Abstract Thought
[Most Recent Entries]
[Calendar View]
[Friends]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in
Abstract Thought's LiveJournal:
[ << Previous 20 ]
| Monday, July 21st, 2008 | 12:52 pm
[suprdialect]
 |
Nietzsche : We are mistaken as to the degree to which we believe ourselves hated or feared: we ourselves may know very well the degree to which we differ from a person, tendency, party, but others know us only very superficially and therefore hate us only superficially. We often encounter goodwill that we find inexplicable; when we understand it, however, it offends us, because it shows we are not being taken with sufficient seriousness.
Suprdialect: LULZ, good 1 NeeChee, U R a Major WIN!!!!1111111 I offer my soul to NeeChee | | Tuesday, July 15th, 2008 | 7:15 pm
[suprdialect]
|
husband, father, dialectician on the command to know thyself Know thyself I am given a commandment: Know thyself. But who am I? If I am ordered to know this rock in front of me. I have it as an object in my hands. I touch it, I feel it, I know its boundaries. In coming to know the rock, I already in fact know it. Well, I have my body, I have my mind. I can throw my torso against a wall. Does it make a noise? Is it more of a Bam or a Thud? Perhaps I try a different wall. Yes it is a thud. I try counting to 100. Yes I can do this. I am a counting machine. I count to a thousand. I count to 32,234. Alas, I can go no further. But, this should not cause sorrow. Though I can perhaps not count to 32,235, I have achieved something much greater, I have come to know something about myself. I am a citizen, am I not? I walk into the IRS, and ask them for some records. They tell me that I have declared 35K in income last year. Well, that makes me lower-middle class or a liar. I can now come to some conclusions for myself. When I reach the pearly gates and approach the Lord and he asks me to double check all of his notes about my life, to see if he got them straight, I’ll have a few things to say. First, I must assume that I did not count last year’s income, unless I lied about that income, I can’t remember, but if I did lie about my income and I could have counted my income then surely I lied about it to make it less than what it actually is, unless perhaps I was a better counter back then, or maybe I counted the first 32,235 dollars and then sent the rest to be analyzed by some sort of genius or whatever. But if the Lord tells me that I counted my income and that I didn’t lie about my income, and I did all the counting myself, and that my counting aptitude did not decrease then I could point the Lord out for the huckster he is. For truly, I strove in life to know myself, and I will not be falsely judged. Why else would one wish to know themselves, except under the assumption that we will be judged, and it is better to tell our defense attorney all of the facts. But then again such an approach is felicitous only if these facts are not incriminating or one has the ability to weasel one’s way away from the most atrocious of indictments and filibuster one’s time on a few traffic violations. Another concern: will God judge me falsely? Is it not a possibility? He has so many heads to watch over. I think when he looks over my more disgusting of sins, he must have the modesty to cover his eyes a little, and as such mistaken wrestling for something I dare not say. After all, it was only wrestling. I should know myself. What’s the harm? I don’t have to make much effort. I simply must record my movements, my situations, the sounds of my stomach, and play them back to myself at night. And once I get up there and I am to be judge I can be judge jury and executioner. Wouldn’t that piss God off? Oh, he wouldn’t see that one coming. It would embarrass him, making him superfluous as such. Perhaps he would offer me a plea bargain to spare him the shame. Before he begins I have already thrown myself into the depths, content that justice has been performed. And what if everyone did this, what a farce. Maybe there is more to knowing thyself. Maybe I can gain new control over these limbs. If I am a machine, maybe I could practice a little mechanics. Now, how far can I twist my head. On its own it makes it quite far. But have you seen owls? Is it possible that I myself, will prove that that is no such marvelous thing. That when I see owls I can laugh at them for trying to lord that talent over me all these years. So I push my head further around, just a little bit at a time, I am not a dolt. I check a year later and see I too can turn a full circle, no more doubting it. I know. So knowing is testing also. But testing can be augmenting. Well why settle for testing myself against those owl vermin, or some pathetic low-life who for some reason or other can beat me in checkers. This pursuit to know myself, I must ask myself a much bigger question: am I master of the world? Am I emperor of the universe? I am not going to command the president to bark like a dog, or even threaten Bill Gates with a hefty wind-fall profits, hell, for a while, I will even let my wife have her side of the bed. But I am testing myself, I am breaking out of shell after shell, like a little Russian doll inside of other dolls who think they are so special. Well how does one think that one became a big Russian doll. I doubt that they manufacture them in different sizes. If Adam Smith is correct, and I think America has proved that he is, the benefits of economy of scale dictates that all dolls would come out the same. Let’s assume the same about our God. Why not. If he is so wise, how could he miss the general observation that scale creates economy, is he a Frenchman (communist idiot)? I could go on with the French… but that should wait for later on in the discourse. After all, I am pursuing a very narrow dialectic, and the intellect is always in danger of tangents, of becoming stuck, as Kierkegaard would say, in parenthesis. So where do I start, finding out whether or not I am master of the universe? Remember this is a big question, and if I am to truly know myself it should be answered, because it will answer a whole host of other questions. When/if I gain control over Washington, who will be the vice-president, well who ever I want. If I am in a round of Jeopardy, oh they will fear me. Not only that, I will control the question, e.g. “Who is to be the new host of Jeopardy next season?” Moreover, I can control the possible questions, so I need not worry myself about the answers. Asking myself if I am stronger or faster than a unicorn sounds absurd, where are these unicorns? I can make a similar question about bears absurd, or weightlifters, or my brother, that is if I am master of the universe. As master of the universe, I will undoubtedly answer every question. I will know myself in every non-trivial way. I will know myself as Lord of All. Oh, back to the question. I sometimes get carried away. Where do I start getting to know whether or not I am truly master of the universe? I will perhaps assert myself at the City Hall, for my neighbors dog defecates on my lawn and I do not care for it. I will step up to the microphone and aver “I am the master of my lawn and I will not let it suffer this Greyhound.” And soon I will not let it suffer squirrels. And soon not Mormons, or Jehovah Witnesses either. Soon I’ll be complaining about my neighbors yard and the satellites crossing over my airspace. I’ll be master of a good space by then. I will slowly but surely extend father’s day past midnight until I have made it into a three day weekend. I will tell my wife that the day is meant for the father of her children and not to be squandered on the phone with her Daddy. I’ll make myself an empire, and know myself as emperor, which I had been all along. And when other men look at me, they will say that I know my powers and that they wished they had known their own potential earlier. For the only difference between them and I is that I strove to know myself and in that striving I made myself. Wow, now that’s existentialism!!! But what if I don’t become emperor of the universe, what if my striving reaches no end. What if it is a bad infinity, not the good kind. Perhaps I’ll sink the other way, or I will atleast make some strategic retreats. If I cannot settle once and for all how many pull ups I can do, maybe I will simply lop off my hands. Why not? If I truly wish to know myself my hands and my pull-up bar will merely bring me to despair. Unless I come up with a clever answer, pointing to an old man I could say “More than that guy.” Well, I’ll figure it out. How to become a handicap emperor. When on trial with God, I will not only know what I did do, but also what I could have done, oh there is no room for judgment then. Wait, I had an epiphany. Or perhaps it came slowly and I didn’t see it coming. Or maybe I read it somewhere. To know thyself is to become honest with thyself. When I prattle off certitudes, perhaps I should examine them closer, see whether or not I am truly what I claim to be. Let me try it. Ok, I love my son. Socrates: What is love. Me: it is something ineffable. Socrates: That is very deep, you are wise. Me: Thank you, I also respect your wisdom. Socrates: Is God love. Me: Certainly Socrates: Is your relationship to your son God? Me: No. Socrates: Then it is not love. Me: Oh, your funny Socrates, you got me there. I must hate my son. Socrates: Live your life in this wisdom. See if Socrates says know thyself, and he was doing that, and he thinks that I can do that, and we all can do that, well that’s pretty neat. I can be my own Socrates, for I do know that I know nothing, that is unless I know something. But if I do know something, then I do not know that I do know nothing, because it is false that I know nothing. Thus, if I hold onto the principle that I know nothing unless I know something, I will always be correct. And I will know myself, for that is the task, right? But its hard being Socrates sometimes. He devoted his whole life to this quest. I have a job, and not many friends who are of like minds. I will perhaps have to make imaginary dialectical situations very fast. I will have to be a Stephen King of sorts, pumping out epiphanies about twice a week. On Saturdays, I will devote a good eight hours to thinking about myself and getting to know thyself. No problem. Introspection is thrown around a lot these days. They have dog psychiatrists. For dogs!!! A dog is supposed to probe into there deep subconscious and recollect a traumatic experience. If a dog can do it, Socrates can. I believe this whole-heartedly. If a dog can get to know thyself, so can I. For we all are little Socrates. I think the powers of dialectic are even more intense than though of psychoanalysis. Sigmund Fraud can keep his loony theories. I am content with strict, cold contemplation. Let’s see a dog do that. Let me expound upon a basic truth. Opposites define one another. If I am to understand what it means to be a human I must compare it to being something else. I know that psychoanalysis is wrong for myself because it is used for doggy-truths. Thus, human truths, completely incommensurable with doggy truths must be reached through something besides psychoanalysis, i.e. its opposite, i.e. Socratic dialogues. Conclusion: FACT: KNOW THYSELF FACT: THREE POSSIBLE WAYS TO KNOW THYSELF. 1. Recording of life. 2. Testing your infinite powers 3. Socratic dialogues FACT: ALL SEEM QUITE POSSIBLE WITH PROPER TIME MANAGEMENT. CONCLUSION: TO INSURE THAT ONE KNOWS THYSELF, ONE SHOULD CARRY OUT ALL THREE. | | Friday, July 11th, 2008 | 3:14 am
[agent139]
 |
Myth is Alive and Well. This is a white paper I just wrote up for Mythos Media, to start explaining the context of our intent... Thought it may be of some interest.
Myth is Alive and Well. By James Curcio. A quick look at the marketing for films, books and music shows the profound value that mythology has within the modern marketplace. This role is made more pervasive – and potentially beneficial or dangerous – as a result of the proliferation of instantaneous and virtually limitless communication mediums. Myth is so entrenched in the nature of business that it is often overlooked within the advertising rhetoric, however, the building of a mythology, is the centerpiece of all effective branding. Demonstration of this fact clearly requires an understanding both of the function of myth and the function of a brand. Prevalent misconceptions in both of these cases has clouded what should otherwise be a self-evident thesis, so the purpose of this brief white paper is to identify these misconceptions and clarify the position. Myth is difficult to explain in a top down manner: it is not merely a story, for some stories are myths while others are not; it is not merely the beliefs of a people retold in stories or other media, because here again retold beliefs can be devoid of mythic resonance. Because of this complexity, for the time being let us define a few of these basic qualities through a quick backward glance at the function of myths past, before turning to ways that these qualities may or may not be applied within the modern business world. The myths of the past, it is commonly held, were erroneous explanations for the way that the world is; fanciful stories, which, though colorful and interesting curiosities, surely bear no particular use to our “modern” lives. This interpretation mistakes the thing (fanciful stories and the accompanying art, etc.) for their function. As was later re-discovered by an expansive list of preeminent scholars and authors, including Mircea Eliade, Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell, and the like, these myths do not explain the world, rather, they explain our place within it. Thus, it is not a universal static truth that myths represent, but instead a personal, cultural one. It is commonly accepted that mythology served a central role in the lives of humans up until a time when science and industry somehow stole away our myths. Though patently untrue, this belief itself serves as a myth which allows us to establish a place within history for ourselves. It is an internal narrative that defines us in Enlightenment terms. This is another role which myth serves: it defines who we are, and defines where we are in time; what role we serve, and what the nature of that role is. To the actor, the central question is often “what is my motivation?” The myth is our motive, or at least, it gives it voice. It may be encoded in any medium, but its defining characteristic is its psychological function. When looking at stories, movies, or any other form of media, we may then ask- what qualifies as a myth? Perhaps first we should look at how we define anything. The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein explained the nature of meaning in language as a case of “family resemblance.” For example, sisters and brothers, mothers and daughters, and so on, can all share certain traits, not others, and yet be considered part of the same family. This, he proposed, was the nature of linguistic definition. Without this concept, we cannot properly define a game, for by any static qualifier certain activities which all of us consider games would be ruled out. This concept of definition contradicts the Aristotelean concepts of categories which most of us are still used to, where a thing is either A or B, and cannot exist as an amalgam of many different potentially contradictory components, often occupying a space somewhere between these various “pure” concepts. However, without a recognition of this fact, it is impossible to properly identify the various elements of myth at work within the diverse industries of the world today. We then lose site of how these elements can function in a piecemeal configuration, for example with elements of mythological thinking occurring within a seemingly unrelated milieu. Granting these complexities, we may be led to wonder how myth functions in the world of business and industry. The function of a brand is to bring the story of a company to its market. When you look at a logo, read the copy on the back of a label, or watch an advertisement on television, it is commonly believed that the intent is to sell the product to you. Of course, in a sense, this is true. But what is actually being sold is the myth of the company- what that product or brand represents. The myth of Lexus doesn't sell you cars, it sells you luxury. Thus, it is of utmost importance for advertisers to understand the function of myth every bit as much as script writers. Like all other forms of myth, when accomplished successfully, the myth of a brand also brings with it a form of community. For example, witness the success of Apple's branding: those who identify as “Mac users” do so with an odd sense of pride, as if they are bucking the system by sharing in the aura of coolness that radiates from their stylish gear. Every element of this is mythological, including the system that they are bucking, represented by the doltish PC anthropomorphisized by John Hodgman in their recent advertising campaigns. (This general concept is explored at length in James B. Twitchell's book Ad Cult, containing many worthwhile thoughts on the mythological machinery of corporate advertising.) As the business guru Peter Drucker demonstrates in his book Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices, the marketing of a product is not a function of selling it, it is instead the means of fulfilling a need. In other words, the function of business itself is the fulfillment of human needs; the more ubiquitous the need, the more easy the marketing of that product will be if handled properly. The reason Lexus sells you luxury, rather than a car, is that, within the social apparatus of most industrialized nations, everyone needs a car. Lexus is identifying the niche of people with that need who they wish to call their own, and they are doing it through people who self identify with, or idolize, the myth of their brand. As we have already explored, myths also fulfill a human need, experienced around the globe and throughout the history of our species: the need for meaning. The cultish following associated with certain properties is the result of this “mythic demand,” provided through characters and often fictional worlds which represent aspects of our inner psychology. To the fans, these worlds are often every bit as real as the phenomenal world of the everyday. Series such as Vertigo’s Sandman comics, or Serenity, which appeared first as a Fox television series, then a graphic novel and movie when the series was canceled, are examples of how the development of a general world and context in the mind of an audience can provide endless storytelling possibilities. They also demonstrate that the success of these stories are not based on the medium. This is of course quite apparent to anyone who considers the recent success of various comics franchises' almost overwhelming storming of Hollywood. Without which, surely Marvel wouldn't be able to afford to have their own film production studio, nor would San Diego's massively popular Comic Con be showing such a wholesale recognition of the mythic power of their media franchises, regardless of the medium that it is presented in. The success of any media brand demands that it serve as an effective myth: whether Star Trek, Doctor Who, or Lost, to the true fans, these shows represent a pantheon with psychological, even ethical or cultural, significance. Further, one cannot overlook the Star Wars franchise; what began as a low-budget movie specifically steeped in mythic archetypes, has spawned a multimedia empire that today encompasses novels, comic books, television shows, video games, and a dizzying array of toys and ancillary products. In the case of the first three movies, the connection with myth was more than implicit: George Lucas was a friend of Joseph Campbell, and based the cosmology of the Star Wars world on the heroic cycle outlined in his books. These ancient traditions were simply made relevant to the concerns and aesthetic tastes of the modern age. ---------- About the author: James Curcio has been consciously dedicated to the production and analysis of modern myths since the age of sixteen, and subconsciously arguably since birth. This exploration has taken the form of collaborative novels (Fallen Nation: Babylon Burning in 2007, Join My Cult! in 2004), essays on myth and culture (The Immanence of Myth, presently in development, "Living The Myth," Generation Hex 2004, "Hillbilly Tantra" in Magic On The Edge in 2005, and "Dying Gods" in Lemon Puppy, in 2003), Internet "round-table" musical albums and podcasts,(subQtaneous: Some Still Despair In A Prozac Nation in 2005, Babalon's Descent in 2001 and posthumous Dreams And Reflections in 2005, Bedtime Stories With The Antichrist in 2004-2005 and The G-Spot in 2005-2006), and various art and media collectives. Most recently, he is co-founder of Mythos Media (www.mythosmedia.net). | | Thursday, July 3rd, 2008 | 9:48 pm
[beachofdreams]
 |
Nature Abhors the Usual "Within the shadow of the ship
I watched their rich attire:
Blue, glossy green, and velvet black,
They coiled and swam; and every track
Was a flash of golden fire...
O happy living things! no tongue
Their beauty might declare:
A spring of love gushed from my heart,
And I blessed them unaware:
Sure my kind saint took pity on me,
And I blessed them unaware." 'The Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner', Samuel Taylor Coleridge
Carnivorous plants are some of the most counter-intuitive organisms in nature. A plant which uses its leaves not only for photosynthesis, but uses them for the catching and digesting of animals -- mostly insects but also small mammals and herptiles are known to be a part of their diet. When they were first discovered and studied by Western botanists, it was declared by some that they either could not exist or were "unnatural" because their function is "against the order of nature". This view was later rescinded, and carnivorous plants today are within the fold of some of the most exquisite and magnificent of plant groups. These early botanists were probably taken by surprise at the reversal of natural roles they were used to seeing: plants are eaten by animals, they don't eat animals! The unusual has a way of being regarded as "unnatural" and "against the order of nature", and at the expense of not accepting it as another way of life. The carnivorous plants are magnificent specimens; imagine the loss if botanists really did keep to the thinking that these organisms are not a part of nature. One can see this kind of thinking in other areas as well. Homosexualtity, for instance, is often regarded as unnatural because it is counter-intuitive in just this way. "Sex is supposed to be between sexes, not within sexes!"; "Dicks are for chicks, aren't they?" In a society where homosexuality is not accepted because it is apparently "unnatural", we can see something of the botanists' early rejection, can't we? But Nature has a lot to tell us if we are willing to shake off our most entrusted preconceptions. (This board has been seeing a lot of posts regarding the philosophy of sex. I welcome this, as I find the topic very interesting. The philsophy of sex has some of its roots in the philosophy of biology. To balance the posts that approach sex from the religious or moral point of view, an approach to the philosophy of the biology of sex is presented here, not only because it's generally interesting, but because many arguments made in the philosophy of sex are really about how we think about the biology of sex.) | 6:44 pm
[dierdrae]
 |
Simplicity vs Complexity
There are two main schools of thought, as I see it:
The first believes that the universe can be reduced, in the end, to something very simple. Things are only complex because we don't understand them; once we do, they'll be found to be beautifully and amazingly simple.
The second believes that the universe is full of complexity, a complexity that cannot be reduced by understanding because the more we understand, the more complexity that we find.
One minute I believe in simplicity, the next, in complexity.
What do you think? | 11:59 am
[louis123]
 |
I had a thought the other day........what exactly is an open mind?
I mean, I like to see myself as a fairly open-minded inividual - as I'm quite sure everyone on here does - but is that a lie?
The only things I'm open-minded about are the things I'm open-minded about. I don't have an open mind about paedophilia, for instance. I think it's wrong. If I was talking to someone and they suddenly came out and told me they were attracted to young boys, there would be something in me thinking that was somehow wrong.
What IS wrong with being a paedophile? It's like anything....as long as you don't act on it, then it's only a thought. Hmm. Interesting.
Hahahahah, I sound like I'm working out issues. I would like to iterate that I am not a paedophile, nor am I pro-paedophilia. Children should not be used to assist orgasms. It was just an example of something. I'm not quite sure what.
But still, it's an odd thought. Are we only opened minded because we've appointed ourselves as such, or is there such a thing as genuine liberalism? I'm of two minds on this.
I don't really know what I'm on about though. My mind far too wide to grasp onto little concepts like that. | | Wednesday, July 2nd, 2008 | 8:19 pm
[root_fu]
 |
Lott's Daughters Not long ago, someone made a post regarding the biblical account of Lott and his 2 daughters. I know that many atheistic leaning websites regard this story as being 100%, absolute, immoral. And, I wasn't satisfied with my answer to that post. It made perfect sense to me, but I'm certain it sounded a bit *out there* to a lot of people. As to not sound like a complete loon, I've decided to try to justify the story being a moral one within the context of the present. Right now, there are places in the world where the percentage of women who have been raped is at 90%(as this reference is from 2002, I think the percentage is a lot higher, now): http://www.thebody.com/content/whatis/art21405.htmlSources who acquire these statistics have said that any man who tries to prevent a woman from being raped is immediately put to death. CNN -- Rape is a way of life for Darfur's women Anyway, when the bible says Sodom & Gamorrah were cities rife with sin, the places referred to in both of these articles tend to be what comes to mind. Back to the original question. If Lott lived in an area with similar practices(city rife with sin). If his daughters had been raped, and he was powerless to prevent them from being raped. Then, would he be immoral to offer his daughters to the mob? Also, since many have said rape isn't about sex, it's about "power". Motivation comes from taking something away from people and breaking their will and such. Is it possible that by offering his daughters to the mob that Lott took away all incentive for them to commit rape? . Current Mood: b0red | | Wednesday, June 25th, 2008 | 2:50 pm
[babyfacemason]
 |
| | Thursday, June 19th, 2008 | 11:07 pm
[the_mess]
 |
I hope you'll excuse this because of the cause. If you're concerned about the unsustainability of our government, and, like me, you see direct democracy as the only way forward, please vote for this, and give it to all your friends and family. (If you are in America) It might take 15 years, but I think we will get the necessary votes. We have to. There's no other way. http://www.nationalinitiative.us/ Current Music: Odd Nosdam _ Kill Tone | | Wednesday, June 18th, 2008 | 7:52 pm
[umpachki]
 |
Here's one for everyone.
My students are special needs. Now they aren't special needs enough that that won't fully grasp the following idea -
I am going to make a page to two page long questionnaire.
It will include, but not be limited to, what's your favorite food, music, television program, animal.
When you see this ____ you think of ____.
I want to, with this exercise, not only get to know my students better but also have this for ammo for quick activities that they'd love as a group to do!
With all this info I can make a sort of graph with all of their collective interests on it and deduce what would be best for the group!
I need a lot of peoples help on this - do you all mind if I keep coming back to you about this?
Give me some good ideas for some good questions!
Or any other input you can on this! | | Sunday, June 8th, 2008 | 4:45 pm
[agent139]
|
The power of theta waves... I've said for years that near-sleep is an essential part of my creative process. God only knows how many hours I've spent drifting into sleep after being able to think up what to do next with a story, or a song, only to have it revealed to me all at once while drifting down and away. At that point you're left with the option of shaking yourself awake, and jotting it down before it is gone, or slipping off, and awaking with only the faint feeling that you lost something. Does it work that way for any of you? Last night it was this paragraph, nearly full-formed. I woke up, hammered it out in less than a minute (since I already had it all in my mind), and then spent another hour or two trying to fall back asleep. Something else drifted up during the second attempt to go down, but I let it pass.
"Cutting to that heart directly and cleanly defining what myth is and is not will not suffice. The function of myth, even possibly its identity, changes based on the granularity of inquiry. In other words, a particular myth, received by an individual, may not serve the same function as that myth's effect upon a society. Myths are also "mirrors of the soul," which can only reveal to us what we already have in ourselves: so what is a message of love and compassion to one can be a distorting call to hatred and bigotry for another. This inquiry is further obfuscated by the fact that culture itself can only be understood by the myths it produces. Concurrently, it is increasingly difficult to speak meaningfully of "myth" without recognizing the function which runs through all contexts, all "level of granularity": myth is the meaning in representation. Words, sentences, and pictures are, on their own, no more a "myth" than the notes written on a staff are music, however all of these are the embodiment, that is, the representation, of experience. Concealed within that representation is all of the meaning that can be drawn from chaos. Myth is, in the final summation, truly a mirror image of our inner beings, for better or worse. We did not create our flesh or bone, nor did we choose the circumstances we were born into. The myths we create, on the other hand, are truly and completely human. Perhaps, at the same time, they are the closest we have to divinity, demonstrating our ability to build worlds from the clay we are given, to infuse it with our own meaning, and to chose what the very nature of the universe will be in our tale."
This from the growing passages of the Immanence of Myth. | | Saturday, June 7th, 2008 | 5:09 am
[root_fu]
 |
Abomination? Edited for Truth Leviticus 18:22 -- 'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. Leviticus 11:11 -- 'They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination.' http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/( More on Gay Marriage and such ) Current Mood:  hyper | 11:48 am
[beachofdreams]
 |
The Normative and the Moral Is there a distinction in kind between these two statements?
(1)"you should not bake the cake at such a low temperature"
(2) "you should not force someone to eat cake"
I say 'in kind' because of course the statements different in their content. One is about baking at certain temperatures and one is about force feeding. In kind, however, both statements are similar insofar as they are normative statements (i.e. they are statements about what ought (or ought not) to be).
However, there does seem to be a nuanced difference between them, no? One would seem to concern amoral content whereas the other would seem to concern moral content: forcing against a person's will versus cooking a meal. True, one could claim that (1) concerns morality, but then that would lead to the rather counter-intuitive notion that the act of baking is something that can be immoral or moral; that baking the correct way somehow constitutes a part of living a good and ethical life.
I am often struck by reading normative statements -- especially those presented by the religious -- that are presented as if they have moral content (e.g. 'men who present themselves as effeminate are "sinning" -- they ought not to dress that way'). I am struck with the question: how does one figure that what they are talking about concerns "Right" and "Wrong"", rather than simply what might be proper, expedient, or in line with their tastes? In other words, what makes much, say, Christian notions of sin and righteousness purportedly more in common with (2), rather than (1)?
Well, I'll pose another question: do you consider these two statements to be about morality, or only one or none? Why or why not? | | Thursday, June 5th, 2008 | 11:03 am
[lanyel]
 |
Abortion and gay marriage discussion Peace There is no real conflict between republicans and democrats. The most pressing issues that affect us together, both sides, both republicans, independents, and democrats are deeply concerned about such as healthcare, the state of the economy, and war, we are not that far apart on really. The issues that seem to divide us most though are simple but touchy issues that have upset people on both sides. Lets take the right to abortion. There are pro-life groups, and pro-choice groups. And they are deep set against each other. One believes its criminal to take a possible life of a human being. The other side thinks its criminal to deny the right to have an abortion to a woman. The abortion debate only started really because some women desired the right to have an abortion, and medical advances have provided various methods for this to happen. Before the time when abortions became legal, there was and even today still continues to be this stigma about having a pregnancy too early, or out of wedlock. I was told a story of this young woman going through highschool and she wasn’t allowed to finish because she was pregnant. It was seen as socially improper for a woman to become pregnant unless married. Today the issue is a bit more complex. If the woman or the couple do not feel ready to bring to this world and raise a child, that child may suffer as the parents struggle with their work and their new responsibilities. Not all parents are created equal, but some people that might be great ones might need a little more time to establish themselves in their own life before helping someone else begin theirs. I read an interesting quote, which stated something like “laws are needed to enforce issues, but they make no one happy really, you shouldn’t need a forced contract to protect something.” How I take that quote when I read it is that, there is so much energy that people put into protesting either for or against the right to abortion. There are the few who protest and the much larger groups of people that feel strongly about the issue but don’t really do anything about it. It is amazing to me how set people are in their ways, that they don’t try to provide healthier alternatives. To me, the obvious solution is, do not endlessly protest against something, give an alternative that both sides can live with if it is possible. If people felt that pro-life was important to them, then they should put their energy towards raising money and setting up programs that helps new mothers and new parents to raise their children or setting up programs that will help raise the children that are born but that the parents do not wish to keep because they are not ready. And they should work to promote a climate of ‘its okay to become pregnant, we’ll help, since we cherish life. - I find issues like the fight about gay marriage fascinating in how much energy people put partly into being bigots and partly into trying to deny others a right that they already have. I mean in the past interracial marriages were seen in the same way. And before that marriages between upper class and lower class people. Gay people are not trying to steal anything from you. And you’re acting like bully’s in trying to deny them something that they too deserve. And maybe you haven’t realized that. There is maybe 1-2 arguments in the bible that have something against gay people. A big one usually mentioned is the city of Sodom before it was burned to the ground by god. The story goes like this, ( Read more... ) | | Monday, June 2nd, 2008 | 9:18 am
[safeinside]
 |
Stillness We try and find who we are through things that have happened in the past, or things that have yet to happen. Who we are is right now. Right now is all that we have. We are living in a world where everyone is thinking “What can I have more of? How do I find things that will make me more happy? What can I complain about now so that I can feel more of myself?” We are constantly seeking more. So we buy things, use drugs, sex, food, relationships, whatever we can find to attach our self to so that we can feel security in this fictional self that was created by thoughts. This “self” is not who you are, but who your mind has created. We are constantly in state of a fictional self. We base our entire lives and our beings on thought forms, and other people. So often you lose yourself in analyzing every situation and detail of our life. We don’t know who we are anymore because we are constantly seeking. If you simply watch the sunrise and do not analyze how it is rising, you can enjoy it. If we stop analyzing our own actions and the actions of others, we can become just as enlightened as we feel while watching the sunrise. We can be still, feel peace, and realize that we are beyond thoughts, beyond emotion, beyond anything tangible or explainable. We just are. We seek our happiness within everything but ourselves and that is why we do not find it. We base our emotions, our decisions, and ultimately our life on situations that occur, people, places, and materialistic things.
People are not relating to you, they are relating to the thoughts of you in their mind. Places are not going to relate to you, they are as they are with or without you. Things cannot provide eternal happiness, but only temporarily offer a good feeling. Thoughts are not what we take with us in the afterlife, thoughts are not what make us who we are. We already are. You are already complete. To be who you are, you don’t need anything but right now. When you give up believing that the world is to provide your happiness and you focus on being in stillness, you are then truly happy. When you see what the world cannot do for you, you can simply accept whatever is. Whatever is at this moment is as it should be. An enormous freedom comes into your life when you drop the demand that things should be other than they are. As you bring an inner alignment to the ‘now’ you find peace. It has nothing to do with the form it takes. It arises because you allow it to be as it is. By internally embracing the form of this moment we find peace.
“I might as well say yes to this moment, because this moment is life. It is the only moment there ever is. I might as well embrace it for what it is.” This does not diminish your ability to change things that need to be change, but allows you to be aligned with your true being. It allows you to respond to ‘life situations’ naturally, the way we should respond. Which is, response of our inner stillness rather than reaction of emotion or thoughts. Things are going to work themselves out whether we think about them or not. If you are searching for yourself within a problem, then problems are all you are going to have. You have to step out of this and realize that there is much, much more to life. The stronger you are trapped in the sense of the fictional self the more you will emphasize problems (which you’ve created in your mind) and problems of other people. If you are always a victim, and life is always taking a dump on you, then that is who you become. But it is not this way. Living is not the equivalent of frustration but rather the meaning of life. The world cannot make us happy. To demand that situations, people, places, or attainments are supposed to make us happy are only going to lead you into a pit of frustration. If you are in this moment, all the things that you pursued in your thought that were so important before, you realize none of it matters at all. We are living in a world of collective mental illness. How does God allow us to feel this way? To suffer? Why do I have to suffer? Within this world, everything has it’s place. Everything is as it should be, including the way you feel at this moment. Just because something happened to you or could possibly go wrong in the future doesn’t mean you have to be in this state of suffering forever.Your suffering, to some extent, begins to dissolve the egoic structures in your mind, which is what you need to grow.
No matter what your story is, you are here, now. That’s an amazing thing to be! To be here, now, and to see that the outcome of your life is that now you’re stepping out of it and you realize that yes, that is how my life unfolded. But yes, I am here. I am alive, and well. All forms are temporary, all thoughts are temporary. The eternal shines through these forms. A transparency is happening in you, so that that which is beyond form (stillness) before got mixed up with the story of your fictional self. The preciousness of being is your true specialness. What the egoic self had been looking for on the level of your life story, that very thought, obscured the fact that you already could not be more special than you are right now. There is a beauty and preciousness that is within the entity of your being. We are trapped in our conceptual thoughts, our egotistical self. When we worry about the future or still feel trapped within ourselves, we are neglecting what we need the most. We are neglecting the present moment.
If you are petting an animal, you can really enjoy yourself. You can sit with it, look at it, pet it, and just be with it. This is why a lot of people are animal lovers. You don’t have to psychologically protect yourself from the animal. Something transmits itself because the animal lives more deeply connected with the source of life than most humans. The illusion has not grown to such an extent of being a separate entity… it’s rooted in being and living. The animal does not create a world of problems, it is one with life. And humans have separated themselves with life. You become present with the animal because the animal is present. Thus, you begin feeling peace. The sun, trees, animals, flowers, and the beautiful things that have always been a part of creation for all time are what connect us to ourselves. Because these things are present, these things are not thinking about yesterday or tomorrow, yet they are continually growing. Be still. Enjoy yourself. Enjoy this moment. For nothing else really matters. | | Saturday, May 31st, 2008 | 2:37 pm
[whenisnow]
 |
Cosmological Hypothesese
Big Bang
Matter of Subtraction:
Instead of the first to objects of universe being " 1 + 1 "
what if the first two objects of universe were " 1/2 + 1/2 "
[or even " -(1/2) + -(1/2)] ?
So what if instead a "singularity" exploding into so-called empty timespace,
the "singularity" imploded into itself; (would all events then be the center?)
Timespace
Or what if there is no "fabric" of timespace that events are "in" but are rather "of"?
What if the events themselves simply are the fabric? What if events simply are "timespace"?
But then, for an event to have measurement, identity, property, at least two events must relate.
So then, without at least two events, two "timespaces", no event or timespace would be at all identifiable;
thus, the universe is relationship-centric, and "The One" single event is "empty" or "void".
Dark Ness
What if the "dark matter" and "dark energy" that are said to make up most of our universe are not so seperate from the the properties of event-ness; rather; they are events we simply cannot measure? What if, for example, our universe of events is in itself an event of another universe of events, and conversely, every event of our universe is in itself a universe of events? (Thus, one might, if possible, be able to travel infinitely "out" as well as infinitely "in"; an in this sense, our universe is both a fragment of another universe; all of our universe's fragments are other universes, ad infinitum.) So then, what we call "dark matter" and "dark energy" are the immeasurable influences on our universe of the universe of which ours is an single event? And conversely, the immeasurable "dark matter" and "dark energy" of universes within the single events of our universe are the measurable events of our universe. | 2:08 pm
[flierkat]
 |
| | Friday, May 23rd, 2008 | 1:43 pm
[agent139]
|
Torrent talk "You know, we have entered a brave new world. Chilling Effect doesn’t even begin to describe it. We are in a virtual Ice Age. Trackers, search engines (well, not the big ones) are being sued, not for any money they may have (they don’t) but rather to set precedents and make examples. I would normally write several paragraphs of flippant commentary peppered with links that punctuate my points through association. Not today. Today I have decided to utilize a method known as The Wall of Shame. Shame to the entertainment industry for being (once again) so myopic, reactionary and greedy in the short term at the expense of the long run. But also, shame upon us for laying back and letting it happen. It’s like the artificial shortages and inflation of costs for energy, food, water, et. al. We just keep paying. That’s a form of support you know. No protest equals permission. I see the same things happening with the torrent/intellectual property communities at large. Sure, there’s the rebellious organization or person to stand up (and to sometimes take one for the “team”) but by and large, I see and experience first hand a lot passive leecher behavior and not a lot of active participant (seeder) behavior. Shouldn’t we be lined up in front of Shell Oil and Warner Brothers, throwing rotten tomatoes and declaring, “I’m not buying your shit anymore until you wise up!” Shouldn’t we support our right to information? Shouldn’t we do everything we can to set up guerrila operations, that move swiftly and silently in the night, swapping IPs, locating to new countries at a whim, and multiplying in numbers so large that the idiots finally give up through the sheer force of attrition? Yeah, right." (See the Wall of Shame.) | | Thursday, May 15th, 2008 | 9:59 am
[mcandrus]
 |
Underrated Torture Device First, I want to thank a lost hero (confliction) for reading along and encouraging me to post this here. This is my first. I hope you all enjoy it. ( On to the show... ) | | Wednesday, May 14th, 2008 | 11:11 am
[un_malpaso]
 |
re-reading Nietzsche...
" 'Freedom of Will' -- that is the expression for the complex state of delight of the person exercising volition, who commands and at the same time identifies himself with the executor of the order -- who, as such, enjoys also the triumph over obstacles, but thinks within himself that it was really his own will that overcame them. In this way the person exercising volition adds the feelings of delight of his successful executive instruments, the useful "underwills" or under-souls--indeed, our body is but a social structure composed of many souls--to his feelings of delight as commander."
- Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil
It seems to me that here, Nietzsche is saying: our sense of identity--of one, executive mind which is in control of our many mental and body processes--is an illusion, and furthermore, that this illusion comes about (we bring it about) because of our inherent "will to power" as living beings: that is, our desire to command/dominate and act as "master" of the forces that make up our body and mind.
In view of 20th century French structuralism, as well as our modern understanding of conceptual psychology, this seems like a prescient statement, even if it can be disputed.
My question is, where does that final will to command/dominate, the ultimate "Will to Power" that N. speaks of, come from? If the will is an illusion in the first place, what about this "underlying" force as well?
Thoughts? |
[ << Previous 20 ]
|
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif){kind=small}
abstractthought