/sunflower/ - Sunflower

I suppose I could explain how the milk white body works. There are two steps, one related to the milk white body (purification of chi), and pure white body, which is the complete removal of chi and the replacement with a higher level energy.

Chi is confined within the level of 1-3D. Each level has 9 levels within it, by purifying and completing each step of the process through 1D-3D you can purify the body. Once it reaches the top of 3D, it enters into 4D. It's at this point that the body starts to remove the chi, and it's made and expressed into Gong. Gong itself means practice, this gives you a clear idea of what gong is precisely. It's an expression of an idea (chi, concepts) made into something divine (within and above 5D). Gong itself starts, logically, within 1D then.

This is the traditional method of purifying the body.

The method used here, sometimes, is replacing this structure with a black sliver of karma within the first level of 1D. This doesn't allow Chi to manifest itself, so the body is cleansed through a more roundabout and less effective method. This body no longer is capable of cultivating, instead it must use external entities to cultivate. So the body is without use, outside of the fact that it carries techniques related to how to cultivate.

>>2092

I object to the notion that there's an Absolute, with a capital a. The concept is an observation, and it's an observation of nothing other than the whole of something you've never seen. It doesn't allow for analysis, it rejects it by it's nature. The worship of the Absolute is the worship of ignorance. It's an abstraction, an abstraction of what is possibly another abstraction (of law).

The worship of the absurd (comedy) over the worship of the profound (horror) is what I've managed to mentally separate now. I think understanding these two things is important in understanding how imageboard culture works, and the difference between those who relish in destruction and those who feel revulsion towards what is unclean. Those who are horrified would naturally work against it, those who find amusement would work with it. My conception of it might be more masucline than it is feminine, women who actually engage in this kind of thinking aren't normal. They're more receptive in their opinions of what is and isn't correct. From observation and the sensation that their opinions give me, which feels and is "cleaner" and more "delicate" than it ought to be.

The inversion of this feminine delicacy would be this lamb like innocence, this soft-skulled collapse of any mental facility or rational thought. An expectation of care and love, which I can only give in response, in charity, the literal collapse of the skull through the bashing of a rock.

>>2093

This false cleanliness is still better than the revolting inversion of modern women, of pretending to be pure and innocent through the destruction of anything that tells you, "You're not."

At least cults of masculinity don't desire to destroy anything, instead wish to preserve some sort of sense of masculine youth and innocence. It's perverted regardless, much in the same way Yukio Mishima was perverted. I sympathize more due to the inherent fragility I see in it, but that's more of my own desire of there being a mistake rather than a conscious choice.

>. . . Beauty is a terrible and awful thing! It is terrible because it never has and never can be fathomed, for God sets us nothing but riddles. Within beauty both shores meet and all contradictions exist side by side. I'm not a cultivated man, brother, but I've thought a lot about this. Truly there are mysteries without end! Too many riddles weigh man down on earth. We guess them as we can, and come out of the water dry. Beauty! I cannot bear the thought that a man of noble heart and lofty mind sets out with the ideal of the Madonna and ends with the ideal of Sodom. What's still more awful is that the man with the ideal of Sodom in his soul does not renounce the ideal of the Madonna, and in the bottom of his heart he may still be on fire, sincerely on fire, with longing for the beautiful ideal, just as in the days of his youthful innocence. Yes, man's heart is wide, too wide indeed. I'd have it narrower. The devil only knows what to make of it! but what the intellect regards as shameful often appears splendidly beautiful to the heart. Is there beauty in Sodom? Believe me, most men find their beauty in Sodom. Did you know this secret? The dreadful thing is that beauty is not only terrifying but also mysterious. God and the Devil are fighting there, and their battlefield is the heart of man. But a man's heart wants to speak only of its own ache. Listen, now I'll tell you what it says. . . .

https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=82EDB0491C825E4212631F80B661B4B4

>>2091

>what is observation to begin with

>The concept is an observation

I've never seen a question answered so concisely. A concept isn't a secluded and reclusive thing, it naturally finds itself within a family of other concepts. All trees are plants but not all plants are trees, within trees you can find distinction through different species, keep going down and there's still the matter of the differences between individual trees. Regardless, it's all within the plane of trees, itself subject to the domain of plants.

Making a distinction between a concept and the observation of a concept is absurd. It's comedic. Observation is itself a concept, something that is aware of others.

>>2097

Although I can absolutely see going towards the route of women being (re)-subjected to men through patriarchal not giving a fuck. Knowing women are whores, and not believing in the anglo's lies of women being the fairer and purer sex, I could see men just taking control. As long as the force of law isn't telling them not to, and not enforcing that backwards viewpoint. Women aren't strong enough or really smart enough to matter. It's in the idea of female sexual liberation to keep the force of law, to keep the view of women as pure, going. Otherwise they simply lose all possible power.

Women simply carry the womb, that's all they're important for.

>>2098

>>2097

Nor are these two positions mutually exclusive.

>>2104

Dutton also correlates K selection with conscientousness, agreeableness, high mental stability, high self esteem, generally anything good he correlates with K selection, at least in terms of personality. Since these are personality traits, what is being measured when there's any talk of K-selection is different from the general conception of K-selection. Whales more K-selected than, bears are more K-selected than deers, deers more K-selected than rabbits, rabbits more K-selected than insects, insects more K-selected than bacteria. There's also a correlation between size, in the raw value of each individual organism.

So the personality traits as being a good proxy for r/K selection within humans limits it.

>>2106

>There's also a correlation between size, in the raw value of each individual organism.

My brain is operating at peak efficiency.

Raw size IS placing greater value within each individual organism of any species or group. With the event of agriculture, there's less emphasis on each individual person within a group given the fact there are more people within any group, and when there are more people there's less reason to invest highly within any given indvidual, and when there's less reason to invest in any given individual there's no reason fro why any population should remain as tall, muscular, and intelligent as they were before the agricultural revolution. Since there was a population explosion, this puts pressure for r-selection. It's only in stable societies like the ancient greeks (who I believe had an average IQ of fucking 130 according to their genetics), and the Elizabethans had an average IQ of 115. Both are absolutely insane.

>>2105

The combinatorial space thing Michael talks about, leading to IQ, is almost exactly how Douglas Hofstadter describes it. IQ as the space one has to lay things out before tying them together. Which is interesting on it's own, that they likely came to the same conclusion independently. It's basically a restatement of how the trivium method of education works though. Something the greeks have already figured out.

You're right about the between races stuff. But comparing things like this between such different populations doesn't say much in my opinion.

The IQ and rk thing is a complicated chicken or egg style problem. Did a desire to care about the long term lead to selection for people better at thinking long term ? Or did the complex environment created by people with a higher IQ lead to selection for long term thinking ? It's a hard problem to answer. The other issue is that whichever way this chicken or egg situation played out in the past, things have changed. If one caused the other, or the other caused the one, in recent history, there would still be some correlation between the traits. At some point they decoupled. How and why this decoupling started would be something important to understand. AFAIK it's not related to the decline in IQ. It's important to consider that while some r style traits we see today may be due to mutations. There is a good chance many of them had always been there. They had just been regulated though culture and religion, which has started to decline. K selected religious and cultural values acting as a proxy for k selected instincts, allowing for r strategists to act like k ones as long as someone is watching. A theme I've touched on numerous times here.

>>2111

>So when we win, don’t take it too hard when the peasants make an about-face and wonder why you think it’s such a big deal that they were bloodsucking ghouls last week fighting you tirelessly, day and night, for the glory of Lord Ganondorf’s global empire. The sun rises, the sun sets. One year the harvest fails and they eat their children, the next year the harvest is good and they take their children to soccer practice three times a week. It’s what they are and your utopian commune idea was never going to work anyway.

>>2112

That right here is why benevolence is evil. That entire blogpost really.( https://aeolipera.wordpress.com/2020/04/05/what-they-dont-teach-you-at-the-white-knight-academy/ ) You don't have to save people who will never learn. Giving someone a fish is not the same as teaching him to fish. Using a carrot and a stick to keep someone on the strait and narrow, without teaching them any virtue is even worse. What do you keep them around for ? Because someone need to farm ? Woodley's whole social epistasis amplification model is based on increasing interdependence needed to maintain society leading to fragility. Doing something for someone else that they should be able to do themselves just leads to dependence. It will eventually bite both you and them in the ass.

>>2116

What did you mean when you called them a communist ?

also this

>The method used here, sometimes, is replacing this structure with a black sliver of karma within the first level of 1D.

and

>don't fall into the belief of tribalism

What is wrong with tribalism ? I think moving away from it is how we got into the fucked up global shitshow we see now.

>>2117

>communist

Communism is just a thing made to appeal to autists and those who are capable of seeing beyond the mere concepts into the actual potential. Communism is made to get a group to gain power over others, everything else is merely a tool to gain this power. This is what communism is.

>The method used here, sometimes, is replacing this structure with a black sliver of karma within the first level of 1D.

I don't like the idea of removing something, in this case limiting the potential of, since it's pointless to me. Why do it, why not do it, whatever. Do it.

>What is wrong with tribalism

Nothing inherently, current society isn't aimed towards the direction of tribalism as I see it. Conquering technology, conquering social relationships, living in a world that is atomistic and isolated is what I think is the correct mental model to approach all of this. If I were to focus on the material, which I don't always. The fucked up global situation right now isn't necessarily due to civilization, I don't think. It's certainly allowed to exist because of it, but that doesn't mean much of anything. I don't believe in limiting ourselves back into spear-chucking white niggers.

>>2119

>living in a world that is atomistic and isolated is what I think is the correct mental model

When you become unmoored from blood, soil, culture, religion, history, you're just adrift at sea. You might be content to think that the winds blowing you around, or the currents pushing you in different directions are just natural forces and nothing to think about. But this is the greatest trick being played on you. The current situation we're in is an intentional one, created by forces that know how to control the wind and sea.

Read "A Brief History of the Future" by Jacques Attali to see what kind of nightmare future this is headed toward.

>>2123

I don't doubt that.

>>2123

Just to give you an idea of what I want to do, simple guidelines that anyone can follow no matter how intelligent or unintelligent they are, the ability to have faith within a faithless world. These are the two concepts I want to explore, there's a third one. My raw assessment of your stance (tribalism) is that it's unpractical due to looking too deeply in the past, for a longing of a time that might have not ever even occurred. Might sound silly, but there's not a single reason to believe in history as it's taught by nearly anyone. Tradition, without an ability to find effectiveness, is useless. Use the old, understand the old, and from broken forms make things new. That's how Tradition survives.

I'll explore this concept entirely at one point since I'm not satisfied with merely expressing Tradition in it's form of Formation and Reformation, for now I sleep. Good night.

>>2089

Made me think of Harold W Percival's Thinking and Destiny for some reason.

>Animals flee this hell; the hardest stones cannot bear it for long; only men endure

There has to be an understanding that war itself isn't eugenic by itself. People constantly killing each other isn't beneficial. In some people, those who show themselves as being smarter than the average person, stronger or taller, more likeable and clever than the average person, is killed and given back to the gods. The Khazar people, some people believing these people to be the ancestors of ashkenazi Jews (I wouldn't say anything on that), being an example.

To these people, there is no striving, there is only eternal complacency within an already known universe.

>Fair is the knight who lieth slain

>Amid the rush and reed. . . .

But the power of the government within this world, that of law, is death. So the death penalty is the ultimate show of force, and all crimes should be solved through death.

>In the whole vast domain of living nature there reigns an open violence, a kind of prescriptive fury which arms all the creatures to their common doom. As soon as you leave the inanimate kingdom, you find the decree of violent death inscribed on the very frontiers of life. You feel it already in the vegetable kingdom: from the great catalpa to the humblest herb, how many plants die, and how many are killed. But from the moment you enter the animal kingdom, this law is suddenly in the most dreadful evidence. A power of violence at once hidden and palpable … has in each species appointed a certain number of animals to devour the others. Thus there are insects of prey, reptiles of prey, birds of prey, fishes of prey, quadrupeds of prey. There is no instant of time when one creature is not being devoured by another. Over all these numerous races of animals man is placed, and his destructive hand spares nothing that lives. He kills to obtain food and he kills to clothe himself. He kills to adorn himself, he kills in order to attack, and he kills in order to defend himself. He kills to instruct himself and he kills to amuse himself. He kills to kill. Proud and terrible king, he wants everything and nothing resists him.From the lamb he tears its guts and makes his harp resound … from the wolf his most deadly tooth to polish his pretty works of art; from the elephant his tusks to make a toy for his child - his table is covered with corpses … And who in all of this will exterminate him who exterminates all others? Himself. It is man who is charged with the slaughter of man … So it is accomplished … the first law of the violent destruction of living creatures. The whole earth, perpetually steeped in blood, is nothing but a vast altar upon which all that is living must be sacrificed without end, without measure, without pause, until the consummation of things, until evil is extinct, until the death of death.

The greatest show of strength is that of coalition of men, and in paradox it's only through the love of his fellow man that these things can form.

>>2079

A short explanation of my view of vampirism.

Degenerate nobles who still retain some semblance of aloofness derived from spiritual mind over matter, itself being the dead ruins of an archaic belief systems. More concerned about removing the dirty and unclean aspects of society, the poor and those who do more harm than good, than trying to set a good example for the populace. Blood sucking nobles being the best way to put it, the anti-thesis to the more classical concept of the aristocrats.

Most prominent energies are black and red. Black being forbearance, the keeping of form, and red being the vitality or whatever vitality is left in their boredom.

>>2126

The energy I get is similar. Except the book ends at 4D rather than entering into 5.1D, or Arhat. It's at this point where a person stops being merely the receiver of heavenly orders, but he is given power through the abidance of his own will. I don't have much interest in reading the experience of others so that's all I'll say. Moving through the milk white and ultimately towards the pure white body is simple, although the topic can be expanded as I'm trying to do here.

>God gave to the sea danger and the abyss,

>But it was in it that he mirrored heaven.

>>2134

Running away from horror and into the realm of absurdity, into comedy, is a sign of weakness. I don't want to be present with these kinds of men. There's something missing in their estimate of the world, as if what they do will not have an impact on their life to come, even if they don't acknowledge there being any connection. Although laughter is a sign of hiding fear, if you're not laughing then one is crying, and laughter is what prevents a man from showing weakness to his fellow men.

I want to capture these sensations.

>It was said concerning Abba Agathon that some monks came to find him having heard tell of his great discernment. Wanting to see if he would lose his temper they said to him 'Aren't you that Agathon who is said to be a fornicator and a proud man?' 'Yes, it is very true,' he answered. They resumed, 'Aren't you that Agathon who is always talking nonsense?' 'I am.' Again they said 'Aren't you Agathon the heretic?' But at that he replied 'I am not a heretic.' So they asked him, 'Tell us why you accepted everything we cast you, but repudiated this last insult.' He replied 'The first accusations I take to myself for that is good for my soul. But heresy is separation from God. Now I have no wish to be separated from God.' At this saying they were astonished at his discernment and returned, edified.

>The old men said to Abba Agathon to Abba Elias, in Egypt, 'He is a good Abba.' The old man answered them, 'In comparison with his own generation, he is good.' They said to him, 'And what is he in comparison with the ancients?' He gave them this answer, 'I have said to you that in comparison with his generation he is good but as to that of the ancients, in Scetis I have seen a man who, like Joshua the son of Nun could make the sun stand still in the heavens.' At these words they were astounded and gave glory to God.

>Abba Agathon said, "I consider no other labor as difficult as prayer. When we are ready to pray, our spiritual enemies interfere. They understand it is only by making it difficult for us to pray that they can harm us. Other things will meet with success if we keep at it, but laboring at prayer is a war that will continue until we die."

>>2135

I guess it's similar to hiding behind a mask. Just a more mature version of a child hiding behind a blanket, or modern men hiding their sorrow in irony. Post-ironic men are terrible to look at, their actual opinions shown as not being ironic at all. Small souled, and willing to handle very little.

Making posts like this makes my mode of thinking more easily understood by me, at least. It's just building off of older concepts, forever. Ancestral worship in essence. I'll get to the things I've said before, the things I have told to do, but there needs to be a foundation. 1D is the exploration of modern bug men, people with tiny spirits and no real power over themselves. 2D is more poetic, it's tragedy is expressed in something more simpler, but more complex.

>>2125

I'm going to try to lay out the core principals I use to look at things. I don't have an exactly complete solution, I'm not sure one exists. I just think that tribalism of some kind will be involved in any good solution. This is all at the human level.

1 Steady states are not possible long term.

You're always moving in a direction, even if it's not apparent. More often than not stability of a situation long term only causes people to be dependent on stability and forget how to adapt. There is always a trade-off for and a debt created by stability, which must be accounted for eventually.

2 Human structures are always mutable and prone to drifting.

These changes are not always bad, but they do always happen.

3 There are no long term silver bullets.

You can develop the complete understanding of a problem or situation. You can use this knowledge to come up with a perfect solution to achieve your goals. The understanding of the situation and the solution created for it are connected to the current context of the world. Once the solution is implemented and/or the world is changed, lightening will likely not strike twice.

4 Some things can only be learned from observing mistakes, either your own, or others.

Theory needs to be put to test in the wild at some point.

5 The unit of learning(evolution) is not the person making the decision. It is the group of people effected by the decision.

6 Larger groups, or groups with more momentum, can and will leverage these things to run away from the effects of their decisions for as long as possible.

Most of the time they will not use this borrowed time to correct the problem, leading to compounding "debt".

7 Most good ideas, or good solutions to problems come from intelligent guesses, made by people who have experience in the domain.

The formalized thinking later used to explain why these things are good is almost always post hoc reasoning.

All of that tied together leads me to conclude that the ideal group size is smaller than the whole globe. Having all of humanity "learn" something at once might spell extinction. It's also probably not the size of an individual either. It should be smaller than a nation, because the more leaders attempting to lead, the more likely it is one of them will have a good idea.

The flaw with this thinking is obvious though, empires. Even without one forming explicitly to take power. Say some group close to you has had a "learning experience", rather than let them pick up the pieces on their own, you annex them. Everyone wins, because they recover super fast and you get more territory. Soon everyone does this, until there's just a few major players. Everyone involved wants to maintain the status quo. Attempting to learn anything, try anything new, is likely to result in the other powers taking over your country. Failure is not an option, so stagnation is the only choice. Eventually the debt is paid and history rhymes with itself. I think somehow preventing empires from forming and allowing smaller groups to go through their own cycles, is the key to a kind of long term stability.

>>2139

I need new hands and eyes before I could talk to you, else you'll speak to the ghost of my meanings. I could devote more years of my life to reading more books by authors who might or might not have seen more, to find the concepts needed to explain myself without first having to devote an hour comprehending my sentiments, but I believe the present is now and not later, and I work here and not later.

>The unit of learning(evolution) is not the person making the decision. It is the group of people effected by the decision.

I don't know what this means. The unit (element/singular) of learning (evolution/change?) != decision, decision = total affect? I don't know what decision means here.

>Our existence is based solely on the ever-fleeting present. Essentially, therefore, it has to take the form of continual motion without there ever being any possibility of our finding the rest after which we are always striving. It is the same as a man running downhill, who falls if he tries to stop, and it is only by his continuing to run on that he keeps on his legs; it is like a pole balanced on one's finger-tips, or like a planet that would fall into its sun as soon as it stopped hurrying onwards. Hence unrest is the type of existence.

>In a world like this, where there is no kind of stability, no possibility of anything lasting, but where everything is thrown into a restless whirlpool of change, where everything hurries on, flies, and is maintained in the balance by a continual advancing and moving, it is impossible to imagine happiness. It cannot dwell where, as Plato says, continual Becoming and never Being is all that takes place. First of all, no man is happy; he strives his whole life long after imaginary happiness, which he seldom attains, and if he does, then it is only to be disillusioned; and as a rule he is shipwrecked in the end and enters the harbour dismasted. Then it is all the same whether he has been happy or unhappy in a life which was made up of a merely ever-changing present and is now at an end.

Trying to find the perfect political and ideological structure is a misguided one. First, it's based off of the idea that man is capable of altering his environment, which is true. But it's not true that this is absolutely true for everyone, some men have greater control over themselves than others, most men don't. I've found ugly the idea that one should stick with some political structure of the past, of a social heuristic of a past, without trying to adopt it into something more suitable for the modern. More ugly is the idea that one finds solace and masculinity within possible perfect futures, made ugliest by an inability to figure out a solution that doesn't involve mass genocide. The Confucius way of simply providing guidelines is what I want to imitate. Things like the Bible also work well enough, and so does Zhuan Falun. It's providing guidelines on how to act, rather than ones on how one should necessarily govern. Environments and people change.

I now understand what Li Hongzhi meant when he said material existence can't dissolve before human morality does.

Dagger of benevolence:

The appreciation of virtue, of strength, of power, with the humility and humbleness needed to act these virtues out in others and in yourself. If someone insults you, don't contemplate it for any longer than you need to, only to take out it's actual meaning and why such an insult could be directed at you. All things stem from this, all benevolence as defined by this dagger, stems from humility.

As directed to society:

Power is limber, and needs to be expressed through will. Will, and self-control, isn't defined by reaction, it's a willful and calculated choice. First contemplating what is is you want, and treating those who you want to deal with in a way that's agreeable. There's still a fundamental hardness, of endurance, where some things must be taken in a way even if others find it offensive. This lacks the cold indifference of actual governments, the kind that will tell you that they care for you, and steps on your property and pride with expectation of humility, from you. Cooperation comes from this limber power, more warm than cold.

Current society is very cold and distant. It's destructive, and any morality they claim to hold is a false one. Merely a mask to protect themselves from accusations of cruelty. There's no emotion in these people.

>>2143

>else you'll speak to the ghost of my meanings

Don't mean to insult you but your responses have been more aimed to someone who's spineless and doesn't want to do anything. Which is fair, I'm RADICALLY immobile.

>>2097

>I'll recollect all the information posted here and try to make it more concise

1D is the exploration of vices and virtues, a single minded movement, desire, or action. There are ones that originate from the body, ones that originate from the mind, others that come from a wide variety of things. That's what 1D is.

I like this method of thinking. It's straightforward, but people don't like repetition. So imperfection has to be added, like knots in a piece of wood. This gives it complexity. Whatever it is he wanted to capture, he managed to capture. I don't know musical theory and I don't know anything of it's technical nature, so that's all I can say about it.

European thought as I can understand it comes from this dan elixir kind of thinking. Concentrating on a single point, and letting that point build up energy until the problem you're trying to solve explodes into the actual depth that you're trying to find. Different directions, and placing this concentration within different areas and dimensions, leads to different results. As Li Hongzhi noted, all cultivation that has been provided to humans has been of this kind. The different methods of getting this energy cluster to explode properly requires an extensive amount of non-intent, no thought. Concentration is still placed, but not in the way (I imagine) most people to think.

Primordial chi has also been talked about, not on this board but by Li Hongzhi. It's chi that begins before any other chi, it's chi as a non-concept, no-being, and no-meaning existence. It's the chi that's formed at the beginning, and all thoughts originate from it. It's an actual shame that there's not anyone I can talk to this about. The more of this kind of chi you have, the clearer your vision, all vision, is.

Most people seem to be able to write paragraph after paragraph of words to explain things that I can only explain in a single sentence. The more complicated a topic is, and the more of the structure I see, the easier and more simple it is for me to explain it in less.

The entirety of my understanding can be summed up as analytical observation, either verbal or analogous to manual and physical labor. Words I hate the most, I don't like those who think and jump towards certain phrases and 'uses of words.

If you get enough lines, you get enough building material to build something of note. This is the level of architecture. Lines can curve or become straight angles, build up enough of them and you create concepts and actual phenomena. The exploration of these things are endless, at least to me, and to explore them here in a thread would be me dumping various media in hopes that someone will gleam the essence of what I'm trying to convey. Above this, you get more than just the building blocks, but you have the building and necessarily the mind that creates the building. Although it's a competition of two minds, one material and the other at the bare minimum the essence of divine. Reach above even this and you'll see that a single great work isn't done once, it's done repeatedly. The universe works off of repetition.

That's 2D, 3D, and 4D.

Arhat is the observance of these things, but taken personally, you become these forces yourself.

The more I think and observe the way the world is moving, I don't understand how whites could have as much power as they do now in the future. China will probably be dominant, they simply aren't so caught up in whatever the hell it is the west is caught up in.

>modesty, gracefulness, purity, delicacy, civility, compliancy, reticence, chastity, affability, [and] politeness

From the concept of the eternal feminine. Something I've observed in myself, when I try to look for anything close to feminine thinking. Best embodied not in women, but in men, and these traits are what most waifu-fags associate with their waifus. Notice, it's just the observation of a men to take his best features and place it on a woman. Talked about on /r9k/ of all places. Embodying these traits is what makes man enlightened, and is the hardest thing to do.

I'm prone to believe that the more eugenic a man is the more he's prone to fall into this kind of idealistic thinking. His world is only what he imagines it to be, and he doesn't like it to be trampled on by mere reality.

I also wanted to go out of my way and make something clear. The idea that "truth" is bound to "Law". But I quickly realized this was the mental masturbatory fantasy of a deluded tranny. Truth is a blossoming flower that once learned, worked with, and ultimately surpassed, becomes false. This is why art and aesthetics, anime and manga in the case of imageboards since these things are for losers and imageboards are for losers, are good for showing truth.

>Art is the lie that reveals the truth

>>2179

Ain't insightful so it doesn't matter.

>>2179

I know you're mostly joking, and considering the fact that I'm posting about these things that people can't see, but I can, and more importantly am able to articulate. But since I haven't posted today, and I think I should, I'll talk about my thoughts.

Most people go around there lives not considering much of anything. I have two siblings who are essentially matured now, both of them don't think much beyond whatever urge comes over them. One is an alcoholic with a kid, the other someone who doesn't know what to do with his life. Me, I sit in a room contemplating for hours at a time over trivial things and details. I might do other things, I do workout, but besides that I don't do much.

Whatever it is I'm enlightening to, whatever problem I have that is putting immense pressure on my mind to solve, I'd contemplate and watch as the time goes by, one hour into two, and two into three, so on. The problem isn't solve until all the "black" mass is gone and dealt with. And the solution is often trivial. If I'm having trouble handling my anger, the solution is to control myself. If I'm having trouble with my libido, the solution is to understand what it is I want and then solve it. It's not to give in, it's to process it and let it develop itself into something worthwhile. Even these things don't turn into something I can articulate. To rationally comprehend it is another matter, no one really rationally understands their sexuality or what they're attracted to. Homosexuals don't really understand what it is they're attracted to, they see a man and think that's alright. I'd imagine they live their lives not understand why they feel that way, and wanting to change (if such a person feels compelled to). The raw emotion or just "sight" of something you know exists, but don't know how to see or express, is what I'm getting at. There are different techniques and pathways that information can pass through, and the english language is extremely limited. I can't really talk about anything without first setting up the context. And the context can take days of active discussion to build up to.

Most human problems are really simple. After being in agony for multiple days at a time just to solve something someone might not even understand, glance at, or take seriously. For good reason, since the solutions and the problems I have aren't that complicated. Still, despite whatever pain I go through, the solution is simple.

Material life isn't as important as people want it to be. It's all conceptual and theoretical. To me, since I've always lived in the world of what can be rationally understood and processed, if anything doesn't conform to this standard then I disregard it. To the extreme, I will not talk, eat, sleep, or post, without first having an elaborate philosophy for how I should handle myself. If I walk, I have to walk in a certain way. People sometimes comment on the way I think, talk, and move, and might think I'm just weird in general. From my view, it's that people don't even think about daily actions that lets them live in such flow. I don't know how to not think about any of my actions, or what consequences it'll bring.

One of the posters here thinks his insights are unique, or that he knows more than whatever religion is out there. I don't know how to verify that is true or not, he has knowledge that others don't, but that isn't particularly special. His insight that "good" things, like politeness and civility, only work towards the aim of power. This is backwards, from my thinking. It's only from the result of seeing that good things provide power that one assumes that power is the ultimate conclusion, rather than just an outcome of whatever good is done. This is extremely obvious to anyone who really takes to heart what being a good person is. Everyone has their doubts, and these doubts lead to revelations. It's whether you act on these things or not that determines your status, and how far you can go in cultivation.

Someone might laugh at that statement.

The things he wants are extremely boring to me. They don't even process as anything worthwhile, they disgust me from the core of my being. If they disgust me at all, otherwise it's just a trivia that I have to process. My running idea is that the statement

>Sexual immorality doesn't exist

Ultimately derives itself from believing something does exist. Obvious, right? No. What does exist? What exists outside of the sensation? What exists within the sensation? What exists within the flesh? What exists outside of it? What process leads to the conclusion that there is flesh? What process could lead to the conclusion that there isn't any flesh? Different routes of thinking will lead to different conclusions. The statement

>Sexual immorality doesn't exist

Is nonsense outside of whatever context it was placed in. What is immorality? What is sexuality? What does the word, "doesn't", even mean? What does existence mean?

>>2185

Ultimately romantic feelings are irrational, and derive themselves from irrational sources. Why does someone want to do anything? Why do enlightened beings even exist? One would have to assume that those who don't, don't. But what does it even mean to exist? Is it actually binary? Are there things that exist outside of this range of thinking, beyond the scope that any being can really comprehend? And do those beings know of us? And are those beings just another component to another larger, one that simply breaks any scope of understanding that either they or us can comprehend?

The thinking is limited. Everything is. Everything that supposes an existence, or not an existence, or neither, or both, are something entirely different, is limited. The scope of it's expression is limited by it's existence. So to answer the idea,

>Sexual immorality doesn't exist

It's a false statement made from a false dichotomy. The truth is something entirely different from whatever limited scope the statement expresses itself in. Ultimately, if you don't think it exists, then I can't tell you about it. I have no way to make you change your mind, or have you see things in a new way. I am also incapable of caring much, outside of an allure to answer things.

>>2185

>What does exist

What doesn't exist?

>>2185

I think this is the biggest enigma for me, you're actively trying to build a common context in order to express something. I've given up on objectivity and clarity in communication long ago, it's simply impossible to achieve using spoken language. Even telepathy is heavily interpreted by the receiver. In the end, everything is going to appear in your interlocutor's inner context, and no matter how precise you make the external context of the conversation, it will never be 100% coherent with what you intended.

>without first having an elaborate philosophy for how I should handle myself

This is pretty alien as well. Your internal context is always going to be subjective, logical thought will always hit a hard limiter, it is only slightly higher than physical and vital reality, after all. Even the emotional dimension is higher. When taking that into account, why think anything through? I've found that intuition is always closer to whatever universal truth pertains to a situation, than logical thought ever will.

I used to think everything through in advance during childhood. I wouldn't step out of the house if I didn't plan out every physical step I would take, every moment I would spend waiting at a crossing, every interaction I would have with whoever I'd pass by. If I couldn't vividly see every moment of a trip, and think to myself "yeah, that seems logical enough", I wouldn't take a single step forwards.

For me, part of the process of growing up was giving up on that addiction to certainty, and learning to live and think in abstract, illogical terms.

I don't think your way of living is wrong, but it might be interesting to give up that certainty once in a while, to take a few minutes every day and do something intuitive, irrational, and without thinking of the consequences. Before Cicada stepped on the cabal's foot and all but a few members got suicided, part of their philosophy was to do 3 random things every day.

>good things only work towards the aim of power

Sounds like the based anime anon. I see that sort of arrogance towards religion like any other sort of intellectual or spiritual pride. Having pride in these conceptual areas prevents development, instead of fostering it. Even an eldritch spawn of the chthonic realms, or an incarnated god of whatever sphere, will be lacking in one area or another. Even the systems and institutions that you see as psy-ops or as simply backwards and unenlightened, may contain truth you can borrow from.

Also, seeing anything in terms of power is pretty worthless. You are either powerless, or all-powerful. Neither have any reason to be concerned with power. If you can shift the world's power balance with a thought, why give a shit about power?

>sexual immorality doesn't exist

>is nonsense

I see things in a similar way. If both sexuality, and morality, are flexible concepts, then dismissing sexual immorality, or reversely, sexual morality, is nonsense.

These are both dialectic concepts, they exist in states of opposition and differentiation. As such, both have their place, based on the cyclical nature of reality. Sexual morality held up the rise of Rome, and sodomy cemented its fall.

I always base my role in whatever situation, on an intuitive understanding of the mythical play that situation represents. I will sometimes take the role of a moral guardian, and at other times that of an adversary. Sometimes I'll even do both at the same time. There's a time and place for everything.

>>2186

>is it actually binary?

Existence is expressed as an imaginary number. It can vary in a lot of ways, but its value will always be conceptual, and relative to everything around it. Everything exists, and doesn't, at the same time. We're all Schrodinger's cat, sometimes dead, sometimes alive, at different points in the sum of all eternity.

Even the concept of 'being' is relative. Are you strictly your mental state in this very moment? Or are you the abstract, sum total of your personality over the span of your entire life? Are you only the very essential part of your soul? Perhaps the ontological concept your mentality emanates from? Maybe the universal Absolute, being beyond dialectics.

My view is that all of these are true, in varying degrees, at different times. You are, fundamentally, all of these, and which frame of reference you choose to identify with, and work within, is up to you.

All transcendental schools of spirituality, like gnosticism and buddhism, work down this scale, removing successive levels of differentiation, increasing degrees of specificity, until you are entirely identified with that sum total Absolute. I'm quite comfortable staying where I am, overseeing an aspect of my cosmological function, at this moment in time, in this specific configuration.

>false statement from a false dichotomy

Some of you are alright, don't come into the astral tomorrow.

>>2188

>What doesn't exist

Everything, and nothing.

>>2189

>I've found that intuition is always closer to whatever universal truth pertains to a situation, than logical thought ever will.

>I don't think your way of living is wrong, but it might be interesting to give up that certainty once in a while, to take a few minutes every day and do something intuitive, irrational, and without thinking of the consequences

Stems from a difference in our definitions of logic. Logic is illogical, and illogical things stem from things that can be made into a framework that is' logical. This is what I found to be true. Some things I just have to do without really knowing what will happen, but this is mostly to do with me not knowing what else to do.

I'm also reminded of Madoka throwing Sayaka's soul gem into the stream of cars due not knowing what to do, and having received bad advice from her mother that if you don't know what to do, just do something. Sayaka could've literally died, her gem broken, and if it wasn't for Homura she would be dead. It was only from someone fixing her mistake that anything was solved.

>Everything, and nothing.

It's easy to fall into verbal traps. Nothing is a category, and within that category there is something that exists. Not in the way we know existence to be. Existence as we see it now is within a category, and even shadows, black, "essential nothing" exists within it. I suppose that answers my question.

That's all I can say, there's more but I don't know how to say it.

>>2190

>logic

Logic stems from something that doesn't exist. It's an assumption, something that might not inherently relate to anything physical or "real" in the normalfag sense. Logic stems from physical manipulation of large and coherent mental and physical concepts, and don't have an existence outside of something that is already coherent. I don't know how this would operate within chaos, true chaos, which would by definition not be capable of anything coherent or "whole".

>>2193

The idea of the death of death makes sense to me now. Your concept of Saturn feels more like my concept of God, the patriarchal deity behind the dagger of benevolence. Although God is only given name due to Christian thought that I've been raised in, I mean something different from God.

This is the first time I've ever felt wrong about anything, throughout this entire /sunflower/ (and past) experiences and discussion. Due to the logical fact that logic doesn't exist outside of eternity, of a single moment. I have this idea that time is just the collection of eternity stringed together, but I have no idea why I believe that. Most likely just the base material for something with actual meaning.

>>2189

>I think this is the biggest enigma for me, you're actively trying to build a common context in order to express something

Being able to talk about something means being able to comprehend it, and being able to comprehend it in multiple ways is useful to me. Otherwise, I would be complacent, and I would lose my only motivator (outside of just cultivating, which I'm prone to not interact with the world if I keep this as my main focus.) Having a visible and knowable opponent to solve and defeat is helpful.

I've understood my intuition to be just the vague sight and barely comprehend material that I can understand logically. Intuition by itself is false, it might not even be yours, it's the information and the meaning that develops it that matters. It doesn't exist outside of logic.

Emotions is chaotic in a way I don't normally comprehend. I haven't seen the entire structure of emotion, although the emotion I'm talking about is most likely very different from the emotion someone else might know. Gods are said to have compassion, but the compassion they have is different from the compassion normal people have. And even different gods, from different levels, see compassion differently.

Another problem that you've not expressed is taking the universe and accepting it as subjective, or not trying to differentiate every component to it's most fine material. This can be summed up with the idea of Mystery. Some things are unknowable, and the fact that they're unknowable is accepted as true. Etymology of a fact as an action, being true: https://www.etymonline.com/word/fact

>>2194

>This is the first time I've ever felt wrong about anything

Chaos as the expression of a totality of sequence, where logic can only ever capture a single moment of. Transience as being without logic, and logic being the capturing of a moment of eternity, chaos is the manifestation of a principle not understood. Even the concept of chaos requires coherence. Chaos doesn't exist, I can't conceptualize or see it. Or understand it, which might mean it does exist.

Whatever.

>>2196

>chaos is the manifestation of a principle not understood.

>Chaos doesn't exist

I agree with this, to me chaos is ignorance of variables, if one could percieve things like Laplace's demon, one would find all in order. But then again it might exist as a "lack", like ignorance is a lack of understanding and darkness is a lack of light.

>>2195

I've been thinking about this, but I can firmly say that language is exclusively an expression of thought. As a symbolic, polymorphic representation of logical concepts, language can only express those momentary conceptualizations in a local reference frame. This is why language can never express emotions themselves, but only the concepts of emotions.

I've also found that wording an abstract thought out can increase my understanding of the underlying issue. I think this is because comprehension, as you termed it, is rooted in a superior and universal dimension, that of rationality, which is then expressed through momentary, static logic. The rational world is therefore non-local, and non-temporal. It belongs to that superior, primordial chaos of differentiation, and not to the inferior chaos of time.

>>2197

My understanding of chaos is different: chaos is difference itself. It is the principle which demands that every concept, every object, every idea, be developed into an infinity of aspects of itself, each infinitely different from one another.

Chaos is the division of objects such as "apple" into countless sub-objects, all of which are apples, yet all of which are different and unlike one another. Chaos is the physical laws of material reality shifting and writhing with every change in the background vacuum potential. Chaos is once-stable elements like Uranium becoming radioactive as we approach the high zero-point energy of the Pleiades cluster. It is the vanished orichalcum of the Atlanteans, and the legends of the metal "titanium" living on eons after our fall.

>>2194

I've conversely managed to understand your idea of the "death drive" as being the basic principle of life. It is not the death of the individual that is sought, but the static soul being killed at the ascent of the developed spirit. The lord of the Tower seeks his own death, yet the enemy is not to be sought, nor is it to be awaited. And yet, one day, they will come upon each other.

>>2199

>chaos is difference itself

A white horse is not a horse.

>but I can firmly say that language is exclusively an expression of thought

I think language is the expression of whatever dimension language derives itself from. Or, language doesn't express thoughts, it expresses itself, which is the derived from the person (who knows a language) into thoughts.

>rational and static logic

>lesser and greater chaos

I'll think about this tomorrow.

>>2207

>Throughout the war, it was always my endeavour to view my opponent without animus, and to form an opinion of him as a man on the basis of the courage he showed. I would always try and seek him out in combat and kill him, and I expected nothing else from him. But never did I entertain mean thoughts of him. When prisoners fell into my hands, later on, I felt responsible for their safety, and would always do everything in my power for them.

>Show me your relationship to pain and I will show you yourself

>…culture is declining. How was culture born? It was born with the cult of the dead, with the religious worship of ancestors; that began with the pyramids and with the tumuli built by prehistoric men, with their caves and grottoes. All these things are vanishing and are even extinct. I focused on these burial issues because I regard the disappearance of ancestor worship as a characteristic of present-day decadence. When I stroll through a cemetery, I am struck by the sadness, which is aroused not by the unfortunate deceased, but by the dreadfully uniform way in which people think about them.

>When a man is dead, people believe that he is gone forever. According to that logic, there can be no art. For art offers more than pure presence, it offers transcendence. If the cult of the dead were to reappear, it would be a sign that culture can take root again.

Ernst Junger is okay.

What do you think of the so called "old ones"? There seem to be many people who work or interact with them, but what would be the benefit in doing so?

>>2216

You get to interact with a group with a really cool name.

>>2196

>>2197

"Chaotic" implies being difficult to predict or control. In modern terms it simply means a slight change in initial conditions will result in a wildly different sequence of events in a way that is very difficult to predict. A priori it has nothing to do with determinism or lack of it.

However, it is proven that even if we knew all physical variables to a situation, there is true randomness everywhere at the quantum that won't allow you to predict an outcome. It's a fact of how the physical universe works, not a measurement problem.

In metaphysical terms, applied divination proves that the future and the past in our plane are in constant flux, and affected from without (probably through this quantum "randomness", although science hasn't gone there*), from a "higher" plane. In this context, "knowing all variables" is literally being the All, and anything else will be insufficient for that goal.

* It is close though, as some suggest quantum events in the axons of neurons, specifically in the micro-tubules, could account for non-determinism in the mind. Free will if you like. It's not a huge leap to think this and other instances of quantum events affecting macroscopic effects might be the interface between the metaphysical and the physical, intent and manifestation.

>>2220

I can't wrap my brain around the idea of true randomness, just the idea of there being a probability negates the idea.

Throwing a die with 6 sides won't have it land on a magical 7th side. Unless you count the edges or corners of a die as sides. Then there's 24 sides. You could further classify a side as a face, and how large a face is (a plane) depends on your conception of a plane.

Actual chaos is me figuring out how many sides a die has.

I'm looking for a rare webm of a 3d animated astral travel, does anyone have it? It uses the same stock footage as this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ta1Wwwe06LI but without the narration and added music

>>2226

>There is no such thing as true randomness, even at the quantum level. Quantum events are entirely based on potential distributions

I think you are confusing perfect distribution of outcomes and true randomness. True randomness is such that it cannot be deduced from the state of a system. This is true in quantum systems, is it not? At least at the level of mainstream science.

>>2236

>True randomness is such that it cannot be deduced from the state of a system

Given my belief that the universe acts coherently, reacts (or acts) consistently, I don't believe it's "truly" random. I can see it being random in terms of very specific probabilities, but outside of a random system having a confined set of outcomes, I can't see it as random.

>there is true randomness everywhere at the quantum that won't allow you to predict an outcome

I barely know anything about quantum anything, but outcomes can be predicted. I'm pretty sure that's what science is all about. I'm certain there's fine minutia of particle interaction that does involve truly random outcomes, but in terms of large masses I don't see that.

>>2242

>truly random outcomes

But still confined.

>>2251

I suppose I see it as vulgar since it's not really expressing youthful innocence, intentions, or wisdom borne form naive observance and thoughts, within a literally undeveloped body. It's adding the vulgar part of physical maturity, cunning ability and a seeking of physical power over others, into the body of someone who's not really capable of committing these things. Ideally a mature body, which I don't see as a rotting body if it's a static expression of an ideal, should harbor that youthful innocence in mind.

>>2252

>>2253

The mere existence of the lolibaba suggests that the lolibaba has mastery over her own life and death, as she has ascended past the death-birth cycle. The lolibaba is the opposite of helpless, it is self-evident that she must exist above physicality.

And the loli body is not immature, it is pure and unsoiled. The woman body exists only to reproduce. The breasts and hips are instruments of childbirth, nothing else. With men it's different since the musculature is functional and unrelated to reproduction, so it is not a move away from divinity, although I suppose the hair could be removed, the biological phallus replaced with a more pure analogue.

The child itself is evocative of the spiritual feminine, in contrast to the gross biological feminine which is used only as an instrument to perpetuate the Spiral. The anatomical talisman of the female child is spoiled and sullied as the loli transmutes into a woman; woman exists to breed while the loli does not. The active, masculine God may be a man but the passive, feminine God is a lolibaba.

>>2255

>The lolibaba is the opposite of helpless

What's the point then?

>>2257

A more perfect talisman of the divine feminine.

>>2258

Is motherhood not part of the divine feminine?

>>2260

No, it is part of the demonic feminine. Breeding is a consequence of biological imperfection that is rot and death.

>>2252

>The peak of divinity would have to be masculine, since divinity itself is a masculine (limiting, fatherly) force.

The role of a father is to raise his sons and impart his knowledge and wisdom onto them, so that one day they might replace him. Perpetual fatherhood is tyrannical, because there is never that transfer of power. It's unfulfillment for everyone involved. The father figure never manages to produce a "child" that is good enough. His "children" in turn never measure up to his glory and forever live in his shadow.

>>2264

The role of a father is to protect his family and raise them well, and any knowledge he imparts is closer to seeds of wisdom than actual fruits, the seeds can only bear fruit through suffering and personal experience. Just the feeling that one can never live up the glory of his father is enough to constantly drive him closer to perfection, regardless of whether the idol he created in himself truly represented the dignity and power his father/ancestors held.

I don't agree with the replacing part. Perpetual fatherhood does sound odd. Divinity as fatherhood isn't entirely accurate, but I do see the role of limit in it's ability to allow for actual choice as being a valid observation.

>>2266

Limitation is chaos. It is assertion that a concept or trait is not. What is not? Primal void, primal chaos. Paradoxically, chaos destroys chaos. The adjectives that a thing does not have are given the state of infinity, because infinity = 0. So when an objects says "I am" it is also saying "I am not". So how does being come into being? By the void saying "I am not void". Therefore chaos creates order.

>>2267

>It is assertion that a concept or trait is not

You esoteric fags find ways to make a statement absolutely true in any circumstance, thus limiting any further exploration within the confines of any topic. I do the same. Chaos is the statement that it is not itself, and that it itself is not (IS a negative). I also don't think infinity = 0, I think these two concepts stem from the same source of the void but are different from each other in fundamental quantity. Both are equally futile, but aren't the same.

As another poster said, chaos is self-defeating in the sense that it cannot ever hold any semblance of order, which paradoxically means that not everything can be chaos.

I see chaos as change in its purest form, not good or bad but seen as such to that which wishes to be stable, which would be anything that could think. Chaos cannot be attributed any qualities, but it is a concept that threatens our lives, though not with any intent.

Chaos permeates all dimensions, all planes or states of being and all that exists as well as anything that chaos brought forth. All is threatened by this force, but all stand to gain from it too.

>have extremely annoying coworker who constantly tried to play dominance games against me and subjugate me to his will

>hate him

>okay, let's use magic to kill him

>do it

>instead of killing him it just makes him act really nice to me

>wears off after about a month

>try to kill him again

>he gets nice again

>this happens at least four times in total

I think this is happening because I'm just killing the parts of him that I hate rather than him in totality.

>>2275

That's essentially the only times killing for the sake of selfish gain could be viewed as positive, since the aim isn't at the person himself but at the bad things he represents. Any entity that represents murder, slaughter, or genocide has from my eyes removed the things they seek to destroy from others, else it'd be projective and symbolic killing rather than one made from apathy.

Carefully and methodically observing your own feelings of resentment and the relation others have in fostering it has been essential for me in figuring out my own feelings and how to do things properly.

>>2274

>seen as bad by anything that could think

>threatens our lives

Sure enough, chaos means that nothing can exist in the same state forever, but I don't think this is a threat to living things, or seen as such by most people.

Chaos, as change itself, is the cause of life. Life itself is change. We're all tiny little germs of chaos, in a sense. Without change, life would be pretty meaningless as a concept, a "person" would be just a static set of principles and ideas, never-changing, and acting eternally in one single cosmological super-action.

This, in a sense, what the Spheres are, and even they are subject to chaos in the sense that they're changed, differentiated, from the original concept of pure 'being'.

>>2275

This is actually a thing. Your image of a person will only ever relate to individual aspects of them. You never like somebody, you just like certain aspects of them, while others may annoy or upset you.

If you're ok with removing parts of your co-worker, you could extend your spell to ontologically remove those parts of him from existence, past and future, which should stop them from coming back in this timeline.

Otherwise, you can try to reconcile those parts of him with his positive attributes, and accept him as a person. But let's be fair, you've already tried killing him, so that's out of the question. The more likely solution if you wanna deal with the person as a whole, is to also kill his good aspects, and then extend the spell to his physical existence as well. This is, as the kids say, the based option.

I think the problem you're having trying to understand chaos is attempting to see it as an absolute thing, when it's relative. It's that which is unpredictable and cannot be handled easily, if at all, using your understanding of things. It's not, that which is not chaos is order. That which is not chaos is more ordered. Something can exist in the same state forever, it just needs to be non dynamic, to behave like a mathematical function. Things that can be tricked or destroyed are subject to chaos.

>>2281

>to me chaos is ignorance of variables, if one could percieve things like Laplace's demon, one would find all in order. But then again it might exist as a "lack", like ignorance is a lack of understanding and darkness is a lack of light.

Is identical to how I see chaos as being. Chaos could be understood as something real and tangible to anyone who just turns off his or her brain and nods at anything resembling coherent thoughts that goes through their head.

Chaos isn't the void, but it does describe a state of destruction. Chaos as limitation (differentiation), and chaos as time. My conception of time is what I'm trying to grasp since chaos as differentiation would be more of a result of the full potential of an idea or concept being expressed in many different ways, interacting with itself and others and creating union and life through these interactions. My thoughts on this aren't completed.

>Things that can be tricked or destroyed are subject to chaos

Something simply are destroyed not through chaos but by reaching it's peak and ultimate purpose, after exhausting everything that could have happened and no longer having a purpose. That's what I'm trying to figure out.

>>2282

Chaos is not itself, and anything that is not chaos, which is not itself, and falls under the deception of chaos enters back into chaos.

Do you understand now?

>>2282

>My conception of time is what I'm trying to grasp since chaos as differentiation would be more of a result

"Stood the test of time" You wouldn't say something has stood the test of time if it was in a sealed chamber isolated and protected from everything. There's an implication that time has some relationship to chaos exposure. Something that has been around longer is more able to tolerate exposure to chaos. But the relationship is correlative, not causal. Just like age and maturity. Something may have existed for a while and never been exposed to chaos. Or, even worse, a part of it, hard to distinguish from the whole has been acting as a shield against chaos for the whole thing. That kind of situation is a type of chaos because you can't determine what causes the effect, to come to a true understanding of why something endures.

>>2287

>>2285

I don't get what you're trying to tell me. Time is the closest thing to chaos I can think of, rather than there being a correlation.

>>2291

It's not though. If you have some way of controlling how exposed something is to chaos over time, then chaos is not time. Time is the dimension that you need to move in to either experience chaos, or destroy it. New information comes from time progressing forward. This information may either provide new understanding, leading to less chaos, or it may show your understanding to be wrong, which is chaos.

>Art and culture being one example of something that can only really exist due to excess

What ? Cave men painted on the walls. Men on whaling vessels engraved bones. Sailors sung while working. Plenty of different primitive cultures who lacked writing systems still have complex oral traditions of stories which reference each other.

>If you're referencing vestigial limbs or body parts

>not through chaos but by reaching it's peak and ultimate purpose, after exhausting everything that could have happened and no longer having a purpose.

I was referencing your own inability to understand your existence.

>>2296

>It's not though

I don't believe chaos exists, not in any absolute or strict sense. Time is just the closest thing to chaos that I could accept.

>Cave men painted on the walls. Men on whaling vessels engraved bones. Sailors sung while working

Excess, except for the singing while working part.

>I was referencing your own inability to understand your existence

You're going to have to be more specific since this means nothing.

>>2296

>>2297

>What ?

If you want an elaboration on why excess is required for art and culture, although it does and truly does pain me to have to first rely on someone else because I lack the dedication to reply my raw idea, and to second explain why art and culture requires a base material of abundance for it to truly bear fruit, Nietzsche is good enough.

>The Greeks have no need for conceptual hallucinations like this, they voice their opinion that work is a disgrace with shocking openness – and a more concealed, less frequently expressed wisdom, nevertheless alive everywhere, added that the human being was also a disgraceful and pathetic non-entity and ‘shadow of a dream’ [Pindar, Pythian VIII. 95]. Work is a disgrace because existence has no inherent value: even when this very existence glitters with the seductive jewels of artistic illusions and then really does seem to have an inherent value, the pronouncement that work is a disgrace is still valid – simply because we do not feel it is possible for man, fighting for sheer survival, to be an artist. Nowadays it is not the man in need of art, but the slave who determines general views: in which capacity he naturally has to label all his circumstances with deceptive names in order to be able to live. Such phantoms as the dignity of man, the dignity of work, are the feeble products of a slavery that hides from itself. These are ill-fated times when the slave needs such ideas and is stirred up to think about himself and beyond himself! Ill-fated seducers who have destroyed the slave’s state of innocence with the fruit of the tree of knowledge! Now he must console himself from one day to the next with transparent lies the like of which anyone with deeper insight would recognize in the alleged ‘equal rights for all’ or the ‘fundamental rights of man’, of man as such, or in the dignity of work. He must be prevented at any cost from realizing what stage or level must be attained before ‘dignity’ can even be mentioned, which is actually the point where the individual completely transcends himself and no longer has to procreate and work in the service of the continuation of his individual life.

>We now have the general concept for categorizing the feelings the Greeks had in relation to work and slavery. Both were looked on by them as a necessary disgrace that aroused the feeling of shame, at the same time disgrace and necessity. In this feeling of shame there lurks the unconscious recognition that these conditions are required for the actual goal. In that necessity lies the horrifying, predatory aspect of the Sphinx of nature who, in the glorification of the artistically free life of culture [Kultur], so beautifully presents the torso of a young woman. Culture [Bildung], which is first and foremost a real hunger for art, rests on one terrible premise: but this reveals itself in the nascent feeling of shame. In order for there to be a broad, deep, fertile soil for the development of art, the overwhelming majority has to be slavishly subjected to life’s necessity in the service of the minority, beyond the measure that is necessary for the individual. At their expense, through their extra work, that privileged class is to be removed from the struggle for existence, in order to produce and satisfy a new world of necessities.

I particularly like this part of the same text, but I haven't pasted here:

>Shame, therefore, seems to be felt where man is just a tool of infinitely greater manifestations of will than he considers himself to be, in his isolated form as individual.

>>2296

>New information comes from time progressing forward

I have no reason to believe new information exists. I do have reason to believe that everything that could ever happen to an object or thing has already happened in some way or fashion, else that thing simply wouldn't exist. My conception of "time" itself is eternally present, something that only happens once. Meaning, from the start it exists, and till the end it exists, it doesn't exist within a single "point." Existence and being are things I'm not entirely sure what to make of. The idea of "development" or "becoming" are flawed, there's not a reason to believe something exists only after a period of development, or becomes only after it's conceived by a mortal mind (or body).

Enough of my ramblings and dubs-stealing. I like the drive, the anger, the despair, the joy, the sadness and whatever affection I've held on, the only thing left is the soft boiling anger that can't even be called anger. Self-destruction, wanting death, wanting something to compel me again, is what it is.

>>2311

It should be kept in mind that,

>war is fought by the best, strongest and healthiest

And

>Lies and established filial networking are the real earthly power, because it’s so easy to convince a bunch of “smart” or “strong” people to be afraid of something and pay you for the privilege of killing it.

But I'm no idiot when it comes to what actually makes a group of people effective. Also, sending your best to die isn't a good idea.

>>2304

>Culture doesn't come about from excess or leisure, it creates them

If you equate culture with literally everything that a person could do and exist in, then yes.

I'm at least partially convinced my world view was heavily influenced just by watching too much anime as a kid.

Good interpretation of the dagger of benevolence, it should be stated that the dagger is my view of that "blue" energy of benevolence. There are other ways of seeing it that I'm trying to figure out. Ancestral worship, the eternal struggle of constantly moving beyond, the patriarchal worship, are all there. I'll try to find a topic that I can post about consistently, I have some in mind but I don't think it's necessary yet.

>>2324

Tbh that's a good thing. The quality discourse alone puts this place above /fringe/ in many regards.

/sunflower/ had a tough going at first, but I now regularly send screencaps of new posts to my philosophically-illiterate friends, in a vain attempt to entice their inferior minds into action.

Has anyone here had any success with using magic to manipulate stock or crypto prices?

>>2327

Yes.

I found this

https://technomancy101.com

>>2331

Give me a decade or so and I'll man-handle my way into mathematics and coding somehow.

>>2333

It's not shit. I'm a (real) programmer and I know where you're coming from. But the whole point is to engage your intent with the spell. You don't need to get autistic about the technical aspect of it.

>>2350

Smile is young (by his own admission ~15, maybe give 1-3 years since I forgot the date this was posted on), younger than even me, so he's opinions have always come off as raw and more virile than they ought to be.

>>2353

I think being is just endless becoming.

The colorful extravagance of some birds,

the deliberately excessive horns, manes, and tusks of some mammals,

the complex courting behavior of many animals,

the very existence of sex itself - and by extension the love songs

on the radio, and all the love-addled poems ever written -

all likely evolved because of parasites,

because all organisms must run as fast as they can

just to stay in place.

- Moises Velasquez-Manoff

“An Epidemic of Absence”

>>2353

>immanent

Are you saying only the things that are observable have become?

I only seem to post here when I'm very tired. My brain works best so that's when I should post.

>>2357

The strongest swordsman doesn't fear the second strongest swordsmen, he fears the retard.

>>2360

Only tangentially related to what I'm trying to figure out here >>2334 and >>2350.

>>2353

I don't find these answers satisfactory.

Now I'm feeling what I felt again, just posting whatever is on my mind.

Sophistry is a valid method of acquiring knowledge.

>>2303

>parasites and idiots who live meaningless lives decide that the conventions of a society are dumb, gods are dumb and don't exist, and the good is only what one can acquire through physical means

Every successful society has built in mechanisms that attempt to combat this type of rot. These anti degeneration systems need to be seen as part of the society. It's like writing a perfect set of laws and having no enforcement, then saying how horrible it was that your society with perfect laws fell, if only people would have voluntarily listened.

>When people stop seeing the consequences for their actions, that's when it starts to fall apart.

>>6 Larger groups, or groups with more momentum, can and will leverage these things to run away from the effects of their decisions for as long as possible.

>>Most of the time they will not use this borrowed time to correct the problem, leading to compounding "debt".

Civilizations build up enough momentum, or "excess" to lose touch with consequences, because they have enough stability or resources to not feel any shock-waves from what they do.

> The more complicated a topic is, and the more of the structure I see, the easier and more simple it is for me to explain it in less.

You might be able to string together a series of words in your own head that resonate with that concept, to you. But that assumes that the other person you're speaking with has a similar understanding of the words and a similar foundation, so those words can cause the same effect in them as it does in you. I have the same problem. I think in macros. I can string together some words and relate that to this big jumble of things in my head, which all mean something coherent to me. But, it's poetry only I can understand. Translating that out so other people can build similar structures in their heads is why philosophers write so much.

>disregarding evolutionary thinking and only engaging with what I actually desire

Evolutionary thinking isn't just about evolution though. There are many creationists who will accept the concept of adaption, but not evolution. Adaption I think is a better term. Depending on the time scale you exist in and what you want, you might not need to think about adaption. If you're a monkey in a lab whose goal is to "feel good" from dopamine hits and there's a button rigged up to administer intravenous cocaine to you, then getting what you want requires no evolutionary thinking or much thinking at all. So your desire, coupled with what kind of situation you need to navigate to get it determines the kind of thinking you'll employ. Why would intentionally disregarding a type of thinking be necessary if your desires and environment determine the kind of thinking you'll use ?

>What drives you?

Until recently I would have said I don't know. I had some kind weird evolutionarily derived view of the world. I got there after trying to remove all illogical parts of my thinking, only to be left with no reason for anything. So I just settled using that I'm human and working from there. You can't logically come to any conclusion about how to act in the world without some assumption or axiom. All systems which use axioms technically employ circular reasoning, so it's impossible to act in the world without being illogical.

>>2370

Autistic poetry about poetry, by a king of autists. ( https://youtu.be/n8m7lFQ3njk?t=817 ) The core of poetry is laying out a few concepts or feelings and making them harmonize, like you're playing a chord.

>>2383

Exempt from danger?

With 300 confirmed kills

Fucker is no more.

Another night spent.

The futility of thought,

again and again.

>>2353

>Becoming is a paradox, since it has no destination. Becoming something is the end of becoming itself

I think becoming necessarily has a destination, else it would not be becoming. The destination might not be anything particular. The mere act of changing might be the totality of it's destination and being.

>Being anything or anyone ends the act of being, and therefore brings mortality to a concept

What ends the act of being is dissolution. I don't know what dissolution is precisely, just like I don't know what death is precisely. I guess that's my next direction.

The biggest problem I have with your view of this is what I see as Being. Being is either a state of being unaware of imperfection, and thus no longer changing or having need of change, or being perfect, and being literally incapable of becoming anything more. Being unaware, not having vision, not being able to see what it is a thing is, is the state of being.

If I got what you're trying to categorize as being.

Everything is in motion, constantly in motion. That is why you have seen some people say that everything breathes. I have also seen this while trying to open sigils, a constant pattern of etheric fog. I don't know if this is an intake or and output but it is a constant pattern, slow for the physical talismans. I used to try making my daemons static shapes because I was convinced that this was simpler so it must be easier. This is very wrong, a static form is dead so it can't exist and evaporates quickly. This morning I was in trance and I saw a faint shape, so I focused on the motion and let the heartbeat/breathing of the shape come out, and I suddenly got a full visual of a more complicated shape going through a repeating motion. This relates to the concept of spirals, spirals represent the creation of a circle, like a pendulum starting up it's rotation. I shall commit some experiments moving away from the platonic noun-form framework and into a pattern-verb framework.

>>2370

>required me to engage in the image of what I believe his reasoning starts from

So why do you still think this way when you're not talking to them ? Do you like doing it ?

>complete evolutionary thought. I wanted to take the easy route of simply disregarding it

You don't need to be able to complete some kind of thinking to use it. It's like not using a hammer because you don't know all the things you could do with it.

>>2391

>So why do you still think this way when you're not talking to them ? Do you like doing it ?

Because it's necessarily correct in it's emptiness.

>You don't need to be able to complete some kind of thinking to use it.

How can you "use" evolutionary thinking?

>>2392

You use it to understand competitive systems where resources are at stake and having more resources can give an upper hand. It also covers signaling, how actors can confuse the implication of something for the thing itself and how other actors exploit this. There's a lot more depth than I can easily summarize. Even if you reject it as a real phenomenon, there's still truth in some of the patterns it makes apparent.

>>2393

I see it as being clever, cleverness being the ability to manipulate known material phenomena and find new patterns and connections to abuse/look from. It's not useful for anything productive, and I wouldn't want a society that runs itself out of material and social interests rather than spiritual ones. I despise and look down on whores for their heaviness and vulgarness of thought, I don't see why I wouldn't look down on anything concerning itself over material interests in the same way.

I have a hard time seeing it's usefulness outside of merely describing one possible reason for why change happens, and why some people and spiritually and physically superior to others.

>resources are at stake and having more resources can give an upper hand

Reducing life to the act of reproduction and survival isn't helpful.

>>2394

And no, I'm not saying everyone should give up and starve or go live like hermits.

https://aeolipera.wordpress.com/2020/06/16/superbureaucrats-vs-geniuses/

>>2394

I understand why you wouldn't want a society just based off of evolution/reproduction. It does help in understanding the people who won't ever be spiritual though. If you don't want to be a hermit on a hill somewhere knowing how they work has some benefit. Materialism as the end goal is bad, but ignoring it completely is just another way to suck. Any belief system that tells people to ignore the material completely and only focus on the spiritual is not sustainable. You can have a class of monks in a system, but not a system of monks.

> I despise and look down on whores for their heaviness and vulgarness of thought, I don't see why I wouldn't look down on anything concerning itself over material interests in the same way.

Why ? It's just a transaction. Most females, both animals and humans, engage in some kind of explicit or implicit transaction, where access to reproduction is traded off to a male for something.

>>2398

>Why?

Whores are that but removed of anything worthwhile, spiritually dead, and the living equivalent of a sewer.

>>2400

>I'm more inclined

to believe

http://www.macroevolution.net/index.html

>>2400

>Really, the sexual revolution happened because of antibiotics. Before antibiotics, people died from being promiscuous. Syphilis and gonorrhea were lethal, and when they didn’t kill you, these diseases would often cripple or blind their offspring.

>Nowadays, all this is forgotten. People who believe in evolution with every fiber of their being seem confused as to where those antiquated sexual mores come from. Well, that’s where it comes from, dummies—biology. Antibiotics and the non-lethal promiscuity they’ve allowed have helped us to discover less-lethal viral plagues, which I suppose is progress of a sort. Similarly, the invention of SSRI’s have allowed entire populations to make terrible life choices and not feel badly about them.

>>2400

I don't think we came to exist for purely materialistic/evolutionary reasons. The first part of the OP in that thread was interesting. I think just lettings things go along based on the nature of people is a strange kind of fatalism. It also ignores that it's within the nature of people to engage in reasoning and to attempt to impose their reasoning, whether through argument or force, on other people. It's part of man's nature to attempt to both understand his own nature and that of others. It follows that using this understanding for his own ends is also part of his nature.

>I don't see what argument could be made for why homosexuality isn't acceptable.

Men aren't women.

>I'm more inclined people who like whores aren't people at all but demons, since the mere idea of a one-night stand to me is enough to drive me to suicidal thoughts.

I used to think the same thing. I'm inferring things here, but the type of woman you want doesn't exist. They don't love you the way you love them. It's transactional. If you end up unemployed or disabled or otherwise can't provide for her, she's going to leave you. The only reason they would stay in the past was social pressure. "Women are human beings. Men are human doings." I'm not saying this is a negative. It just is what it is.

>>2402

STDs are not more taxing than having a child. The birth control pill is what likely led to the sexual revolution. Roe V Wade in the US helped to normalize not feeling guilty about what happens when birth control doesn't work. Saying it's just antibiotics assumes that the average person is forward looking enough to think before acting.

>>2403

If 3DPD women were that, that would be nice. But they're retarded.

>>2404

>I'm more inclined to believe people who like 2D aren't people at all but demons, since the mere idea of fapping to mongolian flipbooks is enough to drive me to suicidal thoughts.

>>2403

I don't masturbate but I can sympathize with wanting to escape reality and live in fantasy.

>>2406

Isn't that exactly what's being sold by whores ? A fantasy, but with a physical component. So why isn't that ok ?

>>2406

Meant for

>>2405

>Men aren't women.

The mere idea of men and women being different exists only taxonomically in the same way "species," under evolutionary thought, exist only taxonomically. The difference is a mental one rather than a purely physical one.

>>2408

Give birth then. I'll wait.

>>2409

When is the act of sex not base and vulgar ?

>>2410

>Give birth then. I'll wait.

Some women are infertile, does this make them not women? But this misses the point of the categorization not being innate to the physical structure, it's one derived through reasoning and observation, ultimately one that is broadly true rather than absolutely true.

>When is the act of sex not base and vulgar ?

One love, dedication, and commitment are added to the mix. The act of "sex" itself isn't the vulgar part, it's the situation that surrounds it that makes it vulgar. Sex is just an action, and an action taken away from it's context is nearly meaningless.

Men wanting sexbots is equivalent to baby apes choosing the comfort of a surrogate mother over food. Perhaps slightly worse or more terrifying, it's choosing the surrogate mother over the real one, due to the superiority of an artificial product over the real deal. Waifufags are terrifying when viewed form this thinking.

The great heroes cum,

Gayniggers from outerspace

Finally there's peace!

tl;dr Asking me why whores aren't okay is like asking me why having sex with my wife(♂) is wrong or why interracial sex is wrong. In my eyes it's like a fetish, but it's a fetish that points to a disregard over a humans life. I've had this argument on /a/ before and the reasoning always leads to, "Don't consider them human."

>>2403

>Men aren't women.

And I didn't even get into the more obvious statement of, that doesn't matter. I don't know how someone can reduce something down to the level of transactions and still believe, "People will still hold some level of morality."

But I love men for their soft-bodied, baby faced, scraggly bearded masculinity, their autistic devotion to media franchises, their worship of troopagan gods like Thor from avengers and the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe cosmology, their gooey eyed insistence on doing what you think is right, their radical non-judgementism, and also their constant soft-gay bonobo vibes.

>>2417

Sex and power. This is reality, never aspire for anything more.

>>2413

>strong jaw-lines, hollowed cheeks, beady predatory eyes, wide and muscular shoulders, psychopathic thinking, and vulgar and crude humor

You're describing men. You actually just hate men.

>>2419

Impossible.

>>2420

How could I hate men, when I'm describing modern women?

>>2422

Except for the strong jaw line.

I already made an item representing masculinity here >>1916. It's too complex to describe.

>>2425

I don't deny that there's s transactional aspect to relationships. I just don't like it.

>>2428

The claim of sex being real is a theistic one, not a rational one. The moment you accept the idea of evolution is the same moment you deny the existence of anything being immutable. Deism ultimately leads to atheism, materialism, and commercialism.

>>2431

It's like claiming A is more true than B because A has more components related to A than B, when the entire structure of superiority, A-ness, B-ness (benis), no, difference itself has been removed from the picture. What is left is looking at structures through their singular, granularized, extraordinary fine and secluded segments and making a coherent framework from there. This is the only, only path I've let myself take at this point.

Falun Dafa becomes a lot funnier when the threat of being made into a literal rock is a real one.

This is as far as I'm capable of going without requiring a certain faith to make the reader believe.

>>2431

>It's self-defeating, it's looking into the abyss and finding that nothing stared back. You are instead paralyzed

Instead of paralysis, I'm instead terrified. It's not that I can't add anymore, it's that there's nothing to add at that stage of sight. When you view yourself as just an entity of endless possibility, of a universe that has no limit in term of creation and what could be created (I'm prone, since I can see something approaching a limit, to not say this is true), I'm more inclined to go back to my standard thinking than to delve deeper. It's not that there's nothing more to add, it's that I lack imagination, I lack sight.

To continue the trend of posting small segments, as I verbally live out my mental collapse.

If I say anything in the simplest language possible, there's at most a 1/5 chance I'm understood.

>>2429

I disagree. rationality only points to that sex is real.

The claim of sex not being real is a theistic one, but so is the claim of sex being real as it depends on your theistic belief.

Rationality only points to sex being real while theism points to both depending on the type.

>>2448

>structural errors and genetic shifts

Which are the same thing.

If you argue from a spiritual perspective, then things stop becoming "just" things, and actions stop being merely actions.

>>2304

>Work is a dreadful and shameful thing, as it proves we have failed to maintain that spirit of genius

Work is shameful because it shows the lack of something, it shows that a person or an entire civilization isn't perfect. Someone in the state of perfection doesn't need to work, he doesn't need to do anything, he doesn't have to live off of the sweat of his brow or necessarily be in the state of contemplation. Man is inferior because he works for something he doesn't have, and this is taken as proof of his inferiority. A slave is inferior because he lacks.

But this really does stem from a certain barbaric simplicity. People often misunderstand Nietzsche in the sense that his use of negative language, language meant to indicate mocking or contempt, leads them to believe he sees these things as inferior, or less than what he praises. His statements against slave morality aren't that negative, he ultimately praises it by the greatest metric of greatness and good there is: by it's power. But he doesn't shy away from where it stems, from what kind of source it has, from how it disgusts him. I'll study Nietzsche some more and arrive at a better conclusion.

>>2451

I use insane in the sense that it's completely removed from how normalfags see the world. As in, it's just not the same, it doesn't stem from the same source. I suppose that's not a good usage of the word insane.

>>2455

Hunter-gatherers probably had more freetime. But I have absolutely no clue. I'll go back to my radical immobility, expressed through a coma.

>>2456

What does it mean to work ? What does someone do when they don't need to work ? Is it actually excess ? I'm trying to understand your view on this.

I think that there's a difference between working to the point that you have some buffer, or foundation and working non stop because you can't get such a foundation. The difference between earning a lot with a skill and having some type of wealth that just requires management, is vast. Cavemen, unlike us, didn't "live in a society" so they could reach this comfortable buffer point as long as they had food and shelter. Reaching this kind of comfy state in modern society is harder for normal people. They use their surplus to scratch all kinds of itches, chasing after things that society tells them will lead to feeling complete. They can't run fast enough on the hedonic treadmill to bite into the carrot of "actualization" at the end. There is excess present, but it's not leading to art or culture. Culture and arts are being employed to control where the excess goes, rather than the excess bursting out and causing these things. So while excess may be part of the cause for culture and art, it's not the only factor, there's something else involved as well.

>>2426

>I just don't like it.

I don't like it either. I've just accepted that the non transactional part I want is probably just wishful thinking, a fantasy, something that will never be real.

>>2448

The "give birth I'll wait" thing was mostly snark. If I define sex in terms of males having Y chromosomes and females not having them, how do you invalidate it ? I wasn't able to find a study on this, perhaps I didn't do enough digging. But what if you did one of those sweaty T shirt smelling experiments with trans of all kinds, even throw in gay males ? You would have 100% confirmed str8 males smell the shirts and rate how attracted they think they would be to the person, based only on olfaction. I would bet money that none of the trans persons would rank high on the list, no matter how early they started on hormone therapy.

>>2459

>I'm trying to understand your view on this

I don't think you should. But whatever tickles your interest.

>how do you invalidate it

By questioning the origins of this definition, and whether it could defend itself under scrutiny. Also, there are genetic ambiguities that do come up that should either be cast off as exceptions, or included into some sort of spaghetti if-then logic. My brain hurts.

>What does it mean to work

To carry out tasks, to upkeep and maintain structures, and to engage in constant existential struggle against something else (regardless of whether it's real or unreal, material or virtual). Either maintaining an environment, changing an environment, creating an environment, or cultivating future actors (parenting).

>What does someone do when they don't need to work

I suppose they're dead. Being lazy is part of the job description.

>Is it actually excess

As much as having excess fat is excess. Strictly speaking it's working with the confines of an environment, and whether it's excessive is reliant on cultural perspectives. If you include culture as a mode of survival.

>working non stop because you can't get such a foundation

Geniuses would probably fit under this mode of life. Except imagine it to be a spiritual struggle rather than a physical one, but it is definitely a physical one as well.

>I've just accepted that the non transactional part

There's also validational sex. You might include that into the category of "transaction" but that's not true in my opinion. There are a variety of reasons for why people have sex, and I don't think it's just for transactions like everyone's a robot. If it WAS purely transactional that would be much better than what women currently are. Which is why I called them retarded, and why the idea of sex being just about transactions being relatively good.

However, the universe doesn't operate under material laws. So I'm willing to explore other options than what we're presented with in whores, since I don't believe that all women are whores. They're too sexually ambiguous for that to be true. Certain masculine women would probably be sluts. The entire idea of business women, careerist women, demons, well we see this in the modern day. This is just one aspect of what women pretending to be men are like, and isn't the natural one.

>>2462

>"Love"

Love is NOT what I'm referring to, it's what I'm trying to differentiate from "emotions".

People on Salo have been complaining about a miasma in the air. Can't say I don't feel it. It's some sort of sick, cancer like substance. Makes me think of rotten teeth, pus, flesh rotting off of bone, etc.

>>2465

Despite english only being my first language, I don't know how to speak or write it.

>>2467

Sophistry is an inferior form of semantics.

>>2465

>A rock doesn't work, unless you consider maintaining itself to be it's task

A rock is incapable of maintaining itself so that isn't it's task. Instead the environment that surrounds the rock is what maintains it, and what creates the environment is the ultimate decider. But there's also an environment within the rock. I think the difference between Work and Being is a difference between a narrow-minded fixation on one particular mode of thinking, and the axioms from which this particular mode of thinking is made from. If you study the axioms, if you observe them, then you're allowed access to more information on the workings of existence.

So a rock DOES maintain itself, but this isn't a work at the level of a rock. It IS a work when you go deeper into the rock, into how it functions (it functions like a rock), what it's made of (it's made up of a rock), and what it's peak existence is like (it's a rock).

>>2333

>Overall, if you're a wizard and can code, chances are you've already written much better magic programs

Really? The only thing close to a magic program I've seen posted or discussed on /fringe/ or any of its affiliates are graphical sigils made with a paint application. That and internet memes.

If you have any magic programs that you've created I'd be very interested to see them.

The heart of Japan probably lays with the divine wind. I wonder what it is about europeans that managed to defeat it. Maybe the Japanese spirit simply waned in the japs?

>>2476

I should make it clear that transactional sex is very inferior compared to marriage. Monogamy being the highest point, but the focus on sex is a vulgar and mistaken view. It's about the relationship between a man and woman.

>>2478

Why do you engage with /sunflower/ and /fringe/?

All I know about ISIS is that it's an effort to destroy ancient artifacts, and pretty much nothing else.

>>2479

Because /occult/ no longer exists.

Haven't been on /fringe/ since long before 8chan went down though.

https://salo-forum.com/index.php?threads/chinese-and-greek-thought-revisited.2554/

I believe Thoughts to be a superior version of my own thought process. And superior in general.

I don't want to add anything else to this thread. Unless my half-digested ideas are to anyone's liking.

>>2486

My only complaint being that he builds "up" too much, and doesn't build "down" enough. The supreme version of this up and down movement should be a movement throughout the entire body, from the toes to the fingers, to the top of the crown. Every segment of your body should be used in thought.

>>2487

The point of building up is to ultimately reach a collapse of reason, when intuition, rationality, belief, faith, and denial reaches a point of emptiness (in the romantic sense, of containing everything), and becomes a simple axiom for even higher constructions.

That's pretty much the only secret to my method of thinking. There's one more but that would require actual experience to talk about, and also would be too "mystical". It'd require being able to see energies in the same way I do.

>>2488

The state of prayer might or might not be a superior version of this. But I don't know.

>>2486

The BO has a chinese way of thinking, so whenever Thoughts references the Chinese in particular he's a good enough analogy to understand it from. At least when it comes to his methods of acquiring information, which are feeble.

You actually have to have a position in order for me to argue against, for, or even try to assimilate it into my own thinking. I can't move a goalpost when there's not a goal.

I didn't read your post beyond the first sentence.

I called the BO a chinese and he revolted.

>>2492

When I said You I meant the BO.

>>2497

I ate a sandwich. My diet has remained nearly the exact same for the past 1.5 years, arguably the past 3 years. And I will never tell anyone here how much I can currently squat.

I touched a hot stove and that scared me. Outside of that no physical injuries.

>>2261

>>2262

One of the more disgusting things about Gnostics is there hatred of life and, inadvertently, hatred of women. Saying the act of birth and procreation (I'll leave the actual process of the "generation of life" non-mystical) evil, or women as naturally being the evil and destructive sex, as I see it this can only form from a fetishistic view of the universe. Most likely one born form resentment.

What is biologically imperfect about life as it is now? How is rot and death imperfect? My viewpoint relies heavily on the acceptance of dirty and ugly things as necessary for the creation of beauty. Humans aren't born to be in a state of perfection, in a state of unchanging immortality, they're born to die and to suffer. I've never asked the religious "why" of existence, I've only ever accepted existence as it has presented itself to me, so whether this is fair isn't something I'd argue about. I would say it is natural. And I would say greater importance should be placed on what you do now, rather than what you're without.

>>2508

The Gnostic view of life, I feel, has slowly perfused into modern Protestant and mainstream-materialistic thought. In it, the corruptible, finite, and sensual nature of this life is somehow divorced from, and independent of, the ideal, eternal life of the ascended master. They view the perfected and pure afterlife as something which exists in a vacuum, disregarding the necessary purified human essence, which has gone through purgative life, that enables and guarantees it.

This is ultimately why birth rates have been falling in the West (and newly 'liberated' East)- people have been indoctrinated to believe that prosperity can come about without struggle. The modern ideal, the 1-child household 0-parent household, is the culmination of that. Give birth to a generation with as little effort and involvement as possible, as little responsibility as possible, and expect that through their lower numbers, they will enjoy greater wealth and satisfaction. "Why would I bring another soul into this world?", the Materialist asks, all the while denying the existence of a soul.

Meanwhile, other races, too simple-minded to philosophize, gladly produce hordes of progeny, with no greater effort expended, and the generation of aryan children, punished by their parents, nation, and "faith", do not even enjoy that dreamt-of abundance.

The West has forgotten that sacrifice brings about prosperity, that the suffering and resentment of sensual life is what purifies the soul for eternity, and that of the 8 children in a poor Russian farmer's household, one is a world-changing genius.

Just like the newborn child is covered in blood, placenta, and skin cell sludge, with lungs struggling to draw their first breath, and eyelids clenched against the horror of the waking world, so the ascended master is born of an imperfect, material life. Countless ones, even.

>>2509

Resentment is natural, and part of the process. Hatred is destructive, and without purpose in human affairs. The Aryan resents, the Jew hates.

This is why modern, woke religion is so destructive. Anything built on a hatred of birth, suffering, and error, such as Buddhism and Protestantism, will only see race that follows it to its very end. The Chinese and Indians can survive the Buddhist and Hindu doctrine only because the average population of roach-like brainlets cannot understand the proper doctrine, and instead follow a primitive Buddhism and Hinduism of the masses, with their idols and personal worship.

Europe does not have this kind of luxury. It used to be that Catholicism, despite its manipulative and deceptive machinations, taught a generative, positive doctrine. Now even that has changed, and only one faith can serve and save Europe.

>>2510

You've nearly sold me on orthodox christianity. I've nearly reached the limit of the kind of thinking I'm employing now.

>>2496

The only thing I've not done entirely yet is be consumed entirely by rationality. Rationality is a purely destructive force that can't create anything new, it can deduce and expand (inward). Maybe I don't know how to rationally move upward?

I don't know how to make music. This is one symptom of my complete inability to rationally see a point in suffering, of moving upward, into exaltation, a point in existence and cultivation.

When I'm in meditation I see all sorts of beings turn around and notice me noticing them. But just as that happens the illusion breaks and I'm back in the void. Is there a way to stay there and interact with them other than keep practicing?

Other than trying to reenact the sensation, vision, and "presence" that the beings held, no. And I wouldn't recommend doing the first one.

Now post what you ate today, this is a food blog thread.

>>2516

Detach from what is happening and accept what your perceptions tell you without thinking about it.

>>2448

This is an argument for the denial of sex, but not an argument for the denial of gender. Trannies assume gender is real, but not sex, and since this moves away from a physical claim into a spiritual one (the existence of categories that exist beyond and despite physical categories) it's much harder to counter.

>>2519

>but not sex

They don't believe sex itself has any relation to gender, although "sex" may or may not be real depending on who the fuck you're talking to. What I mean is that they've separated logical "if penis, man, if vagina, woman", and separated "female" from "vagina" as being two completely unrelated physical and social phenomena, that may or may not have completely different origins.

But I've not seriously taken the time to study the actual arguments anyone has presented, if there are any. These people don't believe "objectivity" exists, it's only a white male social construct made to suppress the enlightened and innocent POC.

My style of posting would legitimately be more suited for twitter.

>>2519

The claim is entirely one based off of a different base in genesis. A male brain can be feminine, but regardless of the extent of its femininity its still a male brain. It has a male body, male genitals, male body structure. This fact alone produces an extreme difference between what a woman actually thinks, and what a man can only imagine a woman thinks like. Ditto for a woman who thinks she's a man.

The separation of gender from sex is in actuality the separation of origins, of where "one belongs".

>>2523

>male body structure

Skeletal and muscle structures, and fat distributions.

I despise how much of an idiot I am.

>>2524

And DNA.

>>2461

>There are a variety of reasons for why people have sex, and I don't think it's just for transactions

Sure, but almost all of the time people are having sex for those reasons they are carrying out assortative mating. The foundation of it is always transactional. Just like with maslow's hierarchy of needs, it's hard to worry about enlightenment when you're dying of exposure and thirst in the desert. Someone in a relationship can't love their partner if they degenerate from the standards they met which led to the relationship. Whether they're physical attributes, financial ones, or mental ones, those criteria being met are what allows the rest to follow. Love cannot survive this foundation being taken out, so it too is transactional. I don't care how divine and pure the feeling between two people is, if one of them gains weight, gets a drinking problem and ceases to act the way they used to, the relationship will fail.

>>2523

>A male brain can be feminine

This is a lie. The studies that show this are based on brains of MtF trans persons who had been taking hormones for 10+ years. It only looks at a small specific brain region. The overall structure of male and female brains is noticeably different from birth. This doesn't mean that there can't be genes out there that cause some males to have effeminate affects, or androphilic tendencies, even autogynophilic tendencies. But these genes would not change the whole brain. I'm rather convinced by the argument that a specific type of homosexual/transgendered person is that way because of a cluster of non sex linked feminity/autogynophilic/androphilic genes. The older brother right hand rule would seem to prove that this is a real phenomenon which even has genes which have evolved to counter it. This isn't nearly the full explanation though and it ignores the fact that most homosexuals seem to have had early life events that might encourage their sexuality to develop in that direction.

Is this a deterministic argument ? Does slamming heroin and feeling like you're having a full body orgasm mean you'll become an addict after the first hit ? These impacts from genes and differently formed brain regions operate at that level. One thing just feels good because of some hard wiring in the brain. They know how to make gay flies by just making them react to the smell of males the way they would normally react to the scent of females. Maybe some people have genes that cause them to get a nice dopamine rush when they put on frilly pink panties. Does a small thing like that mean they were born in the wrong body ? Or do they just have a kink ? What if it goes further than that and seeing themselves as an attractive female and acting like one causes this rush of chemicals in the brain ? It's just this one small section of neurons, the rest of their brain is male, but that one section was made to reward females for doing that kind of thing and it's really good at it, it just found it's way into a male due to an accident. How is the effect this hypothetical brain region has on this person meaningfully different from having a drug addiction ? I'm not trying to get into the metaphysics of this, or deny that souls can get put in bodies that don't match their gender.

>>2530

And Dutton is trying to make a career out of what he's saying, so he has no real reason to really experiment. Is he? I don't know his actual situation. I think Woodley is the more ambitious of the two. His beard is superior.

>>2530

>Is this a deterministic argument

I didn't answer the question. No.

I'm basically making a purely technical and semantic differentiation, and separation, between reality (sex) and social reality (gender). And then making a claim that sex can't be differentiated from gender, that a man can't accurately simulate a woman's mind, due to structural (genetic) barriers. Or, that the virtual can't work beyond the limits of hardware. That's my argument.

And my argument for the denial of sex is based off of the mutability of the structure, of the hardware. That the virtual classification of the hardware is an illusion built from the limitations of a person's ability to know past and future events. This in contrast to idealistic platonic forms. I can't make an argument against this without first discrediting evolutionary (structural mutability based off of environmental factors, with the goal of genetic survival).

But I don't believe there's a goal for evolutionary thought, that's just something tacked on because that's how humans think.

I could probably spend an eternity making these kinds of differentiations.

>>2529

>How is the effect this hypothetical brain region has on this person meaningfully different from having a drug addiction

The only distinction is that drug addiction is mostly chemical, there might be some sense of taboo and thrill associated, and fetishes are more than just chemical. There are a lot of mental associations, positive associations, that lead people to repeat behaviors. Chemicals within the brain obviously play a part, but there's a bigger picture that must be accounted for. I don't know the "why" of trannies.

I can only imagine it's a purely social phenomena.

/christian/ posters on /fringe/ > /christian/ > /fringe/

>>2537

/fringe/ > /sunflower/

>>2534

I believe the hardware itself, and to a uniquely different sense the virtual, is governed by bodies of both virtual and "hard" material, not anthropomorphic or having any characteristic related to "humanity" outside of sharing the fact of existing. I also believe that these bodies are really governed by a single principle which I might as well give the label God to.

This is my most fundamental belief, and the position I took when making these arguments.

The virtual only governed by God through adherence to the same principles of the hardware, despite the greater complexity that virtual existence allows. "Failure" still exists within the virtual, and where failure exists so does necessity, and time.

>>2539

That is to say, I think the void operates within the cosmos rather than against it. That is to say, chaos as it's understood as being "outside of time", rather than being within and of time, doesn't follow.

Japanese curry is sweet. Why?

Was it the jews?

>>2534

I can skip that step and say that regardless of it's mutability, it's real enough at the moment. The argument is similar to denying the existence of a marble statue because it's capable of being changed, shaped, and broken. Regardless, at the state of what is termed a distinct marble statue, it is real.

>>2543

This sort of contradicts the idea of reality being unreal due to it being changing (maya), in that the recognized moment is immortal rather than being inherently subject to the lower material that composes it. The statement of reality being unreal would have to be a statement of reality having no real impact on the person, outside of what the person allows and accepts to be true. Or that there is no reality that is truly distinct from the person.

>>2543

But now I realize this is moving the goalpost away from the problem of evolution and into something that can't be waved away, the destruction and movement of matter to different states. This is absolutely true. If the marble statue isn't an actual attribute within a peculiar formation of a chunk of marble, then the statue doesn't exist outside of the observer.

>>2545

This is a statement of one thing being unreal because it is not present or existent within a structure. If it's present within another, semi-unrelated structure, does it make it real?

Whenever I pump energy into my head so that my eyes go crazy it makes me grow ulcers in my mouth.

Oh and last night I had insomnia but I was able to fix it my imagining myself cutting the tethers that attach me to my thoughts and letting them sink into the sea like rocks.

>>2548

Stop doing that, then. Why are you doing that?

>>2550

I want to be able to see coloured auras, right now all I can see are clear ones which doesn't give me very much information.

>>2551

I only have minor experience with that. I can see auras but colors are extremely opaque, and it's closer to constantly seeing either lightening or "shadows" that lag behind moving physical objects, both inanimate and animate. Why would moving energy into your head help this?

>>2552

I am hoping to develop the etheric organ which generates these visions.

>>2546

>No

Then

>Nothing is real, everything is present in no thing

or

>One thing is true, and it encompasses everything

>Yes

Then

>All things are relative

or

>There's an objective measure which all things are measured from

I must explore complete annihilation and nihilism.

>>2556

I've taken the position of Yes and There's an objective measure which all things are measured from. And:

>One thing is true, and it encompasses everything

If anything separates itself from this one thing, and arrives to a conclusion or a reality that is not this one thing, then it is false. So that's why I consider this statement a "No".

>>2557

>then it is false

If you were to take the position of falsity being true, that something could deviate away from this one thing and still being encompassed by it, then I can't distinguish the difference between holding everything as true and holding nothing as true. So the non-existence of falsity, that a shadow doesn't exist, that the lack of something doesn't create something, has to be taken as true.

Nothing is true would be the position I'm describing, if falsity was taken as truth.

>>2539

>anthropomorphic

Regardless of gods could be said to be anthropomorphic, to share in the qualities of humanity (the opposite would be more true), the actual importance isn't in their human-like appearance, or being, but in what they control and have possession of. It's also fundamentally flawed to assume that there's a similar idea of reality, of what is real and unreal, so thinking in terms of people and relationships is flawed. There are different methods of acquiring information, and I believe the method of interacting with, talking to, and believing in external entities is lesser than directly acting by yourself, with your own knowledge, through your own means. I use lesser rather than inferior, since it interacting with others encompasses less of yourself. (You) could make an argument for that not being possible, but it's from the basis that (You) can't know more, or interact with more, than (You) are that I make this argument.

It's the internal logic, and the possessions, what a person or thing is that makes it valuable, not it's existence or what it represents.

Now onto true nihilism.

You can tell a lot about yourself by the body-type of a person you draw from pure imagination.

Some people's thinking is so rancid, the moment I get closer to the essence of their statements the more I want to throw up.

Broccoli is a terrible vegetable.

>>2563

I can only see and understand three forms of nihilism.

1: Nihilism as relativity, looking between substances and concepts and seeing that no concept is truly encompassed by any other concept, or a tree doesn't exist within the concept of a mountain.

2: Rejection of everything in favor of a position where nothing can be held as true, since it's not immediately self-evident or provable through any means. Being in pain is only a state, and the sensation of pain isn't proof of it.

3: One perspective is true, although baseless, and everything should be viewed or can be viewed and understood through this one perspective/method.

>>2570

>although baseless

My view is that reality is baseless. The void and chaos doesn't exist beyond the state of being unknown. If what you learn closes your world off into a tighter, smaller, and more mapped universe, instead of knowledge bringing more uncertainty, if the flower of emptiness isn't an expanding and constantly blooming force, then your viewpoint is one that's distinctly different from my own.

I'm half certain that doing what I'm doing now is actively destroying my brain cells, into a hyper-specialized tool to find connections from one logical jump to another.

Math is romance.

Lilith as the doll, Rei, rather than a domineering matriarch, and Eve as Asuka. Rei as the mother surrogate, Asuka as the girl given too much autonomy in life.

But I also consider the entire Lilith fanfiction to be garbage, but it's "okay" in Evangelion. Whatever expresses the symbolic concepts the best.

https://discord.gg/uxZkUzr

Non-expire since I'm a faggot.

Here's some edgy music.

>>2193

Where is that gif from? It is very cool.

>>2583

http://angusnicneven.com/

Has anyone else had experiences where doing magic in your car caused it to break down or develop problems?

>>2598

Be careful around electronics and machinery in high states, you can fuck it up and fry it, magic dosn´t always go well with modern things.

Almost all of my money spells have backfired. In that they caused events that costed me money. I'm pretty sure that this is because I use the feeling of interacting with money as my vector. Which is most easily fulfilled by having me paying someone.

I'm going to try and completely forget about the concept of currency and focus entirely on 'prosperity' instead. Already it feels a lot better.

I am fed up with paying taxes so I will begin work on banishing the IRS from this reality. If anyone wants to join me go ahead.

>>2662

Unironically let's do this.

>>2673

That's a wonderful experience, thanks for sharing. Do you feel that this was a past "you" which you reconnected with?

>>2674

Yes, absolutely.

>>2673

This reminds me of the dreams I had before. Especially of the dream in which I was called to meet a strange woman in a red/black dress and after I met her we did sth or she did sth to me which I cannot remember anymore but after which she had to leave or dissapeared but I felt extremely good and changed. In fact it felt so good that I remembered that feeling for days after and longed to feel it again (and still do). She had quite a epic presence and seemed to be powerful. Blood Anon said it might have been a past life of me. It's kinda cool now to read that other people are meeting such strange women too lol. But for me it was in a dream while for you it seemed to happen in a obe.

I haven't had any special feeling dream that I rembered in quite a while now which I find kinda dissapointing but just this morning when it was still early I heard my name being called so clearly and loud by my dad (he wasn't in the house btw) that it really woke me up and I wondered if he or somebody calls for me but soon enough I realized that I am alone. I don't even know if I was asleep before that incident or already half-awake.

Anyway, thanks for sharing. It's interesting to read that and kinda reassuring for myself.

Anyone experiment with buying other peoples' souls?

Before I got into magic, just for fun, I asked for for the rights to materialist's soul on an online forum, and he gave it to me. A few months afterwards I dropped my phone in some water and it completely stopped working. I decided I'd just try to offer up the soul I had rights to to whatever god or spirit would be willing to fix my phone. The next day it started working again and it eventually fully recovered from the water damaged, almost as though it was healing itself.