What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[Arising_uk]

...
My perceptual event horizon represents the ambiguous point where my senses can no longer formulate input into models, interpreting the rest as blackness.
My awareness is limited,a s is yours, boy. ...

Eh!? Not sure which senses you are talking about but lets just take sight. Where phenomenologically is there a 'blackness' in the perceptual field? There just appears to be a hazy boundary at its limits.

[Satyr]

Do larger fonts make words more true?

Yes, in which case both his and mine are more true.

Little girl, you are falling into emotional turmoil. I know you want attention, as all girls do, but you must be patient as I am confronted with multiple members of your herd, and I have only two eyes and only so much time at my disposal.
I will offer your delusional womanly gossip the attention they deserve.

Now if I had to guess between satyr and creativesoul as to which was the 'emotional female' who would I choose?

I would think that to a cow another cow is pretty.

Is this a reflection upon Greek women?

Yes.

Like these ones Greek Women.
Once more you've managed to find my soft spot and in so doing you've shown your level.

Do not be jealous, little girl, you might be fat and ugly and hairy, but you are still a woman to me.

Is that, no, spirituality need not necessarily involve 'gods'?

That's right.
Your obsession with absolutes, is indicative of your feminine attraction to the alpha male.
You can hope.

If you take yours out of your boyfriends arse you'll see no balance then.

Shall I insert it in yours, then, because you've been running around begging for it ever since I first met you?

I truly wish you were here to say that to my face.

Me too.
But your bravado aside, it's too bad you have to resort to threats when your mind's strength fails you.

I bet you imagine me easy in that area, as well. Imagination clouded by emotion, has a way of satisfying one's needs.
It can get a stupid girl hurt.

LMFAO! So not only are you an arsewipe but despite your hyperbole your thoughts are not even yours!

I offer the mindless another mind, because mine is too preoccupied with things that matter.
I also know how girls rely on authorities, and get wet at the sight of fame and fortune, so I offer some examples of fame, if not fortune.

Keep laughing. The nervousness might be an indication that now you are only interested in vengeance.
Which is understandable, as I invited it.

And one of those traditions was the belief in their 'gods' numbnuts.

Yes, amongst other things.
Like spirits, you pathetic woman.

And that has what to do with it?
We asked them and they say they have no record of the Hebrew being enslaved.

Ah, so they are the only people in history to have managed to escape that terrible fate.

We'll have to ascribe their "chosen" status to this good fortune, or perhaps their more omnipotent God had a hand in it.
Therefore, their slavishness must be explained in another manner. Perhaps purely genetic.
More quotes from fame and fortune, because I can't be overly bothered with you:

• Instead of pushing man to exceed himself, the monotheism of the Bible consumes his vitality. He must ‘impoverish and annihilate himself to give consistency to God. The deity becomes a kind of haemorrhaging of human nature. And God manipulates the transfusion of all man’s creative energies.

• Judeo-Christian monotheism developed a negative anthropology because it is a negative religion. An anti-religion.

• In regard, however, the debate between polytheism and monotheism there is not the “old opposition between the intellectual and the tangible,” contrary to what Michel Le Bris writes. It is not a question of choosing the tangible overt the intellectual, no more than it is of choosing nature over history or culture. Nor is it a question of invoking any kind of “feminine” security or womb of the earth-mother against the father of the “celestial” worlds beyond. The paganism I am speaking of is situated in an entirely different problematic. It is not the choice opposite to Judeo-Christian choice. It rejects this choice. In such a way that it brings to light the opposition between a system that posits in principle the inseparability – which does not mean the identity– the Judeo-Christian system – which posits their severability in principle (considered by Le Bris as a “major catastrophe of thought”) to build itself upon a duality.

• The biblical approach goes from the universal to the particular; it deduces what we can know of the particular from what we should know of the absolute. In Greek thought, on the contrary, although the universal also plays an important role, the approach is the opposite. The conceptualization of the universal is based on the abstraction and successive generalization of a plurality of concrete particulars. In the Bible what is first provided are totalities, categories, and classes, for which individual things or people are only manifestations…Biblical thought is an all-encompassing, totalizing thought that proceeds from the general to the particular based on deduction from the revealed absolute and not by induction based on lived experience. In this system, the particular is not at all the basis from which the general concept is inferred; it is the projection of the idea of generality. Individuals and things are then themselves only projections, “realizations” of universal essence and ideas. Whereas in the discourse of paganism the particular can attain the universal by virtue of its very particularity – Goethe is universal by first being German; Cervantes is universal by being primarily Spanish – in the discourse of the Bible, it is the universal that provides statutory basis for every particular. In the first case, the general defines itself through the particular; in the second, it is the particular that is defined by the general.

• The sickly types aspire to form a herd. Quantity compensates them – at least they think it does – for what they lack in quality. If several suffer together they believe their suffering is reduced. Those who boast Judeo-Christian values sometimes attribute to the “powerful” the feelings they would have or be tempted to have if they were there in their place. They do not see the true power is an end in itself and does not aim, on condition it is tranquil, at any utility – that the “will to will denies any end in itself and only tolerates an objective as a means in order to best itself deliberately in the game and organize a space for this game.” In paganism happiness is never the antagonist of power, But nor is it an antagonist of equity. By condemning the exaltation of weakness, paganism is not in any way aiming at justifying the crushing of the weak by the strong, nor forming the “ideological alibi” of any sort of established disorder. To the contrary, it claims to contribute to the formation of the spiritual framework that allows every individual, whatever his rank, assuming only that he has the will, to cultivate what inside strengthens and does not undo him. Paganism does not reproach Christianity for defending the weak who are unjustly oppressed. It reproaches it for exalting them in their weakness and viewing it as the sign of their election and their title to glory; it reproaches Christianity for not helping them to become strong. So it is not a question of opposing the strong versus the weak – today, in any event, it is paganism that is weak and Judeo-Christian monotheism that is strong – but purely and simply of opposing a system of remaining weak with a system of becoming strong. It is also a question of making a world that is not a vale of tears, not a theater of shadows, nor a stage where a man with erratic happiness acts out his salvation, but that natural field of self-expansion for a man capable of asserting his autonomy and establishing himself as his own project.

Keep the last in mind when reading uncreative's assaults using quantifiable evidences.

• We should not try to dissimulate the antithesis existing between, on the one hand, the pure Christian morality of love, submission, humility, mystical humanism, and, on the other hand, ethical-political values such as justice, honour, difference, and a spirituality that is not the opposite of power, but of which power is a normal attribute. The Christian precept of returning good for evil is opposed by the principle of striking the unjust, of forgiving and generosity, but only to a vanquished foe, and not to an enemy who still stands strong in his injustice. In a virile institution, as contemplated in the ideal of the true State, there is little or no room for love (conceived as the need to communicate, to embrace others, to lower oneself and to take care of those who may not even ask for it or be worthy of it) Again, in such an institution there can be relationships among equals, but without a communitarian - social and brotherly tint, established on the basis of loyalty, mutual acknowledgment and respect, as everyone retains his own dignity and a healthy love for distance. I will not discuss here what consequences would ensue on the political plane if we were to take literally the evangelical parables concerning the lilies of the field and the birds of the air, as well as all the other nihilist teachings that are built on the overthrow of earthly values and on the idea of the imminent advent of the Regnuum.

• We must not forget that all the peoples who now excel in the practice of anti-Semitism became Christians only in relatively recent times, sometimes forced to by bloody compulsion. One might say they all are ‘badly christened’; under the thin veneer of Christianity they have remained what their ancestors were, barbarically polytheistic. They have not yet overcome their grudge against the new religion which was forced on them, and they have projected it on to the source from which Christianity came to them. The facts that the Gospels tell a story which is enacted among Jews, and in truth treats only of Jews, has facilitated such a projection. The hatred for Judaism is at bottom hatred for Christianity, and it is not surprising that in the German National Socialist revolution this close connection of the two monotheistic religions finds such clear expression in hostile treatment of both.

• When Jews acquired power after historic powerlessness, the original conditions of Judaism unraveled. To empower the powerless or marginalized is self-empowering while Jews themselves are powerless. But when the Jewish cause becomes victorious, this strategy backfires and Jewish principles deconstruct themselves, inverting the inverters. For the Zionist state to consistently empower the disempowered Palestinians at their own expense would be political suicide. Being Goliath is a problem when the moral of the story is that David ultimately wins. The internationalism of Christianity laid the common ground for a world that has a place for the nationalism of the Jews. Just as Roman conquerors penetrated the territorial-sociobiological boundaries of the ancient Jewish state, the Jewish-based God memes of Christianity penetrated the ancient Roman world. Christianity began a process of blunting and mollifying the deepest ethical-cultural gulfs between Jew and gentile. The penetration of Jewish genes into the modern gentile West is only a continuation of the anti-kin selective logic that began with Christianity. In other words, Jewish assimilation as individuals in the modernistic West is only a continuation of gentile assimilation to the sociobiological impact of Christianity. Both as individuals and as a Zionist state, Western assimilation of Jewish bodies was founded upon Western assimilation of a Jewish “spirit”.

• The tabla rasa of Judaism can be found in the story of the forty years of wandering in the desert after exodus from Egypt. After the Golden Calf incident, God told Moses, “the people that you brought up out of the land of Egypt have dealt corruptly” (Exodus 32:7). In an instance of divine eliminationist anti-Semitism, God exhibited a genocidal intention to destroy Israel and give Moses a more fit people to lead. Moses, however, tied his fate to his people. Golden Calf decadence betrayed a lack of self-control by a people still mentally mastered by Egyptian masters. A slavish, ghetto-like fear of the Canaanites who occupied the Promised Land betrayed a lack of self-mastery. God ultimately decided that they must wander forty years so that a new generation, born in freedom, would be fit for the Promised Land. In God’s relinquishment of genocide against the Hebrews, and his decree that they can and must wander in the desert for forty years, one can see the ancient kernel of the modern tabla rasa idea that nurture can overcome nature.

• The Jewish kinship paradox meant that this entire model was utterly improbable, if not impossible, for Jews. The Jewish kinship paradox meant that pure sociobiological naturalism was self-defeating. To survive, Jews could only rest their faith in the post-biological corrective of Mosaic Law. To survive, Jews could only look forward from the premise of the goodness of overcoming pure biological naturalism. There was no going back to nature, and this led the evolution of the Bible towards prophetic speculations about the full implications of overcoming biology in God. The modern Western political left evolved as a direct extension of this original Biblical revolt against biology.

• The egalitarian principle effectually emphasizes the similarities among people and deemphasizes differences among people. Biological differences among racial groups have been deemphasized through a liberalization of the concept of race: the race that matters is the human race. The underlying individualism of the humanistic proposition meant that all white men eventually became all men. All men became men and women. As a gross generalization, one could say that the left is egalitarian, and the right is inegalitarian. The left represents a female gender strategy, and the right represents a male gender strategy. The leftism of modern egalitarian revolutions reflects the long-term effects of emasculation among conquered peoples. A fundamental moral meaning of equality, pioneered by Jews, is the equality of masculine and feminine gender qualities. Although progress has not increased men’s ability to menstruate, it has increased men’s sensitivity to the nurturing norms of compassion over the virtues of the warrior. Leftwards progress leads to progressive gender feminization. Most men are created equal to the proposition that all men are created equal. Universalization of the principle of equality among all human males without discrimination on the basis of responsibility, morality, intelligence, etc., opens the comparison of some men to some women. Since all men are not equally masculine, power hungry, moral, or intelligent, it is precisely the inequality of men among themselves that makes the equality of some (beta) men and some (alpha) women plausible. While gay men are formally equal as men, homosexual (gay/lesbian/bisexual) rights logically succeed women’s rights and they could only be advanced coherently after the success of feminism. A basic reason for this is that feminism posits the equality of the sexes, and thus raises the question of why anyone should discriminate a potential sexual partner or mate on the basis of sex. If the sexes are truly equal, why limit the choice of one’s mate to only one half of the population? Going one step further, egalitarianism implicates not only feminism and homosexuality, but also social and legal acceptance of incest; sexual and marital relations between parents and children. Sexual and marital relations between siblings and other close relations are also implicated.

• Christian love is a radical passive-aggression of the spirit. Whereas genetic insemination requires penetration of biological borders, memetic insemination requires penetration of mental or spiritual borders. Because Jesus’ mind-spirit was the penetration of the mental-spiritual borders that separated Jew and Roman, his spiritual ideas could penetrate and inseminate hitherto “natural” borders. Whereas sexual love leads toward genetic insemination, Christian love leads to memetic insemination. Love is an evolutionary expression of a desire for reproduction and, in this case, the reproduction of the selfish memes of Christian altruism. Jesus overcame the natural determination of being a natural rapist by becoming a supernatural rapist. Christian love is Jesus’ gargantuan spiritual penis raping the boundaries of class and race, Jew and gentile, insider and outsider, and master and slave. Jesus’ penis of the spirit penetrated deep inside until the spiritually violated Roman-ruled world had been loved to death.

• The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity”, Hitler declared. “Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew.” Auschwitz would revenge the blow of Christianity. But what was it about Christianity that Hitler believed was so criminal? Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of human failure. Christian values contradicted a Darwinian revaluation of life. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the artificial end of evolution by natural selection. If Christianity led to the “systematic cultivation of human failure”, then Nazism would aim for the systematic cultivation of eugenic success. As Richard Weikart explained in From Darwin to Hitler: “Hitler derided any morality inimical to the increased vitality of the “Aryan” race, especially traditional values of humility, pity, and sympathy. He considered these unnatural, contrary to reason, and thus detrimental and destructive for the healthy progress of the human species. He spurned the idea of human rights, calling it a product of weaklings It was “those, stupid, false, and unhealthy ideals of humanity”, as Göring called them, that stood in the way of racial-biological progress. The systematic desecration of humanistic values was identical with a wholesale rejection of the modern system of human rights. This rejection would be inexplicable without the realization that Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection implied that there are no “natural rights” to defend the survival of the weak; only natural selection to defend the natural destruction of the weak. Yet if the foundational modern human right is the right to live, then the full progressive implementation of the system of modern rights would mean the artificial end of evolution by natural selection. This is how secularized Christian values could engender the “systematic cultivation of human failure”.

• The most basic “laws of physics” may be a product of such a process of radical evolution. The appearance of “law” would only be the product of radical evolutionary success in self-replication. This would explain why there appears to “law” from a Newtonian level of perspective while more recent attempts to divide subatomic particles into ever smaller elements leads to a relative chaos: the existence of any physical “laws” at all were simply a product a particular evolutionary success and thus would not necessarily translate into every “level” of physical observation. - If so, the physical “laws” of our “universe” are the descendants of the most successful self-reproductive mechanisms. This is why they seem like absolute laws: they dominate our provincial world. All observable matter from electrons to galaxies might be the product of mutations or variations of more basic or more primitive self-replication processes. - If so, two separate observations that appear to verify the existence of a common physical “law” would be more like verifying the accuracy of an industrial mass production process, since there would be no reason to think that two samples are absolutely identical in every possible respect (and one might attempt to seek out possible mutations). Most mutations of physical self-replication “laws” would not produce biology, but biology might have evolved from one of a multitude of mutations of physical “law”. Note that my use of the word “law”, here, encompasses regularities of variable success in self-replication and also, for example, variations of decreasing fidelity to an original order of local physical ecology. - If there is no absolute distinction between the general and the particular then there can be no absolute distinction between physics and biology. “Particulars” would thus be physical organizations with no special capacity for or actualization of self-replication while “generals” would be physical organizations that have demonstrated their capacity for self-replication by reproducing their way into “general laws”. Also, the entire free will/determinism distinction falls apart because strict determinism rests on faith in generalizing “universal” general laws as distinguished from particular non-laws that are assumed to be the realm of freedom (and not simply a lack of self-replication).

• The secularizational link between modern physical law and modern political law is the idea that no man is above it. The assumption of the universality of God lent credence to the assumption of universal law; a single God of a single physical reality underwriting a single law which no human is superior to. At first glance, this perspective would seem to corroborate the conventional notion of God as “absolute” and the notion of an “absolute” God would appear to contrast most strikingly with the notion of evolution. - Conceiving humans as of absolute value in the image of God, or with inalienable right to life, translates, in Darwinian terms, into treating biology as a constant that does not change. Biological evolution by natural selection works on precisely the opposite premise: inequality in the form of genetic variation between individuals is what makes evolution possible when some variations die or reproduce less than others. However, if biology is treated as a constant or a factor that can be minimized or ignored simultaneous with a modern Newtonian emphasis on the larger physical reality and its economic-technological development, then biological evolution is minimized while economic-technological evolution is maximized. While the pagan values that the Nazi revived maximized biological evolution, Judeo-Christian values are effectively closing the door to biological evolution by valuing every life (in theory) and thus civilizing natural selection to a halt.

• Human rights are literally supernatural in the sense that rights, in conjunction with its corollary in the notion of modern “progress”, work in diametrical opposition to natural selection. Technology, moreover, represents the epitome of natural injustice when technology is used to artificially preserve humans that would otherwise be eliminated through natural selection. Glasses, for example, allow persons with genetically inferior eyesight to function in equality with persons with naturally superior eyesight. Technological advances in medicine similarly help preserve the sick that would other perish in rational accordance with the natural law of natural selection. In these ways, technology thwarts biological evolution by allowing persons with otherwise maladaptive genes to pass them on to the next generation.

• This is simply a continuation of the logic of feminism through individuation. Just as a feminism liberated women from the slavery like institution of marriage represented by the tradition patriarchal male head of the family, liberation from the tyranny of the child is the next to follow. Just as liberation from patriarchy required the ability to see through romanticizations of the oppressions of the traditional family, liberation from romanticization of self-sacrifice to an utterly egoistic infant and child follows logically. The child is final tyrant to be overthrown before individuals can truly be free as individuals. -If Westerners lived up to the claims of civilization and tamed their instincts and emotions enough to act upon a rational, consistent individualism, and not discriminate on the basis of kinship relations, nepotism, or sentimentalism, then what does the child become? The child becomes an “individual”; simply another individual. - Childbearing and raising children by either sex is a barbaric legacy of the old patriarchal order in the sense that instinct and emotion remains fundamentally uncivilized in that reason has not been fully applied to life. For what rational reason would one have children? The means of childbearing and child raising have been civilized, but what of this end? The instinctive desire to have children is the logic of the selfish gene, not the logic of the selfish individual or rational individual self-preservation.-If an individual is truly free to choose his or her way of life, why would one volunteer for a life of servitude to a child-tyrant? If all individuals are equal, then why opt for this manifest inequality? For those who opt for full freedom and equality, the option to have kids is neither superior nor inferior to options like surfing or mountain climbing. - Who is to say that childbearing is more important than expanding your shoe collection? Feel something missing? Get a dog or a cat. Infertility may bring new life, at least, to the pet industry. If the liberal egalitarian project succeeded in producing a truly individualistic rationalism, no one would have children. The progress of universal individualism would ultimately lead to the end of the biological human race. In this way, the death spiral logic of individualism nicely parallels the death spiral logic of egalitarianism.

• Liberals are not at all fully nihilistic. In part, there is the practical belief in values vaguely corresponding to human rights. But more fundamentally, “secularists” implicitly believe in a religion of the common emotions. They generally believe that meaning is to be found in the material, biochemical processes that humans experience as emotions. They generally believe that it actually means something when these old biological mechanisms produce the familiar emotional routines. -While one may feel compassion, does this mean that one lacks the capacity to discipline one’s self from being mastered by that impulse. That people are mastered by such impulses is only another confirmation of Darwin’s insight that humans are animals. Most humans are driven overwhelmingly by instinct and emotion. The “secular” belief in emotions is the last degenerate remains of romanticism and religion. - The modernistic project did not destroy romanticism, it only reduced to a common level. Modernity and postmodernity retain romanticism by reducing the belief in emotion to the most common experiences, i.e. hunger, fear of death, and lust. The emotional joy of cynical laughter could be considered characteristic of the new romanticism.

• In the past two thousand years Christianity has done its work and has erected barriers of repression, which protect us from the sight of our own “sinfulness”. The elementary notions of the libido have come to be known to us, for they are carried on in the unconscious; therefore, the belief which combats them has become hollow and empty. Let whoever does not believe that a mask covers our religion obtain an impression for himself from the appearance of our modern churches, from which style and art have long since fled.

• Christianity split the Germanic barbarian into an upper and a lower half, and enabled him, by repressing the dark side to domesticate the brighter half and fit it for civilization....But, the lower darker half still awaits redemption and a second spell of domestification. The Jew, on the other hand, is domesticated to a higher degree than we are, but he is badly at a loss for that quality in man which roots him to the earth and draws new strength from below.

• [Philosophers] all pose as though their real opinions had been discovered and attained through the self-evolving of a cold, pure, divinely indifferent dialectic…whereas, in fact, a prejudiced proposition, idea or ‘suggestion’, which is generally their heart’s desire abstracted and refined, is defended by them with arguments sought out after the event…[thus] the hocus-pocus in mathematical form, by means of which Spinoza has as if it were clad his philosophy in mail and mask – in fact, the ‘love of his wisdom’, to translate the term fairly and squarely – in order thereby to strike terror at once into the heart of the assailant who should dare to cast a glance on the invincible maiden, the Pallas-Athene:- how much of personal timidity and vulnerability does this mask of a sickly recluse betray!

• ...Let us face facts: the people have triumphed -- or the slaves, the mob, the herd, whatever you wish to call them -- and if the Jews brought it about, then no nation ever had a more universal mission on earth. The lords are a thing of the past, and the ethics of the common man is completely triumphant. I don't deny that this triumph might be looked upon as a kind of blood poisoning, since it has resulted in a mingling of the races, but there can be no doubt that the intoxication has succeeded. The 'redemption' of the human race (from the lords, that is) is well under way; everything is rapidly becoming Judaized, or Christianized, or mob-ized -- the word makes no difference.... -[The Birth of Tragedy and The Genealogy of Morals]

• By killing the Jews, Western culture would eradicate those who had “invented” God, who had, however imperfectly, however restively, been the declarers of His unbearable Absence. The Holocaust is a reflex, the more complete for being long-inhibited, of natural sensory consciousness, of instinctual polytheistic and animist needs. It speaks for a world both older than Sinai and newer than Nietzsche. When, during the first years of Nazi rule, Freud sought to shift to an Egyptian responsibility for the “invention” of God, he was, though perhaps without fully knowing it, making a desperate propitiatory, sacrificial move. He was trying to wrench the lightning rod out of the hands of the Jewish people. It was too late. The leprosy of God’s choice — but who chose whom? — was too visible on them.

• Judaism is the evil conscience of our modern civilization.

• The Germans, of course, are by nature the flower of humankind: to fulfill their great destiny they have only to restore their sullied racial purity, or at all events to achieve a real rebirth of racial feeling.

• …there was nowhere to be found a Jew composer: it was impossible for an element entirely foreign to that living organism to take part in the formative stages of that life. Only when a body’s inner death is manifest, do outside elements win the power of lodgement in it—yet merely to destroy it. Then indeed that body’s flesh dissolves into a swarming colony of insect-life: but who, in looking on that body’s self would hold it still for living? The spirit, that is: the life, has fled from out that body, has sped to kindred other bodies; and this is all that makes out Life. In genuine Life alone can we, too, find again the ghost of Art, and not within its worm-befretted carcass.

• But first I want to define exactly what I mean by Jewishness. One is not dealing with a race or a people, and even less with legally acknowledged profession. One can only define it as a spiritual attitude, a psychic constitution, which offers an OPPORTUNITY for ALL men and which merely found its grandiose REALIZATION in historical Jewery. Nothing proves the veracity of this statement more than anti-Semitism. The truest, most Aryan or Aryans, certain of their Aryaness, are no anti-Semites; they cannot even fathom hostile anti-Semitism;…on the other hand, one can always detect certain Jewish traits in aggressive anti-Semites…It would be impossible for this to be any other way. As one LOVES only those traits in the other which one would wholeheartedly embrace oneself, yet can never fully attain, so one HATES in the other only that which one never wants to be, yet which one partially retains. One does not hate something with which one has nothing in common.

I'm sure you'll manage to flippantly dismiss them all, by ignoring them. Girls can be so cruel when to using comes to social tactics.

We asked them and they say they have no record of the Hebrew being enslaved.

Send my regards.

Nah! Just a vague location will do.

Good...the brain.

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/lhc/lhc-en.html

You call that evidence?
It is evident that you cannot figure out your interpretation of reality from reality itself. The particles are here then there, behave like particles only when observed, cannot be pinpointed but vaguely perceived as dots; they can have mass bot no location or location but no mass..and most importantly, dear woman, they can be infinitely divided...making them another step in the long trek towards nothing.

They represent a manifestation of the #1.

I wonder, dear woman, in a two dimensional world, let us say, would a ball look round on would the mind perceiving it find it flat?
How would scientists in that two-dimensional world make sense of it; how would their instruments represents it?

Most of my life, its why I studied philosophy.

Presumably knowing is understanding.
It explains why philosophy professors make such good philosophers, and how art teachers are such brilliant artists.
Your understanding has been proven by your gossipy interrogation and your womanly addictions.
I'm sure you've taken a few art classes as well. Probably aced them.

Why didn't they make spherical wheels then?

Dear, idiot, you asked me to offer you an idea from where a wheel came from, now you complain because that first wheel was not steel-belted?

But I'm not saying that we are not toolmakers, just that there are new inventions.

Retarded baboon, did anyone say there are no new inventions, or was the claim that they are never truly new, or unique, because they are combinations of what is already present and known?
Invention is the creative act of taking the known and applying it differently or combining it differently...you simpleton.
The wheel, little girl, didn't come out of the ether, or from some Platonic state of ideals, it came from observing the natural world and extrapolating characteristics, coming up with innovative ways of applying them.
The wheel was present, in a rock rolling down a hill, you simple woman, just as a computer is present in the very way the human brain works.

Post the links as my girly brain appears to have forgotten.

I'm not going to do the homework for ya, girl. I posted it - look for it or do not...who the fuck cares?

Blimey! You think this is shunning? Careful out there.

Only partially, the rest is all play.

Eh!? Not sure which senses you are talking about but lets just take sight. Where phenomenologically is there a 'blackness' in the perceptual field? There just appears to be a hazy boundary at its limits.

Yes, little princess, too bad I cannot offer you any certain points of absolute reference, to sooth that aching gap between your legs and fill its void with substance.

Do an experiment....look at a leaf....approach it....then magnify its simplified generalized edges....magnify more, and more and more....where is the boundary?
Always fading into the distance.
Fractals.
How long is a piece of string?

[Mark Question]

All models refer back to themselves. They become delusional and complacent when they deny themselves the challenge of comparing the model to the ongoing reality around them.
This is the only "openness' I recognize.

it must be hard to ask some more or less absolute atheist or more or less open minded conservative christian or fanatically anti-semitic semitic muslim to imagine a god loving jew, or even how does it feels to be a jew and to think like a jew. or to ask nazis to emphasize jews, as humans as they are to nazis. it must be hard to jump almost totally outside from own coherent view of rational beliefs and feelings, outside world, as one see it trough ones "best model". if safe but boring, could those golden cages of free birds like those omnipotent creationists models, be sold cheap like houses, with magical mirror that tells to its owner who is the miss world or mr. brightest for real and without even a hint of solipsism? at least me myself and i feel dumb as ass, asking these questions, without that mirror. so, what about if some bored angry creationist also see what you see, what has to do to avoid becoming delusional?: comparing his own model to that reality that he see trough his "the best he see"-model, and of course, making it better and better every day..?

[Satyr]

it must be hard to ask some more or less absolute atheist or more or less open minded conservative christian or fanatically anti-semitic semitic muslim to imagine a god loving jew, or even how does it feels to be a jew and to think like a jew. or to ask nazis to emphasize jews, as humans as they are to nazis. it must be hard to jump almost totally outside from own coherent view of rational beliefs and feelings, outside world, as one see it trough ones "best model".

Indeed, this is why few can do it.

How do you separate what you see from what you wish to see? How do you then accept what you see, no matter how much you might dislike it?

Does not a fat ugly girl speak most vehemently about how beauty is skin deep or about how looks are superficial or how it is the "inside" that matters when ti comes to sexual unions?
How do you confront this girl with her own delusions when she'll react defensively bringing up your own ugliness as evidence that hers is not so bad?

What "sanctity of life"...who deified life but the living man?
How fuckin' absurd to flatter yourself so arrogantly while pretending to be humble, and to have your own kind support you in this hypocrisy?

if safe but boring, could those golden cages of free birds like those omnipotent creationists models, be sold cheap like houses, with magical mirror that tells to its owner who is the miss world or mr. brightest for real and without even a hint of solipsism?

Nobody said it would be easy...not final.
Consciousness, if it wishes to see, rather than comfort itself from what it sees, is engaged in a constant struggle to free itself from emotional handicaps and self-serving illusions.

But because there is never an absolute absence of solipsism that one speaks of superior and inferior truths, rather than absolute ones.
Only these imbeciles would have a problem with this. Their faith is under assault and they, personally, feel threatened by the possibility of being exposed as being genetically, and so intellectually, inferior. In equality they disappear in a sea of uniformity, their only fault is that they could not apply themselves according to prescribed methods.

at least me myself and i feel dumb as ass, asking these questions, without that mirror. so, what about if some bored angry creationist also see what you see, what has to do to avoid becoming delusional?

they will not; they can not.
To see means you are no longer so. An insane person who knows he is insane, is no longer so.

: comparing his own model to that reality that he see trough his "the best he see"-model, and of course, making it better and better every day..?

Remaining comfortable and delusional is easy...path-of-least-resistance.
In my thesis The Feminization of Mankind, I go into how this mindset is only possible in a world where stupidity is protected form itself.
In nature delusion and stupidity is culled out of the herd....this is natural selection is all about...but it is only in human environments where stupidity and weakness is protected, even promoted, because it facilitates internal harmony and systemic stability.

Look at the ant, the bees, the termites...what do they lack, making their social arrangement the most stable and harmonious in nature?
What they lack is what is being suppressed and weeded out in man, given the current environmental conditions, to achieve the same result: uniformity.

[Mark Question]

let me enjoy your model answers a moment and ich will be back later.

-oh my fluidity, look at that ugly white small-mouth!

[Mark Question]

How do you separate what you see from what you wish to see? How do you then accept what you see, no matter how much you might dislike it?

how do you separate what you see trough your model from what you wish to see trough your model? in my model, i separate girls before and after dozens of beers. do you see that survival of the fittest? angry nazigermany or more gay, feminine men? i have to stop drinking and drive home before i see more.

Does not a fat ugly girl speak most vehemently about how beauty is skin deep or about how looks are superficial or how it is the "inside" that matters when ti comes to sexual unions?
How do you confront this girl with her own delusions when she'll react defensively bringing up your own ugliness as evidence that hers is not so bad?

maybe she is a sexy hot beauty model? in a wrong contest? my hometown champion hamster died in local feline model competition, before finals. silly me! rambo didnt like cats. she must have been insulting other competitors to cat fight like a tourette. did the big juicy girl meant about the "inside" that beauty is in our eyes, brains or models?

if some bored angry creationist also see what you see, what has to do to avoid becoming delusional?

they will not; they can not.
To see means you are no longer so. An insane person who knows he is insane, is no longer so.

: comparing his own model to that reality that he see trough his "the best he see"-model, and of course, making it better and better every day..?

Remaining comfortable and delusional is easy...path-of-least-resistance.

i rebuild that question of mine, especially for you: if some bored angry creationist, also can see the same words of yours, about what man has to do is what man has to do to avoid becoming delusional, and he starts to praise the lord and you! because your words about comparing models to reality, was like his own words exactly! can you imagine!?

[Satyr]

how do you separate what you see trough your model from what you wish to see trough your model? in my model, i separate girls before and after dozens of beers. do you see that survival of the fittest? angry nazigermany or more gay, feminine men? i have to stop drinking and drive home before i see more.

I've gone over this.
Consciousness sis fluid because reality is so. You can think of consciousness as an attempt to harmonize itself with fluidity, achieving this imagined omniscience - God would be born, and we would be it.
But as we know the closer one reaches to the absolute the energies required to proceed further increase exponentially, until the final movement towards perfection, if you will, would require infinite energies.

Back to your question...This constant vigilance means that consciousness is in a continuous state of updating its abstractions. It does so by comparing its more recent models with those it is constantly creating using the steam of information it is processing. If there is a discrepancy there, then the mind is experiencing an illusion, or if the mind begins to increasingly reference its earlier abstraction then the mind is becoming self-referential, or solipsistic or delusional.
The only way this state is possible to subsist over a long period of time is when it is protected by a system that depends on its delusion so as to make this mind more manageable, when in fact these reference points, these mimetic contrivances, have been placed there via education or popular-culture.

There is always survival of the fittest, only here a new tactic is being employed; a more sophisticated form of mass -manipulation.
Century of Self. In short this new model of human husbandry entails the indoctrination of the mind into a way of thinking where reality is turned on its head, much to the relief of the majority who suffered the cruel consequences of natural selection.

If you are interested in a different variation of how this is accomplished read Heisman'sSuicide Note. The man was a Jew and his suicide was a declaration of integrity, as he wished to follow through with the logic of his own people's philosophy...which is anti-life.

maybe she is a sexy hot beauty model? in a wrong contest? my hometown champion hamster died in local feline model competition, before finals. silly me! rambo didnt like cats. she must have been insulting other competitors to cat fight like a tourette. did the big juicy girl meant about the "inside" that beauty is in our eyes, brains or models?

Beauty, in nature, signifies order, symmetry...or its promise, sexual fitness.
Only through a form of brainwashing, playing upon human frailties, can a meme that usurps this fundamental natural tendency to perceive order as evidence of health within a particular environment, can beauty be turned into an esoteric characteristic.
Of course when we speak of order, we are not only talking about a symmetry in form, but also a symmetry in mind, which is what intelligence is.

i rebuild that question of mine, especially for you: if some bored angry creationist, also can see the same words of yours, about what man has to do is what man has to do to avoid becoming delusional, and he starts to praise the lord and you! because your words about comparing models to reality, was like his own words exactly! can you imagine!?

I can imagine unicorns...can you point to one instance?

[Mark Question]

Consciousness sis fluid because reality is so.

is so, in your model? what you can know about anything, without your model? do you just believe that your model is modelling more than itself, because your model tells so? does it tell that it is a model? like gods words tell us that these are gods words? like in self service courts where you can free yourself alone? hearing, questioning, telling and judging by yourself that you are not guilty?

There is always survival of the fittest, only here a new tactic is being employed; where reality is turned on its head

reality turns itself? can we ask reality to stop doing so funny move?

he wished to follow through with the logic of his own people's philosophy...which is anti-life.

like that male spider who gets killed and eaten after sex? or thanatos? anti-life in your model? jews life is anti-life in jews view?

I can imagine unicorns...can you point to one instance?

i am sorry that i have no reality of unicorns-model to offer you now. maybe some day. but what would you do with it? are you planning to jump out that fluid fittest gay jews-model of yours? at least we have lots of different "everything explained"-models to choose if we can?

[Satyr]

is so, in your model? what you can know about anything, without your model?

Can you know anything without yours?
To know, IS to have a model, to form an abstraction.

do you just believe that your model is modelling more than itself, because your model tells so?

I create my model.
I only ask that it adheres to the reality I perceive daily.

does it tell that it is a model?

Does yours tell you so?
My model does not speak...it is a "supermodel"...hot, spicy and silent. The perfect woman.,

like gods words tell us that these are gods words?

Funny that god's words come to most in a book, or through others, whereas I construct the abstraction I am talking about...with a bit of help, from those I admire.
Where does you model come from?

like in self service courts where you can free yourself alone? hearing, questioning, telling and judging by yourself that you are not guilty?

Given that nature, reality, the world is the only arbitrator of the abstraction's validity, what you just said is a projection reflecting your own addiction...and it has nothing to do with what I've said.
I suggest you gather with your clan, in a dark room, have a seance and then remark upon the fact that the "truth" is so universal and that you guys see it because it feels good and it was given to you by those with long beads and nice smiles.

like that male spider who gets killed and eaten after sex? or thanatos? anti-life in your model? jews life is anti-life in jews view?

You can use any metaphor you wish.
Life is need/suffering...to affirm this is to affirm life. To give life is to damn or bless someone with a lifetime of need/suffering.
I'm sorry you have such a low pain threshold and life is so frightening when it is cleansed from all your sanctifying bullshit...but it is as it is.

i am sorry that i have no reality of unicorns-model to offer you now. maybe some day. but what would you do with it?

Probably laugh at it....no I would smile, as I am now...as I am in the avatar.
I suspect you have nothing to offer of your model world other than hopes and expectations. One must dream...and some ideals need to be unrealistic to be seductive.

are you planning to jump out that fluid fittest gay jews-model of yours?

Mmmmm, I sense an animosity bubbling up...methinks my views disturb your christian sensitivities.

at least we have lots of different "everything explained"-models to choose if we can?

Yes, including children's models, the kind such as you would appreciate best.
Something... innocent....gay.

[Arising_uk]

Yes, in which case both his and mine are more true.

Since she didn't post in this size font I'll have to just think thats its only your words that become truer in this sense. Does the colour make them doubley truer? Although lol that you use the green of the lunatic.

Little girl, you are falling into emotional turmoil. I know you want attention, as all girls do, but you must be patient as I am confronted with multiple members of your herd, and I have only two eyes and only so much time at my disposal. I will offer your delusional womanly gossip the attention they deserve.

What! The uber-bubble can't multitask? Shame upon you.

I would think that to a cow another cow is pretty.

And that bears what relationship to my question?

Yes.

Like these ones Greek Women.

Once more you've managed to find my soft spot and in so doing you've shown your level.

What the one between your ears or is that legs?
Still, what about these beauties?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aS8D10gP ... re=related
Funny how they look a lot like the Greeks?

This yours?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqdnP_-U ... re=related

For what its worth I think London contains the most beautiful women in the world as every type is here.

Do not be jealous, little girl, you might be fat and ugly and hairy, but you are still a woman to me. ...

Sweet of you.

That's right.
Your obsession with absolutes, is indicative of your feminine attraction to the alpha male.
You can hope.

You'd cack your pants if you met an alpha male.

Shall I insert it in yours, then, because you've been running around begging for it ever since I first met you?

Nah! It'd be to small.

Me too.
But your bravado aside, it's too bad you have to resort to threats when your mind's strength fails you.

Alpha male, not! You see a threat in my words? Must be guilt at yours.

I bet you imagine me easy in that area, as well. Imagination clouded by emotion, has a way of satisfying one's needs.
It can get a stupid girl hurt.

As if I care if it'd be easy or not! Its the fight that counts turd, win or lose. My sister-in-law would carve you a new arsehole, and wouldn't your boyfriend be happy.

I offer the mindless another mind, because mine is too preoccupied with things that matter. ...

I also know how girls rely on authorities, and get wet at the sight of fame and fortune, so I offer some examples of fame, if not fortune. ...

So you quote your authorities.

Keep laughing. The nervousness might be an indication that now you are only interested in vengeance.
Which is understandable, as I invited it. ...

I will, This an example of your 'ascetic practices'?

Yes, amongst other things.
Like spirits, you pathetic woman.

So you think they should have kept on believing in 'gods' and 'spirits'.

Ah, so they are the only people in history to have managed to escape that terrible fate. ...

Who enslaved the Greek people? But numbnuts, slavery was common practice everywhere, it wasn't until later that whole peoples were enslaved as such. So historically the Eygptians and historians say there is no evidence for your babble.

We'll have to ascribe their "chosen" status to this good fortune, or perhaps their more omnipotent God had a hand in it.
Therefore, their slavishness must be explained in another manner. Perhaps purely genetic. ...

What 'slavishness' numbnuts, they fought the Romans so much that the Romans dispersed them, unlike the Greek it appears.

More quotes from fame and fortune, because I can't be overly bothered with you: ...

You mean because you can't be bothered to restate them as your 'own' metaphysic. I'm not surprised you push this 'nothing new under the sun' as it's beginning to appear that all your thoughts are others. Not that I don't think this true, just that studying philosophy makes this obvious to those who have, this is why they tend not to have the front to spout a metaphysic.

I'm sure you'll manage to flippantly dismiss them all, by ignoring them. Girls can be so cruel when to using comes to social tactics.

Thats the problem with surety it can be blinding.

So, what we got?

de Benoist - seems interesting, French elite, appears to support multiculturalism? Against your politics I'd have thought? Me, I think 'multiculturalism' a contradiction. Multi-racial cultural imperialist is more my current thought. Doesn't appear to be an anti-semite tho'

Evola - Italian elite, not much to say about his one, other than I have pretty much no time for the misuse of the Buddhists and 'mystical' East. National Socialist tho'? Again I'm surprised at you.

Fraud - What can one say!

Heisman - Pretty much rules himself out by his action.

Jung - Definitely interesting.

Steiner - Definitely interesting. Like his idea of generalisation over specialisation and that to be literate must encompass knowledge of both arts and sciences, as it suits my education.

Wagner - You should be ashamed! As its his thoughts that had the Greek dangling the length of their roads.

Weininger - Can see where you got your thoughts about sex and 'feminization' now.

On the whole an interesting bunch, me, if I was to go metaphysical, prefer things like Ouspensky and Gurdjieff as they don't whinge so much about the past but prefer to attempt to make the passing-over man. I.e. they give some techniques rather than just waffle.
On the whole tho' LMAO at your rehashed metaphysic of their ideas, as they obviously have said it better already.

Send my regards.

For what? You misrepresenting them?

Good...the brain.

Nah! I knew you thought it the brain, although I prefer the CNS, just where in it or how is there anything 'static' there? I have an answer, just want to see if you do.

You call that evidence?

No, I call that more famous and more fortunate.

It is evident that you cannot figure out your interpretation of reality from reality itself. The particles are here then there, behave like particles only when observed, cannot be pinpointed but vaguely perceived as dots; they can have mass bot no location or location but no mass..and most importantly, dear woman, they can be infinitely divided...making them another step in the long trek towards nothing. ...

Don't be stupid, it's that the way we measure that creates this uncertainty. What will you do if they find the Higgs Boson?

They represent a manifestation of the #1.

Not this again? Do you notice that you have two symbols here?

I wonder, dear woman, in a two dimensional world, let us say, would a ball look round on would the mind perceiving it find it flat?
How would scientists in that two-dimensional world make sense of it; how would their instruments represents it?

Depends what you mean? If you mean its a ball thats just sitting on top of their world then it'll be that point you say does not exist. Anything else will be a solid 'circle'. If its moving vertically then it'll be a point that becomes an increasing then decreasing solid 'circle'. I'll have to think about one with a horizontal movement. You ever heard of Turtle Geometry?

Presumably knowing is understanding. ...

Ya thunk!? I think understanding is knowing but then wadda I know, I'm just a philosophy graduate.

It explains why philosophy professors make such good philosophers, and how art teachers are such brilliant artists. ...

Not met many of either then?

Your understanding has been proven by your gossipy interrogation and your womanly addictions. I'm sure you've taken a few art classes as well. Probably aced them.

Nah! Couldn't paint nor draw to save my life but an artist friend and art teacher has taught me to draw basic shapes now. Surprised you think this tho'? Given you had Steiner as a source.

Dear, idiot, you asked me to offer you an idea from where a wheel came from, now you complain because that first wheel was not steel-belted?

Did you know they had discs before anyone thought to make a wheel?

Retarded baboon, did anyone say there are no new inventions, or was the claim that they are never truly new, or unique, because they are combinations of what is already present and known? ...

Fair point but I'm not of the old world monkey family.

Invention is the creative act of taking the known and applying it differently or combining it differently...you simpleton.
The wheel, little girl, didn't come out of the ether, or from some Platonic state of ideals, it came from observing the natural world and extrapolating characteristics, coming up with innovative ways of applying them.
The wheel was present, in a rock rolling down a hill, you simple woman, just as a computer is present in the very way the human brain works.

That'll be neural nets not digital computers but I accept that I misunderstood your point, as I thought it something different from the truism that we can only work from the material world at hand. I'd be more impressed with your philosophical skills if you could come up with some phenomenological techniques that could impart or assist creativity and innovation rather than the just so stories you do provide. Did you know that it was a women who provided the mathematical support for the digital computer and damn near invented the 'semantical engine'. Ah! the blindness of the British merchant, if not for them the sun may not have set.

I'm not going to do the homework for ya, girl. I posted it - look for it or do not...who the fuck cares?

Obviously not you but did a quick search teach and apparently part of it is to show self-discipline of will and deny yourself certain pleasures such as not visiting certain sites and keeping your will.

Only partially, the rest is all play.

No eyed deer what you are waffling about?

Yes, little princess, too bad I cannot offer you any certain points of absolute reference, to sooth that aching gap between your legs and fill its void with substance.

You talking about your soft spot again?

Do an experiment....look at a leaf....approach it....then magnify its simplified generalized edges....magnify more, and more and more....where is the boundary?
Always fading into the distance.
Fractals.

LMAO! Why do the 'metaphysicians' always bring this up!? Is this it? You think this 'blackness' at the limits of your perceptual field have any relationship to fractals? I'll give you a clue, you're looking at the perimeter of the lense.

How long is a piece of string?

Koans now? Its as long as I've cut it! Twat.

[Satyr]

For what its worth I think London contains the most beautiful women in the world as every type is here.

Proving once more how brilliant you are.
What about your type?

You'd cack your pants if you met an alpha male.

It is this kind of reply that makes you adorable...and so feminine.

Nah! It'd be to small.

Obviously.
Females go for the groin when they have lost all semblance of decency and their "civilized" masks are cracking.
Their power is sex and so it is there where they seek their revenge.

Alpha male, not! You see a threat in my words? Must be guilt at yours.

No, I saw an intent to threaten...I find pussy too cute to be anything but adorable.
You do know that this exchange has run its course, and that you now have nothing to offer but high-school trash-talking, don't ya?

I can tell because the 's are coming more frequently. Hysterics via text...

I can almost sense the energy of the hatred, being expelled in nervous typing and blabbering.

As if I care if it'd be easy or not! Its the fight that counts turd, win or lose. My sister-in-law would carve you a new arsehole, and wouldn't your boyfriend be happy.

You might be right, but still you are dumb as a doorstop.
Don't need no hypothetical for that...your prove it with your every post.
Do I need credentials to see how stupid you are?

So you quote your authorities.

I quote from my kind...particularly when I wish to cut corners and not waste too much energy on morons, like you.
I also do it because it gets the kind of response you gave.

What part of "There is nothing unique" and "Everything is a recombination of something that already exists" did you not understand?

Who enslaved the Greek people?

Many...yet nobody cries about their suffering and no director makes a film about it every other year.
How about the 20 million Russians?

But numbnuts, slavery was common practice everywhere, it wasn't until later that whole peoples were enslaved as such. So historically the Eygptians and historians say there is no evidence for your babble.

Ah, must be reliable sources.
Still, the slavishness is there. It might be accidental.

What 'slavishness' numbnuts, they fought the Romans so much that the Romans dispersed them, unlike the Greek it appears.

Those historians you read must be very wise.
I recall the Greeks had a privileged place in the Roman Empire..but your historians might have a different view.
Still, the only thing that defeated the Romans was the Romans. Like a body is infected by a virus when it is old, so too....Everyone fought the Romans...they were in a perpetual state of war.
You have no idea what is being said, do ya girl?
Despite your philosophy degree you have no idea what slavishness means or how the Hellenic spirit differs from the Jewish one or how being Greek or Jewish is not a genetic distinction but a mimetic one.
Even ants fight off intruders little girl, still they are passive and stupid and loyal and disciplined to the herd. And soldiers are the most effete males out there. You are confusing machismo for masculinity.

But you know what is funny, dear girl...that you are now going for the nationalistic angle to "get to me".

de Benoist - seems interesting, French elite, appears to support multiculturalism? Against your politics I'd have thought? Me, I think 'multiculturalism' a contradiction. Multi-racial cultural imperialist is more my current thought. Doesn't appear to be an anti-semite tho'

As always a girl indulges in gossip, rather than in ideas.
Does he have a big dick, is he divorced? Is he pretty?

It appears as though pretenses, like U.S. democratic values, make a profound impression upon you. You can't differentiate the method from the fact.
Is the U.S. a Democracy or a Plutocracy?
Every nation is ruled by an elite, little girl...only naive idiots, like your kind, would think otherwise.
It now appears that you cannot separate your self-interests from your assessments of reality.
Is life immortal because death scares you little one? Is aggression evil because it hurts you?

Evola - Italian elite, not much to say about his one, other than I have pretty much no time for the misuse of the Buddhists and 'mystical' East. National Socialist tho'? Again I'm surprised at you.

Poof, gone.
I loved the synopsis...goolged it didn't ya?
I think this will be a display of how you learned philosophy in school...poof.....pow....gone....good....bad....wow...

Fraud - What can one say!

Poof, gone.
Yet his idea were applied by his nephew...and you, dear girl, are living under the spell.
Everything from marketing to modern politics are based on his uncles insights. But it is true, Freud did overemphasize sex, without delving beneath it...into its foundation.

How easily you erase an idea because you disagree with the source or with the totality of the source's ideas.

Heisman - Pretty much rules himself out by his action.

Excellent!!!
Did his farts smell?
I bet if Einstein were a pedophile his theories would be debunked. But he was a bad father, so I think his ideas are questionable, just for that reason alone.
Do you even know why Heisman committed suicide? Google it...or read the ending of his thesis, being that you are a coward.

Jung - Definitely interesting.

Steiner - Definitely interesting. Like his idea of generalisation over specialisation and that to be literate must encompass knowledge of both arts and sciences, as it suits my education.

Did anyone ask you for your trite emotional reactions?
Did anyone ask for a book review?

Wagner - You should be ashamed! As its his thoughts that had the Greek dangling the length of their roads.

You confuse nationalism for spirit, little girl. Few Greeks in modern Greece, I'm afraid.
Most of them were slaughtered by the Christians after Constantine took over, and the rest were kept down by the Turks for so long that they never experienced the Renaissance...ironically by rediscovering their own heritage.
Now we have a population wallowing in Jewish spiritualism and Turkish decadence. Their present predicament shows to what squalor their spirit has fallen.

Weininger - Can see where you got your thoughts about sex and 'feminization' now.

Really...because I read him six months ago.
But you will not take my word on it...so go with what satisfies you.
I actually decided to rewrite the essay partially so as to include some of his positions, along with Heisman's and a few others, because I was not aware of them when I first wrote the essay almost ten years ago.

But, no matter. You'll run with it.
Of course Weininger and many others spoke of feminization, but not to the extent I have. They never delved into the mechanics or the reasons or how it manifests in the modern world.

On the whole an interesting bunch, me, if I was to go metaphysical, prefer things like Ouspensky and Gurdjieff as they don't whinge so much about the past but prefer to attempt to make the passing-over man. I.e. they give some techniques rather than just waffle.

I'm sure you are a fine example of their influence.
Your girlish spirit must be part of the technique.

Nah! I knew you thought it the brain, although I prefer the CNS, just where in it or how is there anything 'static' there? I have an answer, just want to see if you do.

I think you remaining loyal to the academic wording proves that you actually think.

Maybe you can drop a Jungian animus to impress us all.

Don't be stupid, it's that the way we measure that creates this uncertainty. What will you do if they find the Higgs Boson?

Surrender?
Little girl, I will do the same thing that I would do if the Rapture occurs: stare in disbelief, and accept the consequences.

It will have to be a final end, an indivisible particle...the Holy Grail....the Fountain of Youth.
Are you praying?

Ya thunk!? I think understanding is knowing but then wadda I know, I'm just a philosophy graduate.

And it shows.
A computer knows what 1+1= 2 but only a human brain understands why it is so, or why the entire premise is prejudiced.
You know philosophy...you don't understand it, but you know it.

Not met many of either then?

They must be captivating.
Nothing like talking about Kant until the cows come home.

Did you know they had discs before anyone thought to make a wheel?

No shit...someone told me that once.
I guess if you put food on a disc you just invented the dish.
Let's dish, girl!

Perhaps inventions come from some netherworld where the ideal forms exist....inspiring the mind who then makes replicas of them.

Fair point but I'm not of the old world monkey family.

No you are all modern. Still ape.
More of a bonobo.

That'll be neural nets not digital computers but I accept that I misunderstood your point, as I thought it something different from the truism that we can only work from the material world at hand. I'd be more impressed with your philosophical skills if you could come up with some phenomenological techniques that could impart or assist creativity and innovation rather than the just so stories you do provide. Did you know that it was a women who provided the mathematical support for the digital computer and damn near invented the 'semantical engine'. Ah! the blindness of the British merchant, if not for them the sun may not have set.

Fascinating...I once heard of an ape that learned to talk using a rudimentary computer and sign-language.
Philosophy is the soil, science is the seed.

Are you asking for applications for my insights?
Dear girl, I do not seek followers, or students. I offer a perspective...and what you do or do not do with it, is your problem.
I use my ideas daily...I have to...they are my ideas.

Obviously not you but did a quick search teach and apparently part of it is to show self-discipline of will and deny yourself certain pleasures such as not visiting certain sites and keeping your will.

Being ascetic does not mean a denial of pleasure...it means a control of it.
To control the feminine side means to dominate it not to deny its existence.

But if you beg...I'll leave, princess.
Just grovel for me.

Koans now? Its as long as I've cut it! Twat.

I can see that all the money to get that philosophy degree did not go to waste.

Brilliant as always, proving once more that edumucation is the same as intelligence. But it does provide simpletons with evidence that they can recite and repeat information to pass a few tests...or understand it enough to write a thesis in a manner that adheres to the established truisms, and then make a career out of it.
Isn't recognition the true measure of a man?

Enjoyed you skirting about...particularly at the end with that "Koans now?" shuffle. Nice stuff...true ballerina.
How long is a piece of string in your absolutist world view, little princess?

So, this has reached another predictable point of no return, little girl.

Ta, Ta,

[Arising_uk]

Proving once more how brilliant you are.
What about your type?

Me? I'm a freak girly, 6' 2", size 12 feet, receding hairline but hairy as a gorillia and ugly to boot. They just fall at my feet.
You mean whats my type of women? I find that waiting until l'm smitten appears to be my type but intelligence and a good conversationalist appeat to have been consistent features.

It is this kind of reply that makes you adorable...and so feminine.

Not met any then?

Obviously.
Females go for the groin when they have lost all semblance of decency and their "civilized" masks are cracking.
Their power is sex and so it is there where they seek their revenge.

I was taught by the best, my ex.
But if you paid attention its you who always raises such things. Its why I thought you may be in a closet.

No, I saw an intent to threaten...I find pussy too cute to be anything but adorable.
You do know that this exchange has run its course, and that you now have nothing to offer but high-school trash-talking, don't ya?

And like all bullies you don't like it back. Run away now love.

I can tell because the 's are coming more frequently. Hysterics via text...

Callm down dear.

I can almost sense the energy of the hatred, being expelled in nervous energy and blabbering.

ESP now?

You might be right, but still you are dumb as a doorstop.
Don't need no hypothetical for that...your prove it with your every post.
Do I need credentials to see how stupid you are?

I don't know? You got any?

Dumb and right! I'll go with that.

I quote from my kind...particularly when I wish to cut corners and not waste too much energy on morons, like you. I also do it because it gets the kind of response you gave.

Your 'kind'? Your herd you mean?

You think they'd give you the time of day? Especially Wagner as he'd view you as a sub-human.

Many...yet nobody cries about their suffering and no director makes a film about it every other year. ...

What are you burbling about now? The Holocaust or the Biblical films? As the latter were made for the American Christian market idiot. Jewish historians say that most of this is bollocks.

If you mean the Holocaust then I think that the Greek was not rounded-up, starved or worked to death or fed into the ovens.

If you wanted to raise Israeli hypocrisy in this issue then you'd be better to point to how the survivors were actually received and perceived in Israel at the time they managed to get there(I'm going to regret this).

How about the 20 million Russians?

You'll find that they weren't all Russians numbnuts but Soviets, something you'd despise I'd have thought? But my support for their sacrifice has been made clear many times upon this forum. You're just a fucking opportunist and at other times probably a revisionist.

Ah, must be reliable sources. Still, the slavishness is there. It might be accidental.

What do you actually mean by this "slavishness" turd?

Those historians you read must be very wise.
I recall the Greeks had a privileged place in the Roman Empire..but your historians might have a different view.
Still, the only thing that defeated the Romans was the Romans. Like a body is infected by a virus when it is old, so too....Everyone fought the Romans...they were in a perpetual state of war.
You have no idea what is being said, do ya girl?
Despite your philosophy degree you have no idea what slavishness means or how the Hellenic spirit differs from the Jewish one or how being Greek or Jewish is not a genetic distinction but a mimetic one.
Even ants fight off intruders little girl, still they are passive and stupid and loyal and disciplined to the herd. And soldiers are the most effete males out there. You are confusing machismo for masculinity. ...

What "privileged place"? Everyone was a Roman citizen in the old Rome idiot. As long as you obeyed the Law, something the Hebrew appeared to disagree with, arsey bastards.

What "perpetual state of war"? They had long periods of internal peace as they pretty much kicked the arse of everyone who stood against them, apart from the Jocks and a small village in Gaul. If your Greeks had this "privileged place" it was as a bunch of kiss-arse merchants is my guess, but chaz whyman could probably help out here.

Biological metaphors now!

I thought you said that mimetic distinctions had no power over genetics and given that your whole turdish 'metaphysic' is based upon the latter I think you are shafting yourself. But let me get this right, you now say that the Jew and Greek are genetically the same?

You think soliders are effete? Well the Greek army may be but what do you make of the homosexual solider, are they masculine enough for you?

But you know what is funny, dear girl...that you are now going for the nationalistic angle to "get to me".

Idiot! I said multi-racial cultural imperialism numbnuts not nationalism, as I don't give a fuck which nations join. Something I marched and fought for(well ran as I was young and the fascists were much bigger and older, pretty much alpha males one and all). Ever stood for anything other than having a piss turd?

What part of "There is nothing unique" and "Everything is a recombination of something that already exists" did you not understand?

Because you were editing your thoughts(heard of the preview function?) I've lost where this belonged. Did you not read my retraction turd? I did not realise you were making such a banal point, so I agreed with you. Apart from the chemists new elements that is but I accept that they are made of these atoms and particles that don't exist according to you.

As always a girl indulges in gossip, rather than in ideas.
Does he have a big dick, is he divorced? Is he pretty? ...

What the fuck are you twittering on about? You provided me with your sources so I did a fast goggle and wiki of them. All you are hearing is my first impressions.

It appears as though pretenses, like U.S. democratic values, make a profound impression upon you. You can't differentiate the method from the fact.
Is the U.S. a Democracy or a Plutocracy?
Every nation is ruled by an elite, little girl...only naive idiots, like your kind, would think otherwise.
It now appears that you cannot separate your self-interests from your assessments of reality.
Is life immortal because death scares you little one? Is aggression evil because it hurts you?

Who the fuck do you imagine you are talking to? Of course I understand these things numbnuts I'm just not a kiss-arse like yourself. Ever actually acted upon your beliefs rather than sit safely upon your arse?

Poof, gone.
I loved the synopsis...goolged it didn't ya?
I think this will be a display of how you learned philosophy in cschool...poof.....pow....gone....good....bad....wow...

Of course I goggled it first idiot. They didn't teach philosophy in schools in my day, you just had to take a BA(Hons) and lump it.

Poof, gone.
Yet his idea were applied by his nephew...and you, dear girl, are living under the spell.
Everything from marketing to modern politics are based on his uncles insights. But it is true, Freud did overemphasize sex, without delving beneath it...into its foundation.

How easily you erase an idea because you disagree with the source or with the totality of the source's ideas.

No numbnuts, because unlike you I understand that one cannot escape ones cultural conditioning. All one can do is limit the effects one does not agree with. How do you do this? By understanding what you're describing. So compared to you I think I'm probably a fucking saint when it comes to being an ascetic with respect to consumerism.

Excellent!!!
Did his farts smell?

When he was alive, of course they did.

I bet if Einstein were a pedophile his theories would be debunked. But he was a bad father, so I think his ideas are questionable, just for that reason alone. Do you even know why Heisman committed suicide? Google it...or read the ending of his thesis, being that you are a coward.

Do I give a fuck about those who kill themselves? No, as they've effectively ruled themselves out of existence. Did he have kids? If not you can volunteer him for a Darwin Award, as long as he did it in a particularly stupid way.

Marx was apparently also a bad father, does it make his historical materialsm false?

Although I like the way your thoughts go, so you think the Masada suicides and the Christian martyrs are to be admired?

Did anyone ask you for your trite emotional reactions?
Did anyone ask for a book review?

Did I need anyones permission?

Me, I just liked the fact that I fitted the criteria for being literate that one of your sources recommended. Can you say the same?

You confuse nationalism for spirit, little girl. Few Greeks in modern Greece, I'm afraid. Most of them were slaughtered by the Christians after Constantine took over, and the rest were kept down by the Turks for so long that they never experienced the Renaissance...ironically by rediscovering their own heritage.
Now we have a population wallowing in Jewish spiritualism and Turkish decadence. Their present predicament shows to what squalor their spirit has fallen.

Oh! Thats okay then, all those 'Greeks' slaughtered by the Nazis weren't worth shit. Funny you've said this as I was going to make a crack about how I guess that the reason you're a canuck-bubble is that either your father or grandfather had to leg it when the Generals were overthrown but no need now. Still it does explain you and your whinging.

Really...because I read him six months ago.

Strange your memory can't remember the last time you were here but has a huge great quote to hand?

But you will not take my word on it...so go with what satisfies you.

This the word of an avowed liar? One who said they would not hesitate to lie to those they considered lesser than them? Me I guess.

I actually decided to rewrite the essay partially so as to include some of his positions, along with Heisman's and a few others, because I was not aware of them when I first wrote the essay almost ten years ago.

Oh you actually did did you?

But, no matter. You'll run with it.
Of course Weininger and many others spoke of feminization, but not to the extent I have. They never delved into the mechanics or the reasons or how it manifests in the modern world.

Well dur! Could it be that he wasn't in this modern world of yours? You truly are a delusional fuck. Another in a longline of fuckwits applying others ideas out of context to salve their pet peeves.

I'm sure you are a fine example of their influence.
Your girlish spirit must be part of the technique.

Nah! That was back when I was a teen, then I studied but they were definitely more interesting than you and actually provide techniques to counter what you burble on about rather than just whining.

I think you remaining loyal to the academic wording proves that you actually think.

So that'll be a no then.

Maybe you can drop a Jungian animus to impress us all.

No idea? As I got fed up with psychology and psychotherapy and took up philosophy. Liked his Synchronicity tho'.

Surrender?
Little girl, I will do the same thing that I would do if the Rapture occurs: stare in disbelief, and accept the consequences.

And they'd be what? The end of your metaphysic?

It will have to be a final end, an indivisible particle...the Holy Grail....the Fountain of Youth.
Are you praying?

I don't give a fuck as whilst interesting I don't care what they find as I don't think philosophy is metaphysics anymore.

And it shows.
A computer knows what 1+1= 2 but only a human brain understands why it is so, or why the entire premise is prejudiced.You know philosophy...you don't understand it, but you know it.

Lucky I've also got an MSc in Artificial Intelligence then, as computers have no knowing what(?) 1+1= 2 is. I know why it is and its because we use the symbol 1 to refer to one thing, when theres two of them we say 1 1 but found it easier to shorthand it to 2 by introducing the operators + and = to say that whenever we wish to talk about both things together, i.e. 1 + 1 we can also shorten it to 2. I guess you want to waffle about this #1 now.

They must be captivating. Nothing like talking about Kant until the cows come home.

Only if you did continental philosophy. The artists had pretty much never heard of him, along with the great bulk of the world.

No shit...someone told me that once.
I guess if you put food on a disc you just invented the dish.
Let's dish, girl!

Exactly. Or you could use tree bark, leaves, etc they are all dishy.

Perhaps inventions come from some netherworld where the ideal forms exist....inspiring the mind who then makes replicas of them.

Doubt it fundamentally. But yet again you do not read my words and talk to your imaginary 'friend'.

No you are all modern. Still ape.
More of a bonobo.

Nope, all primate along with the cousins you mention.

Fascinating...I once heard of an ape that learned to talk using a rudimentary computer and sign-language.

I think you heard wrong but if you didn't, what of it?

Philosophy is the soil, science is the seed.

Once upon a time turdbrain, but those metaphysicians proved their point by actually doing something useful and fucked off never to darken philosophy's doors again. Unfortunately there are still those who think otherwise.

Are you asking for applications for my insights?
Dear girl, I do not seek followers, or students. I offer a perspective...and what you do or do not do with it, is your problem. I use my ideas daily...I have to...they are my ideas.

LMAO! So you were using me as this example to who?

Tell me how you use your ideas daily? Other than spouting them upon the interweeb.

Being ascetic does not mean a denial of pleasure...it means a control of it. To control the feminine side means to dominate it not to deny its existence.

LMFAO! As you've shown by returning here.

But if you beg...I'll leave, princess.
Just grovel for me.

I told you last time turd, come or go, its immaterial to me. Just show some fucking will power for once.

I can see that all the money to get that philosophy degree did not go to waste.

Fuckin' A.

Brilliant as always, proving once more that edumucation is the same as intelligence. But it does provide simpletons with evidence that they can recite and repeat information to pass a few tests...or understand it enough to write a thesis in a manner that adheres to the established truisms, and then make a career out of it.

Career!
It's edumicashun numbnuts. I've told others before, if you want a third or two-two then you can do the above. Those who make careers out of it cannot afford to be so lazy.

Isn't recognition the true measure of a man?

If you like being with the herd I guess so.

Enjoyed you skirting about...particularly at the end with that "Koans now?" shuffle. Nice stuff...true ballerina.
How long is a piece of string in your absolutist world view, little princess?

You hard of sight? As long as I've cut-it. Next you'll be asking me what a slap sounds like.

So, this has reached another predictable point of no return, little girl.

Ta, Ta,

It was that when you returned.

You off again?

Catch you soon, au revoir, toodles!(as gustaf used to say), TTFN.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.


Whoa! Hold on a bit here!

Let's not start driving fellow philosophers away from this site.


There is a way we can reverse our direction.


.



May I respectfully ask, Arising_uk, Mark Question, and Satyr to drop your monikers.

In the name of this thread, What is stopping us from seeing the truth?

And I say, the truth is that ALL of you actually respect each other and you actually respect each others views.

I along with other Philosophy Now forum members have watched excellent philosophical discussion by competent members degenerate into name calling, nit-picking and back-biting.

Please, think about this, eventually come forward using you legal, birthright name.

Try this for me but more importantly for yourselves.

Be strong.

Come forward.

All of you.

It would be a tremendous show of strength and underlying unity.

It is just natural, when using your legal street name, we are more respectful.

What's Stopping us From Seeing the Truth?


Let's start out with the truth...and then see what develops.

Crosschecking the new legal name monikers can be done through an associated social network like LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/home?trk=hb_home or Facebook http://www.facebook.com/


We love our enemies for in them we see ourselves.




..................................





...................................





....................................


It goes a long way...these concepts work on behalf of all of us.



.

[Satyr]

.
Whoa! Hold on a bit here!

Let's not start driving fellow philosophers away from this site.

There is a way we can reverse our direction.

How can one resist the power of such arguments.
The mention of his stature reminded me about my schooldays when penis size and muscles were still the only thing we knew about masculinity.

Of course I've met 6'6" pussies...but this hairy monster might be brainless and dangerous. Like a gorilla.

May I respectfully ask, Arising_uk, Mark Question, and Satyr to drop your monikers.

Fine...you can call me by my real name....Calicantsar.

In the name of this thread, What is stopping us from seeing the truth?

Truth is only Jesus Christ our Lord and savior can save us now.

And I say, the truth is that ALL of you actually respect each other and you actually respect each others views.

I do...just as much as I do a Christian's...I must...I have to....

I along with other Philosophy Now forum members have watched excellent philosophical discussion by competent members degenerate into name calling, nit-picking and back-biting.

When in Rome, dear fella...when in Rome....or is this Jerusalem?

Please, think about this, eventually come forward using you legal, birthright name.

Fine, fine...my real name is Σατυρος Τζατζικις...there I said it.

Try this for me but more importantly for yourselves.

The shame....I will....I will.

I want to be better than this....I want to be....to be.....loved.
Hold me.

Be strong.

Help me...

Come forward.

All of you.

Hello, my name is Σατυρος Τζατζικις and I'm a stupidoholic...I'm addicted to sheep meat, and I can't resist kicking the mentally handicapped.

I think it's because I have a small penis, Greek women are hairy and fat, Greeks are not smart, and I do not have a diploma proving how valuable I am...oh and my shoe-size is 10...and 1/2.

It would be a tremendous show of strength and underlying unity.

Definitely...I mean haven't I been saying that all along?
Why can't we all love each other?
The retard, the monster....the princess, the cobbler, the saint, the gambler, the secret agent...We are human beings man!
I don't want to generalize, and I'm no racist, but I belong to the human race, damn it!!!!

It is just natural, when using your legal street name, we are more respectful.

Down in the hood they call me Es.

What's Stopping us From Seeing the Truth?

Ummmm...Satan?!

Let's start out with the truth...and then see what develops.

Crosschecking the new legal name monikers can be done through an associated social network like LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/home?trk=hb_home or Facebook http://www.facebook.com/

Finally a rational voice in all this madness. only facebook can bring us together in this corporate run crazy world of ours.
Let us embrace under a Coke banner, have a nice meal at Burger Kings, share funny stories about Two and a Half Men and then remember how much alike we truly are.

We love our enemies for in them we see ourselves.

I...I....luv you to maaaaan. Of course I've had a few vodkas.

I can bench-press 300 lbs...I can burp the Canadian national anthem and I cry at girly-movies.

Nothing more dangerous than a stampeding herd of buffalo.
Alone they are harmless...but in numbers and when in a state of frenzy, they can be dangerous.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.


Hoping you will be stronger...




......................




.