Desperate Degenerate Support Group

[iambiguous]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC0faZiBcG0&t40m20s=

Note to others:

In 25 words or less what does this tell you about me?

Or, sure, her.

[Meno_]

If Mowk sees you guys using the 'a' word he'll red-flag you - report you to the5 authorities, tell teacher.
He's an officer of the infamous secret thought police, funding the bringing Nazis, fascist and other vile thought criminals to justice, and keeping this forum upon to the standards we all know and love.

How else has it attracted so many geniuses and gathered so many messiahs in one place?
Don't you guys know Peterson and the politburo of China and Russia read ILP and form their global strategies?
This place is a world renown brain storming source affecting humanity.
Ya, think an ancient soul would waste itself infinite time on us if this were not so?
Curb the language.
Say backside , or buttocks.

Ts ts ts.....naughty naughty .


Good double play , though rather ambiguous and dupliciously inverted, to make sense to everyday folks.

In a way it offers more slack , as in fishing before the bite.

No offence to fishermen off shore.

[phoneutria]

I messed up the time stamp on that vid. try this https://youtu.be/DC0faZiBcG0?t=2395

[iambiguous]

I messed up the time stamp on that vid. try this https://youtu.be/DC0faZiBcG0?t=2395

Note to others:

In 12 1/2 words or less what does this tell you about me?

Or, sure, her.

[Aegean]

Poor sap iambiguous demands a context when he is the context of my thesis on nihilism.
He is the real time representation of my theory ion nihilism.
Every time he flatters himself, with another, "victory" he reaffirms my analysis on this psychology.
He is the perfect example of the psychosis of nihilism and how the power of the nil can prove to be effective in self-preservation - a defensiveness against self-awareness.
He wont even understand this post, which is also to be expected.
But it is not the only one of the 'pure nihilist' type - not to be confused with the 'positive nihilist' type, of which there are more than two representatives on ILP.
It and the other one, Brian, are examples of how nihilism is a defensiveness against self-consciousness.
The other one has many self-deceiving behaviours, in comparison to the simpleton iambiguuos, with who he feels an affinity. One such self-deceptive self-deceptive strategy can be witness in his reference to his idol in patronizing ways, such as 'fritz", to hide the fact that he has been thoroughly and completely dominated - institutionalized - adopting idol worship in a new form - personality worship is common among Marxist secular nihilists that have outgrown Abrahamism.
We see it in how they adored Mao and Stalin, to name but two.
It has to do with daddy issues, but that's for another time.

Ya see, many secular Abrahamics believe they've overcome idolatry, when they've simply abstracted it into an ideology, by progressing beyond the ancient worship of sacred objects, and adopting a purified abstracted variant, where the idol is entirely noetic - a concept, or a mental image, sometimes just a feeling, an intuition.
The idol is converted to an idea/ideal, with no need for an external representation. We see it in Judaism and Islam; both dogmas refusing to represent their absolute one-god, preferring them to remain obscure and esoteric, but no less perfect and powerful.
The Christians remained true to the pagan ancestry they corrupted, and maintained idol worship, in some form, though they would not admit it. Wars were fought over it.
Protestants rebelled adopting the Jewish method of abstracting theirs to carry it around in their mind, as pure idea/ideal - ideology - liberating themselves from matter and material representatives and representation.
Another reason Judaism and Protestantism allied and synthesized into present day Americanism - worshipping their shared messiah: money. Salvation from past and genetics - salvation from the body.
This is connected to language, because mathematics is a linguistic form and money is its tangible representation - its idol; an idol that can be abstracted into code - credits, numbers, data.

Nietzsche has become such an idol of worship, and though many can count themselves among his devoted worshippers none will admit to being Nietzsche's bitches.
My mentor wrote an analysis on some characteristics identifying Nietzsche Bitches. This is not a slight against Nietzsche...only against his bitches.
This has to do with an idealization of otherness, reaching the apex of worshipping otherness as a faceless unconsciousness, often renamed from 'god' to 'one', or 'universe', or simply 'absolute'.
Nietzsche could only have been idolized by en-children post mortem, because while alive he would contradict and be too imperfect to remain ideal. The dead can't talk back, and they can never contradict what the living think of them and about them.

Simpleton even understand 'nature' in Abrahamic terms, viz. as absolute order, denying them free-will and saving them from the responsibility of their own existence.
When they hear the word 'nature' they think 'absolute order'.

The Abrahamic nihilistic concept of a one-god, is now stripped of its primitive veneer and converted to a modern pseudo-scientific mathematical concept, a one, or a whole, with exactly the same traits - i.e., perfect, omnipotent, absolute, complete, omnipresent, order - except for the infantile anthropomorphisms.
This advance they consider part of their personal "progress" and "enlightenment", making them feel superior to others.

[phoneutria]

you know, how you're not able to make common sense decisions that any average joe can easily make, simply by pointing at something and saying "that. i want that" ? that's what I mean

You don't need to interpret the video. You can take it as a message to you in verbatim.

Nietzsche believed that once the religious systems collapsed we would have to consciously produce our new set of values, but Jung believed that the psyche was the source of all value, and so it was not a matter of creating new values, it was a matter of discovering the values that were already lying dormant and implicit within us.
And the next thing I would say about this, you all know this. You just don't know you know it. And so one of the reasons to be educated from a literary and historical perspective, is that you can come to understand what you already know. Because if you don't understand it, there's an element of your being, the element that knows it and acts it out, and there's another element which is sort of you as a personality, they're completely at odds with one another, and that makes you weak. It makes you something that is divided within itself

It doesn't make you clever. It makes you weak. It's pathetic.
And honestly it is fucking sad to watch you still doing this. After almost 4 years, you've been here this whole time, still stuck on that same question.

I still remember what I asked you in May of 2015 in the "psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative" thread

Don't you know who you are?

To which you answered:

I don't believe there is a "real me"

So if you want my opinion, it is that your problem is not one of moral, or of dasein, or conflicting goods or whatever you want to call it. Your problem is one of identity.

You have a gaping hole between your personality and your psyche where the connection with your instinctual drive for decision and action is lost. Fix that.
Unpin yourself from that mat yo.

Try wasting less time having the same fruitless conversations in a dark corner of the internet, rocking back and forward like a mad person, and more time trying to find out who you are. Once you know that, you will no longer be in conflict. And hopefully we won't end up discussing this fucking subject in every fucking thread. You fucking troll.

[Karpel Tunnel]

[
You have a gaping hole between your personality and your psyche where the connection with your instinctual drive for decision and action is lost. Fix that.
Unpin yourself from that mat yo.

Yes, this is one way of looking at the problem. There is an implicit assumption that the neutral state is statis. Not moving, not deciding unless something is clearly right, good, correct, needed and so on. Whereas life is in motion, doing. So, while he presents his situation, implicitly and to some degree explicitly as I don't know what I should do, demontrate the right path (such that all rational people...etc.).

In fact, for justifications he does not think he needs to present, he has stopped all motion and stands outside of life. As if others are responsible for his intertia.

Try wasting less time having the same fruitless conversations in a dark corner of the internet, rocking back and forward like a mad person, and more time trying to find out who you are. Once you know that, you will no longer be in conflict.

He's going to try to engage you in demonstrating he has an 'I' and what process all rational people should engage in to figure out what one's (authentic) 'I' is. Again, the presumption is that unless what is outside him

proves

what he should do

his inertia and deadness is rational.

And any not in stasis like him is 'religious' with mental contraptions.

[Aegean]

The only "correct" answer, the truth that will change the world for the 'better', if is we all agree that we ae all equally ignorant, and weak, and we come to a shared compromises, agreeing to believe in the same lie.

Having failed to find his Paradise, in Abraham, or his Utopia, in Marx, his last desperate attempt is to bring the world - mankind - down to his level of despair and self-negation.
A word is his god. It can be anything, including 'nature', or 'order'....but he prefers 'humanity'.
Humanity = world
World = humanity

Absolute order is his salvation from personal responsibility. He is a 'victim' of existence - the universe. He could not have been, or done, anything other than what he did, and is.
God is replaced by Order, and he but a piece of its mysterious dominion. a helpless victim of its mysteriousness.
If it is not perfectly and absolutely proven, then it is perfectly and absolutely disproved.
Either/Or - binary, simplicity.
If not absolute one - singularity - then absolute nil.

[Aegean]

it's an evolution of idiocy.
From Abrahamic nihilism, through secular nihilism - i.e. Marxism - and the final stage of post-modern, final pure nihilism - the Last Man.

This is tied into the decline of the American Empire - experienced as a world-ending event.
A psychosynthesis of despair, seeking in degeneracy and hedonism a final attempt to find meaning.

[iambiguous]

I still remember what I asked you in May of 2015 in the "psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative" thread

Don't you know who you are?

To which you answered:

I don't believe there is a "real me"

All I'm asking you is to broach the question of the "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do" in regard to a particular context in which your value judgments precipitated behaviors that came into conflict with another's.

That way you can describe in much more detail what, for all practical purposes, you mean by the "real me". By "identity".

Substantiate the extent to which you can know who you are when challenged regarding the aspect of "I" that I ascribe to dasein in my signature threads. Note how is this not applicable to you.

Look, you'll either take the discussion there or you won't.

[iambiguous]

[
You have a gaping hole between your personality and your psyche where the connection with your instinctual drive for decision and action is lost. Fix that.
Unpin yourself from that mat yo.

Yes, this is one way of looking at the problem. There is an implicit assumption that the neutral state is statis. Not moving, not deciding unless something is clearly right, good, correct, needed and so on. Whereas life is in motion, doing. So, while he presents his situation, implicitly and to some degree explicitly as I don't know what I should do, demontrate the right path (such that all rational people...etc.).

In fact, for justifications he does not think he needs to present, he has stopped all motion and stands outside of life. As if others are responsible for his intertia.

Try wasting less time having the same fruitless conversations in a dark corner of the internet, rocking back and forward like a mad person, and more time trying to find out who you are. Once you know that, you will no longer be in conflict.

He's going to try to engage you in demonstrating he has an 'I' and what process all rational people should engage in to figure out what one's (authentic) 'I' is. Again, the presumption is that unless what is outside him

proves

what he should do

his inertia and deadness is rational.

And any not in stasis like him is 'religious' with mental contraptions.

This is classic KT. The problem [as always] is me.

But even here the accusations are wrapped up entirely in an intellectual contraption!!!

Okay, let's try this:

Let him or σάτυρο or phoneutria choose a set of circumstances in which one might be described as a "desperate degenerate". What in particular does one have to think and feel and say and do in this context in order that it can be demonstrated that in fact one is a both desperate and degenerate.

With regard to, say, human sexuality.

How do their own views here avoid entirely the manner in which I construe ones identity in my signature threads.

[MagsJ]

This is classic KT. The problem [as always] is me.

Why do others have a problem with You?

What is it about You, that causes a problem, in Others? You don’t in me, but why, in Them/Others.

[Tab]

Save yourself time, just put iamabiganus on ignore. Worked for me.

[WendyDarling]

iamabiganus

[Tab]

Oops I spelt it wrong, silly me.

[WendyDarling]

Oops I spelt it wrong, silly me.

[MagsJ]

Save yourself time, just put iamabiganus on ignore. Worked for me.

No, I won’t! I agree with him, in that what bothers other’s so, about him?

He does not, and has never, bothered me, but why does he bother All/you All? I don’t see it/get it.. I don’t understand.

A low tolerance level, perhaps? Am I right, Iam?

[Tab]

I've literally had that guy on ignore for 7 years. 6 of them while I wasn't even here. A day or 2 ago I flipped the reveal tab on one of his undisplayed posts, thinking - "ok, it's been yonks, maybe he's turned into a normal person by now..."

But no, exactly the same old useless prattle as he was writing all that time ago. The deal with philosophy or just thinking about life etc. is to go somewhere with it, to change, work things out, move on, a little dynamic flow. Grow. If you don't or can't, then what do you really know anyway, and what business have you trying to tell people to follow you..?

Anyways. Since I can't see his posts magsj - what is it you agree with him about..?

[iambiguous]

This is classic KT. The problem [as always] is me.

Why do others have a problem with You?

What is it about You, that causes a problem, in Others? You don’t in me, but why, in Them/Others.

Actually, I have since encompassed that in what zinnat calls one of my "groots":

1] I argue that while philosophers may go in search of wisdom, this wisdom is always truncated by the gap between what philosophers think they know [about anything] and all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself. That bothers some. When it really begins to sink in that this quest is ultimately futile, some abandon philosophy altogether. Instead, they stick more and more to the part where they concentrate fully on living their lives "for all practical purposes" from day to day.

2] I suggest in turn it appears reasonable that, in a world sans God, the human brain is but more matter wholly in sync [as a part of nature] with the laws of matter. And, thus, anything we think, feel, say or do is always only that which we were ever able to think, feel, say and do. And that includes philosophers. Some will inevitably find that disturbing. If they can't know for certain that they possess autonomy, they can't know for certain that their philosophical excursions are in fact of their own volition.

But, in regard to the moral and political objectivists among us, this one in particular:

3] And then the part where, assuming some measure of autonomy, I suggest that "I" in the is/ought world is basically an existential contraption interacting with other existential contraptions in a world teeming with conflicting goods --- and in contexts in which wealth and power prevails in the political arena. The part where "I" becomes fractured and fragmented.

The part, in other words, encompassed in my signature threads.

And, for some in particular, it pisses them off that I won't allow them to sustain their arguments up in the stratosphere of intellectual contraptions. Worlds of words intent on generating "general descriptions" of human interactions in what I construe to be "serious philosopher" mode.

[iambiguous]

Save yourself time, just put iamabiganus on ignore. Worked for me.

Well, as someone who professes to be "deeply shallow", I'd expect that.

[iambiguous]

I've literally had that guy on ignore for 7 years. 6 of them while I wasn't even here. A day or 2 ago I flipped the reveal tab on one of his undisplayed posts, thinking - "ok, it's been yonks, maybe he's turned into a normal person by now..."

Trust me. If there is one thing you can count on, he will never dare to bring his own assessment of "normal" out into the world of human interactions embedded in moral and political conflicts.

After all, if he actually believes that, objectively, one can grasp what it means to be normal there, I would rather quickly make a complete fool of him.

Or, sure, he'd make a complete fool of me.

Oh well, I guess we'll never know.

[iambiguous]

iamabiganus

Okay, let's try this:

Let him or σάτυρο or phoneutria wendy/joker choose a set of circumstances in which one might be described as a "desperate degenerate". What in particular does one have to think and feel and say and do in this context in order that it can be demonstrated that in fact one is a both desperate and degenerate.

With regard to, say, human sexuality.

How do their own views here avoid entirely the manner in which I construe ones identity in my signature threads.

[Pedro I Rengel]

1] I argue that while philosophers may go in search of wisdom, this wisdom is always truncated by the gap between what philosophers think they know [about anything] and all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself.

Unknowingly, you are here showing yourself as an objectivist.

By postulating, as objective fact, as unquestionable fact (the doubting of which is inconcievable in the literal sense), that the object of wisdom is to know all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself.

Beyond any other claimed issue, this is the point of contention you submit.

[phoneutria]

:
All I'm asking you is to broach the question of the "real me" in sync with "the right thing to do" in regard to a particular context in which your value judgments precipitated behaviors that came into conflict with another's.

So you're going to ignore the entire post I made, and ask the same shit again?
And you expect to be taken seriously?
Have some respect.

That way you can describe in much more detail what, for all practical purposes, you mean by the "real me". By "identity".

I mean your psyche.

Substantiate the extent to which you can know who you are when challenged regarding the aspect of "I" that I ascribe to dasein in my signature threads. Note how is this not applicable to you.

Only you are capable to explore the depths of who you are, and how deep that goes depends on you.
The answer is zero if you stay here pulling this shit day in and day out.

Stop coming to this goddamn forum. Read novels. Read history. Spend time looking at art and taking mental notes on how it makes you FEEL.

Your feelings are a sense, much like sight, hearing, and touch. Learn to listen.

[iambiguous]

We can include in this category the accumulation of references to be used in prose, so as to allude to profound insights, which are nothing more than superficial posturings.
The more obscure the references, deference to, the more likely the other has no knowledge of them, increasing the sense of uniqueness - implying genius of the upper 1%.

As I've said.
True genius simplifies the complex.
Simpletons unnecessarily and intentionally complicate the simple.

Confusion of knowledge for understanding.

He's back. At KT. But nothing changes. This is his latest post in regard to desperate degenerates.

And all I can do is to, once again, challenge his defenders here to actually explain this in reference to a concrete set of circumstances that we might all be familiar with.

Alas, he would be here to not explain it himself but as I noted on another thread...

Hard to really figure him though. He seems utterly driven to dispense his intellectual contraptions. So driven, however, that when others refuse to share his convictions [about anything] he can't stop himself from [eventually] shifting into huff and puff mode. Then he gets booted. But that merely deprives him of the larger audience that he craves in which to dispense his pearls of wisdom.

Anyone here willing to take a stab at it?