People will start talkin’
ffs
Fuck you Nietzsche
I wish I could give you advice.
But what you drew is already far beyond what anyone has accomplished.
Maybe this:
Michael Angelo said that all he did was remove the excess from the rock.
I was on a sandy beach today, and instead of building a sand castle, I sculpted a nude woman, not by piling up sand, but by carving her out of the sand with a shovel. It felt a little bit like unburying a woman. I remembered that quote, and I felt it.
I fucking felt it.
I think that my future is sculpture.
hahahahahahahaha
Your (supposed) peers said the same.
jesus christ
Alright i gotta… I’m gonna… somebody’s gotta sell those widgets.
Is this a variation on that’s what she said?
I gave it a sensible chuckle.
Ill get back on topic if you don’t mind
THE CAPSTONE OF AMERICA
As this whole debacle of me having to let go much of my good will toward “humanity” at last, turns out to have been required, for this Euclidean Right thing to be understood;
what was forever missing in the Constitution, is the requirement of allegiance.
For Euclidean Rights to be granted to an individual by nature and god, these rights must be able to “self-value” in the environment of this person; the rights must keep their structural integrity. Meaning: the person has to uphold the law that gives such rights, and be committed to it by action and perhaps by oath.
The rights can not be upheld if those who enjoy them do not value them.
Thus, a free American society can only consist of people who have sworn allegiance to the Euclidean Rights.
This very society must be a capstone to the whole of humanity, thereby ordering it in a pyramid.
The philosophers eye as both heart and pinnacle of the world.
[tab]
[/tab]
Meaning that whoever does not uphold the Bill of Rights… has no rights.
It was 15min of work with no reference, so just a basic human shape.
I think I could make something really detailed with time, a model, and tools.
If it puts conditions on the rights, such as an affiliation, it cannot at the same time claim the rights are natural|god given.
Depends on what your definition of God is, of course.
If you think God is entirely separate of nature, and that mankind is entirely separate of nature too, then no it cant. But I don’t think that. Nor do I think the FF did.
In fact the case is obviously that whatever rights nature/god grants man, have to be granted by man to man, much like a person is granted life but still has to grant himself that life by doing such things like breathing, drinking plenty of water, not jumping from buildings, and such.
You have to like, exist, i.e. act, in order to… exist… geddit?
Ohh its so difficult this thing called philosophy right. You always have to like, do stuff. With your brain no less.
Fuukuk. Yu know the brain uses up most of the energy? You wonder where that energy goes in most people.
So here’s the deal.
Being equals self-valuing and valuing in terms of that self-valuing. People who don’t get that by now are really very slow and should not be considered sentient.
A right can not exist if it doesn’t… self-value and value in terms of that self-valuing.
So, a right can only exist if it is able to self-value in terms of the people who bestow it its existence!
Yay.
Oh wait I crossed the 180 IQ line again.
Mea goddamn culpa.
It just happens these Fathers had problematically high IQs too.
And thats what we’re going to be getting at, probably; only those people who can understand the necessity of upholding something for it to exist, like, nature upholds itself, will be able to have what we call natural rights.
People have to exist in terms of such rights for these rights to exist to them.
Oh so difficult. So so difficult.
I think style is God.
Have you?
I dont think so man.
Surely is.
No but also, on a more serious note,
And I say this I guess to talk to the wind.
People have this separation in their minds between ideas and the world, calumniously called logic. This state of affairs is so for a reason.
Let’s take it religious now, like Heraclitus did.
When God is proposed, it is not God beside or instead of this world that you see, that we see.
Both God and logic have been used precicely, even in their denial, to deny the world, this world, what you see, what I see.
Obviously God given right is not a prescription of the world, but a description.