## phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

### Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend

Hahahahaha join us in the cesspool pho. At least the guys here are not girls.

Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend

Posts: 6745
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

### Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend

Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend

Posts: 6745
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

### Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend

of course the cops would spend 100 on nunchucks when you know you could get some good ones for about 25 bucks thats taxpayer money big govt waste this is why they need to cut their funds
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/

Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian

Posts: 26818
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

### Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend

Hahahahahahaha I thought the same thing.

Corruption is not a feature, but synonymous with government.

$100 on a nunchuck.... Pedro I Rengel ILP Legend Posts: 6745 Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm ### Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend It's what you all ask for though. For some unfathomable reason. I only ascribe it to indoctrination out of politeness. Pedro I Rengel ILP Legend Posts: 6745 Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm ### Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend So I pose to Sawtelious again, after 5 or more years, is it will to power, or, power to will, or even an androgyny? Meno_ ILP Legend Posts: 7608 Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am Location: Mysterium Tremendum ### Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend Indeed, welcome to the philosophy chat room! He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529 Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296 And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382 tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing? iambiguous: a post from Pedro? iambiguous ILP Legend Posts: 38541 Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm Location: baltimore maryland ### Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend Pedro I Rengel ILP Legend Posts: 6745 Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm ### Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend I'll bet he spent hours thinking that up. Of course he was only paraphrasing the hours you spent thinking up "dirty commie bastard!" He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529 Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296 And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382 tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing? iambiguous: a post from Pedro? iambiguous ILP Legend Posts: 38541 Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm Location: baltimore maryland ### Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend I don't need to call you that anymore. I can just call you coward. cward Pedro I Rengel ILP Legend Posts: 6745 Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm ### Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend iambiguous wrote: I'll bet he spent hours thinking that up. Of course he was only paraphrasing the hours you spent thinking up "dirty commie bastard!" u r an objectivist bot You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square. Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too. What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude. http://www.innocenceproject.org/ Mr Reasonable resident contrarian Posts: 26818 Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself ### Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend Zeroeth Nature wrote: phoneutria wrote:we don't need to teach anybody to love nature it's innate [...] what's wrong is wrong Yeah, I don't think it's that simple. "When the English actually believe that they know 'intuitively' what is good and evil, when they therefore suppose that they no longer require Christianity as the guarantee of morality, we merely witness the effects of the dominion of the Christian value judgment and an expression of the strength and depth of this dominion: such that the origin of English morality has been forgotten, such that the very conditional character of its right to existence is no longer felt. For the English, morality is not yet a problem." (N, TI "Skirmishes" 5.) The Christian values and the Christian ideal are antinatural (see my "NcW"). "Nietzsche's advocacy of the natural must combat the very much alive unnatural and antinatural that broke out so long ago among us human beings that they have come to seem natural. Advocacy of the natural now appears unnatural; consequently, it will have to develop a politics to achieve its ends." (Lampert, LSN page 65.) [/quote] i honestly think that there is no need to complicate it the oldest law of the world is the same law for everyone it's the law of hospitality you take the strangers in and you don't ask questions you offer them trust they pay your trust with respect of your home and your customs and by not taking more than they need between you and your guest, you show generosity, you don't tell lies, and you don't steal and they make it known that there is reciprocity in their home this all that is needed for the establishment of a society, of trade, of order it doesn't matter who they pray to it only matters who you pray to Well, not just politics, as Midge seems to think. i also don't listen to rap if that helps And social security is not an option, of course. Because that would be communism... the saying goes that you can give a man a fish and you feed him for a day and teach a man to fish and he'll feed himself forever but the thing is you also have to let him get to the river Then why have a government at all? After all, any government's job is to impose restrictions on individual freedom! i don't think that is at all the job of any government the job of a government is to secure the borders against military offense from other peoples and to execute the law of the land (this last bit is where we need some tweakin') The latter would be libertarian thank god i have you here to teach me these things But as I said before, even libertarians absolutely want a certain minimum of government, even though they often seem to forget that. which is why i don't vote for them either they tend to be heavy on the side of batshit crazy the exceptions i allowed for in my previous posts happen to be crucial things like natural monopolies for example that libertarians are in denial about i can't agree also, since you don't care to disprove them i'll leave these here, unchallenged 1. europeans are hypocrites 2. europeans don't care about the environment 3. europeans use the media for propaganda phoneutria purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming Posts: 3703 Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am ### Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend I find that all to be very sane. We agree on almost everything. There are small disagreements which I think signal a wider, deeper one. When you debate about the best way to help a man acquire fish. The divide, the real one, is between whether human existence and ethics is from the collective, whether I am a part of a wider being that is responsible for itself, or whether it is about each person, whether my concerns are literally my own. Both admit the existence of government. Well obviously, if you see things from the collective, government becomes the sort of central nervous system. You don't need to be a full blown commie, though I believe full blown communism is the only truly honest way to hold this position, but as you show you can also be a social democrat or Christian democrat type, that believes that the main organism is indeed society, but that the cells within it, the people, in order to be good quality, must be forged as self sustaining. It is at least sound. If you see it from the personal side, then government becomes a consortium of individuals, who recognize in common certain needs and interests. Not in order for the society to thrive, but in order for me to thrive, I understand myself with several other people to achieve things that will benefit them as much as me, ostensibly, and that will achieve things i alone cannot. Like making sure dirty Sharia boots never step foot on our soil, or essencially anybody like them that considers their job to direct my life and tell me what to do. I have plans, I can't be having some busybody try to change them. In the same way, if collectivists societies form unfair advantages for themselves in trade, it is useful to have a face, this same military face that can send bombs their way, to protect our interests. But that is pretty much where it stops. Like the video above with the$100 nunchucks, no grouping of individuals would ever use government to, say, build roads. It is terribly inefficient and nobody wins. Government does not do any of these things well due to lack of accountability like a business has. And sometimes government endeavours to do things that supposedly benefit everybody, but that nobody asked for. Imposing, rather than facilitating plans. Creating or reinforcing a collective.

So you see, it is not a matter of a scale in which it is decided to which degree you would like "government" to help, say, the "less fortunate." That is already a collectivist question. Their lives are their own, mine is mine.

No great fortune was ever amassed by inheritors. It is always someone that comes from the peasantry. In fact the art of an old family is to find these rich peasant families to marry to their line.

So, the Republican outlook is neither to give a man fish nor to teach him to fish nor to help him get to the river. It is to mind your own business.

Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend

Posts: 6745
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

### Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend

This also makes Republicans extremely sensible people, who can get to compromises with collectivists, like mandatory high school, while obviously a collectivist will never not see a Republican as a disease to be wiped out, and all negotiations as temporary tactics.

Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend

Posts: 6745
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

### Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend

Pedro I Rengel wrote:So you see, it is not a matter of a scale in which it is decided to which degree you would like "government" to help, say, the "less fortunate." That is already a collectivist question. Their lives are their own, mine is mine.

Even if I did want to get involved in their lives, that would be my own business, and I would have no place enforcing it on anybody else.

Pedro I Rengel
ILP Legend

Posts: 6745
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

### Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend

phoneutria wrote: all of that said
and i most definitely would never support any politician
who thinks that the government has the right to impose restrictions on individual freedom
even if it would be a vote to stop a deadass communist
so since most conservative politicians are for open economy and anti personal freedom
and most liberal politicians are for personal freedom but want to regulate the economy
and there are few to none politicians that are liberal on both fronts

That's because out in the real world most politicians in the postmodern "late capitalist" industrial states practice some measure of democracy and the rule of law. In other words, in regard to both the economy and personal freedoms the laws and government policies tend to reflect the reality of meeting somewhere in the murky middle.

Again, as noted above....

As for the job that politicians have, I think a more "balanced" appraisal was suggested through Sam Waterston's character Jack in the film Mindwalk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindwalk

trailer: https://youtu.be/hMZ9xwfmNvs

The real danger is embedded in those objectivists who, either through God or political ideology, gain access to power and attempt to impose only their own moral and political values on the nation.

phoneutria wrote: i don't fucking vote
and i don't fucking compromise
so i'm capable of a nuanced opinion that looks at all sides of the debate impartially
and i stick to my convictions
and that makes me be hated by both sides
i'm used to it
put me in the cesspool i don't give a shit

And here in this particular "world of words", we are "dumped" on once again by the seething cynical phoneutria. I suspect it is basically her own rendition of this:

"He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest." John Fowles

On the other hand, how the fuck does she reconcile "i'm capable of a nuanced opinion that looks at all sides of the debate impartially" with "and i stick to my convictions".

Of course: she doesn't have to. The argument is unfolding only "in her head". Where all that need be the case is that it makes sense to her.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 38541
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

### Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend

Pedro I Rengel wrote:I find that all to be very sane. We agree on almost everything.

There are small disagreements which I think signal a wider, deeper one.

When you debate about the best way to help a man acquire fish.

The divide, the real one, is between whether human existence and ethics is from the collective, whether I am a part of a wider being that is responsible for itself, or whether it is about each person, whether my concerns are literally my own.

Both admit the existence of government.

Well obviously, if you see things from the collective, government becomes the sort of central nervous system. You don't need to be a full blown commie, though I believe full blown communism is the only truly honest way to hold this position, but as you show you can also be a social democrat or Christian democrat type, that believes that the main organism is indeed society, but that the cells within it, the people, in order to be good quality, must be forged as self sustaining. It is at least sound.

If you see it from the personal side, then government becomes a consortium of individuals, who recognize in common certain needs and interests. Not in order for the society to thrive, but in order for me to thrive, I understand myself with several other people to achieve things that will benefit them as much as me, ostensibly, and that will achieve things i alone cannot. Like making sure dirty Sharia boots never step foot on our soil, or essencially anybody like them that considers their job to direct my life and tell me what to do. I have plans, I can't be having some busybody try to change them. In the same way, if collectivists societies form unfair advantages for themselves in trade, it is useful to have a face, this same military face that can send bombs their way, to protect our interests.

But that is pretty much where it stops. Like the video above with the $100 nunchucks, no grouping of individuals would ever use government to, say, build roads. It is terribly inefficient and nobody wins. Government does not do any of these things well due to lack of accountability like a business has. And sometimes government endeavours to do things that supposedly benefit everybody, but that nobody asked for. Imposing, rather than facilitating plans. Creating or reinforcing a collective. So you see, it is not a matter of a scale in which it is decided to which degree you would like "government" to help, say, the "less fortunate." That is already a collectivist question. Their lives are their own, mine is mine. No great fortune was ever amassed by inheritors. It is always someone that comes from the peasantry. In fact the art of an old family is to find these rich peasant families to marry to their line. So, the Republican outlook is neither to give a man fish nor to teach him to fish nor to help him get to the river. It is to mind your own business. Same thing: That's because out in the real world most politicians in the postmodern "late capitalist" industrial states practice some measure of democracy and the rule of law. In other words, in regard to both the economy and personal freedoms the laws and government policies tend to reflect the reality of meeting somewhere in the murky middle. Again, as noted above.... As for the job that politicians have, I think a more "balanced" appraisal was suggested through Sam Waterston's character Jack in the film Mindwalk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindwalk trailer: https://youtu.be/hMZ9xwfmNvs Then it comes down to whether you approach all of this as either Ayn Rand or Karl Marx did. For Rand, everything is derived "metaphysically" from philosophy. You "think up" the ideal man in the ideal society and you create that world "in reality"**. In regard both to economic policies and personal freedoms. **or in novels For Marx, political philosophy itself is rooted first and foremost in the organic, historical evolution of political economy. In earlier human communities the emphasis was far more on "we". And, historically, with the advent of capitalism, the emphasis shifted more to "I". But in our modern world the part where "I" and "we" meet is at the far, far more complex and convoluted intersection of the individual and the collective [family, community, nation]. But that won't do for the objectivists at either end of the ideological spectrum. For them, either the libertarians must prevail or the socialists. He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529 Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296 And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382 tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing? iambiguous: a post from Pedro? iambiguous ILP Legend Posts: 38541 Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm Location: baltimore maryland ### Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend phoneutria wrote:I'm happy to continue discussing marxism or physics i guess with whoever has good defense arguments Uh, define "good"? Correction: He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529 Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296 And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382 tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing? iambiguous: a post from Pedro? iambiguous ILP Legend Posts: 38541 Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm Location: baltimore maryland ### Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend MagsJ wrote:_ Madge, Midge.. très drôle Ollie.. and I had already imagined that other factors were at play in forming your opinion. I wonder if you had considered that? Wait a minute, are you talking about race, Smudge? (Late reply because I only just thought of that...) If so, no; thus far the factors are: 1) your politics—though I almost wish you'd talk about that more often, because of 2) your yakking; and then there's 3) your terrible modding as far as I can tell: for example, your barging in like a bull yak mere minutes after I reported Pedro for this post: Pedro I Rengel wrote: Pedro I Rengel wrote:There is no structure. Only disconnected quotes and smartass remarks. Like the pansy ass, bitch ass nazi that he is. If this post hadn't been just swearing, I wouldn't have reported it. It's also the first post I've reported in a long time. So fudge off. Zeroeth Nature Posts: 79 Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 1:31 am ### Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend Zeroeth Nature wrote: MagsJ wrote:_ Madge, Midge.. très drôle Ollie.. and I had already imagined that other factors were at play in forming your opinion. I wonder if you had considered that? Wait a minute, are you talking about race, Smudge? (Late reply because I only just thought of that...) If so, no; thus far the factors are: 1) your politics—though I almost wish you'd talk about that more often, because of 2) your yakking; and then there's 3) your terrible modding as far as I can tell: for example, your barging in like a bull yak mere minutes after I reported Pedro for this post: Pedro I Rengel wrote: Pedro I Rengel wrote:There is no structure. Only disconnected quotes and smartass remarks. Like the pansy ass, bitch ass nazi that he is. If this post hadn't been just swearing, I wouldn't have reported it. It's also the first post I've reported in a long time. So fudge off. Hahahaha you pansy ass bitch. She's not a mod by the way. What a fucking knob. Pedro I Rengel ILP Legend Posts: 6745 Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm ### Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend Pedro I Rengel wrote:She's not a mod by the way. Interesting! Wasn't she until very recently, though? I could have sworn I still saw her name in green recently... By the way: 4) her terrible sense of colour as evidenced by her signature and avatar. Zeroeth Nature Posts: 79 Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 1:31 am ### Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend phoneutria wrote:i honestly think that there is no need to complicate it the oldest law of the world is the same law for everyone it's the law of hospitality you take the strangers in and you don't ask questions you offer them trust they pay your trust with respect of your home and your customs and by not taking more than they need between you and your guest, you show generosity, you don't tell lies, and you don't steal and they make it known that there is reciprocity in their home You think that's the oldest law in the world?! On the contrary, on the contrary, my sweet summer child... Well, not just politics, as Midge seems to think. i also don't listen to rap if that helps It helps, but it's not decisive. Then why have a government at all? After all, any government's job is to impose restrictions on individual freedom! i don't think that is at all the job of any government the job of a government is to secure the borders against military offense from other peoples and to execute the law of the land (this last bit is where we need some tweakin') The law of the land is a set of restrictions on individual freedom, my dear... And in a way there's really no difference between that and securing the borders against outsiders: for by breaking the law, one breaks the social contract, meaning one basically places oneself outside society! also, since you don't care to disprove them i'll leave these here, unchallenged 1. europeans are hypocrites 2. europeans don't care about the environment 3. europeans use the media for propaganda A lasting testament to your general inanity. Zeroeth Nature Posts: 79 Joined: Sun May 17, 2020 1:31 am ### Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend Zeroeth Nature wrote: MagsJ wrote:Madge, Midge.. très drôle Ollie.. and I had already imagined that other factors were at play in forming your opinion. I wonder if you had considered that? Wait a minute, are you talking about race, Smudge? Nope! (Late reply because I only just thought of that...) If so, no; thus far the factors are: 1) your politics—though I almost wish you'd talk about that more often, because of 2) your yakking; and then there's 3) your terrible modding as far as I can tell: for example, your barging in like a bull yak mere minutes after I reported Pedro for this post: 1. British Conservatism is mainly moderate Right, so it shouldn’t grate too much, against your Left-leaning sensibilities. 2. I rarely yak, and if I do, it’s merely out of boredom and still incorporates philosophy in its delivery. 3. Pedro is right.. I was commenting as Member not Moderator, so no charging but commenting, on my part.. I certainly wouldn’t have done that, if still one. My style was never that crass. Zeroeth Nature wrote:Interesting! Wasn't she until very recently, though? I could have sworn I still saw her name in green recently... By the way: 4) her terrible sense of colour as evidenced by her signature and avatar. April last year isn’t particularly recent, but they do say that time does fly. 4. Well-spotted.. it’s supposed to be all clashing-of-colour and garish-to-eye. Experimentalism, n all that. The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ MagsJ The Londonist: a chic geek Posts: 20890 Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town ### Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend Pedro I Rengel wrote:I find that all to be very sane. We agree on almost everything. There are small disagreements which I think signal a wider, deeper one. When you debate about the best way to help a man acquire fish. The divide, the real one, is between whether human existence and ethics is from the collective, whether I am a part of a wider being that is responsible for itself, or whether it is about each person, whether my concerns are literally my own. Both admit the existence of government. Well obviously, if you see things from the collective, government becomes the sort of central nervous system. You don't need to be a full blown commie, though I believe full blown communism is the only truly honest way to hold this position, but as you show you can also be a social democrat or Christian democrat type, that believes that the main organism is indeed society, but that the cells within it, the people, in order to be good quality, must be forged as self sustaining. It is at least sound. If you see it from the personal side, then government becomes a consortium of individuals, who recognize in common certain needs and interests. Not in order for the society to thrive, but in order for me to thrive, I understand myself with several other people to achieve things that will benefit them as much as me, ostensibly, and that will achieve things i alone cannot. Like making sure dirty Sharia boots never step foot on our soil, or essencially anybody like them that considers their job to direct my life and tell me what to do. I have plans, I can't be having some busybody try to change them. In the same way, if collectivists societies form unfair advantages for themselves in trade, it is useful to have a face, this same military face that can send bombs their way, to protect our interests. But that is pretty much where it stops. Like the video above with the$100 nunchucks, no grouping of individuals would ever use government to, say, build roads. It is terribly inefficient and nobody wins. Government does not do any of these things well due to lack of accountability like a business has. And sometimes government endeavours to do things that supposedly benefit everybody, but that nobody asked for. Imposing, rather than facilitating plans. Creating or reinforcing a collective.

So you see, it is not a matter of a scale in which it is decided to which degree you would like "government" to help, say, the "less fortunate." That is already a collectivist question. Their lives are their own, mine is mine.

No great fortune was ever amassed by inheritors. It is always someone that comes from the peasantry. In fact the art of an old family is to find these rich peasant families to marry to their line.

So, the Republican outlook is neither to give a man fish nor to teach him to fish nor to help him get to the river. It is to mind your own business.

well
that is how the saying goes
it'd be condescending, to say the least, actually insulting
to say that those people need to be taught how to fish
their own damn fish in their own damn land where their parents and grandparents raised them
you know?

if anything
it might help them to get a hint from time to time
like, yo you know the pits from those fruit you eat and then toss in your yard
white people will pay a fortune for them if you tie them up into a necklace
those crusty old ladies who like to pretend that they like the poor, you know?
but really they just hate the rich
always have half a dozen of those around their neck

anyway, on a more serious note
you might give me shit for this
but one govt assistance program that I do like
is one we have here which gives each family a sum per month
if they guarantee their kids school attendance
it is traditional for the children in those areas to help with the family farming
so a lot of them don't go to school at all
the money that the govt gives them offsets the loss of their labor
sending the children to school is the thing that will help those families integrate with 21 century reality
and give them a fighting chance to live on
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming

Posts: 3703
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

### Re: phoneutria and iambiguous don't contend

Zeroeth Nature wrote:Right, that's the same section as the one from my "merciless annihilation of everything degenerating and parasitical" (which is just a more literal translation). And the larger context that you quote shows that he did indeed look forward to people whose "task" would include that "relentless destruction". Still, if I task you with the annihilation (Vernichtung, "rendering to nothing") of Pablo here, that's not saying anything about how you are to accomplish that; you might still do so by driving him to suicide.

Just to add... something you quoted a while back:

In a remarkable notebook entry, Nietzsche writes:

My demand: to bring forth beings which stand exalted above the entire genus [Gattung] "man": and to sacrifice oneself and one's 'neighbours' to this end [Ziel].
The hitherto existing morality had its limits within the genus: all hitherto existing moralities were useful to first of all give the genus unconditional durability [Haltbarkeit]: when this is attained, the aim [Ziel] can be set higher.
The one movement is unconditionally the levelling of humanity, great ant-hills etc.
The other movement, my movement, is conversely the sharpening of all antitheses and clefts, abolition of equality, the production of supreme men [Übermächtiger].
The former generates the last man, my movement the Overman. It is absolutely not the intention [Ziel] to conceive of the latter as the masters of the former, but two species [Arten] shall exist alongside each other,---separated as much as possible; the one, like the Epicurean gods, unconcerned with the other."
[Autumn 1883.]

Zeroeth Nature wrote:I can imagine, though I've never done that particular psychedelic. I've been doing what Crowley says without drugs, though. But then, it's not pain, but sorrow,dukkha—"unsatisfactoriness". How that is transformed into joy?

I changed it to pain/pleasure in my description because sorrow/joy seems like a quieter spectrum of emotions. As to how one is transformed into another... I'm not sure, but I couldn't even distinguish pain from pleasure in my experience (as I was so quickly and violently thrust into a hellish roller-coaster of emotions in which there is no longer a rider or "I." Since the ego is destroyed it's very hard to make a good description of the "hell" (which seemed to last for an "eternity" but in real time 30min)... I walked away from the trip feeling reborn and knowing for the first time that hell is, in fact, real but it's not a christian hell. And if I don't save this certain girl from physical death I will be doomed to go back (and she will too). Of course, this was over 15 years ago, but the feeling remains the same. I am curious about the relationship between the eternal return and saving/being saved. Just affirming the eternal return doesn't seem to be enough... There needs to be a following heroic down-going for what you love.

"Greater ones, verily, have there been, and higher-born ones, than those whom the people call Saviours, those rapturous blusterers!

And by still greater ones than any of the Saviours must ye be saved, my brethren, if ye would find the way to freedom! "

"Everything breaketh, everything is integrated anew; eternally buildeth itself the same house of existence. All things separate, all things again greet one another; eternally true to itself remaineth the ring of existence."

"I love him who laboureth and inventeth, that he may build the house for the Superman, and prepare for him earth, animal, and plant: for thus seeketh he his own down-going"

What is the relationship between the house of the Superman and the house of existence.

From various 5-meo-dmt trip reports:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Psychonaut/com ... ith_video/
"We are all burning, yet we are all in euphoria."
"some 4th dimensional tornado that could come ripping through without warning"
As a pillar of rising smoke did my angel condescend and appear, standing without reserve on the exhausted banks of infinite sorrow.

http://knowthyself.forumotion.net/f6-agora
perpetualburn

Posts: 192
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2014 3:57 am

PreviousNext