills in this regard. I can only ask for some feedback from readers and corrective mechanisms.

It is likely also a consequence of my thought processes. I am a very tangential thinker. Things connect on a wide scale. I find it difficult to 'stay within the lines.'

How do you mean? How I view these certain others? Or how they view me? If you're talking about Rosa, that's a long story and one I last track of long ago. I'd rather the conversation returned to logical levels with her. But perhaps that is impossible in this thread. She does still speak logically in Language and Reason. So, I can only hope that when the subject of 'cat-killing' fades the wavering will fade as well. Who knows? Certainly not me.

Point taken. And one I truly hadn't considered deeply before. I had mentioned something about respect not necessarily being reciprocal. But this is something else entirely. Interesting.

Yup. That's the only way. Because I certainly don't know 'how much'. How does one quantify such things? The only measure can be against some inner boundary condition. Either too much or too little. Or just right. These are personal judgements. By necessity.

Very interesting. And definitely making me reconsider my viewpoint.

However, this might just figure in to how I was discussing politeness being an inviting. It is a default condition so that one might get to know someone new. Slapping someone new may or may not provoke a desirable reaction. If any reaction could be said to be 'desirable'. One must be prepared to lose a possible comrade (a true comrade, not just a vampire). Once a judgement of character has been made, politeness is no longer necessarily the norm. It may be or it may not be depending on circumstances.

But, a slap to a friend may have more dire consequences to a slap to a stranger.

Interesting. I need to think about this. You make an excellent point though.

Wait. You said 'initial response'. Are you referring to the 'truth' that comes after a punch in the nose? If so, then my statement as to that is the same. It may be a truth, but it is not the whole truth. And it may not even be a truth. It may be pure vitriol. Or a mixture of vitriol and truth. One must remove the vitriol to reach the truth in such cases. And then realize that the truth thus gleaned is far from perfect.

 

Vert:

No I did not dismiss anything save the cute comments of me at the Olive Garden (ha) but you're sadly wrong on thing, and please shove this up thy anus:

I was annoyed at your paranoia.
Gendanken's a cold bitch destined to fuck Neitzche's horse, old, cold and alone!- nothing new. I've heard this all before. Plenty.

Believable, considering your recent trip to the libary.
But I remember reading somewhere that the world is a place filled with noise, some of it music some of it not and it all depends with each ear we listen with.
If you come here, smearing yourself socially with just anyone, as this place screams with trolls, then either your ears tend to plug up or you forget with each ear to listen.
I imagine that now you will jump in to point out the counterproductiveness of only hearing with one ear when one has two.
But really what use is it to use everything with everyone, leaving one nothing to share with the equal one? Value depreciates.

Could be, but I doubt it.
Your reasons for her 'degeneration' to you as Fernis's apprehensions with your are not what you think.
You even hit on it yourself with her case:

Bingo.

Kauffman is a stoolgroomer. Eeeenough said.

This is what is lovely about you- you take what I say, think on it and then feed it back for simplistically. 9 out of 10 you get it right, which is why I feel at times the little incubus has mindoculars.
You take what I say philosophically and put it in laymen's terms.
Prefukcingcicely.

What I mean by end is its nakedness- a man in clothes is a mystery but naked and walking an end in himself.
An absolute.
Evil exists on its own, value-neutral, until we come along to clothe it with abstract.

So much stigma and romance and suspense built up in fear of it making it monstrous, so beastly and vile that the feeble tremble at night at the very thought of it.
I too do not think one ever ceases from developing- but this does not mean we are kept from knowing ourselves.
Know Thyself is attainable and I've fucking seen it.

Whether I'd like yanking your balls through your groin? Why?
Ha.

Exactly.
Share and share alike, what hermit would not gravitate to another hermit of like caliber?
He is stingy but generous with those who can hear, see, taste, smell the same things similarly.

However, and this goes back to respect in our modern world. People expect other to acknowledge them, yes? Everyone and their brother nowadays has a voice and uses it to squeal about his being treated ~inhumanely~.
Its no secret people despise those that make them feel nonexistent, but cry me a river weaklings. Don’t take this as theory, it is fact empirically obvious. If you are Nothing then it is not other's responsibility to acknowleged you into a Something with what the world calls Respect.
Or what Raithere calls "Consideration"

You give things up easily, and you label you a prostitute..
Is politeness not like going around at a party, nibbling and nibbling at all sorts of munch, never quite eating? You become fat.
Therefore, politeness feeds the Social Glutton.
One owes nothing..
I'd rather eat than go around nibbling.

Rosa:

What the hell do you mean so?
Little work can be done if you scream and shout, sure, but little more if trying to work with a bunch of vindictive zombies and wolves pretending to be something else.

Some jailhouse rock for ya: Do onto others what they do onto you, but do it first.
These polite zombies who show up at church on Sunday and hear the good word glow with inner content at you getting fucked and not them.
Oh the violence they say! Mankind is going to the pigs! Terrorism! What savages.....yet watch them a gather around a traffic accident.

Or a thread filled with vitriol.

 

People that believe we have evolved from savagery don’t know their selves. They neglect an intrinsic component of their own psyche. You can generally see it in their eyes, and it often expresses itself in their mental and physical health. We are, however, also human creatures and have a gregarious side. A few million years of tribal instinct draws us to relate to other humans. And you can see the disease in those who withdraw or are somehow incapable of relating to others as well.

Metaphorically, yes. In actual practice I find it hard to reconcile. The child, IMO, is sick and in need of care.

What is it that you think we fear? The situation, as described, seems to me too sudden for action to be motivated by fear of consequence. So we’re looking at a more basic reaction.

I don’t look at it that way. Aside from a reasoned consideration of the possible legal consequence I have no fear of killing or death; I try to avoid causing it because I relate and empathize with other life forms, which I value. I have no trouble killing for food but neither does the act of killing please me, it’s too petty. I’ve also killed and participated in killing a good number of animals in what I considered an act of mercy. I find no pleasure in it but neither do I fear it, sometimes I find it to be the most compassionate act. And although I’ve never had occasion to kill a human for what I would deem an ethical reason I don’t perceive any fear in myself regarding this act either.

The part of this that confounds me is that you seem to consider it something special. The only explanation I can think of is that you perceive it as an act of rebellion, an act of freedom. But if this motive is derived in response to the social prohibition against it then it is just as controlled, just as much an act of obeisance to society’s will as refraining.

Instead I choose a reasoned course. One that I have selected based upon my values and ethics and one which gives me the most pleasure. Fuck society, I do as I will. I just find a way to navigate through it.

~Raithere

 

You have a gift with words related to your application of vocabulary however your subject focus is here and social views (anti-social) are good gifts ill spent. Go work through your difficulties and come back productive.

 

Sure. But the thing is that you *know* that they are vindictive zombies and wolves pretending to be something else.
All big leaders, dictators and tyrants know this -- and they know how to use it for their benefit to achieve the goals they want to achieve.

It all depends on what you want to achieve. Is it a "who has the problem?" situation, or a "what is the problem?" situation?

Yes, and I have made the experience of having them gathered around me.
In the little town I live in, there is the old church, and right next to it, the old school building. The school building has been redone into a pub, a discotheque and a restaurant. People, on Sunday, right after church, go straight to the pub. They have to wash away all the effects the good word might have left on them.

Just yesterday, as it was "Mary's Ascension Day" (or something like that), and there were Jesus films on the telly (no Robert Powell, uh). I was switching channels, and there was the scene where the adulterer is brought before Jesus, and Jesus says "He that is without sin shall cast the first stone" -- and the men who borught the woman all step back, for they have sinned.
My father asked in sarcasm: "Why? They could simply say that they are without sin, and stone the woman to death!" -- There is no rule saying that one must be honest, there is no rule saying that we ought to work towards a greater common good -- that is, most peple don't believe that there really is or could be such rules, and the greater common good is just so communist, down with it.
The lack of these rules is the price for the modern feeling of being an "individual, having an individual personality", since "everything is relative".

Having an "individual personality, being special" these days mostly comes at the expense of the common greater good -- "Who cares if the world goes to hell because of pollution, I want my SUV, my air-conditioned home, my jacuzzi! My 100 kinds of shampoo! For I am *special*!!"

***

I think so too -- that talking about murder and a fascination with death often comes across as if it were advocating, even encouraging to go and murder: "Be rebellious, set yourself free!". (Remember what Henry said after they threw the dummy off the bridge?) And unfortunately, there are many people, even here, who do see your talking about murder as ecouragement to do it. -- Those who feel themselves unfree, burdened by morals and guilty conscience, feeling the need to break free, and what serves them better than a Gendanken and a Nietzsche?!


Invert,

I wonder what it would take to make you feel.
You know, if someone said to me those words I said to you, I would think long and hard about them. And whatever conclusion I would come to, I would not go at the other person with the absurd amounts of words, words and more words, the way you do.

 

Not at all. Our own are transparent, provided you think about them. Not many are self aware though. Not many even question themselves in order to become self aware. The motives of others become more transparent when compared with the motives of the self, at an earlier stage of awareness.

Yes. Precisely. That scutiny, though, tends to be directed at ourselves rather than at others. The judgment of others becomes almost insignificant when thought turns to the self, to the origin of that judgement. From here can sometimes result the paralysis I mentioned - Others are judged, and in the light of that judgement thought turns inward, trying to determine where that judgment originated in the self - what led to this thought in me, from whence did it come?
This does not change the initial judgement in many cases - those being judged become even more insignificant. Almost nothing, in the light of the self and of that awareness. It is only a rare few who ever become anything more than flies.

I think explanations of circumstances leading to this, that, and the other are fairly irrelevant at this stage. Not irrelevant, precisely, but... tedious.

However:

You can. If not to anyone else, then to yourself.

I would. It would be worth your time, and might shed some light into this one as well.

Hmm.
A man begins to build a house of stone and wood, each part of it carefuly thought out and planned. His neighbours, for the most part, are content to live in mud huts. Thus, he ignores them. He builds his home himself.

In time, he finds that his neighbours now want to live with him in his house, because it is far better constructed. But for him, this isn't possible. They have been content to do nothing, to change nothing, and let things be as they always were - why then should his labour be shared with them? They would not, and do not, appreciate the work involved, only the result. They see a fine house and want to live in it. They could never understand how that house was built, nor could they build it themselves - they can only imitate his. They could build the same house if he told them how, but it would be by rote, a copy - not of themselves, and not in understanding of how his was built to begin with.
What he looks for, is others who have built their own house, of stone. Those houses do not need to be the same as his, but the thought and insight into them must have the same foundation. The same awareness and knowledge of how each block fits together, and why this block goes with that one - not just that it does.
When these come together, they might begin to build a new house. It will not be the same as his, and it will not be what the other built. It will be a merging of the two - but the foundations remain the same, the starting point of understanding from which they begin. Only from there can the new house be built - and in all likelihood, one which is better than what they built alone.

That foundation cannot be taught though - in doing so, the understanding of it becomes lost in the teaching.

Would you then have some parts of your house built with mud, in order to have it sooner? Would you take time off from building your own house of stone in order to help them build mud huts, perhaps with wooden roofs you have taught them to build?

No.

Herein lies a problem, though.
In order to shake off the paralysis, it becomes necessary at times to accept something. To bypass something which nags, in order to move on. This, I don't find acceptable. I would rather continue to worry at the nagging, than simply shake it off in order to advance. Any advancement made under these conditions smells of compromise - and compromise, while at times advantageous, does not lend itself to purity.

I wasn't speaking of Rosa at all. More of the "smearing yourself" Gendanken referred to.

Of course. But if those dire consequences are avoided, then what price is paid? What service do you render by remaining silent, or by being so gentle as to have the point made insignificant?

That initial response is one of pure honesty, in many cases. It is often not well thought out, often not articulated well, and often emotional. That does not detract from its value. Your polite conversations do indeed engender well thought out, considered responses. These have their place. But the responses in their consideration and thought often lose immediacy, they lose that honesty. Given enough time to think of an answer, the tendency is to water it down - and in that time, and that consideration of the response, it is quite possible you even convince yourself that this is what you really think. The considered response becomes the original thought. Complete honesty is therefore lost, but you will believe you are being honest.
Man, in his rationalism taken to extremes, becomes a dishonest animal. Most of the time, he is not even aware that his rationalism has made him become one.
Your emotional responses are some of the greatest teachers you have. In them, when one looks at them in the calm light of rationalisation after the fact, you learn more of yourself. There is truth in anger, in passion, in love and in hate. If you look for it. Overrationalisation turns a mountain into a hill.

Tired. Done for tonight.

 

Raithere:

Beautifully said.
In humans, pathologies grow in both kinds of soil- the kind filled with humans, and the kind lacking them.
Sanity lies in the middle somewhere I imagine- look at me, here with you all. I spent close to two years in isolation at first brimming with pride and yet the social call would not cease.
Sciforums is the closest to my middle.

Disagree.

"How can psychologists all these years have treated sadism as if something abnormal, brought on by some stupid parent's stopping his child from chopping up the furniture with a hatchet, thereby filling him with frustration and insecurity? On the basis of my own experience, I will testify that all boys are natural born sadists. Most of them have it beaten out of them. Correct that: most of them have it beaten down into their subconscious. .Its still there, waiting for a chance to pop up. Hence crime, war, persecution, and all other ills of society…."- de Camp

Logic is veneer. There is nothing logical to war, yet it thrives.

Touche.
Won't touch this.

I'm only curious though- what animals have you killed? Details, fellow, details.

Fenrisio:
Love this:

Never let a rat in your home. He festers disease and discontent.
There is also its knack for breeding to consider.

Rosa:

Don't you fucking hate that?

You spend close to an hour with someone and at last when you finally feel progress, barely peeping over the horizon, the lazy brute throws his hands up and squeals "Ahh. But everything is relative."

Band-aid terminologies. This is what bothers me most in said 'thinkers'.

Kenton Massey:

Fer sure.

 

Gendanken,

Six of one. Half a dozen of another. It's the same thing. Really. You were annoyed at my paranoia. You were annoyed that I should accuse you of meaning those things. Same thing. I suppose they differ only in who bears the brunt, eh?

And, paranoia it was not. Merely honesty. In the end, you admitted to it somewhat. That my sharing myself so liberally was weakness. Did I misinterpret?

Sounds awful close to dismissal. And by the way, I didn't say you were destined to fuck Neitzsche's horse. I said Neitzsche had his horse and asked what you would have. A fine degree of difference.

I can assure you that with philosophy I wouldn't attempt the devouring of so much so fast. Philosophy requires a bit more time to digest. However, I likely would check out more than I would read just to have a selection to choose from. It's just that the last time I tried this, I came home with a bunch of useless garbage. A bunch of religionists vainly striving to make the world right with god. I can do without that.

Yeah. I get your point on this. But I suppose that it depends on the subject under discussion. If one attempts to discuss thoughtful matters with thoughtless swine then one should expect what one gets. Slop. To each their own. Sometimes, I just want to jabber inanely about stupid shit. Haven't you ever felt that way?

I would disagree that it leaves one with nothing. However, it might tire one out and make one feel like he's repeating himself. So, if he said something thoughtful to fools and then held back the saying of it to the wise later for fear of repeating then, yes, I see your point.

But, if one speaks foolishness to the fools then wouldn't that prevent him from desiring to speak of foolish things with the wise? Perhaps?

And you've done the same for me on several occasions. Plucked my intent from a page of rambling ramble. 9 out of 10 ain't bad, huh?

Hmm. I suppose it depends on exactly what we're talking about here. The lone killer may certainly fit this bill. But, does he not also cloak himself in the abtract? I suppose there are some that merely follow their instinct without rationalizing what it is that they do. But, most are almost like actors. Ramirez, for instance, the Bakersfield Vampire, he was an extreme actor. Cloaking himself in the occult and macabre. Envisioning himself as Satan's henchman on this earth. Buying a higher seat in hell with these lives that he shed. Certainly not value neutral.

Dahmer might have been somewhat value neutral. He didn't cloak himself too heavily. He mostly just wanted someone to love. Someone constant and unchanging. Docile.

Or how about the huns? They were bloodthirsty raiders. But, they were merely of a different culture. Not really evil, yet they were practically the definition of evil at the time.

But, if we go to things like the plague. Then we find true value neutrality. A simple disease labelled as evil. Man's abstraction of the environment. His animistic tendencies. In this we find that labelling of which you speak.

I don't see it in humans. Only seriously damaged humans may be value neutral. They may have a different value system. But that's not neutral. Is value neutral the end result of the revaluation of morals that you seek? Not only a reordering of the conscience but a total emptying of the conscience? How is one to motivate oneself in the absence of values? The killer has values. He values killing. Among other things. It's not that he doesn't have a conscience. It's that his conscience is filled differently than the 'normals'.

So, the question is, What is evil? This thread was originally about respect, but it has diverged into several side topics. What exactly are we talking about here? Is the evil you're talking about merely the going against the grain of society? Anti-social as the good Kenton Massey puts it? I think that the label of evil is applied to many conditions to be used as indicative of anything on it's own. We must define what it is we're talking about first.

So, it's not the labelling of a killer as evil that you object to but the fear of the killer even when he is not about?

But, isn't that the point? The stigmatizing of a generation? The innoculation of evil?

I suppose it depends on how concrete or abstract the evil is. If sufficiently removed from the source of the evil, then it is abstract and the fears about it grow beyond the bounds or sanity. They grow and stretch. Sinking into everything. Tainting everything it touches. When the evil is more concrete, it is more of an object lesson in what to look for and how to deal with it. Far less nebulous.

You and Fenris are certainly united in this thought. But, how is one to know if they've truly seen themselves or just another fractured image of the self that the interpreter throws about? This is an interesting topic, but should likely be expounded upon elsewhere. A Know Thyself thread perhaps?

Call it masochism is you like.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Seriously, you first made metaphors that could be applied to psychological murder and then you moved it to physical consequences. I thought it might be interesting to analyze your intent. If psychological murder was the original intent.

But, isn't it sometimes better to let in a dissenting voice? A voice that sees things differently? Cannot we build a better house with more viewpoints? At least we would have the opportunity to take in some things that we might have been incapable of thinking because of our particular POV. Another being might have thought them but we hate their way of looking at the world therefore we don't share with them, therefore they don't share with us. This is a splintering of knowledge. Like going to like and knowledge fragmenting.

The greatest thing about the world today is the gathering of knowledge that has taken place. The different fields are joining in ways that were once impossible. The TOE is possible. It's still just a glimmer on the horizon, if even that, but it is possible with this general sharing of knowledge. This 'smearing' of knowledge. It is not possible in a 'schools of thought' mode. Where one sticks to his kind and damns the rest.

I suppose, you might be talking about like-minded as in people of thought. In this way, the seperate branches of thought might still merge but leave the foolish out in the cold. But, I feel that even fools might contribute at times. Sometimes a bit of foolishness is just the ticket.

I agree 100% on this one. But, it is possible to try to lift someone into a means of providing themselves Respect. To show them the road. And then to let them take it from there.

But, aren't there high-price whores as well?

This brings to mind what you have said about the Sibling gobbling up whole others philosophy. Not tasting first. Just blindly eating and spewing forth.

But, in the context of this thread, this goes back to the comments I made above about exactly what does this 'nibbling' do? Does it actually prevent you from eating when something comes along that tastes good?

And how would you know what tastes good if you didn't nibble first? Experience? And what about newness?

Remember, politeness is an invitation. It is an attempt to bring in the new. It is a nibbling of the new to see if it is palatable. To see if it might be worth consideration.

And also, don't forget that tastes change. Once might have nibbled something long before and found it disagreeable, but later (in a different mindset, after learning certain prerequisites or whatnot) it is found to be extremely tasty. Sometimes we are ready for something, sometimes not. Have you noticed that books impart different details to you at different readings? I know people who never read the same book twice (few because I know few people who read, to tell the truth.) But, these folk believe it is pointless to read the same thing twice, or three times, or four. I have read many books many times. And each time, it was a different facet of the book that I fastened upon. The same can be said of complex movies. New things jump out at you on repeated viewings.

If one never nibbles, then one can hardly taste.

Unless, of course, one has antennae like an insect...

 

Damnit Vert, you're a boil.
I understand we are at something of an impasse. What is pretty is that we both understand despite it so I'll make this short:

No.
Same difference. Corrected.

My ass.
I doubt anyone has ever told you what I have.
What you have said to me is pastiche.

You're more than free to imagine me an old gray haired maid up at night all alone with my paperbound cadavers.

Nope.
In boredom, I tug cowlicks not rub elbows for chitchat.
I'm sure you know, having tugged yours.
Grahahha....ha.

This gave me a headache.

Two fools on a carosuel are fools. Two fools playing poker are fools. All a fool does is cripple you into one.
Leave the 'wise' out of it.

Not at all. You're one lovely asshole.

Simplesse.
Relax, relate, release.
Relax, relate, release.

Evil is value neutral, not the men who traumatize it.
This is what I said. My mention of a naked man as opposed to a clothed one was metaphor, godamn you.
Plague is not evil. Plague is plague. It becomes one of the three scourges let loose by the Devil as soon as it falls into the hands of the Medieval scribe that wrote about it.
The three scourges, Dante wrote as he trembled: Plague, Famine, And War

He encouraged me to write this. Maybe you'll understand better:

"Ever heard of pointilism? They're these pictures that at first look chaotic and pointless, mottled with paint and disorder.
But there is a picture buried in the middle that takes time to find.
You stand there for a while, your mind sifting through the visual static until that one first glimpse when you see it- A Dalmatian lost in the middle of scattered pointless spots. It took time to see it, but you see it.
And once you see the picture you never lose it.

This is the same in one's development. You go through the static of insecurity and lack of focus but given the time and discipline, one day you make out the pretty picture buried in the middle.
This is the Thyself.
I've seen it and once I've seen it, like the Dalmatian, I'll never lose it."

In that every court needs a jester?
Sure.

Shut up.

We'll never agree on 'politeness' so I'll leave it as is.

 

I find this to be the essence of human experience. Walking that line and occasionally falling off only to get back on and try again.

Because aside from the physiological study of the brain, psychology is not science. Slapping on a label and categorizing a behavior pattern does not identify or allow for the management of the underlying patterns of thought and emotion driving the behavior. It won’t even allow a clear perspective.

Fuck, I know two children personally who were put on prozac for “IDD” at the age of four. Part of my understanding of what a child is includes “short attention span” and these fucks are medicating 4 year old children for it. So what happens when the child is 14 and its basis for normalcy is dependant upon a medically altered state of awareness? Sick fucking bastards. (Excuse the rant, I think these assholes should be strung up by their testicles.)

One cannot ‘correct’ sadism by enforcing an external set of ethics. Sublimation is the basis for neurosis and psychotic behavior. Without getting into this too heavily, IMO the behavior should be discouraged by teaching empathy. A child needs to be allowed to explore its drives but in a somewhat controlled fashion, what we should be working toward is self-awareness.

If Henry is occasionally terrorizing the cat and stepping on a few ant hills that’s one thing, if he’s putting puppies in sacks and lighting them on fire then Henry has a developmental problem. He’s either unable to empathize or he’s expressing some rage or frustration. The kids you mentioned earlier are a perfect example. I remember reading that one of the kids killed a cow he had raised. And the parents and anyone else who knew had the gall to act surprised when the child goes on a killing spree? All of them exhibited similar signs of distress, all of them similarly ignored or punished for what amounted to a cry for help.

I’ve hunted enough (deer, geese, duck) to know that it tends to be a bit cruel so I haven’t hunted in many years. And I fish every once in a while. I also have occasion to act as a veterinary technician and have assisted in euthanasia many times as well as handled some myself. In that capacity I have killed cats, dogs, rabbits, mice, rats, hamsters, birds, even some fish. Those that were my own were, of course, the most difficult emotionally.

~Raithere

 

I thought my sarcasm was obvious.

Why do you think that some people become amateur ornithologists or lovers of kricket? Or amateur seamstresses for that matter?

Thinking requires a lot of devotion, patience, effort, inquiry -- and humility. After a while, one can easily spot those who talk much, and think much less. Saying "I don't like reading books, I like to do my own thinking" or "Meh, but that's just me" are sure signs that you might very well lose the following hour if you continue talking to that person.

When little (we were about 8 or so), my cousin used to fish. But he was unable to kill the fish once he caught it. He would try to pull the hook out of the fish' mouth, thereby ripping it all up. It was an absurd scene: there he was, with a caught fish, the fish was bouncing around, its mouth torn up, and my cousin was in agony because he was unable to kill it -- while he very well managed to watch it suffer and die a slow painful death. When I was around, he would call me to cut off the fish' head.

I could never really understand how someone can cause an animal to suffer, can watch it suffer, but says he doesn't want it to suffer and yet he cannot kill it to end that suffering. As if he wouldn't see the connection between his actions and the animal's suffering.

I think the Catholic teaching, the "thou shalt not kill", this external ethics (the family was quite Catholic), was very much alive in my cousin -- and in the end prevented him from developing empathy.

 

I think all humans have at least the rudiments of those "antennae". It has far more to do with subliminal signals than mysticism though. With time and development, these mental antennae become finely honed - and one is able to pick up signals in behaviour, in conversation, and in the written word. You develop an instinctual avoidance of that which you know will become distasteful without having any need to taste. Most people simply never learn to use it.

Do I need to read the first chapter of a Mills and Boone book to know I will dislike it, or it will have no effect on me at all? No. I simply need to look at the cover. Are there some books which I will read the first chapter of in order to find out if they will interest me? Yes, occasionally. Of these, I might buy some and I might not others. Rarest of all is the book I will buy unopened and unread, in the instinctual knowing that I will like it.

Romance novels, though, are by far the most widely read in the world. And most people are like asian shopkeepers in crowded marketplaces, demanding you try or buy. Or shoving themselves in your face with their polite words and empty conversation. My disinterest is easily detected. How do you reconcile your politeness with "Being Direct"?

 

A poetic intermezzo:

Not to over-metaphorize, but in regards to the above passage, a poem came to my mind, and esp. one line:

***

William Blake:

The Tiger


Tiger! Tiger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

In what distant deeps or skies
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand dare seize the fire?

And what shoulder, and what art,
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?
And when thy heart began to beat,
What dread hand? and what dread feet?

What the hammer? what the chain?
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? what dread grasp
Dare its deadly terrors clasp?

When the stars threw down their spears,
And water'd heaven with their tears,
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the Lamb make thee?

Tiger! Tiger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?

***

Did he who made the Lamb make thee?

Indeed, those who "believe we have evolved from savagery", will be inclined to say that it is at least hard to believe, if not impossible to accept, that he who made the Lamb also made the tiger -- and such people "don’t know their selves", and neither do they know others.

 

Did you reach that thought about thinking through devotion, patience, effort, inquiry and humility? How static. Thinking comes in all flavors. Promoting your perspective of thinking as "this is how thinking has to be" seems like you forgot at least one of the tenents you purport as a requirement for reaching that conclusion.

 

And how jumpy of you to imply that I have reached that thought about thinking through devotion, patience, effort, inquiry and humility.

Yes. I don't see how my initial statement about thinking negates that.

No, you forget it: As soon as you say to someone "What the hell is wrong with you?!"

 

How so, you just gave the parameters required for thinking, then reached a conclusion through thinking. To get there you would have had to employ the route you just touted right? How is that jumpy?

You said:

"Thinking requires a lot of devotion, patience, effort, inquiry -- and humility."

IMO, that negates a lot of thoughts. Your broader context was "thinkers". So I read your statement above to mean you know what it takes to be a thinker and those who do not conform are not "thinkers". From your following comment:

"Saying "I don't like reading books, I like to do my own thinking" or "Meh, but that's just me" are sure signs that you might very well lose the following hour if you continue talking to that person."

- it looks like you re-enforce my prior assertion "you know what it takes to be a thinker and those who do not conform are not thinkers". Someone who reads sciforums instead of books for instance, is almost surely not a thinker right? They are a waste of your time you say.

I didn't claim it, so there's nothing to forget. It is YOUR claim that is in dispute. IMO, stating "Thinking requires a lot of devotion, patience, effort, inquiry -- and humility." is arrogant in the requirements you define are the only path to the conclusion, and basically negate all things thoughtful that aren't that.

When I'm accustomed to someone being very nuetral or somewhat positive in general and then I encounter them focusing on wholly negative aspects of a whole slew of things, "what the hell is wrong with you?" is to me a fair question. It could be that I was concerned about that person, as their behavior struck me as odd.

EDIT:

pardon, I'm off topic.

i've said my piece here and should have pmed these last two messages. my bad.