Dorian Gray

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

Re: Dorian Gray

Postby Duality » Sun Jan 09, 2011 1:21 pm

unsuper wrote:
Duality wrote:you don't want it to follow logic, you want it to follow your conscious desires for existential fulfillment. when you perceive the meaning and purpose of something to be not what you desire it to be, you are left unfulfilled/uncontented. logic is nothing but a partial way for us to satisfy our perceptions of existence by addition of further meaning and purpose. because if we can ascertain how something will probably behave, we can subsequently apply to and receive purpose from it.


existentialism is logical: my point. if you believe otherwise it is because your parents/society succeeded in passing on the antihuman conditioning to you. i'm not creating matrixes that exist to satisfy themselves (if...you get what i mean? it's the same thing that you are getting at when you say "logic is nothing but a partial way for us to satisfy our perceptions of existence by addition of further meaning and purpose") these matrixes create false foundations of reality and you begin to decide what is good vs bad based on this false foundation. this is basic and pure logic. i'm bashing down every foundation besides the one that is *me* (what buddhists and nihilst fail to do. they want a perspectiveless perspective. it makes no sense)

Didnt notice this. The objectivity/subjectivity of logic has no relevance to anything stated. All that is stated is that logic is an applied tool used to justify/fulfill our existential desires. Logic derives from consciousness regardless of it's level of objectivity/subjectivity.

False foundation is also bogus claim. It is not anymore false than any other perception you choose to apply- including the "bashing down of every foundation besides the one that is *me".
"A truth is not necessary, because we negatively are not able to conceive the actual existence of the opposite thereof;but a truth is necessary when we positively are able to apprehend that the negation thereof includes an inevitable contradiction. It is not that that we can see how the opposite comes to be true, but it is that the opposite can not possibly be true." -R.L. Dabney

"Those then who know not wisdom and virtue, and are always busy with gluttony and sensuality, go down and up again as far as the mean; and in this region they move at random throughout life, but they never pass into the true upper world; thither they neither look, nor do they ever find their way, neither are they truly filled with true being, nor do they ever taste of pure and abiding pleasure." -Socrates
User avatar
Duality
Already Dead
 
Posts: 1497
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:40 pm
Location: Alea Iacta Est

Re: Dorian Gray

Postby Three Times Great » Sun Jan 09, 2011 1:38 pm

Correct, Duality-- logic, like pleasure, like phenomenal experience of "the world" is illusory and subjective in nature. Grounding one's notions of identity or meaning in subjective phenomena is what most people unthinkingly do all the time without realising it. But philosophy properly is concerned with overcoming this complacency-of-self, or at least examining to what extent it may be overcome, and where the utility lies in doing so.

Reifying delusion and human construct into "purpose" is nonsense, in that it a) does not add anything to these constructs which did not already exist (subjective meaning) and b) blinds oneself to what is actually going on, in the nature of the subject-as-experiencing-itself. That is of course fine if one does not care for either self-honesty or self-understanding; I suppose a hedonist, productive or otherwise, would likely fall into that category.

The capacity for pleasure is expanded and refined through one's capacity for pain (and if learning is not painful, then you probably are not really learning..); pleasure is the remission of a pain, of a state of want/lack. All pleasure is negative, in this sense. Humans attach so much meaning to their pleasures, however (because they suffer so greatly), that pleasure attains its own locus of power in the psyche. And this is what causes "hedonists" (most people, "productive" or not) to fall in love with pleasure and forsake all else for it. And for them, I am sure this superficial level of existence, willed self-denial and delusion-as-reality, is an adequate life.

But for those with strong philosophical instinct, the natural impulse to over-growth of consciousness, expansion of self, becoming-genuine, becoming-comprehensive, hedonism, in any form, will never satisfy.

BTW, The Picture of Dorian Gray is wonderful, of course :D
Three Times Great
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3215
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 2:24 pm

Re: Dorian Gray

Postby Duality » Sun Jan 09, 2011 3:26 pm

Three Times Great wrote:Reifying delusion and human construct into "purpose" is nonsense, in that it a) does not add anything to these constructs which did not already exist (subjective meaning) and b) blinds oneself to what is actually going on, in the nature of the subject-as-experiencing-itself. That is of course fine if one does not care for either self-honesty or self-understanding; I suppose a hedonist, productive or otherwise, would likely fall into that category.

I already stated it adds existential fulfillment, particularly of the superego. I have no doubt that philosophers tend to be less concerned with existential fulfillment and more concerned with their attempt to "perceive reality as it really is" than the average individual, but claiming purely one or the other exclusively is a fantaisical attempt at best.

Three Times Great wrote:The capacity for pleasure is expanded and refined through one's capacity for pain (and if learning is not painful, then you probably are not really learning..)

Maybe in a sensory aspect. Like I said, discomfort also arises when existential desires are left unfulfilled. I could feel pain/stress on my body and mind by learning a lot of information, yet receive existential fulfillment/purpose from it. The problem I have is pleasure/pain/hedonism, etc. are all terms used to describe sensory experience. Hence why I use fulfillment/satisfaction instead.

The rest of your post indirectly touches up on free will vs. determinism. Im sure that discussion can be pursued through any of the many various "rectal discourse" dialogues on here. In fact I think I glanced at least 2 at a quick glance on my way here.
"A truth is not necessary, because we negatively are not able to conceive the actual existence of the opposite thereof;but a truth is necessary when we positively are able to apprehend that the negation thereof includes an inevitable contradiction. It is not that that we can see how the opposite comes to be true, but it is that the opposite can not possibly be true." -R.L. Dabney

"Those then who know not wisdom and virtue, and are always busy with gluttony and sensuality, go down and up again as far as the mean; and in this region they move at random throughout life, but they never pass into the true upper world; thither they neither look, nor do they ever find their way, neither are they truly filled with true being, nor do they ever taste of pure and abiding pleasure." -Socrates
User avatar
Duality
Already Dead
 
Posts: 1497
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:40 pm
Location: Alea Iacta Est

Re: Dorian Gray

Postby Three Times Great » Sun Jan 09, 2011 3:34 pm

Duality wrote:
Three Times Great wrote:Reifying delusion and human construct into "purpose" is nonsense, in that it a) does not add anything to these constructs which did not already exist (subjective meaning) and b) blinds oneself to what is actually going on, in the nature of the subject-as-experiencing-itself. That is of course fine if one does not care for either self-honesty or self-understanding; I suppose a hedonist, productive or otherwise, would likely fall into that category.

I already stated it adds existential fulfillment, particularly of the superego. I have no doubt that philosophers tend to be less concerned with existential fulfillment and more concerned with their attempt to "perceive reality as it really is" than the average individual, but claiming purely one or the other exclusively is a fantaisical attempt at best.


Indeed.

Three Times Great wrote:The capacity for pleasure is expanded and refined through one's capacity for pain (and if learning is not painful, then you probably are not really learning..)

Maybe in a sensory aspect. Like I said, discomfort also arises when existential desires are left unfulfilled. I could feel pain/stress on my body and mind by learning a lot of information, yet receive existential fulfillment/purpose from it. The problem I have is pleasure/pain/hedonism, etc. are all terms used to describe sensory experience. Hence why I use fulfillment/satisfaction instead.


Yes, the labels pleasure/pain/hedonism become, at some point, wholly inadequate to encapsulate the inner experiences under consideration here.

Fulfillment/satisfaction (I would use the word saturation here) does get at an aspect of the idea not sufficiently touched on by the whole pleasure/pain idea. But really, on the level of content they are of course the same thing: a lack exists, a want which seeks fulfilment of itself, i.e. its own non-existence as want/lack; thus desire is born, and through satisfaction of desire, sublimation of the pain-sensation (mediation of it, if you will) into pleasure (feeling of release of tension). It is true that pleasure is a distinct sensation from pain; it is also true that one arises from the other, and has its origins in the other. We may call this fulfillment of the desire/lack, it means the same thing psychologically speaking. And just about anything can become over-entangled in this "pleasure process" in the mind, be it sensuality per se, or "existential" pursuits, or whatever, take your pick.

The rest of your post indirectly touches up on free will vs. determinism. Im sure that discussion can be pursued through any of the many various "rectal discourse" dialogues on here. In fact I think I glanced at least 2 at a quick glance on my way here.


Indirectly, perhaps from your perspective.. however, considering that my ideas here bear not in the least upon any such (false) notion of "free will vs. determinism", the interpretation would be incorrect.
Three Times Great
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3215
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 2:24 pm

Re: Dorian Gray

Postby Amorphos » Sun Jan 09, 2011 8:11 pm

Surely happiness can be induced chemically, there will necessarily be an area of the brain which deals with it in a chemical manner. Now drugs and sensual pleasure may not at present produce happiness ~ at least if one is not happy, but they certainly can do. I have often felt pleasure from a spliff [when I used to smoke it] and from sex for its own sake, equally I have not felt happiness from them. Though of course the girl involved at all times felt 'a-penis' [happiness] ~ sowwy bout that. :banana-dance:
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7052
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Dorian Gray

Postby Jakob » Sun Jan 09, 2011 8:20 pm

Intellectually rooted hedonism is perverse, because as a doctrine it stands in obstruction to the fluctuating ground of its practice. Pleasure is based on novelty, freedom, unexpected bliss - intellectual emptiness in exchange for psychological fulfillment. You can not hold to such a principle as rational concept without perverting the experience it pertains to - a bit like quantumphysics. Don't look to deep into the rabbithole or you cease to exist as a coherent observer-interpreter.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7388
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Dorian Gray

Postby Amorphos » Sun Jan 09, 2011 8:39 pm

Intellectually rooted hedonism is perverse, because as a doctrine it stands in obstruction to the fluctuating ground of its practice. Pleasure is based on novelty, freedom, unexpected bliss - intellectual emptiness in exchange for psychological fulfillment. You can not hold to such a principle as rational concept without perverting the experience it pertains to


Very true, it needs the lack of pleasure and chance etc in order to be realised. The alternatives are marriage/relationships or solitude, then a flatlined emotive state [no drugs], both of which are oppressive. If we all or most of us went for the hedonistic lifestyle as a partial experience/indulgence it would be a greater freedom? …is possession of others ethical? Is a lack of highs?

It appears that love and lust are deeply connected in the brain, they can be completely separated or connected, thus the ‘higher’ attributes we denote to love may be obtained through lust. Perhaps then a communal or universal form of loving could potentially be equally moral. Drug circles appear much the same, there is a freedom and a connection between people.
It worked ok for the ancient Britons.
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7052
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Postby Jakob » Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:39 pm

quetzalcoatl wrote:It appears that love and lust are deeply connected in the brain, they can be completely separated or connected, thus the ‘higher’ attributes we denote to love may be obtained through lust. Perhaps then a communal or universal form of loving could potentially be equally moral. Drug circles appear much the same, there is a freedom and a connection between people.
It worked ok for the ancient Britons.

Great thought. It reminds me of the Lust for Truth.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7388
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Dorian Gray

Postby Jakob » Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:08 pm

I removed this video on account of homophobic spamming by one of the subscribers of the account it was uploaded to, now a repost of the same, useless but in that sense successful video where I let my computers gay voice generator read out loud some posts on a gay subject on an either or not (I can't tell) gay beat, on another account with strictly useless videos.



Maybe the entire practice of posting on a philosophy forum is somewhat gay. Or not. anyway, The Picture Of Dorian Gray is undeniably a gay work. Gay and refined. I first thought Dorian was called Grey, which I found a wonderful allusion to the color of the bare and eroded marble of Dorian columns. I was very disappointed to find out the correct spelling. Apologies to everyone who seriously wanted to discuss Dorian Gray and Hedonism for this pointless intervention. Thanks to Three Times Great for the myseriously-fitting-to-the-beat lyrics of the second verse.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7388
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Dorian Gray

Postby Jakob » Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:21 pm

Metaphysical Lust vs. Lust for Truth

"When we choose the word will as in the will to truth, we suggest a truth in the sense of an end, a truth beyond our present state. Truth here is external to the body - it is metaphysical. When we use the word lust as relating to truth, truth becomes something wholly different - as lust is inherent in the body, truth can not be metaphysical.

Truth as we know it is in refraining from judgement, in contemplative experience of becoming - which means active / physical / transforming contemplation. Opposed to this stands the otherworldly ideal of a platonic truth, a state of perfection. This will to truth as aimed at perfection is born of the fear of truth as we see it. The cause of this fear - the terror of this truth can easily be explained; Truth as an object of lust is the perfect awareness of the imperfect.

This is how we see being imposed on becoming - no thing exists - only existence exists. It is entirely fluid - all solids in one's perception are due entirely to deformations of the perceptor. Truth is not at the most fundamental level not in the eyes of the beholder, it is in his body - his awareness

Truth is not something which can be understood. Something which can be very well understood, however, is the means to truth, which is lust. This, then, is the use of the lust to truth as a formula; It draws the attention to the means towards the state of empowered flux-consciousness I call truth.

The end of the doctrine as a means is the same as the eternal recurrence of the same - it is a weapon against laziness, weakess - against belief." - KDH-Nietzsche Campfire 2005
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7388
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Dorian Gray

Postby Jakob » Mon Jan 10, 2011 8:06 pm

A hedonist is positively existent only when the required conditions are tightly secured. Conditions are health and wealth, both forms of power. The fulfillment of lust doesn't guarantee this security, so a successful hedonist can only be someone who is healthy and disciplined, who takes pleasure in maintaining both his wealth and his health. But that is not really a hedonist. So hedonism can not work well as a personal philosophy, at best as a type of phase in a persons life, otherwise it will lead to ruin, as it did with Wilde and his immortal counterpart.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7388
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Dorian Gray

Postby Three Times Great » Wed Jan 12, 2011 5:29 am

Jakob wrote:Intellectually rooted hedonism is perverse, because as a doctrine it stands in obstruction to the fluctuating ground of its practice. Pleasure is based on novelty, freedom, unexpected bliss - intellectual emptiness in exchange for psychological fulfillment. You can not hold to such a principle as rational concept without perverting the experience it pertains to - a bit like quantumphysics. Don't look to deep into the rabbithole or you cease to exist as a coherent observer-interpreter.


Is this an admonition against thinking..?

Pleasure is based on many things; a refined hedonism, of which Wilde speaks, is not out of the question as a legitimate philosophical perspective. The only point is that it will fail to satisfy those of us whose nature bind us more strongly to a will for deeper understanding, self-honesty.. the problem with hedonism, with all worship of pleasure, is that pleasure is always surface level. That doesnt mean pleasure isn't important, possible or meaningful, it means that for those of us who are never satisfied with remaining stagnant, intellectually/consciously speaking, pleasure can never satisfy for long, because we are always underminding that pleasure by uprooting and examining it, looking for the kernals of truth and authenticity within and removing the falseness therein.. seeking new, deeper, more powerful and important pleasures... this will to authenticity, and novelty is a very big part of it, cannot remain satisfied in a hedonistic perspective for very long. One worships pleasure, or truth, but never both. The way through this quandary is, of course, when one becomes capable of attaining his highest pleasures in his seekings for truth, in his experiencing truths within himself... but this state is so far beyond hedonism, refined or otherwise, that they don't touch upon each other at all.

Generally speaking, hedonism is a way of generating meaning in one's life when one is both too intelligent to accept the shallow social meanings of those around him, but not intelligent enough to grasp the internal principles of pleasure and meaning themselves and thus overcoming them.
Three Times Great
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3215
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 2:24 pm

Re: Dorian Gray

Postby Duality » Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:20 pm

"The more a man cultivates the arts, the less randy he becomes... Only the brute is good at coupling, and copulation is the lyricism of the masses. To copulate is to enter into another–and the artist never emerges from himself." - Baudelaire
"A truth is not necessary, because we negatively are not able to conceive the actual existence of the opposite thereof;but a truth is necessary when we positively are able to apprehend that the negation thereof includes an inevitable contradiction. It is not that that we can see how the opposite comes to be true, but it is that the opposite can not possibly be true." -R.L. Dabney

"Those then who know not wisdom and virtue, and are always busy with gluttony and sensuality, go down and up again as far as the mean; and in this region they move at random throughout life, but they never pass into the true upper world; thither they neither look, nor do they ever find their way, neither are they truly filled with true being, nor do they ever taste of pure and abiding pleasure." -Socrates
User avatar
Duality
Already Dead
 
Posts: 1497
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:40 pm
Location: Alea Iacta Est

Re: Dorian Gray

Postby Jakob » Wed Jan 12, 2011 4:49 pm

This strongly reminds me of something Nietzsche (yes, again) says in the Will to Power (I think his best writing is in there); -

"Artists are not men of great passion, whatever they may like to tell us and themselves. And this for two reasons: they lack any sense of shame before themselves (they observe themselves while they live; they spy on themselves, they are too inquisitive) and they also lack any sense of shame before great passion (they exploit it as artists)."

I would say that a philosophical hedonist does the same, but without having the benefit of getting an artwork out of it. Where to the artist his talent is his vampire, for the philosophical hedonist, his dogma is what sucks him dry. From the same passage (814):

"Secondly, however, their vampire, their talent, grudges them as a rule that squandering of force which one calls passion. - If one has a talent, one is also its victim: one lives under the vampirism of one's talent."

Therefore, a proper hedonist should actually pretend to himself to be a person of discipline and temperance. His pleasures will be experiences he permits himself to enjoy, instead of experiences he forces himself to go through.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7388
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Dorian Gray

Postby Duality » Wed Jan 12, 2011 5:05 pm

There are no whores who cannot be ravaged. The true poet and the true philosopher are one
"A truth is not necessary, because we negatively are not able to conceive the actual existence of the opposite thereof;but a truth is necessary when we positively are able to apprehend that the negation thereof includes an inevitable contradiction. It is not that that we can see how the opposite comes to be true, but it is that the opposite can not possibly be true." -R.L. Dabney

"Those then who know not wisdom and virtue, and are always busy with gluttony and sensuality, go down and up again as far as the mean; and in this region they move at random throughout life, but they never pass into the true upper world; thither they neither look, nor do they ever find their way, neither are they truly filled with true being, nor do they ever taste of pure and abiding pleasure." -Socrates
User avatar
Duality
Already Dead
 
Posts: 1497
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:40 pm
Location: Alea Iacta Est

Re: Dorian Gray

Postby Dan~ » Wed Jan 12, 2011 5:28 pm

JohnJones wrote:I lost me shirt . an i lost me trousers. i lost me trousers eh. wheres me hat me coat ee i'm a lad an half

I found this to be very funny.
I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting my free game projects.
ImageImage
Truth is based in sensing, in vision. And we can only see when we are alive.
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10530
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: Canada Alberta

Re: Dorian Gray

Postby Amorphos » Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:34 pm

Three Times Great

pleasure can never satisfy for long


Learn tantra ~ up to 16 orgasms apparently. :) Aside from that why does pleasure need to be perpetual, if it were not for std’s I think free sex and non possession are worthy ethics?

Hmm I suppose you still have the potential of accidental incest. :P
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7052
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Dorian Gray

Postby Three Times Great » Fri Jan 14, 2011 7:05 pm

quetzalcoatl wrote:Three Times Great

pleasure can never satisfy for long


Learn tantra ~ up to 16 orgasms apparently. :) Aside from that why does pleasure need to be perpetual, if it were not for std’s I think free sex and non possession are worthy ethics?

Hmm I suppose you still have the potential of accidental incest. :P


One is better able to experience pleasure who has learned greater depths of suffering. To rationalize/will away one's sufferings, psychologically, is to greatly undermine both the scope and depth of the pleasures one may experience. This is (one of) the problems with hedonism, why it is an absurd philosophy (but is of course a psychological given, in its basic state, to how all humans operate). Hedonism as philosophy is based on extreme avoidance of pain/suffering. This is philosophically untenable and psychologically impossible, and very harmful to oneself to attempt - it greatly weakens mind, spirit and body.
Three Times Great
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3215
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 2:24 pm

Re: Dorian Gray

Postby unsuper » Fri Jan 14, 2011 7:26 pm

Duality wrote:Didnt notice this. The objectivity/subjectivity of logic has no relevance to anything stated. All that is stated is that logic is an applied tool used to justify/fulfill our existential desires

and that tool has varying levels of productivity....which correlates with how objective it is. my point

Duality wrote: Logic derives from consciousness regardless of it's level of objectivity/subjectivity.

that's irrelevant

Duality wrote:False foundation is also bogus claim. It is not anymore false than any other perception you choose to apply- including the "bashing down of every foundation besides the one that is *me".

it's common sense. christianity, for instance, is a very false foundation. which is why much of neitzsche's work goes absolutely nowhere...because he's so focused on refuting that false foundation that he leavs no room to say anything (i just tried reading the antichrist. i cant. i think i'll make a thread refuting a lot of it's bullshit)

other than: what is more in this world, to you, than yourself?
unsuper
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 9:14 am

Re: Dorian Gray

Postby unsuper » Fri Jan 14, 2011 7:36 pm

Three Times Great wrote:Reifying delusion and human construct into "purpose" is nonsense, in that it a) does not add anything to these constructs which did not already exist (subjective meaning) and b) blinds oneself to what is actually going on, in the nature of the subject-as-experiencing-itself. That is of course fine if one does not care for either self-honesty or self-understanding; I suppose a hedonist, productive or otherwise, would likely fall into that category.


this (subjective)illusion, this delusion (if thats what you're getting at), is very real to us. you can definitely productively feed that experience without purpose but purpose implies conscious(ly done). conscious synonymous with perfection. after that it's a matter of just *how* conscious the purpose is. i've already states what i believe the perfect, invidual, purpose should be (productive hedonism)


other than that i completely agree that pleasure/pain is subjective and different for everyone. which is where the "productive" part comes into play

ps. you people attach the purely-superficial to hedonism. i don't

pps. if learning is painful....then you probably arent really learning lol
unsuper
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 9:14 am

Re: Dorian Gray

Postby unsuper » Fri Jan 14, 2011 7:42 pm

Jakob wrote:Intellectually rooted hedonism is perverse, because as a doctrine it stands in obstruction to the fluctuating ground of its practice. Pleasure is based on novelty, freedom, unexpected bliss - intellectual emptiness in exchange for psychological fulfillment. You can not hold to such a principle as rational concept without perverting the experience it pertains to - a bit like quantumphysics. Don't look to deep into the rabbithole or you cease to exist as a coherent observer-interpreter.

you're getting at something very important to me. what you call intellectual emptiness i call a meditative state lol. focus. subconscious emptiness...implying conscious fullfillment

ps. weird shit happens when you look(feel,hear,smell,taste) too deep "down the rabbit hole"....actually down anywhere. try it! :banana-dance:
unsuper
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 9:14 am

Re: Dorian Gray

Postby unsuper » Fri Jan 14, 2011 7:53 pm

Three Times Great wrote:Is this an admonition against thinking..?

try acid and you might get what he means


Three Times Great wrote:Pleasure is based on many things; a refined hedonism, of which Wilde speaks, is not out of the question as a legitimate philosophical perspective. The only point is that it will fail to satisfy those of us whose nature bind us more strongly to a will for deeper understanding, self-honesty.. the problem with hedonism, with all worship of pleasure, is that pleasure is always surface level. That doesnt mean pleasure isn't important, possible or meaningful, it means that for those of us who are never satisfied with remaining stagnant, intellectually/consciously speaking, pleasure can never satisfy for long, because we are always underminding that pleasure by uprooting and examining it, looking for the kernals of truth and authenticity within and removing the falseness therein.. seeking new, deeper, more powerful and important pleasures... this will to authenticity, and novelty is a very big part of it, cannot remain satisfied in a hedonistic perspective for very long. One worships pleasure, or truth, but never both. The way through this quandary is, of course, when one becomes capable of attaining his highest pleasures in his seekings for truth, in his experiencing truths within himself... but this state is so far beyond hedonism, refined or otherwise, that they don't touch upon each other at all.


"The way through this quandary is, of course, when one becomes capable of attaining his highest pleasures in his seekings for truth, in his experiencing truths within himself... but this state is so far beyond hedonism, refined or otherwise, that they don't touch upon each other at all."

i think that is what true hedonism is. and at it's very core, hedonsim would want to be productive. produtctive hedonsim is true hedonism. hedonism implies a lot more than you give it credit for. you can enjoy pleasure so much more after going without. after experiencing pain. after teasing yourself with it. after learning to generate it without the thing that you used to do it with before. etc etc etcetcetcetfwddregwq
unsuper
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 9:14 am

Re: Dorian Gray

Postby Jakob » Fri Jan 14, 2011 8:12 pm

unsuper wrote:
Jakob wrote:Intellectually rooted hedonism is perverse, because as a doctrine it stands in obstruction to the fluctuating ground of its practice. Pleasure is based on novelty, freedom, unexpected bliss - intellectual emptiness in exchange for psychological fulfillment. You can not hold to such a principle as rational concept without perverting the experience it pertains to - a bit like quantumphysics. Don't look to deep into the rabbithole or you cease to exist as a coherent observer-interpreter.

you're getting at something very important to me. what you call intellectual emptiness i call a meditative state lol. focus. subconscious emptiness...implying conscious fullfilment

Hmm... I would think pleasure has to do with the merger of the subconscious and the conscious parts of a mind. A perfect hedonist would not have any 'bottled up' subconscious desires, he would be aware of all of them and able to fulfill them. But I get what you're saying, I think so at least... intellectual emptiness is a good thing if it means freedom of overly-intellectual restraints to natural tendencies. I just think that an intellectually powered hedonism would itself become a restraint, or an oppressive force - that it makes pleasure into something you have to force yourself to go through, instead of an experience to be freely enjoyed. The greatest pleasures are often 'outside of the law', or in the breaking of laws one has imposed on oneself. That is also why one can get addicted not only to a drug, but also to quitting the use of that drug, so one can say "fuck it!", break the rules and start again as if it was the first time.

ps. weird shit happens when you look(feel,hear,smell,taste) too deep "down the rabbit hole"....actually down anywhere. try it! :banana-dance:

Um, I sort of have limits... but, yeah. No shortage of strange down that road.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7388
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Dorian Gray

Postby unsuper » Fri Jan 14, 2011 9:00 pm

Jakob wrote:Hmm... I would think pleasure has to do with the merger of the subconscious and the conscious parts of a mind. A perfect hedonist would not have any 'bottled up' subconscious desires, he would be aware of all of them and able to fulfill them.

and a merger of the two would be completely conscious. becoming fully conscious

Jakob wrote:But I get what you're saying, I think so at least... intellectual emptiness is a good thing if it means freedom of overly-intellectual restraints to natural tendencies. I just think that an intellectually powered hedonism would itself become a restraint, or an oppressive force - that it makes pleasure into something you have to force yourself to go through, instead of an experience to be freely enjoyed. The greatest pleasures are often 'outside of the law', or in the breaking of laws one has imposed on oneself. That is also why one can get addicted not only to a drug, but also to quitting the use of that drug, so one can say "fuck it!", break the rules and start again as if it was the first time.


not so much intellectually powered as intellectually induced. and just mainly directing the hedonism into the productive...in the overall sense and not individual instances (such as not getting addicted)

Jakob wrote:
ps. weird shit happens when you look(feel,hear,smell,taste) too deep "down the rabbit hole"....actually down anywhere. try it! :banana-dance:

Um, I sort of have limits... but, yeah. No shortage of strange down that road.

that's not what i meant. i don't even do psychedelics that much.
next time your high and about to go to bed try to close your eyes and just *listen* as much as you can. you hear a ringing. then try to *listen* to the ringing as much as you can

a lot of this parallels the things that people into astral projection (i'm not) do. paralysis and whatnot

so, again :banana-dance:
unsuper
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 9:14 am

Re: Dorian Gray

Postby Three Times Great » Fri Jan 14, 2011 9:35 pm

unsuper wrote:
Three Times Great wrote:Is this an admonition against thinking..?

try acid and you might get what he means


Three Times Great wrote:Pleasure is based on many things; a refined hedonism, of which Wilde speaks, is not out of the question as a legitimate philosophical perspective. The only point is that it will fail to satisfy those of us whose nature bind us more strongly to a will for deeper understanding, self-honesty.. the problem with hedonism, with all worship of pleasure, is that pleasure is always surface level. That doesnt mean pleasure isn't important, possible or meaningful, it means that for those of us who are never satisfied with remaining stagnant, intellectually/consciously speaking, pleasure can never satisfy for long, because we are always underminding that pleasure by uprooting and examining it, looking for the kernals of truth and authenticity within and removing the falseness therein.. seeking new, deeper, more powerful and important pleasures... this will to authenticity, and novelty is a very big part of it, cannot remain satisfied in a hedonistic perspective for very long. One worships pleasure, or truth, but never both. The way through this quandary is, of course, when one becomes capable of attaining his highest pleasures in his seekings for truth, in his experiencing truths within himself... but this state is so far beyond hedonism, refined or otherwise, that they don't touch upon each other at all.


"The way through this quandary is, of course, when one becomes capable of attaining his highest pleasures in his seekings for truth, in his experiencing truths within himself... but this state is so far beyond hedonism, refined or otherwise, that they don't touch upon each other at all."

i think that is what true hedonism is. and at it's very core, hedonsim would want to be productive. produtctive hedonsim is true hedonism. hedonism implies a lot more than you give it credit for. you can enjoy pleasure so much more after going without. after experiencing pain. after teasing yourself with it. after learning to generate it without the thing that you used to do it with before. etc etc etcetcetcetfwddregwq


True intellectual ecstacy has nothing to do with pleasure or pain in any traditional sense; philosophical insight can lead to bliss and ecstacy, to lasting peace within oneself and to a great happiness, but this, unlike the pleasures of the hedonist, does not depend upon the avoidance of suffering/pain in any way.
Three Times Great
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3215
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 2:24 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users