The Pathos of Distance

The Pathos of Distance

- Agile Minds in Perpetuum -

    Zoot's Philosophical Musings



    Posts : 303
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 on Fri Sep 07, 2018 10:02 pm

    this might be construed as perhaps one of the most gregarious displays of arrogance possible. but should i therefore be dishonest because my honesty is arrogant? depends on how you define arrogance. i don't think its arrogance, because i feel nothing for it... i'm not 'proud' of it, nor are my intentions to ridicule and belittle. it's simply the truth and an offer. first, the truth; i get absolutely nothing out of these philosophy forums anymore other than a little entertainment. this is to say i do enjoy 'you people', but not in the way you would want me to enjoy you... which is to say, i neither appreciate, agree with, or accept what i am seeing; it's all either obvious truism, benign, uninteresting conjecture, wrong (incorrect), or outright nonsense. what i have always been willing to overlook, however, is the self congratulatory manner in which the forum posters carry themselves. and i'll tell you why; because despite all that false bravado, i know you don't know any better... and that you cannot be blamed for this fact. it would not be fair to hold against you the failure to correct an error you are neither aware of or able to get past. i also expect some amount of that because it's only natural; we need to hear ourselves tell ourselves we are right most of the time.

    instead i keep an eye open for those little idiosyncrasies about you that amuse me... those mannerisms that are real expressions of your personality... those signature riffs and licks that are truly original to your person. besides this, what i always keep in mind is that none of you have 'bad' intentions... even the most transparent and contemptible among you. i say to myself "but this is just another person trying his best to make sense of the world, and behind all the innocuous pretension is a person who just wants to be accepted, looked up to, appreciated for doing what he/she can to help others understand what they believe they've found."

    the bad news is, it used to be that i could at least pretend to hear you and give you that moment to feel like you shine... but i'm finding myself unable to do that much, anymore. my offer is this: if you are looking for someone to notice you and 'hear you out', i can do that, but you have to promise me it'll be philosophy-free. tell me something about an experience you had or how you feel about something, or you can even cuss me out... but no philosophical theory, no philosophical conjecture, no philosophical explanation, because that's where you'll be wrong and lose my attention.

    caveat: it is not wholly impossible to woo me into a philosophical discussion if you do it with the right finesse, though. it'll be difficult because i'll be on the lookout for it, but not impossible. you have to make me believe you are important enough to me (and yourself) for me to want to invest my time in making you right. that, or capture my imagination with a good spin on something i already know.

    i hope none of this sounded arrogant. as i said, my purposes are not to insult or criticize. i'm just trying to come clean here and salvage what possibility is left for productive interaction with what i have come to know as 'the online people'.

    and feel free to not respond. i completely understand. if i were you, i wouldn't respond either. what, to some asshole who just got gone telling me all that shit? i'd say go fuck yourself, pal.

    wow. what another unexpected irony. ten years ago i couldn't give a damn about the person and wanted only the philosophy. now it's the opposite. how very strange.


    Posts : 303
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 on Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:53 pm


    Posts : 303
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 on Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:46 pm

    there are three kinds of polemic writing... or basically three ways to present a critique. when you find someone you disagree with, you have these options, these approaches: why they are wrong, or how they are wrong, or simply that they are wrong. the first two kinds usually end in a disaster (on these forums, not always in organized debates), for these reasons. when you explain why someone is wrong, you are centering your attack on their faculties of reason and their intelligence, and this they interpret as a personal attack, feel ashamed that they might be so ignorant, and become even more irrational in their defense. when you explain to someone how they are wrong, you're taking this risk; you're attempting to articulate to someone who doesn't know that they are wrong, or why they are wrong, how they are wrong. you're expecting someone who can't, and doesn't, know they are wrong, to somehow magically realize how they are wrong without understanding first that, and why, they are wrong.

    these days i don't waste any time on the first two forms of critique because i've learned from experience that this is anything but productive. that, and i care less about wanting others to be right... or concerning myself with whether or not they are right, i should say. and this, in turn, is the result of losing interest in the people themselves, for various reasons (that are not important at this juncture).

    during the period of the last four years (roughly), i've experienced a philosophical revolution... and this revolution involves the coming-together of several concepts, ideas, and theories that are spread across many fields of philosophy. i can say with almost absolute certainty that i have reached an apex of intellectual thought. that's to say, i will experience no more 'major' philosophical shifts in my life, and what philosophy i will still do will always be some particular expression of this final 'system'. this system will never be presented in its entirety because i have no ambition or motivation to write as extensively as would be required to do so. reasons being, i don't feel the need or desire to want others to know (anymore).

    so part of this revolution involves not only this aspect of my own thinking, but also taking notice of how wrong so many others are. not just little inconsequential erroneous details... but magnificent errors, enormous errors... errors so terrible that everything which follows from them must be immediately dismissed as nonsense. to put this in the form of a metaphor; structural errors which exist in a system that is built on a firm foundation can be fixed without compromising the integrity of the system itself. but when the very foundation to the system is flawed, correcting structural errors changes nothing.

    now there is a long and exhausting line of solid logic and reasoning behind what is now my final 'stance', partly biographical, partly philosophical, and in any case so formidable that i am prepared to defend it against any objection that could possibly be raised against it.

    but what is troublesome about this is that i believe this 'truth', which is my 'truth', necessarily requires that one have nearly identical experiences as myself in order to attain it. which is to say, it can't be explained... it can't be given or presented in prose. it has to be lived... one has to 'get to it' almost accidentally through a series of particular conflicts which, when comprehended and understood with proper order and form, lead exclusively to a particular set of conclusions that cannot be any different than they are. these conclusions, the system they construct, retains complete philosophical consistency throughout, but could never be fully explicable without the entire system being observed at once.

    in a word, i cannot tell you the 'truth', but i can show you what is not true, how you are wrong, where your foundation is flawed, or even that at your age and in your circumstances, you would simply be unable to know.

    of course i wouldn't ever say 'one can't have their own truths', as indeed there are kinds of truths which are purely subjective... these things involving tastes, preferences, opinions, values, ... the unique 'qualia' or your experiences, and so forth. what i will say, however, is that a great degree of your 'philosophy' might be based from a misapprehension of objective truths that, while existing 'out there' in the world rather than in your head, cannot be ascertained without very specific kinds of personal experiences with and in those objective truths. or rather, under the force and consequence of those objective truths, truths that only 'show up' in very unique circumstances. these i have had the great fortunate misfortune to be in for quite some time now. i therefore venture to say that i am qualified to speak of them.

    what are they, these truths? i knew you would ask, and i dreaded the moment. as i've already spent more time than i'd like typing what i have, let me just say that one passes through stages which, surprisingly enough, take the form of a circle. the philosophical 'journey' begins at the simple, becomes overwhelmingly complicated, then arrives back to the simple. but it takes decades to run this course... and as i said earlier, specific experiences are required. the experiences... what makes them critically important to this philosophical evolution, is the ethical and political nature of them. they are purely existential and involve direct realities that prove intrinsic conflicts exist which undermine and prevent so many believed-to-be-possible systems of thought from being true, much less even possible 'if only humans were more rational, etc, etc.'

    so. i am an egoist of the stirnerite garden variety. an active nihilist, which means in so many words, everything is bullshit but me and what i like/want. elegantly simple, yes? i knew you'd like it. but don't be deceived; it isn't because i can't take interest in humanity, the state, the future, the fate of man, yada yada... but because i won't. not anymore. well because everywhere i have sought a cause to belong to, i have found only liars, clowns, flounderers and flakes. i wouldn't join such orders even if they put me in charge, you see, because i would be ashamed of being a leader of such imbeciles and buffoons.

    there remains only one fixed idea that i cannot rid myself of, and that is the eternal recurrence. this one fixed idea, you'll note, does not detract from my position, but compliments it. me, what i like/want, forever and ever and ever. i can't go wrong, unless i'm wrong... but if i'm wrong, it means i ended up with this instead: me, what i like/want, for a while.

    now i can show you how the premise of the ER necessarily 'explodes', as N put it, all these hitherto fixed ideas, putting you at the center of everything and annihilating any importance that was once believed to belong to such realities as the state, humanity, the fate of humankind, etc. if you are still concerning yourself with these things, albeit in a state of error regarding any theory about them, anyway (why, how and that you are wrong), you are stuck in the habitual routine of confusion that began growing in your head the day you picked up that introductory book to philosophy in the highschool library and never looked back.

    "the truth is simple. is that not doubly a lie?" -N

    ""the truth is simple. is that not doubly a lie?" is that not triply a lie?" -me


    Posts : 303
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 on Thu Sep 13, 2018 7:37 pm

    except for those few who understand what nature is and man's place in it, people in general from every age and every generation will at some point (usually late adulthood) experience a gradual dissolution of happiness and become dissatisfied with their community, state, country, or even the world, and enter into a state of ennui and anomie that will last the rest of their life. but this is no indication that anything is 'wrong', or 'out of place' or that there is any devolving or degeneration in these things, since nature as a whole, while completely ordered, is not teleological; neither the universe nor the things in it (including biological life) are moving or evolving toward an end. viewed from a distance, life would be recognized as a continuum, along with any and all of its possible ecological and social organizations that involve the biological life that evolves.

    this knowledge alone should abolish any disappointment one might feel toward the world regarding the undesirable changes that occur during one's life, but it doesn't. this is extremely difficult to do- for some, because they cannot grasp this fundamental truth about the world, and for others, because they need an object against which to direct their ennui and anomie... these things resulting from a variety of factors; personal failures, regrets, experiencing rapid social changes which are unfamiliar and therefore uncomfortable, and in general, dissatisfaction with their circumstances... which they blame on the changes that are happening around them, changes they cannot adapt to.

    every age, despite its proximity to what a sentimental and romantic modern might consider 'ideal' or 'utopian', does not experience itself as such, which is to say, in their present, they are experiencing any number of similar disappointments as any other age. and, like the moderns in the future who will look back upon them and emulate the image they have of that age and society, they too will look back upon a previous age with the same fascination and enchantment.

    we look back at the greeks or the romans through the lens of our poets, philosophers, history books and cinema, and see a magnificent and glorious age in which everything seems perfect. but it wasn't. far from it. because there is no 'perfect'; that is a figment of the fantasy in the mind of someone who idolizes, and therefore seeks to make sacred, an idea which will always be incommensurable with reality.

    because there simply is no 'ideal society', the outrage any current age feels toward the present changes it is undergoing, can only be explained as i have above; it is a projection of the individual's ignorance pertaining to nature, the ennui and anomie that follows, and the ressentiment they feel toward that which is foreign, unfamiliar, and new. in adulthood, for most, adapting becomes more and more difficult... not just physically, but mentally and emotionally... as they are accustomed to living and thinking a certain way, habitually.

    the very customs, institutions and traditions we have in place now, which we feel are being threatened and want to protect, were at one time considered a threat to some prior custom, institution and tradition, which was at that time being ruthlessly defended by the same type that, today, ruthlessly defends its own in our present age.

    this process has occurred through millennia, and will always occur as long as human beings organize socially.

    in addition to the lack of insight required to understand nature and how it works, there is more which lends to the overall incredulity of such protest; since it can't be because there is some attainable ideal (there is not), there must be something other than reason that is leading them. this something is purely psychological. it involves a series of 'coping mechanisms' which allow them to release nervous energy and anxiety, as if through a kind of catharsis, so that periods of temporary stasis can be reached... feelings of satisfaction, contentedness. it is a form of sublimated complaining and serves the same purpose; to notify others around them that they are under stress and/or duress, hoping that someone will recognize their suffering and have sympathy for them. it also serves as a bonding agent, bringing people with similar psychological problems together... this alleviates the isolation they feel in the society that is so rapidly changing around them. they form a kind of self admiration society within the bigger society they cannot adapt to, and live out their fantasies; i'm from a more noble age, it's in my blood, it was my forefathers, etc., etc.

    and yet if you put them into their ideal societies, what would they undoubtedly do? find another set of things to complain about... because in any society, there are plenty of things to complain about, and they would surely find them.

    now none of this is any attempt to support or endorse what changes are occurring in our world. i'm simply indifferent to it all and couldn't care less about it. i know of other things that are infinitely more important in life than worrying about the nonsense of the dangers of marxism, feminism, homos and transgenders, liberalism, negro and arab immigrants invading white person country, and whatever else gives these people material to complain about because they have no real immediate problems, conflicts, dangers to contend with.

    if you feel that you might be this kind of person, my advice to you is: pray to the gods that they bestow upon you a thousand curses, and then that silly shit will matter nothing to you anymore.


    Posts : 303
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 on Thu Sep 13, 2018 8:09 pm

    time exists without being experienced (since there is always more than one thing moving in a space), but time does not pass without being experienced.

    if at any time or place you exist, you are aware that you exist, your experiences will be qualitatively identical to any kind of existence you could possibly have; there you are, where you are, experiencing.

    (for this reason, plato's and ecmandu's thesis of 'ideals' is nullified)

    if death is the end of experience, it is also the end of the passing of time. if time is no longer passing, then the time you existed before you died, was forever.

    in both a finite and infinite universe, this 'forever' is the only kind of time possible for an existing thing that is aware it exists. in the former, the finite universe either ends, or ends and repeats (with or without different events). if it ends, you lived forever (for the reason stated above). if it doesn't end, and repeats itself as an identical case, you live forever (ER). if it doesn't end, and doesn't repeat itself as an identical case, you either live forever (in that you only appeared once during a prior series of events, but time stopped passing when you died), or... and this is tricky to wrap your brain around... any new series of events that produces a being that exists and is aware it exists, is qualitatively identical to you; it is a you, but not you you. if it is a you, it is no different than you insofar as it embodies an awareness of an existence. therefore, YOU, not you, exists again.

    the fact is, not being aware that you don't exist amounts to the same thing as existing eternally knowing you exist each time (which does not pass without you if you stop existing) you exist. you are in an eternal NOW.

    okay fine, so what are you, then? simple. you are what you is.... and that's all it tis.


    Posts : 303
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 on Sat Sep 15, 2018 2:08 pm

    this right-wing narrative i'm seeing everywhere about 'the attack on western man' gives me a good chuckle because they've got it all wrong. having a penchant for irony, i note immediately how they are unaware of the fact that it was the beginnings of the free market and capitalism, which are right-wing conservatism concepts, that set the stage for the evolution of what they are calling the 'beta male'. it's incidental that liberalism is adding momentum to this evolution with its emphasis and demand for 'social sensitivities', because the very things we are being instructed to be more sensitive about are the creations of the western world.

    the two strongest forces involved in the 'feminizing' of men are modern technologies making life easier and labor less intensive, and consumerism.

    the hermeneutic process is like this: the boundaries dividing gender behavior and roles becomes less rigid as both genders become capable of producing and performing the same > the gradual loss of the familiarity of identity for both genders > attempt to recover archetypical identity through consumer lifestyle activity > inauthentic replication of archetype through virtual memes, symbols and signs (consumer trends) > new fabricated 'copy' of 'maleness' is incorporated into discourse > following generation becomes conditioned to associate male identity with new archetype.

    let's use an anecdote to give a example. a millennial male lifts weights, plays football, listens to heavy metal or hiphop, considers himself a 'playa', and is getting ready to start his own business selling some crap on the internet. he's quite convinced he's a 'man' in every sense of the word. atheletic, strong masculine musical tastes, gets laid all the time, and is about to get paid by devoting two hours a day to his computer.

    this clown is a product of the western world in every way, a product of a fantastical virtual world of surfaces and appearances, where everything is a simulation; he's does no hard work... but becomes strong by simulating it, lifting weights. he's not a soldier or warrior involved in real, violent competition... but pretends he is by simulating it, playing organized sports. he's not a ruthless savage, mighty conqueror, fallen hero, suffering victim or fearless gangsta... but becomes one by simulating it, listening to his metal and hiphop. he's not a real adonis, don juan or cassanova... but becomes one by simulating it, dating as many girls as he can in as little time as possible. he's not a real artisan, or craftsman, or tradesman, who dedicates his unique skill and capacities specializing in some form of production that generates wealth... but becomes one by simulating it, buying wholesale disposable mops in a pyramid scheme online, then selling them retail.

    then what does he do? oh you're gonna love this. he goes online and joins a forum where they all sit around in a circle jerk and bash beta males and liberalism. and he does this on his black, masculine alienware computer that sits on the desk in front of the window through which he can see his jacked up dodge 4by4 with the 5.7 liter hemi... that's parked beside his motorcycle... the one that was as close as he could get to the batman motorcycle he saw in that movie he took kristy too before he dumped her (she'd argue she dumped him first).

    he's an alpha male alright. i mean that's his gamer name when he plays the violent, ultra-masculine first-person shooter game on x-box live with his buddies. alpha dawg, they call him.

    see when feudalism collapsed, both male archetypes went down with it. there were no more noble kings who fought their way to the throne and deserved their title, nor were there anymore hard working peasants with the pride, strength and endurance of tempered steel. a new 'man' emerged... one who through his cunning and shrewdness learned how to get everything a king had without having to work for it. and pride? only outwardly. inside he knew he was a farce, and when he gazed at the soldier or the hardened worker, he felt a surge of self contempt and secretly questioned his manhood.

    this was the beginning of the new breed of man, a fundamental shift in the archetype.

    in the simplest words, the modern world has no grit... and grit makes a man. struggle makes the man, whether it be his struggle for aristocratic privilege that's well earned by taking it with real force and risking one's self (napoleon, alexander the great, ceasar, hitler, mao, lenin, etc.), or his endless struggle against those aristocratic classes that subordinate him.

    in any event, i find it deliciously ironic that an ideology which set the stage for the degradation of the old atavism 'man', and paved the way for the new breed of bourgeois parasite, would dare point a finger at liberalism and blame it for making everyone soft. does anyone else see how sinister the zeit of this geist really is?

    this same guy (let's call him nancy) who spends hours on youtube griping and complaining about cucks and beta males, spends more time in the mirror trying to get his beardline perfectly straight than most women spend fucking with their hair.

    and why is everyone turning gay, the right asks? because first, you fuck up the old order of things by technologically simplifying modern living, create a schism between gender roles and identities, confuse the fuck out of everybody, strip away their sense of identity, and then sell it back to them via the conspicuous consumption of the various consumer trends that define identities. so now, joe no longer feels like a man because amy is one bad bitch in the workplace, so he feels a little intimidated... and while he sits at home lifting dumbells in a desperate attempt to get some muscle on him, that fucking commercial comes on again... the one that shows those guys in tight jeans at the club dancing under the strobe light to maroon 5. this goes on day after day until finally he breaks, finds some video advocating homosexuality, and starts hitting the gay bars after work (his job at applebees waiting tables).

    ALL THIS is the work of the right, not the left. the industrial revolution started all of this, and now the fuckers got the nerve to blame the left for encouraging it. all the left is doing is trying to mediate THE PROBLEMS THE RIGHT HAS CAUSED, and since communism is historically out of the question (fukuyama), you can't dress all the men in identical blue jumpsuits and put them to work turning wrenches in a factory somewhere (after which they would enjoy a cold beer and take pride in being hard working men), anymore. so what can the left do? wage war against the private bourgeois sector and spread a little propaganda to get the working classes on their side. the fact is, everybody IS going to become gay, and transgender, and multicultural, and more sensitive to women's privilege, etc. you can't stop it, but you CAN try to control it.

    so while the right-wingers are in the background yapping about the decline of western civilization (something they started), and the left-wingers are trying to corral the consumerist herd to make it manageable, and replace the old bourgeois with a new ruling government class, we anarchists can only laugh at this circus both parties call 'society'.

    the only thing the right should say to the left is this: thank you, thank you, thank you for taking control of the mess we've made. oh, and some advice for you... tried and true... we've been doing it for centuries and it's always worked to keep us ruling classes in power; keep them believing in god, and you can more easily exploit them.

    you folks will never be able to see the 'state', any 'state', for what it is until you renounce politics for the joke that it is. there is no 'man', no 'nation', no 'society.' these are abstractions, and there is no formulae, no axiomatic structure, for an abstraction.

    the only attention the 'political state' should get is in the attention paid to observing and examining its inherent contradictions in both theory and practice.


    this was decent though, but the kid's made a few mistakes. well i mean he doesn't understand the causes of the problems he's addressing. one example: he mentions the loss of the father figure as a factor that contributes to this notion of 'weakening the male'. what he doesn't understand is that even the fathers are already feminized to some extent, so that element makes little difference.


    Posts : 303
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 on Sat Sep 15, 2018 3:48 pm

    scene: anarchist walks into a factory to interview the owner

    anarchist(a): wow! all this is yours, huh? very impressive.

    owner(o): thank you, i've worked hard to get it.

    a: lemme ask you some questions.

    o: sure.

    a: what do you pay that worker over there?

    o: i pay him ten dollars an hour.

    a: how much product does he produce in eight hours?

    o: usually one hundred and eighty dollars worth.

    a: so you usually make one hundred dollars every eight hours?

    o: well about fifty, after you subtract my overhead; cost of materials and power to run the factory, etc.

    a: and who do you suppose produces those materials and power to run your factory?

    o: i buy these things from other companies.

    a: i know that. i'm asking you who do you think produces these things?

    o: the company produces them, obviously.

    a: by 'company', do you mean 'owner' or 'workers'?

    o: the workers

    a: that's correct. so let's look at this exchange. one owner of a company pays workers to produce a product that the owner then sells to you so you can power your company and pay workers to produce a product that you then sell on the market.

    o: sounds right

    a: okay. hold that thought for a moment. let's clarify what we have so far. one owner makes a profit after he sells products his workers make to you, then you make a profit after you pay the workers to use the products sold to you to produce what you sell, in turn. in all this activity, what do you and the owner of the company you buy from, actually do?

    o: what do you mean 'actually do'? i run the company, obviously.

    a: define 'run', please.

    o: i invest the money required to keep the company in business.

    a: where do you get that money?

    o: from my profits.

    a: and those profits are generated from appropriating the labor force of your workers?

    o: wuh?

    a: oh sorry, perhaps that's too technical of a term. i learned it from a guy named karl marx, who, unlike you, actually knows what's going on here. anyway, let me rephrase. better yet, let me answer the question for you. you don't 'run' anything, if by 'run' you mean 'invest', because that's not work, that's only an allocation of resources. oops, another big word. sorry. what i'm saying is, in the actual, real chain of production, you do nothing. your workers produce everything, including your profits. the difference between you and your worker is this; if you were removed from this equation, nothing would change... while if the workers were removed, everything would change. for all intents and purposes, you are synonymous to a parasite. do you know what a parasite is?

    o: something that does not have a symbiotic relationship to its host?

    a: hey... check out the big brain on the bourgeois! very good. so how do you feel about that... being a parasite?

    o: i might be a parasite, but i'm filthy rich.

    a: that's the spirit! what a noble fellow you are, sir. tell me, do you appreciate the free market, and do you stand by its principles?

    o: absolutely.

    a: so in principle, you encourage everyone to create their own business?

    o: of course, that's the privilege of our system.

    a: so if that were to become a reality, who would be your workers?

    o: [scratches head]

    a: wait a minute... you endorse a system that, if it worked for everyone in it, would prevent you from utilizing the benefits of the system? that's a glaring contradiction.

    o: what do you mean?

    a: it means that in order for you to prosper, it must not be realized in practice, which means, anyone who endorses it, doesn't endorse it, and is therefore lying. the fact is, you need capitalism to NOT WORK for everyone, in order for you to use it.

    o: [scratches head again]

    a: man you're in really bad shape... you know that right? a parasite AND a liar.

    o: i don't appreciate this! what are you, some kind of communist?

    a: no way, bro... i'm an anarchist who at the moment is also a wage worker. call it charity work: i let capitalists profit freely from my labor instead of shooting them. that's against the 'law'. so i've made many men extremely wealthy in my life, which is more than you'll ever do. do i care? i mean, do i think this is some kind of noble deed or act of good will? nah, that's semantics. i just like the irony; here i am talking to someone worth more than i'll ever be in dollars, but not worth a fraction of my value to the system that has incidentally made him rich.


    Posts : 303
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 on Sat Sep 15, 2018 4:16 pm

    soundtrack to post #156


    Posts : 303
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 on Sat Sep 15, 2018 6:23 pm

    a problem with our sociopaths; they depreciate the value and highest ranking of rational sociopathology by being mistaken as a true representation of misanthropy and the logic that leads to it. because of these dysfunctional douchbags - the 'clinical' sociopath - the institution is led to believe that the condition is a result of lacking proper reasoning skills and an inability to 'socialize', experience empathy, so on and so forth. this kind of typical sociopath becomes what he is because he lacks the emotional and intellectual faculties not only to be 'normal', but also to be abnormal... as a choice... by a deliberate effort, after coming to the philosophical conclusion that, given the nature of everything around him, it is the most rational thing to be. rational sociopathology. that means, being able to see all the way through.

    rational paranoids get a bad rap too, for the same reasons. most paranoids have little to be paranoid about. aliens, government mind control, new world orders, etc., etc. rational paranoids, on the other hand, have a long history of being persecuted, conspired against, betrayed, stigmatized, incriminated, and hated in general. if he is also directly involved with illegal or seditious activity, or is planning to be, he has all the more reason to be paranoid. in his eyes, everybody hates him, and everybody knows he knows they hate him. now there is an unspoken war between them. the paranoid is expecting to be conspired against, and trusts nobody now more than ever before, because he knows they know he knows they hate him.

    the dangerous paranoid is the paranoid who is wrongfully accused. the more dangerous paranoid is the paranoid wrongfully accused of the most reprehensible crimes known by those who wrongfully accuse and conspire against him. but the most dangerous paranoid is, in addition to the above circumstances, the paranoid who does not break, who knows he is right and is empowered with superhuman resolve to fight back.

    and if he be someone who is already naturally predisposed to flourish in such hostile environments, who is already a sociopath (only restraining and prohibiting this part of him if his civil contract with society is not violated)... well then, this little society of liars and conspirators has a very serious problem to contend with.

    rational sociopath and paranoid. that means, being able to see all the way through, alone (both beast and god with 'no way back'), expecting to be hated, locked and loaded, and grinning from ear to ear.


    Posts : 303
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 on Mon Sep 17, 2018 8:36 am

    regular text from wikipedia. my italics. i'll show briefly how this process can also account for and describe the history of philosophy.

    Simulacra and Simulation delineates the sign-order into four stages:

    The first stage is a faithful image/copy, where we believe, and it may even be correct, that a sign is a "reflection of a profound reality", this is a good appearance, in what Baudrillard called "the sacramental order".

    this characterizes the pre-enlightenment period (pre-baconian). distinctions between empirical and rational, a priori and a posteriori, inductive and deductive, analytic and synthetic, are not yet discovered. philosophy and mysticism are indistinguishable, aristotlean logic is thought to support and defend both western and eastern schools of thought. concepts are thought to be perfect representations of reality, mirroring it, and insofar as philosophical propositions retain logical coherency, philosophers believe their systems to be sensible. it is not yet known that these systems are 'imposing' concepts onto reality, not vice-versa, and therefore language is believed to give supra-sensible access to the nature of reality, to fixed ideas, which are there to be discovered by those with special knowledge.

    The second stage is perversion of reality, this is where we come to believe the sign to be an unfaithful copy, which "masks and denatures" reality as an "evil appearance—it is of the order of maleficence". Here, signs and images do not faithfully reveal reality to us, but can hint at the existence of an obscure reality which the sign itself is incapable of encapsulating.

    this characterizes the entrance into the 'age of reason', enlightenment, and science. distinctions are being developed between the categories described above, and philosophy becomes increasingly difficult in comparison to the former stage. the 'sign', which is here the philosophy-dogma that comes under the scrutiny of the new philosophical age, is now seen as so many systematic falsifications of truth. renewed skepticism, strengthening natural sciences, scientific method. a new problem evolves; philosophy loses credibility in describing nature, science takes over as a means of description, but cannot explain. a crisis; there must be a reality (obscure) that we are still unable to get at by either means.

    The third stage masks the absence of a profound reality, where the sign pretends to be a faithful copy, but it is a copy with no original. Signs and images claim to represent something real, but no representation is taking place and arbitrary images are merely suggested as things which they have no relationship to. Baudrillard calls this the "order of sorcery", a regime of semantic algebra where all human meaning is conjured artificially to appear as a reference to the (increasingly) hermetic truth.

    enter age of post-structuralism. industrial revolution and commodification of 'ideology'. second to last stage in philosophical timeline; stage one (philosophy-dogma) falls to the criticism of stage two (natural sciences)... stage two falls to the criticism of stage three (post-structuralism)... post-structuralism re-presents itself in commodified form as another 'system' of thought... the system of 'no system'; an arbitrary image presented as a faithful copy of the progress made during the last two stages- philosophy as incredulous description, science as credible description without explanation. post-structuralism's thesis; the explanation that there can be no explanation, or, several explanations that cannot be consolidated into one grand explanation. post-hoc digression back into pre-scientific stage; the obscure reality of nature which is inaccessible by both philosophy and science is now mirrored by artificially imposed concepts, this time taking the form of commodified symbols and monolithic copies of relic systems ('neo' philosophies). final movement of the third stage; positivism, ordinary language philosophy, deconstructionism. philosophical problems are thought to be 'conceptual confusions' that mirror the misuse of language rather than legitimate theoretical problems in understanding nature.  

    The fourth stage is pure simulacrum, in which the simulacrum has no relationship to any reality whatsoever. Here, signs merely reflect other signs and any claim to reality on the part of images or signs is only of the order of other such claims. This is a regime of total equivalency, where cultural products need no longer even pretend to be real in a naïve sense, because the experiences of consumers' lives are so predominantly artificial that even claims to reality are expected to be phrased in artificial, "hyperreal" terms. Any naïve pretension to reality as such is perceived as bereft of critical self-awareness, and thus as oversentimental.

    last development in intellectualism. neo-philosophies no longer need to pretend to be real because philosophers are so predominantly artificial they can no longer discern the difference between the copy they seek to reproduce and the original, empty form that copy will be a replication of. what is now real is the unreal... or the hyperreal; philosophy not as a disinterested examination of truth, but a reflection of the overwhelming linguistic and conceptual confusions of the individual thinker. modern philosophical activity becomes an unconscious attempt to model and copy the philosophical form while under the sublimating influence of a barrage of scattered ideas and nonsensical concepts, a residue left over, or rather created, by an almost infinite number of language game intersections that cannot be closed down or blocked by the real, because there is no real. the mapping now becomes the territory; philosophy as a hyperreal mirroring of itself as it maps itself mapping a territory that doesn't exist.  

    Simulacra and Simulation identifies three types of simulacra and identifies each with a historical period:

    First order, associated with the premodern period, where representation is clearly an artificial placemarker for the real item. The uniqueness of objects and situations marks them as irreproducibly real and signification obviously gropes towards this reality.

    imaginary conceptual problems philosophers grappled with nonetheless had an intense presence... which is to say, the state of perplexity was very real, even though the objects of this perplexity were not. if the state of confusion is real, it must necessarily represent a real problem, an this problem 'gropes' toward reality in the mind of the philosopher. couple this with my description of stage one above.

    Second order, associated with the modernity of the Industrial Revolution, where distinctions between representation and reality break down due to the proliferation of mass-reproducible copies of items, turning them into commodities. The commodity's ability to imitate reality threatens to replace the authority of the original version, because the copy is just as "real" as its prototype.

    the dinstinctions between the scientific method and the philosophical method have dissolved (neither can both describe and explain). a third discipline emerges and is commodified, mass produced, 'imitation philosophy', a copy of a blend of both disciplines without specializing in either or recognizing where they are diametrically opposed.

    Third order, associated with the postmodernity of Late Capitalism, where the simulacrum precedes the original and the distinction between reality and representation vanishes. There is only the simulation, and originality becomes a totally meaningless concept.

    this order characterizes what has happened after centuries of philosophical systems being 'handled' and 'passed around'; none, which were obscure to begin with, retain any of their core confusions, so cannot be even apprehended as nonsense anymore (as was once possible in the second stage, the enlightenment, when science had not yet been stripped of its authority). now philosophers exist on a kind of plane of immanent confusion, which, paradoxically, presents everything as perfectly clear to the thinker precisely because there are no markers left to identify the real nature of it as nonsense.

    final note: philosophy post-positivism is essentially metaphilosophy, which means it is not motivated by an earnest quest for truth, anymore. instead its activity involves the internal conflict the thinker experiences as the neurological 'hardwiring' for logic that his brain consists of, grapples with the inexplicably complex nature of language... a condition that has rapidly evolved over the last few thousand years. as a result, the metaprocess of philosophy is to reach a catharsis that consists of experiencing brief 'certainty' when the thinker's faculties are able to streamline these conflicting neurological processes in his head so that they no longer conflict. for each thinker this state of 'certainty' is different; some can reach it even though the product of their thought is nonsense.

    why philosophy still lives (as a ghost) is because, as explained before, there are no markers, no territories, for contrasting the map against the object the thinker believes he is mapping. one can no longer point and say 'that is the wrong direction, the wrong way.'

    instead, the thinker is mapping his mapping... and the consistency, coherency, of this mapping requires only that to the capacity of the thinker, he experiences no conflict between his rational faculties and his peculiar use of language.


    Posts : 303
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 on Mon Sep 17, 2018 8:58 pm


    Posts : 303
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 on Tue Sep 18, 2018 2:45 pm

    Thoughts on anorexia, bulimia and related eating disorders.


    Posts : 303
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 on Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:34 am

    Episode 46 in the Uploading Audios to a Vacant Forum series.


    Posts : 303
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 on Fri Sep 21, 2018 7:27 am

    Nietzsche, Peterson. Peterson tries to avoid the logical conclusion of nihilism, which is egoism... active nihilism, not to be equated with passive nihilism. Peterson cannot recognize the difference.


    Posts : 303
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 on Fri Sep 21, 2018 7:42 am

    Oops, forgot this point....


    Posts : 303
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 on Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:15 pm

    Russell made similar disparaging comments about Wittgenstein's later work;

    I have not found in Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations anything that seemed to me interesting and I do not understand why a whole school finds important wisdom in its pages. Psychologically this is surprising. The earlier Wittgenstein, whom I knew intimately, was a man addicted to passionately intense thinking, profoundly aware of difficult problems of which I, like him, felt the importance, and possessed (or at least so I thought) of true philosophical genius. The later Wittgenstein, on the contrary, seems to have grown tired of serious thinking and to have invented a doctrine which would make such an activity unnecessary. I do not for one moment believe that the doctrine which has these lazy consequences is true. I realize, however, that I have an overpoweringly strong bias against it, for, if it is true, philosophy is, at best, a slight help to lexicographers, and at worst, an idle tea-table amusement.

    that's because he passed you, berty. he realized that philosophy can't do what you'd like it to be able to do, and the fact that for you, philosophy has become a profession, makes you even less able to understand this. to admit that W was right, if you ever managed to understand how, would be like laying yourself off... and you wouldn't dare do that.

    now W isn't saying to hell with philosophy, and you know this. he's rather saying that your dream of a logically perfect language simply can't be realized, and that what appear as the more important philosophical questions (ethical, political, metaphysical) only appear to be real questions because a confusion has resulted by a strange use of words. it is this confusion that creates the feeling that there is a 'problem', when there is not. there are no genuine philosophically 'conceptual' problems, only linguistic problems. philosophers that debate philosophical questions/answers aren't in any real disagreement with each other on that account; they are instead involved in a closed off, internal dialogue with their own thinking, in which they take the interlocutor's words, redefine them to fit into their own conceptual scheme, and then present an argument to that modified line of thinking. they simply take possession of the formerly confused and nonsensical philosophical statement, add their own unique confusion to it, and then provide a nonsensical response to the nonsensical content they've apprehended. the interlocutor then does the same, and process repeats.

    see the 'feeling' of certainty, the feeling that a thought 'makes sense', doesn't necessarily require that it be a statement that reflects or represents real states and events in the world. it can be induced by cognitive states, and these states are produced when a persons thinking processes do not conflict with themselves... which is to say, conceptualizations that have become partnered with certain words, and which do not produce any interference with the cohesion of these conceptualizations when grouped together, result in a feeling of correctness.

    what prevents a philosopher from recognizing nonsense is this; he has already appropriated the statement by the time he comprehends it, and as such, fits it into his own cognitive structuring of sense. in this way, to say it again, he isn't recognizing what the other had meant, but rather what he means once he's taken possession of the statement. the 'meaning' i'm talking about when i just used the word 'meant', is that state of certainty... which is nothing more than what happens when there is nothing external to the thinker which can make certain the statement is indeed reflecting or representing anything about the world. 'certainty' is not the feeling of 'knowing' anything, but rather a peculiar state where one cannot know one is wrong, either.

    think of 'words' as being geometrical figures rather than containers of conceptual content... but first, think of conceptual content as being forms of 'qualia'... not as sensations, but as (phenomenologically speaking) a recursive awareness of awareness of thinking. the inaudible sounds in your head. this stuff has no content in the way words have content and physical features. the 'meaning' of the word then does not exist in some cartesian space in your head which you can access at will. it exists in the physical consonant or dissonant feeling of certainty and 'clarity' produced when the neurological activity responsible for producing your thinking involves no 'errors' in its internal coding and decoding of meaningful content. for example, think of chomsky's formative grammar theory. rules of language encoded in the physiological structure of the brain so that basic elements of speech are intuitively recognized. now take a philosophical word like 'mind' and fit it into the category of things, of nouns. now even though a noun doesn't have to be a physical person, place or thing, and can be a word that identifies one of these things... the word 'mind' can't do the same, so a confusion results when talking about 'mind' in an unusual philosophical way. see ryle's category mistake to understand this further.

    what i'm saying, and so many ordinary language philosophers before me as well, is that the bulk of philosophical language violates the rules of thinking, but also evades such rules by being so nonsensical as to be able to avoid detection; because it references nothing in the world, nothing in the world can therefore be used to 'check' it's coherency and truthfulness.

    "ah", you mutter, "i hadn't thought of it like that, promethean75. very wittgensteinean, dude."

    of course, W's straight gangsta, just like me.


    Posts : 303
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 on Thu Sep 27, 2018 1:48 pm

    oh and there's this. one asks "why then do we speak philosophically if we are evolved to adapt behaviors that are conducive to our survival". that's a decent question. let me explain. we are at a stage in our evolution in which we are afforded the luxury of nonsensical language use. being confused, in a philosophical sense and not in a scientific sense (in which error would result in direct and certain consequences, e.g., we miscalculated the trajectory of the approaching asteroid with our mathematical language and are now seriously fucked), does not put us into immediate danger. philosophy is a kind of vestigial limb of language, one that doesn't help us adapt, but doesn't hurt us either... unless you insist on standing in front of an approaching car because you read berkeley and are confident the car doesn't exist.

    so then a philosopher is someone who by virtue of his being out of immediate danger, is able to flounder comfortably and superfluously with an imaginary discourse in his head. and, because the human being is a creature who can sometimes thrive and feel invigorated in dangerous circumstances (this literally heightens and increases awareness), he'll actually, though unconsciously, invents fictitious problems and dangers in his head (if he's a philosopher), so that he can experience that invigorating feeling.

    but it's true, because the world is far more complex than ever before, language evolves in unison with the increase of complexity, so it would seem that something as linguistically complex as philosophy serves a purpose other than to simply allow the philosopher to feel like an action figure heroically engaged in identifying and solving the problems of the world. but it doesn't, i'm afraid. science and ordinary language does this job just fine.

    the problem is, these things provide no categorical imperatives for us; they simply describe what is, if anything, and give us no advice for what we should do. perhaps the history of philosophy is this great struggle against the awareness that we don't know what to do, and so occupies itself with inventing imaginary questions and problems against which we can engage ourselves.

    as a nihilist, i have to admire the innocent naivety of this. i'd rather see the philosopher as an artist and/or poet... one who is afforded the luxury and blessing of being able to be dumb without any recourse.

    seriously... think about the world today. it's so great one can be totally wrong and it doesn't even matter. it used to not be like that. back in the days, if you were wrong, it was your ass.


    Posts : 303
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 on Sat Sep 29, 2018 1:12 pm

    reasonvemotion wrote:
    Philosophy is....... Bullshit.

    Æon wrote:I suspected that you have a weak mind, unfit for Philosophy and nobility.

    Thank you for admitting it publicly.

    some people call philosophy bullshit because they aren't very good at it, don't understand it, lack experience with it. some people say philosophy is not bullshit because they aren't good enough at it. they both suffer the same but to different degrees.

    in the same way, the new age philosophy that evolved in the 60s was in response to the ends reached by analytical philosophy; the last and latest stage of the philosophical dialectic was the philosophy of language. here, the focus was on the language itself rather than the supposed 'conceptual' problems arrived at by philosophical uses of language. as a result of this 'shutting down' of traditional philosophy as little more than systematic confusion, new age philosophy burst forth as an anxious attempt at a revival, now more obscure than any philosophy before it.

    today's philosophers are one of two kinds. true philosophers, i mean. they are either of this analytical vein of thought, or they are a third form that has spawned from the second new age form that spawned in a nervous response to the end of traditional philosophy at the hands of the analytical movement of the 60s.

    the third form, which is somewhere between the analytical and new age form, is incapable of analytical philosophy while at the same time being too smart for the new age shit. this is the type i mean when i say "some people say philosophy is not bullshit because they aren't good enough at it."

    i call them the fat-free new age philosophers. fat-free in that they are clear of the most ridiculous suppositions of new age philosophy, but new age nonetheless because they are not free from the systematic confusion that characterizes most continental and traditional philosophy.

    so you have the first kind who calls philosophy bullshit because they can't do it... and the second kind who doesn't call philosophy bullshit because they still do it. neither kind can really help themselves. in a way, its like a disease; you can't know what it is until you get it... and then you can't know what it is because you've got it.


    Posts : 303
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 on Sat Sep 29, 2018 2:31 pm

    jakob wrote:But the sexual issue itself, sex as violence, this is something we need to address anew in this age.

    then let's do it. i would be lying if i said it was simple, but because i've no ambition to write a book, i'll simplify it as much as is possible.

    what you have is a species who's social arrangements, contracts and restrictions are prematurely ahead of their biological evolution... which is to say, they have not lost the sexual drives and desires at the same rate as they have imposed these restrictions on themselves. the inevitable tension and anxiety created by this is then, to make matters worse, expected to be forced into artificial forms of creative expression. libidinal energies are sublimated into modes of expression that do not truly discharge the person of such anxiety, but instead increase it, because the modes of expression are designed (in the capitalist-consumerist discourse) as means to achieving sex, rather than the independent development of some other drives and desires that do not have as their end the attainment of sex.

    so basically you have a society that first forbids sexual freedom, creates discontent as a result, then sells relief from the oppressed libido back to the consumer in the form of sublimated artifices for attaining the sexual freedom that society formerly prohibited.

    one might ask this society: if sex is so forbidden, why is everything in the media so hyper-sexualized? ah, so you can exaggerate my desire to have what you've forbidden, and then sell me sublimated relief by making me think that if i buy all your shit, i'll be able to get laid by the hypersexualized female image i've become conditioned to see all women as. i mean even the housewife on the tilex commercial who's scrubbing the fake mildew they put on bathtub to trick the consumer into believing tilex bathtub cleaner is nothing short of a miracle, is so fucking hot she's just radiating 'fuck me fuck me fuck me' from every inch of her body. i don't know about you, but i'm not paying any attention to the tilex. all i'm seeing is me bending her over that bathtub and putting my dukakis right in her butt.  

    brilliantly done, capitalist-consumerist discourse, but don't act surprised when sexual deviance and paraphilia increases to epidemic proportions in your society, dumbass. not all of them are going to make it, you know... sexual success, i mean. oh here's another brilliant idea for you; you can now also sell them a means to satisfy the fetishes and paraphilias you've developed in them (by imposing impossible restrictions) in the various perverse forms of pornography on the market.

    now add to this mess the reproductive freedom given to all citizens despite their relative genetic fitness, and you have a society full of horny beta males who become the perfect candidates for the evil capitalist plot to get rich selling promises of sexual success to those who fail to attain the hypersexualized ideal created by them in the media.

    i find this to be wonderfully entertaining to watch. one more reason why society is a implacable joke. it generates it's own problems and contradictions, and then makes a big fuss when the monsters it creates make a mess.

    life was so much easier when i was a satyr. why did i ever come back to society? i shoulda stayed in the forest.


    Posts : 303
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 on Sat Sep 29, 2018 4:10 pm

    somebody at KT wrote:Philosophy is....... Bullshit.  

    Definition - Nonsense or a person who communicates nonsense on a given subject may be referred to as a "bullshit artist".

    Is it fair to say then quite comfortably that philosophy is bullshit.

    Hume has proven rationally and mathematically that most of the questions asked by philosophers from the very beginning cannot be answered.  For example, what is the meaning of life? or where did we come from, or what is reality. These questions simply cannot be answered satisfactorily, which leaves us to accept that we prove damn all from reason alone.

    Answeres to these questions rely heavily not on self-evident truths, as they are fundamentally unprovable, but on personal opinion.

    So I conclude that philosophy is mostly talking out of your ass/arse.

    and just like that, david hume...

    somebody else at KT wrote:Weak minds long for solutions, answers and ends. When they don't get them, they resort to defiant narrow-minded conclusions to avenge their inability to understand what they cannot understand.

    Hence, it is the method of philosophy that is to blame, and not an irascible weak-minded naif lacking subtle cognitive abilities and mental dexterity, and hating herself for it.

    woah... but wait a minute, bro...


    Posts : 303
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 on Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:07 am

    somebody at ilp wrote:But Existence itself can never change (as in it can never change from being infinite/omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient) It would be paradoxical if it did.

    a wonderful example of a philosophical language game and an abuse of the principle of family resemblance. he talks of 'existence' as if it were a 'thing' rather than as a fact or state of a thing. things exists, but existence doesn't exist... except as a word to indicate the property of being that a fact or thing has. then he goes on to attribute to this erroneous concept of 'existence' all kinds of properties that can't possible exist for it.

    existence can't be infinite. spaces, numbers and object sets can be infinite. existence isn't a space or number or object set.

    existence can't be omnipresent, since existence cannot be a property of things that don't exist, and therefore existence isn't 'present everywhere and always'.

    existence can be omnipotent; this means it must be able to do all things that can be done. but first, he'd have to list all the possible things that can be done by a thing (which existence is not, anyway). in addition to not listing these things, he's failed to see that existence isn't a 'thing' to begin with, so it doesn't have the capacity to 'do' anything.

    omniscient. what? existence can know everything that can be known? 'existence' can't know anything, because it hasn't the attribute of 'knowing'.

    now ask yourself how much of this kind of nonsense you yourself are involved in when doing philosophy. if you aren't able to recognize what you are doing, show me something you've said and i'll show you, free of charge.


    Posts : 303
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 on Sun Sep 30, 2018 2:51 pm

    scene: interrogators question Pro Metheus after his arrest during a gun fight with law enforcement.

    "you said you made a mistake. would you like to explain?"

    "i didn't get to my gun fast enough. when they surrounded me, i was supposed to shoot myself so that i could exit your world, but i dropped the gun and was immediately restrained by the police. now i'll have to wait until i'm put to death by lethal injection. a mere trifle, but an inconvenience nonetheless. it's a mistake i won't make next time, i assure you."

    "what do you mean "exit your world"?"

    "dying in one of the worlds is not a cessation or annihilation of being, but rather a departure from that specific territory. every person who dies appears again in another territory somewhere else in the multiverse. each territory is to be used by the person who exists in it at the time... but people are at different levels of being... what we call the 'stages of eidetic synchronizing'... so whether or not they increase their power of being, or conatus, depends on them enforcing their will in their own particular 'test'. there are different levels of tests, different ranks, and this fact sets many people in opposition to each other. for some, the purpose in this particular territory is to assert one's will as a destructive force, while others of the lower ranks are to test their will at being complacent to the inherent logical contradictions that exist in this territory. the highest ranks, to which i belong, can only be destroyers in this territory; our eidetic synchronizing involves the recognition of the inferior ranking of other people existing in this territory and the assertion of our will to defy its rules, as they are a product of the inferior logic of the people. if we do not do this, we fail, and as a result do not experience a increase in conatus. we are not improved in next territory that we appear in after we die in this one, if we fail."

    "you do understand that this sounds like crazy talk, right? so crazy you might not be deemed fit for trial."

    "haha, of course, but that's really irrelevant. as i said, all i can do now is wait to die so i can exit this world and continue in the next one. you're not able to understand what i'm explaining because of your lower rank. you are... how should i put it... a 'young spirit' who has only just begun. as one of the lowest ranks, and therefore one who has attained only the lowest level of eidetic synchronizing, you not only produce the inferior logic which governs this particular territory, but are also yet unaware of it on account of your undeveloped conatus. for you, the test is to assert your will in defending this inferior territory against me, the destroyer, and if you fail, you do not improve your conatus in the next existence you will have after you die in this world. i understand that it would sound ridiculous if i told you that if these cuffs weren't on me, i'd murder you right now without hesitation. but you must realize that you wouldn't 'die' if i did this. you'd simply exit this world, and depending on how well you asserted your will in doing what you thought was 'right', you'd gain another level or rank in your next existence. it's just that my higher rank sets me in opposition to you in this world, making your 'purpose' for me, something that should be destroyed... or rather 'removed' from this territory. and my purpose, for you, is to be an opposition which you are to try to stop. hence your role in law enforcement... which is essentially your enforcement of the inferior logic of this world."

    "what do you mean by 'inferior logic"?"

    "that's a very difficult thing to explain, in fact, and i don't have the interests to do so at length. remember, your conatus, your 'knowing' is of no importance to me. it is something that evolves over millennia as you continue your ascent through the ranks. this is something i have nothing to do with. your only importance to me is as a part of my particular test here in this world. the only use i can make out of you is as an object that is to be destroyed. now, i can tell you this much in brief. roughly a hundred thousand years ago, your species evolved a frontal cortex which gave rise to consciousness. it is this consciousness that would continue to evolve, essentially 'splitting' the conatus into conflicting parts. what was originally an honest quest for power became a process involving various measures of deception; the human being developed a conscience which forced it to have to deceive in order to assimilate the social world it was in. here, the natural order of things, the pure 'evil', which is pure power, became weakened by the fear created by the conscience. the split occurred when the human being, who was once a purely evil animal (which means wholly 'good'), and therefore purely honest, lost its level of rank through the inhibition of its will; it began needing to lie to itself and others of its kind in order to exist in its group... later to become communities and societies in which such deception increased exponentially. in any case, the 'inferior logic' i speak of is a creation of this consciousness. it is a dishonesty that, because of its existing in the lower ranks that necessarily occupy this territory, is not to be thought of as an 'error'. there are no 'errors' in the multiverse. it is simply a lower stage of the development of the conatus, the will to power, and its relative inferiority to the logic of the higher ranks serves the purposes of those higher ranks that exist now in this particular world. eidetic synchronicity involves the 'getting back' to the state of pure evil, pure honesty, the reduction of the function of consciousness to serving the will to destroy such deception and those lower ranks who practice it. but as i said, eidetic synchronicity and its success is not the same for everyone. for the lower ranks, those who do not understand what i've explained, the development of their conatus is determined by how well they assert their will in defending the inferior logic, the lie, which they are unaware of telling and of living."

    "this is some of the most disturbing stuff i have ever heard."

    "i would imagine so, since this knowledge belongs only to the highest ranks, and is therefore incomprehensible to you. maybe i can set you at ease by promising that everything is 'okay' in the multiverse, that there is no real present danger. even failing to ascend the ranks only means that you will take longer doing so. but because the multiverse is eternal, you have forever to do it. if you don't do it, you'll never know that you failed, since failing to attain the highest rank also means you fail to know and understand that it exists. what you don't know cannot hurt you. you see, each and everyone one of us exists in an eternal non zero sum game, a game in which we are all pieces for others to use during their particular test in their particular world. and what is the greatest joy that can be afforded to us? well, let me see... it exists in that eureka moment when you ascend into the highest rank, know your are immortal, are no longer afraid of dying, and revel at the force of your own will power... especially when asserting your will puts your very life in danger. that's the highest privilege. we of the highest rank 'rush toward death' every time we exist in an inferior world, and get out as fast as we can. as you can see, we are very busy and have been for millennia.

    once in a time of immeasurable distance in the past, a singular primordial substance, what many of you like to call 'god', broke into infinite pieces and the multiverse was formed. in observing itself in so many pieces, it became many wills and many minds, lost itself, its sense of peace, and in being unable to reverse what it had done, knew it had to continue eternally expanding. the only thing it had to overcome was the fear of death that existed in each mind, unable to understand that everything was eternal, that everything must be, must expand, create, destroy, forever.

    the oldest spirits, those minds which have ascended through the ranks, call the creation event the great fracture. we have recognized a band from your particular world, king crimson, as having articulated as accurately as possible a dramatization in musical form of the story of the multiverse... what basically has 'happened'."

    "well i think that's quite enough for our purposes. we're going to take you back to your cell now. is there anything else you'd like to say?"

    "there is nothing more to say. everything is perfect."

    ten minutes after Pro Metheus is escorted back to his cell, he hangs himself with a bed sheet, exits this world, and begins again in another, stronger than before.


    Posts : 303
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 on Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:35 pm

    of these three new incidents i don't know which one i find more amusing.

    1. trump's flip-flopping concerning his opinions about the dr. ford situation. earlier he says he thinks highly of her character, then, sure enough, when he's at a republican party rally he makes a mockery of the situation. of course; in a news interview he pretends to be understanding, fair and civil... then when he's required to appease the republicans and conservatives at a rally, he cracks jokes about her. par for the course for this cornball.

    2. new investigation into possible fraud and tax schemes from earlier in his life. then he says "... a small loan from my father of a million dollars". small loan? lol... then the investigation finds out his father loaned him 60 some million. so not only is the transparent piece of shit a spoiled brat in thinking a million dollars is a small loan, the sonofabitch is also lying about it anyway.

    3. his wife's publicity stunt visitng africa and taking pictures of herself holding little nigglets in her arms. riiiight, you and your old man aren't really racist, obviously. no seriously, we know you're full of shit, but it's a clever idea in any case. bring to the awareness of the negroes in america that you and your wife actually pay any attention to and sympathize with black people. expand your voter base... turn some blacks into conservatives.

    yeah right, the only thing your wife cares about is being the hottest first lady ever to be in the white house. and the only thing you care about is making sure everyone notices her.

    lol imagine the trouble they experience admitting behind closed doors how racist they really are. i wonder if the two of them can speak openly about their racism... or if it's the kind of thing where one isn't totally sure the other really is racist, so doesn't want to admit their own racism for fear of the other's opinion about them being lowered. i mean each of them is so incredibly fake, i doubt they even experience any true companionship or intimacy. he's got to know she's only in it for the money... and she's got to know he's only in it for the hot wife status.


    Posts : 303
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 on Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:00 am

    Absolute precision. Prefect control. The lightest touch. Rudiments so fast and tight even the math struggles to keep up with him.


    Posts : 303
    Join date : 2018-09-05

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by promethean75 on Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:21 pm

    The tyranny of protesters protesting an act of tyranny...

    Sponsored content

    Re: Zoot's Philosophical Musings

    Post by Sponsored content

      Current date/time is Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:55 pm