Mastur Bater said:
Un-Tology means the logos of the UN - un-Being Being, un-binding self from reality, releasing it in un-reality.
It does not matter what you see, or hear, what matters is how it makes you feel.
Your thesis based on slight of hand definitions? Is that self confusion as a sense of self? The individual is always confused and unaware, because they are so certainly full of self-righteous ****?Yes.
I'm sure trying to pass yourself off as somebody else, anybody else, will be a obvious strategy for you once that times comes.I've only used masks to get through guards...and then, to my peril, I dropped them.
Your FU Philosophy:
Satyr, I may be lord of the internet, but you may very well be a god or demigod of the internet. I am wondering the impact your f.o.m. had on the internet and society. It is possible that your post created the Genius forums which inturn altered the timeline. Please research and see if the Genius forum was created after 15 years ago, find the timestamps, if it is then you may be the very spawn of the whole genius forums, youtube anti-feminist movement, and various online philosophical movements.I really have no time for such narcissistic explorations.
I don't have time to research it myself. I will have a more indepth response to your flux theory and gender theory soon.
metaphorThat's not how I see it. How I see it is, metaphors can be placed as a secret code for intellectuals, whilst soaring over the heads of everyone else. Esp. in children's movies.
Ummmm....yea....QuotemetaphorThat's not how I see it. How I see it is, metaphors can be placed as a secret code for intellectuals, whilst soaring over the heads of everyone else. Esp. in children's movies.
The Jesus story is chock full of metaphor, only thing is, Christian simpletons take the bible litterally and can't see the secret metaphors Christ was saying.
Plagiarism isn't the word I would use, I would use the word "inspiration". What I was saying is that the Genius forums may have been inspired by your post and thus your post changed the entire earth timeline. When someone makes a 3d fps inspired by doom, we call John Carmack the god (or demigod) he is. It transcends mere narcissism.
Let me explain this. Narcissism mostly applies to sociosexual dynamics. Ie. you see a hot girl and think you are more worthy than someone else. Generalhood, is different from narcissism. A general or demigod feels awkward when men grovel at their feet, whereas the narcissist desires everyone to grovel beneath them. A general or demigod must be recognized and praised for their contributions to the effort. Such is John Carmack as the godfather of FPS games, and possibly you, depending on the timestamp of your post it could have inspired many souls.
Brainwashing, refers to a feminine estrogenic washing of the brain into accepting a paradigm. The feminization of man may seem obvious to you, but to the rest of the world, caught up directly in it, may have been unconscious to it until your post launched the movement. You made it more logically coherent than the hippie movement, which was just like a bunch of emos saying "love love love, **** authority" with no technical unfolding of any deeper truths or mechanisms behind it. If they were emos and imps, then you were a tall Demon, standing tall above the emos and imps and unfolding the tree of knowledge, setting your foot down and telling it how it really is.
Okay...so there's this **** named Mary.
A real dumb ****.
A romantic idealist. A real life nit-wit.
Believes that she has a 'right' to overcome her genetic nature and behave like a man, **** anyone with as few consequences as possible.
She rejects her nature, as woman, and sex, for her, is just for pleasure. It's accidental that she can become pregnant.
Unfair. Why is it only women get pregnant and cannot **** around, like men?
Can't be something about nature...no.
A Modern
This, simpleton ****, Mary, made an error in judgment, about her simpleton boyfriend John, and about her 'rights', in the world, and not simply in the human, western, world, full of idealistic contraptions like 'equal rights', and how there's no difference between men and women other than appearance.
Her retarded idealistic judgments of John failed to live-up to her expectations of him. Furthermore, her idiocy convinced her that contraceptives were absolutely reliable, and that she had a god-given RIGHT to be a total ****, carelessly enjoying the pleasures of copulation without being forced to face the consequences of what this means for a biological female.
The contraceptive was the chosen social contraption to pretend that her judgments were correct. So much so, that she began taking it for granted, that the contraption, the contraceptive, was the great equalizer, finally allowing biological females to behave as promiscuous as biological males...and John took advantage of this, being no less degenerate than her, and just as naive and idealistic.
Her noetic abstractions of John, and of the world, where contraceptives were reliable and freed her from her biology, wanting to be the **** that she always wanted to be.
But this did not harmonize with nature, with reality, her female biology, and with her understanding of male nature, as in John, and society.
Her mental model of the world, John, herself in it, and what being a man and a woman implied, did not harmonize with how things actually ARE.
The discrepancy is called an error in judgment.
But humans have invented methods to deal with such mistakes, allowing Mary the illusion that she is smart, and aware.
Such a mistake eraser is the abortion technique. Abortion comes in, after the fact, whereas the contraceptive was the technique of before the fact. The fact can be denied as a scholastic didactic contraption based on these two human interventions.
Mary hoped to live out her life safe within the protective delusion of these contraptions....but they failed her, exposing her to the world beyond.
She thought she could carelessly have a fling, or surrender to her impulses and that there would be no consequences, no costs....only benefits. She was certain that she could remain a teenager, a flaky stupid promiscuous little girl, **** whomever, on a whim, then changing her mind and going on to **** another.
But the world, the objective world, simply did not give a **** about Mary's private desires and her modern idealism.
The manmade devices and technologies could not fully protect Mary from her own idiocy; could not shelter her from her own nature.
Her noumena, did not harmonize with phenomena, beyond the artificial sociopolitical environment; beyond human systems, and how they shape an artificial reality... also manipulating John to fake it to get laid, by tricking a dumb **** like Mary, and by behaving in socially acceptable ways to fool her.
Both were naive romantic idealists...and ought to be protected from themselves.
Why?
Well, because the chimp loves them.
The objective world does not give a **** about that, but it does not exist, for the chimp, because all is subjective, so if Mary, John and the cAnus agree, their subjectivity wins, if they can convince the majority.
Her error she had to 'correct' by demanding from the very system she depends upon and, yet, fails to appreciate honestly and fully, that she be protected from the costs of her own stupidity.
In her mind she is a 'victim'......not that she was an idiot, but a victim of some conspiracy....and she has to blame someone else...like John, or the other preferred social contraption the contraceptive, or God.
Not herself, and her subjective judgment....because all subjective judgments, simply by being stated and believed in, are equal to any other.....so we are back to our paradox.
I'l give you another example...
A wo-man named cAnus, believes she is male, but behaves and thinks like a female.
A separate issue.
Here we have a moron who fell for Christianity, and then Marxism....but is it her fault?
No.
She is not to blame. Because all subjectivity is correct.
She is innocent, a victim of some evil other.
Who's to blame, then?
The ideologies, the dogmas, that seduced and tricked her.
She calls this 'other' objectivist, because it sounds intellectual, and like she's thought it through, and not like it's an emotional contraption alluding to her in the past, making excuses by trying to blame anything but herself.
She is as innocent as Mary and John.
It is the idealism's fault, not her gullibility, her stupidity, to see which idealism was correct and which was bullshyte.
Ergo...all ideals are wrong, or there's no way for a stupid coward to determine which one is more probably more realistic.
Instead of blaming self, and the genes that makes her inferior judgment so pathetic, let us blame the ideologies themselves.
Like blaming the salesman who tricked us into buying a lemon.
Why hurt yourself and accept responsibility, admitting that you were gullible and idiotic, when you can blame all salesmen for being dishonest, and all cars of being lemons?
Give you a third example, more scholastic didactic than the previous...
There's a moron who **** and becomes pregnant by a negro.
In her modern, subjective, democratic, mind there are no races....these are social constructs.
She believes this. It pleases her to believe this.
Does nature care? No.
Her child begins to perform sub-standard in school. Her kid can barely performs on a mediocre level, academically, but excels in athletics.
Does she question her previous judgment?
No!!!
She looks for the justification, the reason, in others...in a bigoted system, in luck, in prejudices school systems, in god, in evil men, in anything but her own judgment...because all is subjective and no one subjective judgment is inferior, or superior. So, the only reason for her kid's performance is someone other than her, or the Negro she chose to have a kid with.
She loves them both, without daring to define love, and bring it down to earth...so she's stuck in an emotional paradox.
She can't objectively appreciate her situation, she cannot question her own judgments, she cannot think insulting things about her chosen mate and the child she had with him.
What's left but to blame someone else?
She DEMANDS that the system make special consensus to accommodate her mistake in judgment.
She demands that special rules be enforced to make her bad judgment, a good one.
She has this mental model, in her head, which she is unwilling to question.
But the world does not care if she does or does not....it is what it is.
To whatever degree her mental model, her noumena, are not in harmony with phenomena, how the world works, how it actually, is, determines the size of her mistake, and this determines the costs.
Will she consider that ti is not the world but her judgments of it, that is to blame?
no.
She will demand the world change to accommodate her world-view.
She will demand everyone, everything change, so she does not have to.
She calls this progress.
Now, allow me a hypothetical scholastic didactic contraption to clarify what the genius cAnus is teaching us.
There a real man's man, named Bill.
He like to identify as a human stud, preferring to copulate with human females.
Bill is admired by men-children, born in a feminized world, as the epitome of masculine energy.
We, also, have another "man" named Bob.
Bob identifies with being a horse mare. "He, she, it" likes to copulate with male horses.
Enjoys the feeling of big horse-**** in its rectum.
Who are we to judge? Are we god?
According to cAnus we cannot tell who is normal, and who is ill.
No way to decide if Bill, who likes having sex with females, human ones, is ill or healthy, or if it is Bob, who likes having sex with male horses, who is so.
Both make good points.
From their individual perspectives each is right...in other worlds in their head they are correct in what they are doing.
They are both right because they both say so.
They both have equally convincing arguments.
Bill claims that sex evolved to reproduce a species, and so only copulating with human females is natural, and everything else is a symptom of a sickness, a mental disorder.
Bob claims species is a social construct and a scholastic didactic contraption exposing a psychosis of bigotry, based on the social construct of species.
He believes he is advanced, enlightened, an example of things to come: A world where the barriers between intra-species love are finally broken, and man and beast can marry and find in each other a mate, a lover, a friend.
According to the ****, there's no way we can determine who is correct and who is truly sick, ****-up, delusional, demented.
No way at all.
Both sides make good points, according to her.
I guess a good point is simply saying you like it, or simply stating it.
Both self-identify with what they prefer, in their subjective mind, to identify with.
One as a human male, the other as a horse mare.
Both say so. Both have reasons for saying so.
Both find pleasure in what they identify with.
Both think they are right, and the other is wrong.
Therefore, the genius teaches us, we cannot discern who is more correct and who is delusional.
If we say otherwise, we are all objectivists and authoritarian, Might makes Right, Nazis...not Right is Might.
The proper course of action is to vote on who is healthy and who is ill, or to allow each to think they are correct, without thinking the other is not.
There's no other method to decide...no external to human desires, social conventions....nothing.
Before human societies no organism could judge. Natural selection failed, because to select one must judge.
Which brings me to my next example
I construe Dasein, as thrown into Christina society.
I offer no reasoning, no evidence, no argument....it's just what I like.
I say so.
Screw Heidegger...my Dasein is superior.
Ok, so dasein means thrown into CHRISTIAN society...excluding, for no apparent reason, all other societies and everything outside societies.
I do so to make my desired conclusion impossible to evade. I've adjusted my thinking to a form that only one answer will be rational.
In that context is Mary, in the above real life, down to earth, example, a sinner, on her way to hell, or will she be forgiven, and enjoy eternal paradise?
I'm in a bind.
Given how I set up the scenario, my paradox leaves me uncertain.
I accept nothing outside how I mis-construe dasein, as thrown into Christian society, and ask for help in deciding if Mary, who has sinned by having sex out of wedlock, will suffer eternal Hell, or will God forgive her, if she joins a nunnery and lives her life in repentance?
Note to Others
The more I think one answer makes sense, I stop and consider the good points of the other answer.
Both seem reasonable, given how I mis-construe Dasein, in the here and now, waiting for Godot.
I really need your help.
This is not a pretext to get attention or to direct all towards accepting my starting premises of God's existence....you know how I mis-construe Dasein.
I am honest.
I would never lower myself to the feminine method of demanding the other first accept my delusional misunderstanding of Dasein, to then come to a mutually beneficial conclusion.
I wouldn't be so cowardly and hypocritical.
The original and still most important group belonging to what is termed the European New Right is GRECE, a cultural organisation based in Paris. The letters stand for Le Groupement de Recherche et d’Etudes pour la Civilisation Européenne (The centre for the study and search for European civilisation). The word is an acronym for the French word for Greece, which underlines the group’s strong sense of attachment to the Greek heritage in particular, with its cult of heroism, elitism and beauty, and perhaps most importantly, its pagan values and outlook. The group was created on 5th May 1968 by Alain de Benoist and several intellectuals.
The starting point of GRECE was to undertake an analysis of the meaning of ideas. They wished to preserve an identity, a collective identity as Europeans: on that they were agreed from the beginning; but that was all. Nothing else would be assumed, not the need to defend Christendom, not the Western world, nor NATO, nor any of the other bastions of the old right. All would be examined critically in order to grasp their completing meaning. Taking its example from Nietzsche’s creation of a genealogy of morality. GRECE examined the history of ideas in order to better understand the relevance of each idea in the modern world.
Pierre Vial, the general secretary of GRECE Michel Marmin, film critic and leading GRECE member, and Guillaume Faye, a new and passionate advocate of GRECE , confirmed the total break of the New Right with one of the most sacred cows of all in the old right corral; the West. The leading article in that issue of Eléments was written by Guillaume Faye: `This is the hideous face of a civilisation, which, with an implacable logic, has forced itself onto every culture, gradually levelling them, bringing all peoples into the gamut of the one-world system. What use is the cry “Yanks out!” when those who shout the slogans are Levi customers? More successfully than Soviet Marxism this civilisation is realising the project of abolishing human history in order to ensure the perpetual well being of bourgeois man[…] this system, this civilisation, which is eradicating the identity of the peoples of Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americans has a name: it is called Western civilisation.[…] We are against the Western civilisation.”
Alain de Benoist has adopted a famous aphorism of Oscar Wilde for his own use: the societé marchande is one which knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. This is echoed in Faye’s assessment of liberalism as the creed which `tolerates everything and respects nothing’. To quote Robert de Herte again: `The inherent materialism of liberalism and Marxism is nothing other than the dissolution of the soul, the abandonment of all human motivation, which cannot be rationalised in terms of personal interest or immediate existence. The only world which is permitted to impinge on our minds is the here-and-now of my world. There exists no place in `my’ world for what has a value beyond me, which constrains me, which gives me a form. The `rule of quantity’, to use Rene Guenon’s expression, is formless, hic et nunc, nothing more. The paradigm of decadence: a falling off from spiritual to material, from soul to spirit, to bady alone: the era of homo economicus, linked closely to the coming of the bourgeois, the bourgeois not so much as the representative of a class as a type who imposes a certain system of values. The aristocrat seeks to preserve what he is, the bourgeois what he has.'[…]
The New Right can be described as a revolt against the formless: formless politics formless culture, formless values. That modern society pays scant attention to measure, order, style, is self-evident, nowhere more so than in the United States. According to the New Right, utility and ugliness are the deadly twins of the Western world. When a society reduces all facets of life to the dictatorship of economics, then beauty, honour, loyalty – in a word everything we call intangible – is made tangible, rentable, and thus destroyed. If it is true that style maketh the man, then the man created by the modern world is inhuman, deprived of what is specifically human, cultural, and reduced to his materiality.[…]
Above all GRECE loves life and with irrational resilience will champion the cause of excellence against the mediocrity of the egalitarians and the hypocrisy of the sectarians. For those of us who felt disilusioned and depressed by the level of political and philosophical debate in a Europe which is rapidly losing all identity, the French New Right has initiated a kind of revolution. We need to think through all our nations again from the beginning. Someone has opened the windows and brought a fresh beeze into a muggy, malodorous study.