Zoot's Philosophical Musings

wikipedia wrote:Bicameral mentality would be non-conscious in its inability to reason and articulate about mental contents through meta-reflection, reacting without explicitly realizing and without the meta-reflective ability to give an account of why one did so. The bicameral mind would thus lack metaconsciousness, autobiographical memory, and the capacity for executive "ego functions" such as deliberate mind-wandering and conscious introspection of mental content.

i remember ol' jules and the caramel mind theory. it's been a while, but i remember my criticism of it... something id'a got a nobel prize for if i ever published it.

his theory is very well streamlined until you get to the part about 'unquestioningly obeying' the commands made in the auditory hallucinations. he explains volition at this point as simply an autonomous reaction occurring without any 'reflection' of thought. ah, but wait a minute. in order for the person to be motivated to obey rather than disobey, there must have already developed a cursory condition of moral awareness in the person... which means, he is aware enough in an autobiographical sense (and with memory) to know in advance of negative consequences for not obeying... or else he wouldn't be so adamant about obeying. see, he's already adapted a learned behavior through some degree of social discourse which necessarily involves reflective reasoning and is therefore ripe with cognitive content. at this level he might be unable to question the basis of 'right' and 'wrong' behavior, but he is certainly able to remember negative consequences he's experienced in similar contexts when he did not concur with a demand/command made in a social discourse somewhere. of course, this primitive, reflexive reasoning is not as complex as higher, analytical frontal cortex stuff, but it possesses cognitive content just the same. the person has developed a learned behavior, is aware of it, and can remember similar instances in the past. the person would most certainly be able to 'give an account' of why they acted as they did. the variability of the language they use to 'think' about this account is irrelevant here; this person is applying very basic reasoning skills when he modifies his behavior to accommodate any command he might have heard... auditory hallucination or not.

thank you. i will now take your questions.

*audience applauds... camera flash bulbs explode... hot female student neuroscience majors rush the podium for an autograph and perhaps a phone number*

greatest i am wrote:I would add the fact that Muslim men have become baby sitters of their own women by telling them how to dress and veil themselves, even to the point in Saudi Arabia where the men have become unpaid chauffeurs to women.

this dude didn't get the memo? when your women are this gorgeous you gotta wrap em up when you take em out, or some other nigga is gonna try to bust a move on em. other subraces/cultures don't understand this because their women aren't nearly as hot.

like pearls, one does not cast arabic women before heathen swine...

journal entry- year 2135
location: korellion star system nebula, 127,097 miles from event horizon

the crew's enthusiasm is noticeably different now that we've actually began orbiting the black hole. they're quieter now. a serious mood has descended on everyone as they've taken their stations and begun preparing for tomorrow. it seems so surreal... nothing like the simulations back at the academy. i wonder if we're really ready for this. as i write these words i watch the swirling mass through my port window. it's unlike anything i have ever seen and looks nothing like we imagined. it's not invisible like the physicists thought... but not clearly visible either. the blackness of space seems to bend around it and become even darker toward it's center, dilating like the terrible eye of some incomprehensible monster. in twenty four hours we will begin our entry (go to 3:23 ).

in seven days you will receive this transmission, michelle. although we had our disagreements about the mission, i want you to know that i love you dearly and not a day has passed in the last three years that i haven't thought about you. i ask again that you please understand the importance of this mission to both science and mankind, and know that if i don't come back, the sacrifice you've made will be appreciated by the entire world for generations to come. tell the boys i love them, and remember me, michelle. i love you.

end transmission

The miserable wretch realizes that she was not charged for the carton of cigarettes. She then justifies her refusal to do the 'right' thing and go back to the store and pay for the carton, in this way; so many times have they forgot to bag my groceries or not refunded me for faulty mechandise. It is therefore okay for me to steal from the store.

She then tries to compare her situation to mine; when I was stealing/selling stolen property while on the run and with warrants out for my arrest.

What has happened: she resents the fact that I've caught her, the self proclaimed 'good' person, in a violation of principle, and tries to make me feel guilty in turn, implying that I have no right to criticize her for what she's done.

Ah but my purpose is not to suggest there is any 'right' or 'wrong', but rather show how people who claim they are 'good', law abiding citizens, not only have no capacity to understand the foundation of the laws and rules they agree to follow, but seize any opportunity to justify an immoral act if they feel wronged... despite whether or not such an act is in compliance with the rules.

If the grocery store is obligated to return payment for a faulty product, but doesn't, the customer has the responsibility and right to contest the matter, BUT DOES NOT have the right to reason: "because contesting the matter is too much of a hassle for me, I've decided it is okay to not tell them they've accidentally forgotten to charge me for a carton of cigarettes."

I love these little nooks and crannies of human nature. How easily it can demonstrated that so many are full of shit. Little kiniving liars and cheaters ready to jump at any opportunity to break the very rules they pretend to follow... while not hesitating to criticize anybody else that does the same.

https://vocaroo.com/i/s0P91xEmBvZp
https://vocaroo.com/i/s0uEwNSWOUel

these so called individual reappropriationists with their propagande par le fait; how much more two-faced are they than their professed enemy, the bourgeois! at least the bourgeois are genuinely ignorant of the importunity with which they advance their own thesis. realized universally and applicable to everyone, bourgeois privilege would not be possible... for who would be left to do all the work? is it not obvious then that the bourgeois must beg of the exploited that they never become bourgeois? it is at least implied, and must be; this economic theory is not designed to work for everyone, and could not work if it was. be weary of any bourgeois moralist who believes absolutely in his own doctrine, for he is lying at best, and honest at worst.

but the anarchists... we'd expect better of them. they declare their indignation for failing to be as clever as the bourgeois parasite and finding themselves a host to exploit, then revolt in a violent rage to overthrow the existing order and replace it with yet another 'spontaneous organization', as they call it. has there ever been an honest illegalist among the anarchists? they rally under the banner of max stirner as if they truly understand the ontology of egoism, but would not hesitate to cease their criminal activity if they were to suddenly become wealthy. these fair-weather illegalists who are no more capable of holding to principle than the bourgeois who have caused their miserable lives. imposters one and all, with no more integrity than those against whom they revolt.

for apio ludd, that fine breath of fresh, anarchist air, i coin the term 'compulsory alegalist'; the principled anarchist who becomes what he is through attrition, who does not wage war with the state like some rabid dog under the pretext of 'social justice' or 'redistribution of wealth', for these are merely more 'fixed ideas' (stirner), that, if ever realized, would only be a temporary respite from conflict before the new institutions put in place produced their own conflicts in turn. the compulsory alegalist recognizes and acknowledges immediately that all morality is a farce, that all legal institutions are incompetent and corrupt, that exploitation is an economic necessity and as a result, equality is impossible, that all people are either voluntary or involuntary egoists (stirner), that philosophy is a joke, and that all spirituality begins and ends with the theory of the eternal recurrence (this i shall explain in three volumes after i die).

the compulsory alegalist is synonymous to the artist-tyrant; he cares about nothing but intrigue and experiment, about daring to take great risks for great pleasures, an unabashed hedonist and libertine concerned only with his own heath and strength, tests to which he can put his strength, and to the extent that any morality still remains in him, it is reserved only for the fellow voluntary egoist. he cares nothing about history, race, politics, country, tradition, culture, for these things do not concern him. he understands that there is no teleology in nature, that no purpose for the universe exists external to it, that no god exists... or, that even if it did, it should not only not be worshiped, but openly and courageously defied. the compulsory alegalist has a natural attraction to extremist movements of any kind, as these are things that radically challenge the ennui of the existing order and provide material for his artistic perspective. not routine but surprise and unexpectedness. not order but mayhem. not cooperation but conflict. not transparency but scandal, anything that forces complacent man to reconsider his nature and place in the universe, to give up his hope for 'truth', 'justice', 'beauty', 'love', and any other glad tidings that have so far kept him warm and comfortable in his naivety. the compulsory alegalist does not believe in punishment nor blame, for he does not believe in freewill. he resents nothing, takes no revenge, and revels in his criminal acts from a genuine self-love of his radiant and unruly nature. he is the judge, jury and executioner of his own life, following absolutely no rules but his own, absolutely.

but what most distinguishes this type of anarchist from all others hitherto is that he has even transcended the active nihilist (nietzsche), who was the last and highest type possible for man following the enlightenment and industrial revolution. the active nihilist was the most philosophically thorough until he was faced with the question of lasting values. a question he could not answer, but could not ignore, either. the true nihilist, who transcends this problem, concerns himself with nothing but his own fate. for him, 'mankind' is only a convenient abstraction for the philosopher who remains the involuntary egoist entranced by sacred things that do not exist. and make no mistake; one who claims to 'give' because his 'cup overflows' does not do so with self-disinterestedness and concern for the cause he commits to. no, he does this because he glories in his own ability to do so... the 'cause' being merely an intermediary between the object and his own self indulgence and vanity (and how often is a favor done to create a debt?- N). he exalts himself through the thing he loves... loves the fact that he can be a lover more than the thing that is loved.

this apio ludd who i've recently just found. a relief only comparable to my closer inspection of stirner. i had been weary of anarchist thinkers in general due to their proximity to leftists, and never wandered far into their libraries except to educate myself when i was a marxist. but what a pleasant surprise... a break from the mind numbing philosophical verbosity and chatter that fills the forums.

introducing apio ludd; a thinker who's books can be handled without gloves!

defender of the earf wrote:The worker still retains his right to his labor-value, no one is forcing him to work at any particular job. He has to choose, freely, to work somewhere, he has to agree to the wages he is paid. The fact that he is producing so much more value now because he is renting access to advanced industrial machines doesn't mean he is now somehow losing his right to how own labor-value, because he didn't have a right to any specific degree or level of value-production to begin with. If he did, that would indicate he has some right to use those machines which are increasing his productive efficiency, and no such right exists.

yes, yes, and yes. but no. we agree that there are no inherent 'rights' lest they be derived from and sanctioned by the state. the schism in this arrangement, as marx noticed, occurs when we decide and interpret what these rights are to mean in conjunction with the material conditions in which they exist. so, for instance, if we are to say 'a right to private property', we have to examine what we mean by right... not in a theoretical sense, but a practical sense. does this mean that property acquired and produced by an individual belongs solely to that individual, or do we mean that property only gained by purchase is qualified for this concept. if the former, then we have an exception in what we might define as 'commodity', as 'property'; material goods are defined as such, but what about labor power? does one possess work effort in the same way one possesses a thing and object? the answer would be 'yes' if, and only if, that labor power were to be sold like a commodity... which is the case in a capitalism. but clearly this is not what is meant when we define the nature of 'property' (and i might also add a minor point; a wage should not be taxed since it is the result of an exchange and not a form of 'profit', like the sale of a commodity). if the latter, then property purchased is a property gained only by those who have the wealth to purchase it, and therefore a right not equally accessible to all people.

in either case we have a unique discrepancy. prior to the invention of wage labor we had a simple system of bartering in which only material goods had monetary value. in this system the right to property is defined as a contract between traders of material goods, and everyone is equal in the way of being only able to attribute value to the product, having not to be concerned with the value of the force that created it. with the invention of wage labor, a new valuable product originates; labor. this labor is then sold as if it were a product, but rather than acquiring an equal exchange in the 'trading' of wage for labor, a profit is generated from selling the product of the labor without exchanging the total profit from that sale with the total amount of labor that produced it. what this peculiar difference produces is that schism between classes that are under the social contract of equality. it creates a conflict between the class that sells their labor and the class that buys it. but again, this is not about 'rights', because there aren't any. what this is abut is the interests of each class and the tension created between them during this negotiation of the exchange of labor for a wage. of course, the laborer wants as his own property the entire value of the product of his labor, and rightly so, while the capitalist is interested in gaining more value from the product of the labor by exchanging less money for the labor itself. this arrangement becomes very dangerous, and for one, essential reason; the worker eventually realizes that the capitalist is not a necessary component in the chain of production and distribution. and not only this, but also that the capitalst is, in fact, a kind of parasite in the sense that he does not contribute to either of these modes... modes which can be fully organized and sustained by the workers themselves. ergo, the system does not require the existence of the capitalist, while it does require the existence of the worker. the capitalist is superfluous, dead weight.

and here is where i give an example that relates to your above comments.

The fact that he is producing so much more value now because he is renting access to advanced industrial machines doesn't mean he is now somehow losing his right to how own labor-value, because he didn't have a right to any specific degree or level of value-production to begin with. If he did, that would indicate he has some right to use those machines which are increasing his productive efficiency, and no such RIGHT exists.

indeed, there is no right, but look: the capitalist does not produce the machines either. the machines are purchased (appropriated) with money generated from profits made from the exploitation of other workers, then used by workers to produce more commodities, and so on, ad infinitum. so, to say that the worker should feel privileged to be able to use the capitalist's machines really means; the worker is privileged to be able to use machines produced by other workers. now then, what is the place of the capitalist in this arrangement? would the machines no longer exist if the capitalist ceased to exist? certainly not. but the machines would not exist if the workers ceased to exist. therefore, the very existence of the machine owes itself to the workers and the workers alone.

marx was a material atheist who did not believe in inherent rights. what he attempted to do was envision a system in which these conflicts would not exist... and was less interested in whether or not there were such things as objective 'rights' inherent to man's nature. he absolutely agreed that 'might makes right'. he's not presenting an ethical thesis here. he's presenting an economic thesis that in theory would eliminate such uneccesary conflicts... perhaps resulting in greater social solidarity and cooperation. basically, marxism is an ergonomic theory, not a moral theory. it is occupied with trying to make the material relations of man more efficient by eliminating extraneous attributes such as the capitalist. now of course he is concerned with the moral well being of man, but not in some confusing, philosophical sense in the way of searching for proof of objective moral absolutes which man should abide by. there are no such things, and marx knew this.

marxism is a common-sense thesis that is forced to take such a complex form because of the presuppositions it is in conflict with. one of them is; that a free market based on competitive wage labor is the only way to achieve social vitality and happiness. marx imagines an arrangement of material relations that does not involve this characteristic but still achieves the same ends. way to go, karl. some pretty impressive shit.

note to readers: our beloved contemporary, fixed cross a.k.a. DJ Jakob, once published a 24 page (i think it was) refutation of marx. now, this is either a stroke of pure genius or unadulterated buffoonery. i have not read it, but i ask myself; can marx be refuted in 24 pages? further, can anyone who thinks he can, be anything except a buffoon?

but i reserve judgement as i have not read it.

that morning i stepped outside into the bustling city and suddenly i could no longer see the world through moral eyes. i was incapable of judgement, i knew not was right or wrong, good or bad. the incredible speed with which this autopoietic system of spaces and objects spontaneously organized into a tapestry of animals, machines, colors, shapes, sounds, forms and processes, assaulted my senses and filled me with a strange vital energy that promised perfection. i could literally feel it, as if i were plugged into a circuit of sorts, merging with everything around me in an exchange of life force. the elan vital... i had finally understand what bergson was speaking of. the traffic was dense and a visible smog of exhaust could be seen hovering above the flow of cars. i paused, expecting the old thoughts to cross my mind; 'what a shame... such excess and pollution.' but i found myself incapable of this thought now and instead found that i could only find a justified place for this phenomena in the overall assemblage of effects around me that formed this mysterious machine of forces. somehow i knew it was necessary, that it was only a trivial step toward something even greater. i knew this fascinating, self organizing system i was immersed in would correct itself... that nothing was 'wrong', nothing was in danger, ... the system was growing and evolving and folding out from itself on a plane of immanent structure, each part to be subsumed in whole process guided by the impetus to expand toward infinity. what i previously thought was a danger to life now became only something part of life. the whole thing was alive. it wasn't 'people in their world of inanimate objects' anymore. space and time itself was breathing and pulsing with every shape and form. and the sounds... i no longer heard the conflicting cacophony of tones, pitches and timbres that i once thought had littered the streets. i heard things differently now... found hidden rhythms in everything, an audible symphony filled my ears, the world was singing its strange song as objects and movements danced around in perfect unison. but the speed, man... it was like my metabolic processes had been supercharged. my senses bombarded with wave after wave of data and information, and as fast as i received it, i understood it's place and derived in my mind the whole pattern in which it fit. a bicycler zoomed by me in a blur... i dodged to the side and watched him pass. but he didn't pass... or rather, the space he once occupied was immediately filled again so that i could not distinguish between where he is and where he was. in fact, i couldn't see a 'him'... it was just another part of the objects and forces swirling around me. i too was part of this, i knew, but something more was happening. i was aware of both the fact that 'I' didn't exist apart from everything else, but also that i was aware of this... and this awareness seemed to stand out from the process... i didn't know my thinking like i knew the system that was bombarding my senses. it was as if it ran parallel to the process but was connected to it acausally or something. it was the only thing that confused me... all else was simplified, processed and arranged at quantum speed. i could see the complexity of the whole universe in every fractal detail, and vice versa, but i could not see myself seeing this in the same way. there was no doubt... i had experienced the 'quickening', had gone to the next level, but there remained one thing i did not understand, and that was myself. as i walked back up the steps to my apartment i thought perhaps that this confusion was part of the order, a necessary part, but i didn't know why. i felt nothing, no emotion, just perfect and complete understanding of everything except that. then, as if a glitch suddenly occurred in the supercomputer that was now my mind, a familiar feeling came over me which i only barely recognized now, and i paused again. it was that old feeling of faith, and it came in this thought; i knew that just as i could now see the world as i did, and that while i did not understand the strangeness of not being able to see my seeing in the same way i saw the world, there must be a seeing which can see this thing i cannot as part of an even greater world, the picture of which i had no access to. then, as fast as the thought crossed my mind, it passed, and i walked through the door chuckling to myself. 'well if that's it, what am i to do with what i now know', i thought. and it was in this concern that i discovered i was still moral. but it was a higher morality, a higher understanding, one of a new love and tolerance for all things as part of this magnificent machine i too was a part of. something i read from spinoza a decade ago passed through my mind, i smiled, sighed, and said quietly 'i think i get it now, and so to F i go with great speed...

lordoflight wrote:Show me evidence Krishna is real, besides the pornos that say he fucked 12,000 women.

Oh I'm real, but I haven't knocked boots with 12,000 women (the Hindus and their myths... gotta love em). More like 15-20, which isn't many considering how many millennia I've existed. In fact, I haven't been laid in like seven cycles. I'm all fucked up in my present form and can't get out much. Anyway, Shiva's the one getting all the pussy right now. The guy's like a fucking pussy magnet.... but that'll change when Kali gets here, you bet your ass.

excerpt from the journal of a man about whom one might quip 'this dude isn't playing with a full deck':

it wasn't the eternal recurrence i had a problem with because i was 'well disposed' toward its confirmation and seal, as N put it. the problem is; how slow the next great thing comes that shall have a hand in designing my fate. i'm troubled by my lack of patience... i want it now, fuck waiting. the urge to throw myself at it like i was my own experiment... one minute i'm thinking suicide, the next, forgetting probation and going on the run. action, doesn't matter what kind... the suicide would hit the reset button (i can do this because i'm a time-hopper), going on the run would plunge me into necessity, into life or death... since i WILL NOT go back to the pin, and would stay on the run for the rest of my life or die trying. you should know that neither of these are thoughts of depression or despair... quite the contrary, in fact. for instance, i look at suicide with the same over-excited curiosity a child feels when he's about to open a present. complete exhilaration. how strong my faith must be in the ER to truly feel this way, and that it wouldn't matter if i were wrong (i'd simply be gone forever) only strengthens this fascination with it.

but i don't do it. i'd never do it, though i'm not sure why. i suppose i reason thus; any time i exist i would feel the same way... that impatience with the slow speed of life... and again consider suicide. but this would lead to a perpetual suiciding and i'd never get out of the cycle. so i live, and i know the inexplicable boredom and monotony is coming, somewhere, somehow, some way. now against my better judgement i'm convincing myself 'it's the little things in life' that give it meaning... but i know that's bullshit. i was not meant for this. a good job, delicious meal, satisfying sex, a cloudless day, a warm handshake, a great movie or book, a puppy, a thank you card from a relative. no, fuck that. that's not enough. i want the fucking wind to come rushing down the plains at me.

see i'm supposed to be a soldier, a king, a celebrity, a leader of some kind that effects the lives of millions with every move i make and everything i say. yeah, something went wrong when the cards were dealt... and i'll play the fucking hand pretending to be happy. but christ almighty this fucking game is SLOW.

Zzzzzzzzzz.....Zzzzzzzzzz.....

ecmandu\" wrote:Women use body language different than men do, as I already brought up. Most women flirt 24/7 with no intention of ever having sex with those men. You claim to have the secret knowledge of when those cues are just for you. You're a rapist trying to justify himself.

the female is justified in everything she does and this behavior is as natural as it is to be admired. she revels in her own strength when she flirts, loves herself, enjoys herself and her power to attract, and why should she not? only a timid, feminized man would cower before such a lilith and look upon her with resentment and contempt. where are the men who are not threatened by this? do they even exist anymore? i suppose not. some men are just born ugly.

i blame democracy, platonic metaphysics, christianity, consumerism, the conveniences of modern lifestyle, turning a blind eye toward eugenics, and letting the evolution of man move 'in any ol' direction'. only these forces could be accountable for such a pitiable creature as ecmandu... and yet i have no ill will toward mediocrity. let him be necessary, an example, a deformity of soul and spirit to be cautioned against for those higher men who love women even when they fail to win them.

i am beginning to believe that this ecmandu character can't be real. i hadn't thought such a perfect degenerate could ever exist, something even lower than the priest. surely he is a character designed to be a toy for us to play with and make an example of? i demand to see the quasi-genius who has invented this sock puppet to test us. very good... couldn't have done it better myself. but his use has become redundant and nothing has come of it. putting him at ILP where everyone offers the wrong arguments and continuously fails to shut him down. why do you persist at wasting your time with this joke?

i admit, a little of that humanity in me still exists and i find myself feeling pity for him from time to time. wanting to help him rather than kick what has already fallen. pity is a strong almost irresistible tonic, and with aristotle and nietzsche i understand its adverse effects... the secret sickening it spreads through the soul of both he who gives and receives it... but still i feel it, and i readily accept it is an expression of my own ego; i'm interested in my power and ability to heal much more than the improvement of someone else. then it is a consequence of my own self-interests that can result in helping others? indeed. my cup overfloweth. someone radiating so much good will that people are healed merely by being in proximity to him. has there ever been an 'honest' altruist like this? one who doesn't try to help but helps nonetheless by his presence alone? if not, there is now. *blows fingernails*

we shall establish an outline for the re-education of the ecmandu (provided he is real). a great purging of centuries of nonsense that has filled the head of this 'sickly recluse' (i totally stole that phrase from N. sue me) and worked only to rationalize his own impotence and make all those aroud him feel guilty. this is not private pile's fault... but mine. i have failed because you have not helped me (1:51). you have not given private pile the proper motivation. so, from now on, whenever private pile fucks up, i will not punish him. i will punish all of you, ILP. and the way i see it, ladies, you owe me for one jelly doughnut.

we are going to completely rebuild him epistemologically, metaphysically, ontologically, ethically, politically, socially, so that private pile becomes a philosophical killing machine. his days of eating jelly doughnuts at the computer, are over.

we will begin our reconstruction of private pile at oh six hundred hours. you ladies are dismissed.

went to an anarcho-syndicalist meeting today at another coffee shop. it was decent, though these anarchists were more of a mild group of old marxists who've not yet realized they've lost faith in communism, but have, and so have defaulted to anarchism (or what they think it is) because they've got nowhere else to go. this is all done subconsciously, of course, but i can see it... smell it. well mannered and talkative though not as diverse in thought as i'd like. strangely enough... and this was my second public group 'philosophy' meeting in twenty years (used to audit philosophy lectures at appalachian state)... i found another nietzschean. this one was a twenty-seven year old black male with a goatee, black leather jacket, scarf, and stetson cowboy hat.

i arrived late because i had to pull myself together after losing a game of chess to a contemporary of mine. she's starting to get better, or i'm starting to get worse. not sure which. so i walk up to the scene and negrothustra is letting them have it about the right of the wealthy to pass their inheritance, and that marx and engels are full of bologna. okay but wait- their not full of bologna when they point out that this institution contributes to the momentum the ruling wealthy classes have over the lower working classes... because it certainly does. what negrothustra means to say is that that, itself, should not be a problem. immediately thereafter he begins an impressive nietzschean diatribe about the ressentiment of the weak and the right of the aristocratic classes to do as they wish, and from there a delightful exchange unfolds between everyone with negrothustra at the helm.

ten minutes later we're talking about weber and quantum mechanics in the same breath. wtf? how is that even possible? i dunno, but it was rich. after a short free play of random ideas i tried to take the wheel and steer the anarchists toward stirner. wouldn't you know it? none of them had even heard of stirner. as i said, they were all anarcho-softies. well except for negrothustra. he was more like a noble nubian warrior out of time and place with a wardrobe somewhere between calvin klein and john wayne. i like what he did, though. the scarf was a nice touch. what was it that nietzsche said... before all else, one must have style?

on the way to the parking lot i said to him; you're only twenty-seven? shit man, you're gonna be a beast when you reach my age. keep up the reading... and by all means check out stirner!

he accepted the compliment with genuine modesty and replied 'yeah, those guys didn't know what they were talking about... did you notice?'

'that seems to rule the day, doesn't it? glad to have met you.'

the next meeting is in two weeks. be there or be square.

when the evolution of world was still young and uncertain we looked upon our own species with not only reverence but aspiration and hope that we might still become something better. evolution heard our call and answered; it gave us the x-men. like gods they were born among us, with extraordinary powers and abilities, and it was through them that we found the promise of our future. but just as all things come to pass, this hope too was eventually lost. these superhumans could not find their way or their purpose. was it perhaps our kind that so discouraged them and stripped from their highest hopes the greatest of tasks? it was not the x-men that failed us, but we who failed them. everything simple and mediocre about our kind and culture proved to be a force they could not withstand, and rather than being raised up by these magnificent demigods, we instead brought them down. and so in this hour that i feel the greatest of doubts stirring in my soul, i ask you; is this the wolverine that once walked among us?

after philosophy reached its terminus in positivism and wittgenstein... and by terminus i mean a) no new philosophical problems were realized, and b) the majority of recognized problems were found to be not conceptual problems, but linguistic problems... academic philosophy became the study of classical and contemporary theory already existing, while 'free-lance' or public philosophy (hobby thinkers) received more freedom than it had ever had before... for two essential reasons. one, because of the plethora of fully developed schools of thought already there to pick from/at, and second, the sudden explosion of public communication venues (e.g., public fora). but this freedom was not something to be altogether admired for those who have a serious investment in philosophy (or what's left of it). now, as before the terminus but at a different stage in history, the opportunity to further confuse and misunderstand what did happen to survive the analytical revolution in philosophy, is increased exponentially. what this amounts to is all manner of people attempting philosophy without having enough formal training to understand how it works. every fifteen minutes, somebody, somewhere, begins a personal journey into philosophical thinking that eventually becomes, for them, a complete system of ideas and concepts. what they never become aware of is that if this system (its language, premises, conclusions, logical consistency, etc.) were to be scrutinized and put to the test by those senior systems of theory that have stood the test of time, it would not survive. and what's more, without the opportunity and advantage to be taught how and why their philosophy cannot survive such criticism, they neither learn (and grow), nor stop doing it.

now this fact isn't necessarily a bad thing, since the world is a pragmatist before anything else; people believe in what works for them... whether or not it's nonsense is irrelevant here. so we would be mistaken to demand 'you should not want to be wrong!', when being right or wrong doesn't really matter. in the end all that can be said about people is that they 'feel' right, they 'feel' certain.

so what is the point of this post? simple. there are no new problems in philosophy (and haven't been for thousands of years), and there are no solutions to the (pseudo) problems philosophy believes it has found (but has not). 'philosophy leaves everything untouched', said W, and what he meant might be summarized like this: because logic is only a set of rules governing language and thought, logic cannot provide truth meaning, only truth value, in the form of recognizing consistency in rule following. now on the other hand, a philosophical assertion that is to 'mean' something in a world that is governed by such rules... that is to say, a philosophical assertion that has any substance as an inductive claim or ethical prescription, and as such transcends its own simple truth value and demonstrates some importance in being true or false, will always necessarily produce its own negation in the form of a possible argument that can be produced against it. this is because it is the very nature of the language game of philosophy to be able to do this... and as such, it leaves everything precisely as it was before it found it (W).

basically all this is to say that the most important things we believe philosophy can do for us, cannot, in fact, be done by it.

this being the case, while language is a public entity and activity, its purpose will always be private and subjective, reflecting personal beliefs, convictions, learned habits, preferences, opinions, and the like, because the language game itself has no access to truth. the form of the language, the inter-subjective rules which govern its grammar and the formal logic that structures its activity, are indeed public and objectively true... but this tells us nothing about the world and demonstrates only its own activity. this is why the 'limits of my language are the limits of my world' (W).

when nietzsche admitted that a philosophy is only an autobiography, he meant something along these lines. a philosophy reflects more of how someone sees the world than what the world really is like. therefore, the most important (to us) kind of philosophy, the existential, philosophy that approaches the question of value and purpose and action, is saturated with one's own constitution and endurance for such problems. ergo, a problem only becomes a problem, a question, if one is suffering from it. ah. so because there are no real problems, when a problem is posed in philosophy, it means only one thing; someone is uncomfortable. it does not mean there is a problem out there in the world... it means the person is experiencing an existential anxiety produced from their natural inability to be strong and formidable enough to not recognize the problem, to not be put in danger by the question, to not be concerned with 'what should be done' with such over complication.

it might be said that entire philosophy books are abbreviated expressions of someone's ressentiment, envy, guilt, impotence, dread an despair, wanting to blame and put to shame, desire to be admired and respected, or any other human, all too human tendency that strikes out at the world because the philosopher is uncomfortable with it. could a philosophy be nothing more than a distress call?

but don't get me wrong, good philosophy can be done and there are many who have done it. spinoza, hume, nietzsche, stirner, (i don't include wittgenstein because he was troubled by his own immensity and depth), and a host of others who appear to be cynics but who actually approach the matter of philosophy with that sardonic joy in meddling and tinkering with things experimentally, ... not the least bit concerned with the truth, only their own ability and dexterity as a thinker. i might include kierkegaard in this list if i could be sure this great master was playing a prank, but i cannot, so i exclude him.

what then is left to do, i ask myself, now that philosophy is dead. here i understand the place of the poet, but don't be mistaken by what i mean. one only deserves to become the poet after one has been through philosophy. anyone today who still tries their hand at writing didactically is either a footnote to something already said (prior to the terminus), and therefore a copy, or a free-lance thinker caught somewhere between his belief that he's actually on to something, and his lack of formal training in analytical thought that prevents him from recognizing his own nonsense. and any poet today who has not been through philosophy is only 'running with his words because he can't walk' (N).

so what do we have today. we have either students of philosophy, or L. Ron Hubbards of philosophy, or poets. i've been the first, would never become the second, and am finally considering the third. not because i'm a poet, but because there simply isn't anything left to do. what can one do when one enjoys writing but is forever in the company of the students and L. Ron Hubbards of the world? the fora are hardly a promising platform for any reliability in formal learning and teaching (most posters can't remember anything they've read fifteen minutes ago, much less two days later), and i wouldn't re-engage with anyone from the old school on account of their failing to pick up anything i said the first time around.... or even the fourth.

[end post]

hey yo but on some real shit, doe... these niggas keep comin' at me like the fuckin' philosophy POlice, my niggas.  

maybe they still don't know?

i take the law into my own hands (1:39)
cuz you ain't fuckin' with a rookie, nigga, you fuckin' with a grown man
and i'ma show you what i mean by funk
muthafucker you ain't seen my trunk
i gotta [...], and a [...], and a [...] that'll fuck a nigga whole day.....

and if it comes down to the gun, black (1:01)
I never crack-up under pressure
cuz I was trained for combat
so get your muthafuckin' boys together
i represent S.A. (stirnerite anarchsists), nigga
and we makin' noise foreva...

...

now when you rollin' through my muthafuckin' forum, what do you see....

most proclaimed nihilists are confused about what that title means, just like most who claim not to be nihilist. in fact, one could mess around with the definitions and principles of nihilism enough to flip the entire thing upside down and turn each into the other. this is so easily done because of the ambiguity of the position, and it's this ambiguity that thinkers exploit when they campaign against what they think it is. first of all, everybody values something, so clearly to believe 'all values are meaningless' is an untenable position unless one means by that the obvious; values are not objective things out there in the world that give the world its meaning. so then it now becomes a battle of values between people who call each other 'nihilists' if they don't agree with each other's values. 'nihilist' then is nothing more than a catch-all pejorative term used to label an ideological enemy. it has to be, because it can't be anything else... it can't be a tentative position... there is no substance to it.

whenever there is a recognized shift in a culture, the ideology that feels responsible for being the foundation of that culture will call the changes that are occurring, nihilistic. for instance, modernism will call post-modernism nihilistic. religion will call atheism nihilistic. paganism will call monotheism nihilistic. communists will call capitalism nihilistic, and so on. and this skepticism toward the new is nothing more than the expression of doubt, fear, and anxiety toward what is foreign, unpredictable, and unaccommodating.

now let's assume that the continuum of the evolution of man and culture is constant. then this is the permanent condition of the process itself. now take into mind N's summary of the nihilist:

"A nihilist is a man who judges of the world as it is that it ought not to be, and of the world as it ought to be that it does not exist."

who now is the nihilist? the one who judges the world to be something that is becoming what he doesn't want it to be, what he thinks it ought not be.

and just like that, the entire thesis is turned upside down. i feel for those thinkers who've spent longer than five minutes addressing the 'problem' of nihilism. calling entire ages 'nihilistic'... a pathetic fallacy par excellence; 'ages' can't be nihilistic, only people can be nihilistic, and not even they can be nihilistic, because they will always value something.

so beware of a thinker who pulls you aside, points and says 'look, those are nihilists!', for he's only trying to sell you something... namely, his nihilism. he repudiates something he does not agree with... but what does that matter? people disagree with each other about what the world 'ought to be' all the time. hardly something to get excited about.

what's much more interesting to me, the voluntary egoist, is how people dedicate themselves to causes that are purely abstract and ephemeral- the state, culture, nation, race, tradition, god, etc.- in order to recover for themselves a sense of identity and purpose. in doing this they also make for themselves an enemy with which to occupy themselves... which will be any other abstract idea that does not conform with their own. and this is pretty much the story of man; the unique nothing who spends his entire life lying to himself and resenting everything alien to him.

while in fact, the only thing alien to him are these things which he calls sacred- he's got it perfectly backward... lest he realizes that it is only he, himself, that he is exalting through the proxy of these causes. if he does, then he is the egoist proper... and there couldn't be someone farther from the position of nihilism, than the egoist. for nobody is more concerned with what is valuable to him, than the egoist.

(amazing how easy it is to play with a philosophical concept. this is partly why i don't bother with it anymore. it's too easy. i'd rather tell jokes.)

schopenhauer wrote:Hatred is a thing of the heart, contempt a thing of the head. Hatred and contempt are decidedly antagonistic towards one another and mutually exclusive. A great deal of hatred, indeed, has no other source than a compelled respect for the superior qualities of some other person; conversely, if you were to consider hating every miserable wretch you met you would have your work cut out: it is much easier to despise them one and all. True, genuine contempt, which is the obverse of true, genuine pride, stays hidden away in secret and lets no one suspect its existence: for if you let a person you despise notice the fact, you thereby reveal a certain respect for him, inasmuch as you want him to know how low you rate him — which betrays not contempt but hatred, which excludes contempt and only affects it.

and there is more to it than schopenhauer suspects, possibly because he's never had a real enemy, and instead thought of those with superior qualities as being enough to be the object of a hatred that would otherwise be genuine if he had a real enemy. i know this because schopenhauer betrayed himself in saying 'you thereby reveal a certain respect for him'. it is clear he has never had an enemy that, on account of it not being able to be 'respected', is therefore hated. this is much different than having an enemy one respects as in the case of warriors in battle who honor each other. this other kind of hatred would be better called 'disgust', and it transcends the former kind of hatred as well as contempt.

put another way, a person who has a real enemy - not just someone whom one despises, or is envious/jealous of in the case of schopenhauer's 'respect for the superior', but a real, definite and dangerous force that conspires against him - holds in contempt what these others (without an enemy) hate, and hates what these others cannot fathom. for it is only by comparison to such an enemy, such a definite and dangerous force, that the inconsequential things others hate appear as what they are to he who has a real enemy; insipid, trivial and worthy only of a little contempt. in this way everything the little man hates and despises betrays the fact that he has not yet had a real enemy, for if he did, he wouldn't feel hatred, but contempt, because such things are hardly any real danger to him.

moreover, lacking a real enemy prevents one from having a point toward which he can concentrate and focus his energy, and one then tends to hate many little things at once and with little conviction. one hates a co-worker, or a boss, or a relative, or a spouse, or a politician, or a neighbor, or an unwelcome foreigner, or some abstract philosophical or political idea, etc., and into these things he pours that over-sensitivity he has on account of not having something really dangerous to concentrate his hatred on that would prove such other little things to be innocuous and inconsequential.

it could be said that the more you hate one thing, the less you are going to hate the little things others hate. such little things pale in comparison to a real enemy.

in my case, my hatred of the state and its criminal justice system (that betrayed me) demands every bit of my attention, and i am simply unable to any recognize any longer the little things that are so easily hated by others who don't have such an enemy. i begin to see the entire discourse of petty, human disagreement, conflict, argument and hostility as a trifle... something laughable if even worthy of any contempt at all (much less hatred).

that being said, i should state for the record that however irritating, obstinate and rude i might seem to any of you, it is not something conceived through hatred or even contempt. hatred would be a gross overstatement for what is, if anything, a little disappointment... and even that would be to take you too seriously.

and that said, if you find me in a hostile exchange with someone, somewhere, it is only because i enjoy using others as examples that those who watch, can learn form. internet fora are for me an open symposium and market place, bustling with all kinds of thinkers at different levels, none of which i will ever know, and none of which i have any investment in. so you might think of me as a rogue street performer of sorts with some extra time, but instead of playing an instrument, i play other thinkers for the audience.

...

looking through some schopenhauer (where i found the above quote), i found this gem as well. a little insight into one of the greatest of all spooks, the 'nation'. i wonder if max ever came across this...

The cheapest form of pride however is national pride. For it reveals in the one thus afflicted the lack of individual qualities of which he could be proud, while he would not otherwise reach for what he shares with so many millions. He who possesses significant personal merits will rather recognise the defects of his own nation, as he has them constantly before his eyes, most clearly. But that poor blighter who has nothing in the world of which he can be proud, latches onto the last means of being proud, the nation to which he belongs to. Thus he recovers and is now in gratitude ready to defend with hands and feet all errors and follies which are its own.

to be fair, though, there is nothing reprehensible about that feeling of community that we share with our countries and cultures, per se. problem is, there is no more 'country' or 'culture' in this world of globalized culture and economy, and anyone still trying to 'hang on' to twentieth century isolationism is going to be very disappointed.

for a few others, say, a fascist gone anarchist... well, we found in our own countries and cultures a stock of incompetent people and leaders, and so abandoned it as if it were a sinking ship.

since there is no freewill, anytime someone comes at another with the 'you are responsible' reproach, it must be in the spirit of ressentiment, of wanting to punish and put to shame. not because these things are a possible basis for such feelings, but because they're simply the only basis for such feelings. because there has to be a reason for such feelings, and responsibility cannot be recognized by virtue of there being no freewill, they must be the reason. we infer that these feelings are the reason by what they entail and what they seek to establish; an attempt to stop the person, to render him impotent, to stir up a bad conscience and make him feel guilty and remorseful of his actions.

but why would anyone want to do this to somebody? to control the person so that one can either exploit him somehow or remove from him his ability to threaten us. another more subtle reason; because we envy the freedom of the person and want to strip from him a privilege we don't have. finally, we feel offended by what has been done and take our revenge by putting the person in debt to us, e.g., 'you owe me an apology'. this debt is usually created so that we can then take advantage of the person in turn and bend him to our will in some way.

the former type is the form the state/law takes, and at the level of the state such a lie is necessary; one can't police everyone directly, so needs to invent another kind of police, the conscience.

but the latter type is more telling about a secret side to human nature (or at least those who still believe there is freewill). it isn't that we have in us the capacity to hate and despise that is in question here, since these are natural behaviors that contribute to social discourse and are endemic to our evolution as a species. what is peculiar to this specific reason for placing blame and holding responsible is that it directly indicates a lack of power (i am speaking here of the individual and not the state, which uses this lie as an expediency and not because it lacks the power to control directly... as the individual does).

this lack of power is manifested in two ways. first, by attacking with morals instead of hands and weapons; 'you should be ashamed!', 'that is evil!', 'that was so wrong!', 'you don't have any respect!', etc., etc. when really all one wants to do is render the offender impotent, they lack the power to do so physically and directly and so must resort to this manner of cunning and deception.

secondly, the very fact that one can be offended in such and such a way means that they are weaker in that respect. for instance, one has one's feelings hurt, and so lashes out at the offender. but what if it wasn't that the offense was so strong that was the problem, and rather that the victim was so sensitive and weak? the use, then, of the lie... of 'holding responsible'... is proportionate to the sensitivity of the one offended, and one applies it when one feels wronged.

caveat: none of this is to say that moral rules and codes of conduct can't be agreed upon between people, only that to assume everyone honors your morals and codes of conduct, and is therefore 'wrong' when in violation of your rules and codes, and is therefore incapable of being moral, is a mistake of judgement.

the most interesting, though, of the causes of this 'wanting to blame', is the reason of envy... and this speaks of the lowliest, most degenerate, most deprived kind of ressentiment possible. it is one of the characteristics that puts man below even the animals, for the animals are not capable of such sophisticated cunning resulting from the sheer lack of ability to assert the will directly upon things.

the slave demands of the master; you should not be able to do what i myself cannot do, and i shall find all manner and deceptive means to stop you. you call me lowly because i am timid, now i call you lowly because you are selfish. you call me weak because i do not take what i want, now i call you weak because you are not strong enough to be selfless (what a convenient reversal!). you call me meager because i have not much, now i call you meager of soul because you have so much. you call me weak in will because i follow the law, now i call you weak in will because you do not follow the law.

at every step the slave is there to check the privilege of the strong through this kind of psychological espionage. the difference between the slave and the master is that the master is perfectly able to act as the slave does if he is in agreement with the usefulness of doing so, while the slave does not make this decision. instead, he is compelled to be as he is because he is not strong enough to have the choice. he does so because he must, or he perishes.

and what do masters care about whether or not an offender is 'responsible'? the master attacks and/or revenges himself without any attention whatsoever to the question of if the action is in compliance with moral law. these types establish laws by their acts of will... they do not 'look around' to make sure they are following the rules. they feel no shame before anyone else if their actions are not approved of.

perhaps, then, it is from the inherent feeling of shame at his own weakness that the slave naturally lies so well and blames so easily when he uses the doctrine of 'freewill' as his only weapon.  

so, so, many centuries of systematic philosophical deception is required for this to even be possible, in addition to a naturally evolved mechanism in human reasoning that has over millennia become able to put into service the utility of deceiving in this way. suddenly this lie of freewill is embedded so deeply in language, behavior and reasoning that it almost becomes the default condition... with just a few more knowledgeable philosophers as an exception. other philosophers will go to any lengths in a desperate effort to avoid the fact that freewill does not exist. quantum mechanics, cartesian second substances, chaos, agency causation, and whatever else obscure philosophical nonsense they can conjure up to confound the matter.

i can only explain the persistence of the phenomena of the 'doctrine of freewill' in this way. it's antithesis is so dangerous that only the most radical and powerful of beings could make do with it. that is to say, only the strongest could be this honest.

i once said that it wasn't because the liars who want to blame are evil, that they are contemptible, but because they aren't evil enough (which means strong enough) to not need to blame to feel unthreatened, uninjured, privileged, in control and at ease.

i'd have infinite more respect for someone who bashed me over the head with a bat rather than trying to make me feel bad, for offending his sensibilities. this is the kind of person i could agree to a moral contract with. the others aren't yet capable of real morality because they haven't gotten past the morality of lies, that slave morality that so defines them.

what is a difference between pride and narcissism? if we call pride a justified love of oneself, we could quibble over definitions of 'love' and 'justified'... and if we call narcissism an excessive and undeserved love of oneself, we'd quibble over definitions of 'excessive' and 'underserved'. because it is not so easy to distinguish between the two, we end up with everyone calling themselves prideful, and everyone else a narcissist. but neither does this get us any closer to a distinction, since everyone is either prideful or a narcissist depending on who you ask.

the difference then would not be accessible to the public, since we can trust nobody to provide us with unbaised judgement on the matter. even the supposed criteria provided by psychologists won't do because of the semantic ambiguity of it all. for example, in one article you'd find a psychologist arguing that the characteristics of sociopathology are bad... in another article, a psychologist argues that they are good. this is because concepts like 'aggressive', 'indifferent', 'manipulative', 'unsympathtic', 'clever', 'selfish' and the like, have different meanings depending on the semantic context in which they are used. because of this we end up here; one is in no place to determine if someone else is prideful rather than narcissistic, or vice versa.

alternatively, we have trouble even knowing which we are, ourselves. nobody is going to admit that their self love is excessive or underserved, unless they've been convinced by some psychologist or something they've read and been unable to recognize the ambiguity of what they've been led to think.

with all the difficulties in defining these two concepts, we can be sure of a few things. pride requires that one is able to distinguish themselves from others in such a way that the feature they observe in themselves is either equivalent to or greater than the same feature observed in others. for instance, a skill, or beauty, or experience, or an accomplishment. if any of these things aren't at least at average or better, one can't recognize them as a feature to have pride about, since there would be nothing about them that would distinguish them from the features of others. what is necessary then is some degree of exceptionalism to the feature. and in order for something to be exceptional, there must be something unexceptional. if that's the case, having pride necessarily involves the awareness of being better at/with something, than others.

from this we can almost infer when someone who appears to be prideful is in fact narcissistic, because we can't find anything exceptional about them. if we can't recognize anything exceptional (either in talent, beauty, experience or accomplishment... the latter two should be able to be explained to us if we can't directly observe them), chances are they don't recognize anything exceptional about themselves either, and are therefore narcissistic rather than prideful.

be that as it may, we still have a problem. we aren't able to qualify objectively the level which something must be in order to be good enough to be exceptional, as there is usually always something better and worse than the thing in question. a little better at painting, a little prettier, one accomplished a little more, one has a little more experience, etc.

well then, this approach won't work either. we can neither be sure if someone is prideful or narcissistic, nor can we be sure we've judged accurately the quality about which one should be prideful of.

and this is why the affair is purely private. only the individual can know whether or not he feels he deserves the love he has of himself, his abilities, his experiences and accomplishments. and how he does this is by comparing himself to others who are doing exactly the same thing as he; comparing themselves to others.

pride then requires first and foremost that we be able to distinguish ourselves from the 'other' as individuals in competition with the 'other' for distinction. even when one has pride in something that pertains to their existence in and for a group, they necessarily see themselves first as the individual who is qualified more than others to be that good at it. even here, there is implicit competition at work, and one's pride derives directly from the love of one's own ego.

pride is the recognition that one has admitted to themselves that someone else is not as good as them at something, and this recognition always breeds a little contempt insofar as the 'other' feels he is equal to the one who has the pride. if so, the prideful one sees the other as narcissistic; undeserving of the feeling of equality and therefore exempt from the right to feel pride.  

you might also say that wherever there is no functioning hierarchy, pride decreases and narcissism increases. pride decreases because there are none distinguished as better, which would otherwise serve as the incentive for others to make themselves better, so that they can have pride. narcissism increases for the same reason; there is nobody to feel better than, so nobody feels genuine pride.

the more we become alike, the less pride we have. the more pride we have, the further we distance ourselves from the other.

but there is a third condition as well. those with the greatest pride always seek others so that they can bestow their good will upon them and be recognized as a giver. prideful people want to be known as prideful people, want to shine, and to do this they have to be able to bestow their grace in the form of good will to others. this is the genesis of good will, and it springs directly from the ego. provided that the egoist admires something about someone, whether approximately equal or not, morality takes life.

morality is a gift, not an obligation, and only a narcissist would expect it to be an obligation because he recognizes no pride in himself, and therefore knows he is incapable of genuine good will.

hitherto all morality founded on an expectation and quest for equality is as nefarious as it is impossible. one can't give unless one has more, and one can't have more unless one is better, and one can't be better where everyone is equal.

the only exception to this rule is the exchange of gifts between approximately equal powers who as a group in themselves, are so distinguished from the mass of ordinary equals below them that they are still able to feel enough distinction to be able to retain their pride. but this group most definitely has to be above and beyond the rest in order to do the impossible; maintain pride among equals.

society should always be approaching theoretical equality while at the same time hoping there should be enough novelty in conflicts and problems that individuals are compelled to excel over others in solving them. bit of a paradox, but nothing else will suffice. we want equality (everyone be equally great), but we'd never want equality (where nobody could be great).

satyr wrote:The desire to escape culpability places the individual in a position of innocence: victim of someone or something other than himself.

if someone feels culpable, no amount of rationalizing will remove from them their feeling of culpability; one cannot lie to oneself. of course one might 'desire' to be innocent of the thing they feel culpable for, but desiring, like rationalizing, doesn't change that culpability. furthermore, it wouldn't be the 'desiring' that 'places the individual in a position of innocence'. one can desire all they want. that doesn't change anything. rather what one desires is to be able to truly believe they are innocent... and to the extent that their reasoning and understanding permits them, they believe, or not.

before i move on let me clear up the problem of there being no freewill first. ultimately, nobody is culpable for anything, but not because their bodies do not commit action x, y, and z... they certainly do (e.g., joe... joe's body... robbed the bank... no doubt about it). it is because there is no 'joe' in that body... no 'joe agency' that commands and controls that body... no joe agency that makes joe think and move. in order to make a person free, that person has to be able to choose not to be able to choose, which is impossible. so long as joe is thinking and choosing and moving, every aspect of him is just as subject to causation as anything else in the world. however, we have evolved the capacity to believe in the error of freewill because it has proven useful in the evolution of our social species. in fact there are many gross errors of reasoning that we nonetheless practice and which prove to be pragmatically useful. but the entire moral order of our social being exists upon the foundation of this error, and to pull this foundation out from under it would prove catastrophic. so, we proceed as if we all have freewill, and make our contracts, and agreements, and promises. and when these things are broken, we proceed to accept culpability, responsibility, accountability.

now on to the issue of 'culpability'. given that we accept this error in reasoning and pretend as if we have freewill, we call someone culpable when we mean that they are the cause of something, had the option to not be the cause of that something, but still chose to cause it. we eliminate culpability for accidents by doing this; one has to know in advance what they're choosing to do, or else they act accidentally and are not culpable. if one knows in advance what they are about to do, an in addition to this, has some foresight of the possible effects of the action, we say that the action is intentional and not by accident. there is an exception here though: one can act intentionally without intending one of the possible effect outcomes, in which case the effect isn't an accident, but neither is it intentional. this is one problem for the matter of culpability; is one culpable for only what they intend, or are they also culpable for any effect of their purposeful action, provided they knew in advance it's possibility. in criminal law this is often an issue... the issue of intent. one intended to drive drunk, but didn't intent to hit someone. to find him guilty of second degree manslaughter, is it enough that he knew he could possibly hit someone if he drove drunk? some argue yes. ah, but what if he drove by a russian terrorist, splashed mud on him... which then pissed the russian off, who in a fit of rage at this, pressed the detonator in his hand, causing the bomb he planted to blow up the bank? do we say that this was an effect of the man's drunk driving and therefore hold him culpable... or do we find him not guilty because he wasn't aware that this could be a possible result of his drunk driving? it gets even worse. as unlikely and improbable as it was, it was still possible that he piss a russian off who would then blow up a bank. the glaring problem here is this: where do we draw the line when considering what constitutes proper judgement when committing actions with possible outcomes.

hitting someone. more likely. pissing a russian terorist off. less likely. culpability then is determined by some kind of probability calculus? it would appear so. this is just one example of the shit that comes with accepting the freewill-error package.

now let's examine the other side of culpability... the side on which one's actions make them a victim, and the question of whether or not to hold them culpable for their victimhood. man walks into a pit of alligators and gets his leg torn off. this one's pretty easy. he's at fault because he knew that was possible. another man walks out of his front door and gets struck by a stray bullet. little trickier. he knew it was possible that could happen, but we'd call him reasonable to assume it wouldn't. here you see the gray area emerging again. if we don't hold one culpable for an effect unless one knows in advance the possibility of that effect happening, then we would hold this guy culpable because he knew it was possible (as unlikely as it was to happen). but that would be absurd. imagine nobody having sympathy for this guy; 'you dumbass, you knew you could get hit by a stray bullet when you went outside, so you shouldn't have done it and have nobody to blame but yourself!'

now let's move into the matter of criminal victimhood... and we'll use myself as an example. when a criminal commits a crime and knows in advance the legal consequences of committing that crime, he is held culpable for the consequencs he suffers if he's caught. simple enough. but legal consequences, like angry russian terrorists and stray bullets, aren't always very probable... and like the absurdity of holding the drunk driver and stray bullet guy culpable for the effects of their actions, it is also absurd to hold a criminal culpable for consequences he couldn't reasonably expect to happen as a result of his crime. example: bill is driving with a quarter of weed in his pocket. he gets pulled and searched. he gets charged with possession... but also intent to deliver and sell. now bill is certainly guilty of possession and knew in advance the risk he was taking, so would not deny culpability for being charged with the crime. but bill is not a dealer and had no intent on delivering. do we then hold bill culpable for the five years he got of probation when the prosecutor 'decided' he didn't believe bill when bill said he was no dealer?

if we say that because bill knew in advance that a prosecutor wouldn't believe his intent, but also know that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove it was bill's intent to sell, we would not hold bill culpable if that burden of proof principle is violated in the prosecution. if we do hold him culpable, it is the same as saying 'you should not trust your government to follow it's own rules.' and if we say that, we might as well also say 'the relationship between citizen and government is not founded on agreement or trust, and is therefore exempt.'

my case is in principle identical to bill's. the crime i did commit carried consequences that i knew in advance and would have no issue denying culpability thereof if arrested. i knew what i did, willingly did it, and if caught, expected only the consequences that are defined statutorily for that crime. however, i was not charged for the crime i committed, but another crime, which i did not commit. and i was charged with this crime because the prosecutor's duty to honor the burden of proof principle was not observed during the prosecution. he broke his own law and convicted me of a crime he could not prove i committed.

it would be absurd to call me culpable for the consequences i endure because of this conviction because as a condition of my civil contract with my government, i am to trust that my government is neither incompetent or corrupt, and expect only to be convicted of crimes i commit if i commit them.

of course, one could say 'you knew the russian might detonate the bomb if you splashed him with mud while drunk driving, and you knew you might be struck by a stray bullet when you left the house, and you knew you'd be convicted of possession with intent to deliver and sell, and you knew you'd be charged with felonious indecent exposure sex offense when you only committed a misdemeanor indecent exposure (not a sex offense per statute), so you're not a victim of the consequences and are fully culpable'. sure, one could say that, but one would be a complete imbecile to do so. and what do we do with imbeciles? we keep them out of government, court rooms, and philosophy (especially philosophy of law).

so granting that we as a society still tell ourselves the lie of freewill and act as if we have it, holding each other culpable for what happens to us is not a matter so easily decided. this is what philosophy is for; a closer examination of the terms, circumstances, and ways in which we use the concept. of course we'd like to just point a finger at everyone who pisses us off and make him guilty of something as our revenge (there's that slavish morality shining through), but it's not easy to do if that person happens to be a philosopher. he might likely turn the tables on us and make us the guilty ones. guilty of being an imbecile first (for not recognizing the lack of freewill), and guilty of being indignant slave second (for trying to weaken the strong by blame). hell you could even throw in a few more; (a) guilty of thinking one could lie to themselves and think they weren't culpable when clearly they thought they were, (b) guilty of believing simply 'desiring' to not be held culpable can change the fact of culpability, (c) not recognizing the difference between intent and lack of intent when determining culpability, and (d) not recognizing the absurdity of blaming someone for a consequence brought about by an effect that while known in advance, is so unlikely as to not even be considered.

guy leaves his car in the parking lot and an alien ship pulls it up with a tractor beam. you stupid sonofabitch! you knew aliens might show up and take your car, dumbass. why the fuck did you leave it out there? you get no sympathy from me, pal.

riiiiiight.

note to satyr: i do not hold you culpable for not understanding what culpability is and when it is reasonable. you're doing fine.

i commend myself for having gotten away with denying my desire to seriously debate with people, but the generous fellow in me hasn't gotten it out of his system entirely. perhaps i can still help yet without taking matters so seriously. sport philosophy, you could call it, and i'm the MVP.

satyr wrote:All judgements are approximations: evaluated by their degree of accuracy (quality), using the consequences of their application, in relation to the intent, the goal, the objective, the ideal.
If application is undesirable, or impossible, then the juxtaposition is in relation to the apparent, the experienced, the perceived = empiricism.

this is some rather vague epistemology and i noted an immediate problem upon reading it; if all judgments are 'approximations", then the thing to which the 'degree of accuracy' is related is an approximation as well if the knowledge had of it is also a judgement. if that's the case, one can't be sure how 'accurate' such accuracy is in the first place.

but really i'd need more to know what is meant here. the word 'judgement' can stand for many different things in philosophy. for instance, it was kant (i think) who mentioned that immediate perception is not a judgement. judgement occurs when the faculties of reason work to give sense and meaning to the perceived data. so observing a rock is not a judgement, but knowing it is a rock, after my mind has applied to it the categories of reason, is. so my perception of the rock isn't 'approximate', but complete and total in that i perceive it. i don't 'kinda' perceive it. on the other hand, the judgement (knowledge) of the rock would be 'approximate' if by that we mean there is something more to/about the rock that can't be perceived, or, can be perceived but not fully conceived. but in both these questions there is an argument (or assumption) from ignorance; there is something about the rock that i don't know, and this thing about the rock that i don't know, i know is about the rock, but don't know what it is. this, of course, is nonsense.

so now we have to ask 'what does 'approximate' mean here', and 'would there be any difference if the word 'exact' was used instead of 'approximate''.

when all else fails, ask a philosopher to give an example of what he means... ask him to demonstrate the principle he's explaining. okay let's create an example.

joe has an objective; to go to the store. he makes the judgement; car can get me to the store. so the degree of accuracy of this judgement is determined by the success of the application of it. if joe makes it to the store in the car, the judgement was accurate.

what difference would it make if we called joe's judgement 'approximate' or 'exact'? i dunno... maybe because joe can't know for sure the car will get him there, the judgement is only approximate. but the judgement itself and whether or not the car will make it, are two different things. joe doesn't 'approximately' think the car will get him there. he either thinks it will or will not. and suppose joe were to calculate the probability of the car making it to the store by taking into account every possible factor and variable (that can be known). he would then assign a 'percent chance' to the car making it to the store... and he would know this percent chance absolutely, not approximately... not 'a little bit', not 'kinda' or 'sort of'.

how then is a judgement 'approximate'? it may be the case that the above quote means something else with the use of the word that i'm not aware of. but rest assured, the same deconstruction could proceed with whatever alternative word is used instead.

why this is so, and what is to be learned from this little exercise, is that philosophical language is much sooner proven to be ambiguous and nonsensical than it is proven to be meaningful. we use the word 'approximate' all the time in everyday language, and the context in which it is used provides its meaning and sense.

'the height of it is approximately seven feet'
'he wasn't on time, but approximately so'
'there are approximately 50 marbles in the jar'
'it takes approximately three hours to get there'

in each of these uses, no profound conceptual problems arise which would stop the people in their tracks, force them to scratch their heads like pondering philosophers, and ask 'my god, what does 'approximate' mean?'

they don't ask because they don't have to in order to know how to act and what to do. now put the word 'approximate' into a philosophical statement like the one in the quote, and you are 'skating on ice', as wittgenstein put it. and by that he means; there is no friction or resistance given to the activity, so no real work can be done. and by this he essentially means; because there is no way to discover if the meaning of the statement doesn't work, there is no way to discern if it does work. in other words, we have a superfluous use of language that doesn't contribute to any usefulness.

but in the four uses i gave above, the use isn't superfluous. in the first, i can expect to act as if the object is nearly seven feet... in the second, i can expect to act toward someone who wasn't on time, but not extremely late (i might criticize him)... in the third, i might win a contest by giving the closest guess... in the fourth, i can know about how many miles i'll be driving, and when the people should be expecting me.

...

there are two corresponding events in a philosophers life that mark his final stage of development. this final stage is not an abandonment of philosophy per se, but a change in attitude toward it. one has to climb wittgenstein's ladder first, and then kick it down. one can't become the omega philosopher without kicking it down... but one can't kick it down until they climb it. most of you will not get this chance because that little bulb will never go 'pop' above your head... but if it does, do not hesitate to climb, my friends. it will not be an easy task; this ladder will wobble, you'll have second thoughts, and want to descend back to the ground where you felt safe. but you must be brave and trust the ladder not to fail you. if you make it to the top you will not regret the risk you took, and will see the world from a new height. now you are ready. kick the ladder as hard as you can, and you will become a philosopher.

the omega philosopher. that means, the investigative philosopher (or anti-philosopher) who makes sport out of deconstructing philosophy. not in that malicious socratic way of trying to deceive your opponent into believing your own brand of nonsense. but the stirnerite sense, the maieutic sense, in stripping your opponent of every certainty he has except for the certainty he has of himself. it is time for philosophers to stop trying to make sense of the world and become anarcho-artist-tyrants. they will need your help to do this, and it will be very painful for them, but in the end they will thank you.


p.s. this post was just one instance. there are so many opportunities to do this stuff with philosophy posts that if one were to take up the task, they'd never stop writing.

wikipedia wrote:In Buddhism, the tiger is one of the Three Senseless Creatures, symbolising anger, with the monkey representing greed and the deer lovesickness. The Tungusic peoples considered the Siberian tiger a near-deity and often referred to it as "Grandfather" or "Old man". The Udege and Nanai called it "Amba". The Manchu considered the Siberian tiger as "Hu Lin," the king. In Hinduism, the god Shiva wears and sits on tiger skin. The ten-armed warrior goddess Durga rides the tigress (or lioness) Damon into battle. In southern India the god Ayyappan was associated with a tiger.

lol... who didn't expect as much. all cultures and myths revere the tiger as a noble creature symbolising great virtues... but not the buddhists. as one of the quintessential nihilistic religions, buddhism rejects anything which experiences joy in mastering and dominating this 'world of pointless suffering'. the buddhist necessarily interprets this joy as anger rather than love, rather than a manifestation of erotic will to power and world mastery. therefore the symbol of the tiger represents a diametrically opposed ethos to that of the buddhist.

hidden behind the so called wisdom of buddhism lies a secret ressentiment of everything, and it is through these little clues that we find it.

one of the last great masculine thinkers of the modern age, evola, tells us the tiger is something to be ridden.... while the buddhist would prefer to give the tiger a begging bowl, sit him under a fig tree, and reduce him to a spectacle of impotency and resignation.

ecmandusattva wrote:When there is sex dimorphism, any move the stronger sex as a whole uses to facilitate a sexual selection sends the message to the mind that no means yes. As the cognitive age grows, it is understood to be rape.

ec's learned a new word - dimorphism - and he likes to use it when he babbles because of its intimidating effect. one reads his post and thinks 'gosh, he did use the word dimorphism, so he must be smart, and he's probably right about what he says. i better read more.'

but the greater strength of the male and his ability to take sex forcefully from the female is not some kind of final condemnation of the human species, as he likes to think. only because we modern, further evolved humans look back at our history and see what, by comparison to our newly developed social rules, is an apparent atrocity, do we make the judgement; 'this is bad'. but this is to make a judgement from a perspective that did not exist for the humans who practiced this behavior so many thousands of years ago. they did not see it as we do, so to apply our modern social standards to theirs would be a mistake. we simply don't have the right to some universal criticism of the species just because at one point in its history, it's social practices were radically different.

also, in order for females to feel 'offended' when sex is taken from them forcefully, they have to be conditioned to consider the act as an offense; they have to be taught, have to be educated, have to develop a complex understanding of what is to be expected in social behavior and practice. in our modern world we are taught that this is an unacceptable thing, so when it happens, we become offended. but we couldn't be offended unless we had already learned and adopted this normative rule for social conduct.

so there is no substance to any of the nonsense in the above quote. and what the statement 'sends a message to the mind that no means yes' means, is unclear at best, ridiculous at worst. no does not mean yes... it never has and never will. if a male wants to believe and interpret female 'resistance' to his advances as a kind of game in which the female playfully antagonizes the male to test his resilience and dedication to winning her, he can certainly do so. he may be right, or he may be wrong. but in either case, if the female really means 'no', there is no misunderstanding of this, no way the female could really mean yes when she says no. that the male wants to interpret the 'no' as a yes because he doesn't want to feel rejected (and saves face), or wants to think this is part of the courtship game, doesn't change anything about the condition of the 'no'.

what's most interesting about ec's driveling is that there is an underlying algorithm to it, a pattern of reasoning and line of logic that betrays in him a magnificent resentment of both men and women. first he has trouble with women, then he envies the males that are successful, then he interprets their success, and the female's consent, as a kind of personal offense; this isn't fair, and when men and women cooperate in this way, i am being directly assaulted and victimized.

then he reverses the virtues and turns them into vices, just like the slave (N); the sexually successful male is bad, while the abstinent male is good. the male who is proud of his sexual ornamentation and displays it with pride is bad, while the male without such and does not wish to attain it, is good. etc., etc.

and this otherwise simple condition... his depression and anxiety... has evolved over time into a sophisticated (pseudo) philosophical system for the purposes of defending his resentment with technical arguments which he believes might confuse the reader and make him feel guilty. this is his modus operandi; to strike out at the world in his misery and take sadistic pleasure in putting others to shame for having what he does not.

it may be too late for him to ever recover from such deeply entrenched psychological neurosis, given his age and unwillingness to study evolutionary theory and philosophy properly and thoroughly. there is an immovable sadness and sickness that pervades over and rules all of his thinking. he is what happens when a miserable person with an above average intelligence is given access to information and knowledge which he is able to exploit to his advantage in taking revenge on the world.

how hilarious it would be if ecmandusattva found himself a wonderful girlfriend who filled his life with happiness and joy.... and suddenly he stops posting as a result. all these years of feverish madness and despair... gone, just like that, almost over night. he'd look back at his own forum history and think 'jesus christ, was i really that bad?!" lolzzzz!!

lordoflight wrote:Firstly, I don't think burning books and jews is good

this is generally good advice, although there are exceptions to the rule. ideally, both jews and books should be read and not burned, and in much the same way. to be able to read a book like a jew, and to read a jew like a book, are both important skills to have. the former requires that same studious commitment with which the jew studies his old testament, and the latter requires psychoanalytical insight that is difficult to attain. if one can master both, one certainly wouldn't consider burning either of them. however, the one time it would be permissible to to burn a book would be if the book was written by a jew (no, spinoza wasn't a jew)... and the only time it would be permissible to burn a jew would be to create a fire that would provide light for reading a book that's more important than the jew. chances are you'll never have to make this decision, though. in the event that you have no light to read and must create a fire, there's usually something other than a jew available as a source of fuel. i only mention this because while it's very unlikely, it's still logically possible that one day you might need to burn a jew to read a book, and i want you to be prepared to make that decision.

you might also find yourself having to burn a book to produce light to read a jew, but the same circumstances usually apply (about available fuel sources) . and you'd probably not find yourself in a dark room with a jew who you'd have to read, since without a light source, the jew won't be able to see anything either, and therefore won't be able to plot and scheme against you in any formidable way.

in the final assessment it is good to have both books and jews; both are means to improve oneself.

disclaimer: the views of the author do not reflect a general attitude toward any race of people, only toward a particular belief system a particular race might subscribe to. as such, any race of people who would subscribe to an anthropomorphic religion might be the subject of this post; ergo, the jews. most books are invaluable in comparison to someone who subscribes to an anthropomorphic religion.... so much so that even a single reader's digest is probably more important and enlightening than a rabbi. a reader's digest might have a good recipe or two in it, maybe a short story about some guy named travis reuniting with his long lost brother, and perhaps an article on the nutritional value of artichokes. the value of these things are incommensurable to the content of the bible.

'jewish' is a set of ideas (not genes), btw.

ah, it makes sense now. what probably contributed most to the propagation of the myth of the lion as 'king of beasts' was the fact that lions were taken into captivity much earlier than tigers, and being the only apex predator available for study, they earned this title. this myth most likely owes its development to the roman empire.

eventually, tigers are taken into captivity as well, and later pitted against lions in organized fights. by this time it was too late to re-establish the myth of the 'king of beasts', despite the historical reports and consensus among those who witnessed these fights. far more often than not, the tiger beat the lion. the lion's honorary title as 'king of beasts' was premature, then, and something that would have probably been given to the tiger had it been taken into captivity much sooner than it was.

another aspect of the lion that contributed to the design of this title was it's social character... something associated with being 'king'; dominant males would lord over very large prides, and this social model came to be associated with and a representation of the human social structures that existed during the period in which the lion was taken into captivity. he became the symbol of the aristocrat ruler... ruling over the pride in the same way the king ruled over his people.

yet when compared with the nature of the tiger, the lion's aristocratic character comes into question. for example, the dominant male lion contributes very little to the survival of the pride, leaving most of the hunting and defending to the females. his only role is to maintain dominance over the pride by fighting with other males... and other than this, he really serves no other function. not only that, he also does not allow the females to eat until he's finished with the kill (which he did not make). hmm... am i seeing a very strong correlation to the symbolism of bourgeois aristocracy here?

a single individual takes his place among a group which he exploits, and defends his dominance only by subordinating others who might challenge him and his position. this individual isn't necessary for either the hunting or defense of the group (which the females can handle), so isn't much more than a kind of loiterer who rules only because of his size and strength.

the tiger's social structure is nothing like this. he neither relies on, nor prefers, and existence within a group, he hunts for and defends himself, exploits nobody, and is quite willing to share his kill with others (unlike a lion, a male tiger will often let a female companion eat first from a kill he's made). a male tigers dominance is not established because of some contingent social structure that doesn't require his participation for its existence (like the bourgeois lion). his dominance is established not only by his ability to sustain himself, but destroy anything that might threaten him as well, without question.

physically there is little comparison. larger, faster, more intelligent, greater muscle density and strength, greater endurance (lions sleep more than tigers, who often roam many miles in a day). the male lion is a fighter only insofar as he combats other males, while the tiger is both a great fighter and lone hunter through necessity. studies compare the physical prowess of the lion and tiger and unanimously show the tiger as the superior apex predator; he's able to balance on two legs and strike with both paws... the lion is unable to sustain this position for any length of time and loses balance. the tiger is a skilled boxer and wrestler... using both paws to hold and control the movement of his opponent with ease... something he must be able to do as a lone hunter (the lion not so much). tigers are very capable swimmers and climbers... lions are not.

the greatest asset the lion has in his defense against a tiger's attack is his mane; the mane protects the neck making a fatal bite more difficult. it also makes breathing more difficult for the tiger when the tiger bites. being unable to breath freely (because of the fur) while holding his grasp, the tiger must let go.

if i could go back in time to the roman empire i would fix all these mistakes, give the proper title to the beast that has earned it, and undo the myth that has so deceived us for centuries. but alas, i am unable to resolve the bourgeois, ruling class symbolism that has for so long falsely represented true aristocracy and nobility, not only in in the animal kingdom, but also in the conception of the very ethos itself.

the lion; lazy, parasitic, misogynistic, impostorous tyrant king who sleeps all day.

the tiger; noble warrior, hunter, wanderer, logician, anarcho-syndicalist, philanthropist, and lover of women.

i hereby declare the tiger as king of beasts. those who challenge the authority of this ruling shall bring forth their lion... if they dare.

http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=194475&p=2714633#p2714633

lordoflight wrote:They both should have received some form of punishment, but life and solitary is excessive and extreme.

allow me the opportunity to clear up some confusions. first, there is no such thing as 'excessive' and 'extreme' where there are no absolute and objective standards to be used to make such a determination. this is simply because of the relative, emotivistic nature of morality and the naturalistic fallacy such morality is subject to. that being the case, such a person as you mention- this fellow who committed murder both outside and in prison, and then is put in solitary confinement - should not be thought of as a 'victim' in the purest sense. if he knew in advance of the possible consequences of his actions, we would not have any sympathy for him. on the other hand, if he was subjected to consequences he did not know would follow from his actions, we can say he is a 'victim' in that circumstances treated him unfairly. an example of this would be; he willingly commits a crime but is charged with another crime he did not commit. i explained all this in one of my posts in the last week or two (if i remember).

simply put, he knew murder could result in life imprisonment, and he knew murder inside prison could result in solitary confinement (because he becomes a risk to other inmates safety). i therefore have no sympathy for him, and would sooner have respect... if he were able to bear his punishment for these things with pride and dignity rather than trying to solicit pity and/or sympathy for his circumstances, from others. again, this is because there is no morality... no way to say what one 'deserves or not', no way to say 'this is excessive'. all one can say is whether or not something is fair, and by fair i mean; a condition of a moral contract in which every party involved has agreed on the possible consequences that might result from a violation of that contractual agreement between them. this is the only possible context in which any morality exists at all between cooperative powers. likewise, in the event that you have a party that acts in a way that is not indicated in advance to other parties, you don't have an actual moral contract, but a case of one power exploiting another by using such deception to victimize the other party. a perfect example of this would be; the state convicting a citizen of crimes they did not commit. here there is no civil contract, but a rivalry between two enemies.

so here is a list of things you can do if you find yourself in solitary confinement. i found these things to be very useful when i did my eight months in solitary confinement. for those not aware of how this happened, a brief explanation; after beating up a gang member (folk gang), a hit was put out on me by the gang. when i became aware of this i refused to go back to general population (didn't want to get jumped or stabbed by a herd of gang members who have no honor for fair, one-on-one fighting). the prison then punished me for refusing, and put me into solitary confinement, rather than shipping me to another prison and letting me retain my privileges. this situation basically amounted to this; the prison punished me for refusing to allow inmates the prison had neither the competence or authority to control, from becoming a threat to me. irony; i do what the prison is obligated to do, by law, but fails to do, and am punished for protecting myself from what they are unable to prevent.

list of solitary confinement activities:

first and foremost; masturbate. nothing alleviates a sex drive oppressed by a power that has stripped from you any right or privilege you had of attaining normal, healthy sexual relationships with other human beings by ostracizing you from society and/or wrongfully locking you in a prison cell, than flogging the ol' dolphin. i cannot emphasize the importance of this enough.

second; exercise, especially in solitary confinement. one must absolutely not allow the institution to take away one's physical health, despite its attempts to weaken you. in solitary confinement one will quickly wither away unless they exercise, because there is quite literally nothing to do in an eight by six cell, as far as normal activities are concerned, that would keep you in shape. in other words, even a desk job in a office burns more calories than sitting in a cell. so one has to invent ways to create weight for lifting or muscle deteriorates very fast. the few possible ways to do this; horde books in your cell to be used in a weight bag (pillow case... if you are even given a pillow). roll up mattress and tie sheets around it for handles. use one's own body weight... push-ups, lunges, squats, headstand military presses, dips.

third; if you do not already have a cheap canteen radio, do anything you can to get one (trade meal trays, stamps, whatever you have). if you trade meal trays, you'll have to endure being extremely hungry (rather than being only very hungry, as is the normal condition due to the state depriving you of calories and giving you only enough to keep you alive). but this will be a temporary thing, and eventually you'll get back to being only very hungry, once you've paid off the radio and are getting your meal trays again. now, you have a radio, and if you're lucky enough to be in a cell that provides good reception (very rare), you'll find great enjoyment in listening to it. in the event that you are only able to pick up cRap/hip-hop/R&B and country music, you'll likely be able to also pick up public news radio like NPR (my favorite). but whatever you can pick up, it will serve to relieve you from the endless noise created by the the degenerate niggers and white trash that fills the block your cell is in, all day and night. well, unless you only get cRap and country music, in which case you'll have to listen to celebrity degenerate niggers and white trash.

fourth; reading and writing. lose yourself in as many of the old, non-best selling, boring, horribly written novels that the library cart provides for you. but forget about educational, non-fiction. if you're lucky, you might get some lame, self-help book on the power to be a positive speaker or some such garbage, and you'll use it in your weight back. do some writing. solitary confinement for an intelligent person can be a catalyst for great productivity, provided one has the depth and insight to be able to foster it properly. in solitary, i did two kinds of writing; philosophical commentaries on the inherent dispicableness and/or mediocrity of humanity in general (these were epistemological, metaphysical, and political), and how, and what, distinguishes the higher type of man/woman from this general, ordinary condition. and of course you'll write letters if you have someone to write to.

so these are just some basic tips for how to endure the nightmare of solitary confinement, provided for those who don't earn it by killing other inmates like that dumbass mentioned in the thread above who's somehow managed to solicit sympathy from lordoflight.

disclaimer: i am calling this person a 'dumbass' only if he expects genuine sympathy for what has happened to him, and i would retract that insult if in fact this person does not expect sympathy and rather takes pride in what he has done, proudly and with dignity. because i do not know for sure, the insult is only a conditional clause and not a final judgement.

professor satyr wrote:You can't be absolutely right, but only superior.
Two reasons:

1- man is imperfect, and his knowledge incomplete and subjective.
2- the cosmos is fluid, so it is constantly changing.
Best you can do is find patterns in the fluidity, that hold true for longer periods of time, or across longer/broader spatial dimensions.

A theory is never absolutely correct...it is the best approximation....it is only superior to another theory.
Fluctuating cosmos does not mean all is changing at a speed that nothing holds true.

i don't know what i would do without you. whenever i feel like arguing with someone who's IQ is greater than their shoe size, i simply drive over to KT and grab a quote or two to work with.

let's break some language games down so i can show you what's going on here.

first statement. because there is no such thing as an ontologically unchanging human being in the first place, there can be no such thing as a 'perfect' human being... which then leads to the impossibility of there being an 'imperfect' human being, as well. your statement proceeds without recognizing this fact first, then draws a nonsensical dichotomous conclusion from the false premise; the statement implies that incomplete and subjective knowledge is possible only because man is imperfect, and the converse, only complete and objective knowledge is possible if man is perfect.

here, the question of 'complete/incomplete and subjective/objective knowledge' would have nothing to do with whether or not man is perfect or imperfect, simply because he can be neither, simply because he is always changing.

next you equate 'approximation' with being 'correct', and you state that one theory is better than another according to how much closer to the truth its approximation is. and yet if there were a 'truth', it too would only be an approximation, in which case one cannot know what it is exactly that one's approximate theory is attempting to describe/explain. this fact prevents not only you, but your theory, from getting any closer to the truth, since nothing is certain and everything is only an approximation of an approximation of an approximation, ad nauseam.

underlying all this confusing nonsense is your obstinate refusal to understand how we use the word 'absolute' meaningfully in philosophy. we don't conceive of the meaning of the word 'absolute' as some permanent all encompassing parmenidean singularity. in fact, if we take the meaning of the word to stand for anything more than the simple quality and fact of 'something being what it is and not what it is not', as aristotle put it, we will find ourselves tangled up in a semantic mess.

what is very characteristic of your idea of 'change' is that it fails to take into account the possibility of including in the ontological identity of a thing, the fact that it is able to change while still retaining its identity. this single feature of your thinking is responsible for sooooo much of the mess you get yourself into.

the example of such a thing... in fact the most important example, is the logical structure of language. i have stated a proof of this before and will do so again. we know that there are rules which absolutely exist in logic because we observe them directly even when we try to refute them. that is to say in the easiest way; if a statement is not absolutely true, then it is absolutely not true and absolutely false. not because of the ostensive definitions of the units in the statement... these things are dubious... but because of the impossibility of something being what it is and what it is not, whatever it is, at the same time.

what something is, it is not 'approximately'... and when someone perceives, judges and knows, they do not do so 'approximately'. only when we employ the word 'approximate' in strange, philosophical ways do we arrive at these confusions... which are nothing more than superfluous peculiarities in language. superfluous because we need not talk of whatever we are talking about in such a way in order to convey useful information, and peculiar because the use of the word usually changes nothing about what information can be conveyed. for instance, had you substituted the word 'exact' for 'approximate' in any of those statements, nothing would substantially change about the certainty of what the statement meant.

now compare the use of the word 'approximate' in a scientific language. nasa control says 'you will be entering orbit at approximately time x'. how we understand and use the meaning of the word here has very certain consequences which we experience directly... so that had we said 'exactly' instead of 'approximately', our circumstances would be different, we would act differently, expect differently, know differently, etc.

some philosopher says... here, let me make something up that sounds philosophical... 'consciousness provides an approximate awareness of the sensory data that impresses itself upon the senses.'

now if one weren't so inclined to take this statement apart, every philosopher in a hundred mile radius who heard it would run with it... and he wouldn't stop until he either passed out from mental exhaustion or lost his internet connection.

you must try to get it through your head that there are absolutes, that there are meaningful ways we can use the word, and that anybody who says it, is not necessarily an abrahaminihilistimarxist because they said it.

the one's who do think about and use the word 'absolute' for any of the reasons you expect they do, are just as confused as you are and wrong about what the word can mean. and if they're wrong, their use of the word 'absolute' can't be the reason why they're abrahaminihilistimarxists. one can't have as a cause for being what they are, a result of confused and nonsensical reasoning. confused and nonsensical reasoning produces no conclusions; one does not become a abrahaminihilistimarxist from erroneous reasoning involving the concept 'absolute' because erroneous reasoning brings forth no conclusions upon which to base one's position in the first place.

something else is the cause of them becoming abrahaminihilistimarxists, not their philosophical use of the concept 'absolute'... because there is nothing but nonsense there... and nonsense can be neither correct or incorrect.

suppose my philosophical mantra was '(a) slithy toads will always query angular red pernicious consternation, therefore i am a feminist'. would the cause of me being a feminist really be (a)? what the fuck does (a) even mean? could there possibly be such a thing?

so how could the statement 'god and/or the state is the absolute, therefore i am a christian and/or marxist' actually be the cause of the christianity and the marxism? it's a meaningless statement involving unreal things, events, states of affairs, and relationships. it says nothing about the world, and the only reason why such a statement even appears to be sensible is because it possesses certain grammatical functions that are properly syntactic. all you have there is proper grammar, not meaningful content.

(i'm going to spare you a deeper wittgensteinian analysis into the possible meaningfulness of such a statement in its proper language game, for the moment. the language game we are concerned with here is the philosophical one, and in this one such a statement has no place.)

now this post is not unlike a philosophical scrumdiddlyumptious bar, and it is to philosophy what a scrumdiddlyumptuous bar is to delicious treats. there are few things more delectable respective of their fields. savor this post as if it were one.