What aren't you doing?

[Pandora]

Neurosyphilis was successfully treated with malaria induced fever therapy - that is, if one was strong enough to survive the course of treatment.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/bodyh ... 6FHTY-cHIU

[Fixed Cross]

Ive no doubt Nietzsche used opiates with psychedelic effects, intended or not.

Einstein definitely used coke like all of them in that time, but recently I read that traces of LSD were also found.
The double Helix idea was conceived in an acid trip, and much more has been, but soon after the drug was outlawed. I suspect it being used behind closed doors intensively. More than a suspicion. It's too useful.

LSD makes the brain more ‘complete’, scientists say as they claim to have unlocked secrets of hallucinogenic drugs

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 79571.html

[The Golden Turd]

Read that article Pandora, method wasn't first tested till 1918.

I suspect had he known if it, he would of tried it though.

And that article was shit FC. It doesn't make the mind more complete, but overrides natural functions, mixing the processes. Someone having a involuntary trip years after last taking LSD seeing soap in the shower floating before them isn't in possession of a more advanced Ming, but of a visual apraxia. Motor functions are going to be off in coordinating in such a state.

Our mental mechanisms didn't evolve for LSD or window licking, they evolved within a framework of specific modes of mind that allow us to complete specific tasks.
[img]
https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/320xq ... d7vmCW.png[/img]

When you start fucking with the divides between the various modes, which each use their own neurotransmitter signatures, your ability to process complex information between points A to the intended destination via that chart is thrown off. For starters, a trip fuvks the whole process up.... and instead of focusing on completing a natural task, your focused on the trip itself.

Our ability to know where we begin and end, our individuality and relationship to our environment and others are equally crucial.

It may be of use someday in specific injections to a particular segment of a cranial nerve to treat a disorder, but as it us now, it is rotten, makes people less functional and less aware.

It goes back to the Proslogion of St. Anslem.... He is developing a ontological definition of God between universal monism and specificity. On one had, God is literally anything and everything in Non-Duality, Indian advaita agreads with this.... but on the other he is asserting specificalities of imagined states of the Godhead. His formulations for God are like Magnus Andersons' for Nietzsche's overman.... The highest form that can be imagined.

Problem is, specificalities buck the oceanic feeling of LSD.... LSD doesn't result in a gull monism, but does break down how the Pythagorean table of opposites is navigated and ascertained, it is how we visualize and know something visually (the haptic aspect causes a paradox, you may know in one but not the other in coordination, meaning when you complete a challenging task you may express disbelief)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_Opposites

finite, infinite
odd, even
one, many
right, left
rest, motion
straight, crooked
light, darkness
good, evil
square, oblong

How we construct dream images, or merely imagine, is deeply dependent upon this, in a succession (not that order though), to create imagery in a hypnogogic state. When you see a image in your head, your constructing it using aspects integrating those variables..... They are variables for a fucking reason, as it is task specific. All our technology, all our senses, are set up to react within certain norms. You fuck with the norms without adapting the other hardware, you put that individual in a potentially less successful situation for successfully completing tasks, and for survival.... Not to mention it complicates diagnosis later on in life. A simple sodium imbalance can cause issues parallel to dementia, but you add this to the mix, it can really throw a doctor off in diagnosis, especially when he can't question the patient about their medical history as they can't recall shit and turn more childlike. Latent symptoms can really fuck up etiological efforts.

[Pandora]

LSD makes the brain more ‘complete’, scientists say as they claim to have unlocked secrets of hallucinogenic drugs

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 79571.html

More complete as in more self-referential? It's dangerous to tinker with mind alteration techniques (whether it's through psychotropic drugs or self-hypnosis). The danger is that you'd lack an objective/outside perception of what is really going on, unless you video tape yourself or keep a diary in order to keep perspective. Otherwise, you'd lose your self as you'd lose a solid reference point (the reality that was responsible for our evolutionary survival). It is one thing to tinker with an object's brain, in a study, and completely another to tinker with your own.

[The Golden Turd]

Don't you love how she put me on ignore then completely agrees with everything I say to you?

[Pandora]

Don't you love how she put me on ignore then completely agrees with everything I say to you?

What's this all about?

[The Golden Turd]

First time you've talked directly to me in years. You haven't talked to me since I told Maia she should put gummy worms and ketchup in her eye sockets and pull them out in the food court of the mall. I was apparently the most evil chauvenist in the world. If I had no eyes, I would straight up do that. You got angry, stopped speaking to me. Just assumed I was on ignored after a while. I would say something, you would then say the exact same thing.... And I figured it was because you couldn't see.

Then I started to get worried, cause your a militant angry feminist, and if your saying everything I'm saying, and aren't aware of it.... that might mean I'm a angry, militant feminist too and never was aware if it, so I became worried that I was secretly gay or some shit. But then I thought.... A lot of feminists are dykes, and dykes try to think like guys, so if she is thinking like a guy, then that means I'm not gay, just a stereotypical male. Then I got upset that I was stereotypical, cause it made me feel like I lost my uniqueness, and so started wearing large, oversized hats to stand out. Now, nobody is quite like me.

[Pandora]

I just stopped taking you seriously after you took some information from the internet that I knew was not true in real life. But I couldn't prove it because the official sources on the internet always trump the argument, right? So, to me, only about 10% of what you say now is worth taking seriously.
And a militant feminist dyke doesn't even make sense to me. If a female tries to think and be like a male, how can she even be a feminist, or anti-male for that matter? That's like being a militant misogynist gay.

[The Golden Turd]

Honestly, your posts are on a alien conspiracy site. Your accusing my of not being trustworthy? Your the star of a news update on one of the most untrustworthy sites on the net.

I can always (usually) source my information. You just look the damn shit up, it's from books usually, or I give a wiki link.

Hope you like your alien origins attention.

[Magnus Anderson]

https://www.asianreflection.com/superman.shtml

Says everything you said. Fucking amazing....

He didn't say everything I said. For example, he didn't say he's a fag, and I implicitly stated that Eastern philosophers are fags.

Sri Aurobindo wants to trick us into believing that his coming man is a balanced man and that the old man is an imbalanced man.

This is not true.

A very seductive proposition it is, but it is not true.

He is trying to portray himself as possessing both masculine energies (Titan, Asura, Power) and feminine energies (God, Deva, Love.) I do not doubt this to be true. But this does not mean that what he's doing is right.

The relevant question is not whether he possesses both, but rather, which one he values more.

And I think it is pretty clear that he values feminine energies more than he values masculine energies. Thus, we can conclude, he's a fag. A man-powered woman.

But the problem runs deeper than that.

The relevant question, the truly relevant question, is the question of fundamental dualism. What is the fundamental dualism of life? What is that which underlies our judgment of true and false, right and wrong, good and bad, beautiful and ugly?

That is the relevant question.

Sri Aurobindo does not really think that the opposition between masculine and feminine energies is the fundamental opposition. Rather, he thinks that the fundamental opposition is the one between balance and imbalance of the two energies.

Rather than man/woman he posits balance/imbalance as the fundamental dualism.

This is yet another name for a well known dualism between good/evil, benevolent/malevolent, light/dark, love/hate, spirit/matter, harmony/disharmony, peace/war and so on and so forth. It is also tightly related to pleasure/pain dualism.

Note that this is NOT the same dualism as that between man and woman.

The question is, are there any other tendencies in the universe other than masculine and feminine tendencies?

It breaks a man's heart to realize that he's been feminized, that he's been distracted from his nature, that he no longer stands up to his very own standards of evaluation. Thus it becomes easier to deny that the fundamental dualism is the one between man and woman.

But man/woman is the fundamental dualism.

Man represents the active force of concentration. This is a force of gravitation that attracts, accumulates and generates form. Man is life-affirming.

Woman represents the re-active force of decentration. This is a force of radiation that repels, dissolves and eliminates form. Woman is life-denying.

There are many other names for the same dualism.

Tension/release. Pain/pleasure. Compession/expansion. Generation/radiation. Gravitation/levitation. Accumulation/dissipation. Centripetal/centrifugal. Past/present. Reality/fantasy. Phenomenon/noumenon. Will/instinct. Reason/emotion. Matter/void. Action/reaction. Motion/rest. Energy/lethargy. Speed/slowness. High frequency/low frequency. Power/weakness. Life/death.

It's a very subtle point.

Osho speaks of the need to be "the center of the cyclone". This is a seductive proposition. It is seductive because it appeals to our desire to be in control of ourselves. But what kind of center is he speaking of? What kind of spiralling motion is this center of? Does his center attract, and thus defines itself, or does it repel, and thus dilutes itself?

It's not enough to simply be centered. The center must be a center of centripetal motion.

In the case of Osho, and other mystics, occultists, spiritualists and religious people, this center is a center of centrifugal motion.

These people, borrowing from Nietzsche's work, pride themselves on having and promoting "power over themselves", but do they really have this power?

And what do they really mean when they say "power over oneself"?

Their power, properly speaking, is merely a power of a drug addict. Fair enough, drug addicts do not have much power. But these people do. They have the power to drug themselves without using any kind of physical substance. That's the extent of their power. Their power lies exclusively in meditation. In decentration. In relaxation. Other than that, they have no power.

Indeed, properly speaking, this is no "power over oneself". They have no "power over themselves". They are dying. What they have power over is pain.

It wouldn't really be much of a problem if they were simply dying. The problem is that they are trying to live their death.

Decentration cannot possibly have a considerable effect on the external world. Unless, of course, it becomes concentrated.

Zombies aren't exactly dead. They are death concentrated.

And there wouldn't be a problem if they actually tried to resist their decentration through concentration. Indeed, this would be a positive. The problem is that their efforts at concentration never reach completion. Rather, their concentration is always decentered, and this decentration of concentration, it is never decentered.

Their image of the old man as lacking "power over himself" is a projection of their own lack of "power over themselves".

They picture the old man as suffering from the same kind of decentered concentration that they do, but merely lacking in meditation.

Meditation merely softens their lack of self-control, it does not make it go away.

Nietzsche spoke of this extensively. He called it ressentiment. It's when people start hating everything that is unlike them, especially that which is better than them.

There is no balancing to be had between concentration and decentration. Rather, one must concentrate, at all times, without interruption.

Sure, the strength of concentration can vary through time, but there must be a domination of concentration over decentration.

The positive aspect of decentration merely lies in its use to counter decentration, to decenter decentered concentration.

My recommendation of decentration is to men, because men are by their nature high on concentration, thus at risk of being decentered in a very rigid manner.

There really is no balancing.

The moment you start balancing is the moment you let decentration dominate concentration.

[The Golden Turd]

Osho speaks of the need to be "the center of the cyclone".

I will ceed to you the statement all eastern philosophers are fafs, largely because I said the same to George Feuerstein before he died.... But the centering.... Dude, come on.

If your a Nietzscheans, you abscribe to his egoist theory of how the body operates via reflexes, without aid necessarily of the mind. But he was also a psychologist, and made several statements that par with Osho here.... as an INTJ (very regularly typed there, same as me and others.... I've been called the poster child for Ni) have a great degree of control over our motor functions, the circuit that is the core for our personality type runs right through the right SMA in the mind.

When your like me, Jerome Card an, Aristotle you spend a big chunk of your time hiking and thinking. It is instinctive.... we are always in thought, but the increased motor function makes it easier to think. Descartes (not a INTJ, but still sits in the right hemisphere, links up to the other side of that feedback loop, but NOT the SMA end, hence Cartesian Dualism- mind body seperation) thought going into the military as well would free up enoug time to think.

It doesnt free up time to "study" but does give you lots of solitary time to think. Most people go nuts in long guard shifts, not me. Why? I cam stand there, perform my functions robotically, and think simultaneously. External elements behave like extentions of my body. I am my enviroment. My movements are clunky due to a ideo-kenetic apraxia when recieving orders outside my mind from a superior, but like mozart, I can instantly formulate a plan, and set my body into much more elegant and better motion.

Why? All the SMAs do is process body, emotional, and intellectual information.... Like the old time operators eho used to plug phones in.

John Boyd was a similar thinker, it is why I push his OODA Loop so much on this forum, some of our best human to AI sensor technology used in F-22s directky descend from his insights.



I made that diagram up to correct the other versions out on the net, noticed they got it backwards at points. Mine is also the most simplified.

In India, the most pure form of monism is the first green arrow on the chart.... Pure perceiving, no judgment. What is, is, without the is.

From your extensive analysis, is just using a extended formulation of the Pythagorean table of opposites.



I brought up a few years back the further elaboration of this in Buddhism then Advaita Vedanta in the Uddhava Gita.... Goes into much more detail. I put it in a post roughly labeled "Anal Tricks or Psychedelic Drugs", but the troll named Zinnati got it banned (might still be around, just can't post in it cause the mods are retards), but I asserted from a better knowledge base what your asserting in part.... Did they link this stuff together through drug use like Soma and then later through extreme asceticism, causing neural transmitter extremes, such as the state experienced in starvation? I was dipping back into the older strata of Buddhist texts when the thread was rudely yanked from here by Zinnati's nationalist ploy.

I pointed out, in the Srimad Bhagavatam (contains the Hamsa Gita, which us also the Uddhava Gita) the Hare Krishnans included in the original editions (but not the online editions, I searched it twice) a picture of a yogi sticking the heel of his foot up his ass, apparently stimulating the Vagus Nerve to kill him, or "transcend" as they put it. So hence my question, anal tricks or psychedelic drugs.

By default, given where the SMAs sit in the mind, the role they have in processing so many different kinds of information, they are the most expansive in terms of raw consciousness.... We have the highest IQ ratings period. INTPs try to adjust it for language aptitude at times to get higher, but they generally flop most tests compared to other types. Not a very smart group in terms of raw intelligence.

Someone in my area, capable of "centering" doesn't have much control over the thalamus. Sauwelios is the posterboy for that. It isn't that I don't have access to it, just isn't a aspect I balance in the mind, coordinating. I mostly run it unconsciously.

They dont balance, but take the careful middle of the road, avoid all risks, take it easy and watch Downton Abbey aporoach to life. Ive seen many get involve easily in social scenes, use drugs, have causual sex, but it is always in the nothing in excess category, and bring rude and impulsive is the worst thing ever. They are all to the last voting for Hillary.

Im told the divisions between make and femake take place here. I can't see it in my mind. If you notice on the wiki page for the pythagorean table of opposites, not all pythagoreans accepted Male-female as a opposite. Im aware they have a dualistic opposition, but it is a purely intellectual idea.... I don't look at random rocks and declare them Lingas.... This stone has a male nature, this stone has a female nature. It is a fucking stone to me. I dont see sexyality in the forces, god is gender neutral.... Only call God in the masculine because of English language traditions and indifference to change just because feminist demand me to. So I will call Mannequinn He, as It is insulying, but insist on cling Trixie He.... Because that us what he us, I dont have this gender fluidity conscioys in my mind.

Stoucs tried to do this, calling all active forces in natute by their feminine, rewrote the greek gender use in language to do this.... Like the song Inama Nushif.... Forces of nature, or personal qualities of a female? It does sonething to me, feels beautiful, but I don't see where at in the mind that occurs. If the others are right, the Thalamus makes a lot if sense, as it is my one cognitive blind spot it could hide in.

Saying you see male and female in everything is like telling a color blind person about colors. After a while, they will get colors exist, can see shades, use colorful expressions, but arent going to be walking around seeing colors.

I cant see sexual forces everywhere. I see it when animals are fucking, or in a pretty woman, or pornography.... But everything isnt make and female to me. Englush only yses gender tense to refer to sex organs, and the sexual tense has to matxh to to the genitals in question. We can get artistic and call a ship "she" or name our gun Sally, but that is largely a joke, borrowed from literature.

If Osho was talking about centering the mind, he would of almost certainly been blind to any make-female duality in everything. I can't see it in either the right or left when I switch. I only see it when it is obviously there. Sometimes in oddly misshapened tree trunks. I can see a cock on a statue. But other than the obvious, I'm not thinking wind is masculine and valley is feminine. I'm thinking in terms of geometric deposition of terrain types, colors, foilage, statistics for kinds of plants and animals, use of land, economy and culture, it's history.... It's future. Never once have I stooped and said "masculine creek, feminine road".

It just sounds foolish to me, and I'm prone to usually dismiss it as such.... But I'm also read enough in psychology to know no personality type has absolute conscious control of the mind, and this aspect is missing.

Chances are, he just emphasized it so much because he couldn't see it, but was so prevelant in the tantric thought of india. He theorized it, built up a scheme, found a willing audience for it, and focused of the emotive and motor skills of it, building up relationships. We tend to be very controlling in sex, dictating the nature of it, fantasy wise.

But so does a great many sex cuults, especially in Japan. I'm so far not seeing him step out of generic tantic philosophical assumptions Idia had since the Buddhist era at least. I'm not into it as a Christian, but you can tell by our numbers and birthrates, we fuck and have relationships too. The idea of spiritually bonding isn't unknown to us, nor alien to christianity.... We don't emphasize it, but it is certainly present.

[Pandora]

Honestly, your posts are on a alien conspiracy site. Your accusing my of not being trustworthy? Your the star of a news update on one of the most untrustworthy sites on the net.

I can always (usually) source my information. You just look the damn shit up, it's from books usually, or I give a wiki link.

Hope you like your alien origins attention.

I'm okay with you not trusting me either. I still think you're 90% full of shit.

[Ultimate Philosophy 1001]

Magnus, I don't see how femininity is life denying.

I gave up some of the whole masculinity/femininity dichotomy myself, a bit tiring on the brain because there are so many glaring inconsistencies with it. Still, there are some things about it which are true, such as femininity being more loving and sensitive.

[Pandora]

But the problem runs deeper than that.

The relevant question, the truly relevant question, is the question of fundamental dualism. What is the fundamental dualism of life? What is that which underlies our judgment of true and false, right and wrong, good and bad, beautiful and ugly?

That is the relevant question.

Sri Aurobindo does not really think that the opposition between masculine and feminine energies is the fundamental opposition. Rather, he thinks that the fundamental opposition is the one between balance and imbalance of the two energies.

I don't see life process, in itself, having a fundamental dualism. How does dualism even fit in life? Let's look at life through a bigger picture. Life on earth has existed for 3.4 billion years, and big part of it has been asexual. Sexual reproduction (I'm assuming this is the early basis of male/female dichotomy) has evolved as a competitive survival strategy (one of many). So now we have dualism (male/female), but for how long we still don't know. Mammalian life, despite being more differentiated and complex, composes only a small part of history of life process on Earth. It's possible that life might be reduced back to cloning strategy in the future since many strategies, if looking at geologic time scale, have ended in evolutionary dead ends. So, in a larger perspective, making a cosmological model based on some ying/yang dichotomy is a very anthropomorphic view of life as a whole. The only unique quality of life that is fundamental, in my view, is a quality of negative entropy.

[Fixed Cross]

LSD makes the brain more ‘complete’, scientists say as they claim to have unlocked secrets of hallucinogenic drugs

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 79571.html

More complete as in more self-referential? It's dangerous to tinker with mind alteration techniques (whether it's through psychotropic drugs or self-hypnosis). The danger is that you'd lack an objective/outside perception of what is really going on, unless you video tape yourself or keep a diary in order to keep perspective. Otherwise, you'd lose your self as you'd lose a solid reference point (the reality that was responsible for our evolutionary survival). It is one thing to tinker with an object's brain, in a study, and completely another to tinker with your own.

I take a different view to all this. I see the human brain, and the whole body, as an ongoing chemical 'experiment' of sorts, always changing, because conditions are always changing and change is the basic constant. I think chemicals, drugs of all kinds, medicines, vitamins, minerals, cocktails of all sorts of molecules that we experiment with in cooking, are all natural elements to the human process.

LSD has proven to yield incredible scientific results, whereas alcohol is almost completely meritless....alcohol numbs the brain, LSD makes it incredibly sensitive. I simply absolutely disagree with our societies approach to these drugs. Ive done acid twice, it was, if anything, very sobering. Alcohol is the really problematic drug, no doubt.

This response is also addressed at Turd.
(You can not deny, Turd, that all sorts of drugs have been used by all sorts of scientists, philosophers, poets and politicians that have made the world a richer place)

[Pandora]

...LSD makes it incredibly sensitive.

Also making a person more impressionable, vulnerable, and defenseless. The defenses and filters that a human body/mind has in it, have evolved for a reason.

Liberalism also makes people more sensitive and makes them lower their natural defenses. And look where it's gotten Europe?

[Magnus Anderson]

Magnus, I don't see how femininity is life denying.

I gave up some of the whole masculinity/femininity dichotomy myself, a bit tiring on the brain because there are so many glaring inconsistencies with it. Still, there are some things about it which are true, such as femininity being more loving and sensitive.

Because it's form-diluting. Form is life. Whatever strengthens form is life-affirming, whatever weakens it is life-denying.

When I speak of man/woman what I mean is concentration/decentration or quite simply seriousness/frivolty. You cannot disagree that women are by and large frivolous creatures.

[Magnus Anderson]

I don't see life process, in itself, having a fundamental dualism. How does dualism even fit in life? Let's look at life through a bigger picture. Life on earth has existed for 3.4 billion years, and big part of it has been asexual. Sexual reproduction (I'm assuming this is the early basis of male/female dichotomy) has evolved as a competitive survival strategy (one of many). So now we have dualism (male/female), but for how long we still don't know. Mammalian life, despite being more differentiated and complex, composes only a small part of history of life process on Earth. It's possible that life might be reduced back to cloning strategy in the future since many strategies, if looking at geologic time scale, have ended in evolutionary dead ends. So, in a larger perspective, making a cosmological model based on some ying/yang dichotomy is a very anthropomorphic view of life as a whole. The only unique quality of life that is fundamental, in my view, is a quality of negative entropy.

There is no need for cosmology.

The question is which one of the two dualisms that we are aware of is more fundamental.

The two dualisms are man/woman (= power/weakness = concentration/decentration) and harmony/disharmony (= pleasure/pain = good/evil.)

If man/woman is more fundamental, this would mean that people who believe that harmony/disharmony is more fundamental are feminized (i.e. they are no longer concentrating properly.)

If harmony/disharmony is more fundamental, this would mean that people who believe that man/woman is more fundamental are imbalanced (i.e. they are either too much of a man or too much of a woman.)

[Magnus Anderson]

If your a Nietzscheans, you abscribe to his egoist theory of how the body operates via reflexes, without aid necessarily of the mind.

If you are a Nietzschean and you ascribe to the egoist theory of how the body operates via reflexes, without necessary aid of the mind, then you are not a Nietzschean. You are most likely someone like Laughing Man/Joker/HaHaHa.

To surrender to your drives is to decentrate. When you surrender to your drives, you lose form. Your drives lose form. They become deformed. Think of Batman's Joker and how deformed he is.

There must be a resistance to your drives in order to keep them in shape, and this resistance, how is it administrated? It is administrated through will.

Will is the force of concentration.

It is religious people, such as Christians and Buddhists, who surrender to drives, not Nietzsche. Nietzsche spoke against such a surrender. Indeed, his entire philosophy is directed against these reactive people.

The difference with Eastern thinkers is that their decentration -- their reactivity -- is feminine, which means, it is soft and silent, rather than hard and loud. (Though in certain cases, such as that of Osho, it is not exactly silent, since these people still take part in worldly affairs.)

Indeed, Nietzsche also spoke against those who spoke against drives, such as for example Christians, but only because they promoted repression, not control.

Repression is decentered concentration. It is not proper concentration. It occurs when one tries hard to concentrate in another direction in order to avoid facing unpleasant stimulus.

Nietzsche did not preach "return to our animal nature". Rather, he preached mastery of our nature, which really amounts to nothing other than to concentration of our energies.

It is useful to think of a man as composed of multiple flows of energy. Man's entire body should be thought of as nothing but a multiplicity of energy flows. This is what defines his being.

What we call drives refers to a subset of these energy flows. Namely, it refers to psychological flows.

Breathing, heartbeat, digestion, blood circulation and all other biological and psychological processess can each be identified by the common denominator that is energy flow. (This is also consistent with the notion that the universe is nothing but motion.)

These energy flows are our biological inheritance. They are given to us, and thus, they are separate from our will.

The process of growing up is the process of becoming aware of these energy flows. These energy flows are introduced in a disorganized manner, and thus, the process of growing up must also a process of learning how to master these flows.

This period of immaturity is characterized, or should be characterized, by preponderance of will (nurture) over instinct (nature.)

Children must restrain themselves a lot in order to master their randomly occuring energy flows.

Will is sort of like a commander who is mobilizing instincts that are his army.

Then at some point comes the peak of maturity when all of one's energy flows are properly mobilized thus reducing the need for will (i.e. restraint) and increasing the efficiency of instinctive action. (There is still the involvement of the will, it's just that one becomes less dependent on it.)

This is what the phrase "power over oneself" means: to concentrate one's motion, not to decentrate it.

Mystics are masters at substituting one form of decentration (masculine hard-and-loud form of decentration) with another form of decentration (feminine soft-and-silent form of decentration.)

Finally, one becomes old, and the period of decline of willpower kicks in, leading to complete surrender to instincts.

It's useful to learn to make a difference between centrifugal will (which is instinct-driven will) and centripetal will (which is will-driven instinct.) The former is egoistic, the latter is not.

Nietzsche was not an egoist.

Christians are. Buddhists are. Mystics are. Women are.

But not Nietzsche.

[Pandora]

Finally, one becomes old, and the period of decline of willpower kicks in, leading to complete surrender to instincts.

It's useful to learn to make a difference between centrifugal will (which is instinct-driven will) and centripetal will (which is will-driven instinct.) The former is egoistic, the latter is not.

Nietzsche was not an egoist.

Christians are. Buddhists are. Mystics are. Women are.

But not Nietzsche.

I think we already had this conversation before but I will note (again?) that will-driven instinct sounds like a dangerous way to go. I am referring to indoctrination to the point where the behavior becomes unconscious (automatic behavior). It may include people like suicide-bombers, kamikazes, war-mongering patriots, and other ideologically indoctrinated groups (useful idiots, in other words). This will thing is often manipulated. Who guides the will? And how? My point was that once it becomes automatic, you cannot (at least easily) control it. Just have a conversation with a devout Christian believer and you'll see it for yourself.

[Magnus Anderson]

Manipulation targets instinct, not will.

The more you are hungry and thus in need of food, the easier for others to manipulate you.

They can set up a trap, and you will fall for it, because you cannot help yourself, you cannot control yourself.

Will is not that which eliminates instinct, it is that which preserves its form.

[Magnus Anderson]

Who guides the will? And how?

Will is the force of concentration. What does it concentrate? It concentrates instincts. More generally, it concentrates motion within our body.

Will does not overcome instincts. It overcomes their deformed expression, but not instincts themselves. It actually preserves them.

Instincts require adequate circumstances in order so that they can be expressed without losing their form. What do you do when such circumstances are lacking? You restrain yourself. This is because everything else would make them deformed.

[Pandora]

Manipulation targets instinct, not will.

The more you are hungry and thus in need of food, the easier for others to manipulate you.

They can set up a trap, and you will fall for it, because you cannot help yourself, you cannot control yourself.

Well, manipulation can target both. Will is still dependent on choices and choices can be manipulated. Modern day politics, and advertising in general, is a good example.

[Fixed Cross]

...LSD makes it incredibly sensitive.

Also making a person more impressionable, vulnerable, and defenseless. The defenses and filters that a human body/mind has in it, have evolved for a reason.

Liberalism also makes people more sensitive and makes them lower their natural defenses. And look where it's gotten Europe?

Not a fair comparison I think. Drugs are often used in war, and cocaine is heavily used by many businesspeople, increasingly so weed - and Joost may know what politicians are on.

Acid isnt like mushrooms. These will make you vulnerable. LSD is far cleaner, largely cognitive in effect.

Still, I wont deny that a broader consciousness possibly makes one less effective in this world. That is not wholly an argument against it.

[Magnus Anderson]

I am referring to indoctrination to the point where the behavior becomes unconscious (automatic behavior).

Indoctrination can only work if ego can be bypassed. What makes it easy to bypass the ego? Inability to concentrate, or lack of will. Need too.

Will is by definition that which resists manipulation of any kind, unless we speak of centrifugal will, which isn't proper will.