Page 11 of 13 « First<910111213>
Topic Options
#37572 - 04/13/10 02:18 PM To Doomsage [Re: Doomsage680]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Knowledge is power. Knowledge comes in the form of ideas. Sharing ideas is a sharing of power, often an imposition of will, but often only a sharing of power. Ideas are shared through communication.

Yes it is. Yes they are. Power over what though? I believe it's power over fear, and everything we do to cover the world with knowledge, indicates that.

"In making a statement you cannot help but push your will, your abstracts, forth onto others. You cannot help this because this is what speech does. Disagree?
Point made.
Disagree?

Point made again."
This is circular logic. You say speech is an imposition of will.

Wait. Not all speech - direct one-to-one speech. Yes I do.

Then you say disagreement is itself imposition of will, when really, speech itself is not necessarily imposing, and neither is disagreement.

Disagreement is an assertion of your will. Again - direct speech is an imposition of will. Indirect speech/posting/text is not as much an imposition but still to some degree is.


Point not made, point not made again. Nothing has been imposed.

Because it's not direct speech. THIS, what I
m doing now to explain myself or make you see my POV, is.


Speech is only words, not force. And my saying this is not imposing anything on you or anyone who reads it either.

I think it is. Because you are replying to me and challenging assertions made by my will which gets the ego's involved directly.

You can believe so if you choose, but that is you imposing what you think is my will on yourself, something only you have the power to do.

It's too late, my ego has got involved because of the direct element of speech. So now our wills are waiting to see what each other will do and are ready to defend the points made rather than just let them hang in space. They have very definite views, ego's, and this is my ego writing.


Thinking that speech is an imposing of will is a great way to get offended easily, though. You say some of this yourself later.

Direct speech. And direct speech is different because it is prompted by something pushing against the ego.

"It is okay for you to read what I have to say and take any of it into consideration you have then made the choice to impose my will on you, on your own."



Edited by Khk (04/13/10 02:19 PM)

Top
#37588 - 04/14/10 02:47 AM Re: To Doomsage [Re: Khk]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
LOLOLOLOL

KHK you really did have something to say after all that nebulous mind-screwing didn't you?

Honestly, I never said as much but always suspected you of just trolling around talking about THEM as if it were an organization that had any real effect in the world outside of their own minds.

This concept you have of words being limiting, while questionable at best, seems to have something of some hidden interest in it to me. Your thoughts on direct speech seem to have some truth to them. And reading your comments and my own words seemed to be an interesting conversation, as if I had known beforehand what your train of thought was. Unless I did...

"You can believe so if you choose, but that is you imposing what you think is my will on yourself, something only you have the power to do."

"It's too late, my ego has got involved because of the direct element of speech. So now our wills are waiting to see what each other will do and are ready to defend the points made rather than just let them hang in space. They have very definite views, ego's, and this is my ego writing."

The direct element of speech does nothing to force you to have to respond. Your ego all ready being involved is not something any entity outside of yourself can force/allow.

Sure I will mostly always respond but I am willing to admit it is because I have decided to participate in this discussion and because I like direct confrontation of beliefs- I am either right, or am wrong, and I love to learn when I am wrong. My current beliefs are a result of completely confronting and scrutinizing everything I have ever believed, so the thought of change is as resisted as it is welcomed. But I can decide to be ignorant if I wanted to. I choose to allow my ideas to come under fire because it has never failed me in the past. Words can do that. They unlock the truth, and the truth can set you free. Baseless subjective assumptions for children. Communication necessitates words, and knowledge is spread via words. Your abhorrence of them has legitimate reasons but is in itself unreasonable. Reality is a self-evident virtue for me.
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#37594 - 04/14/10 08:14 AM Re: To Doomsage [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Zophos Offline
member


Registered: 03/28/10
Posts: 115
Loc: U.S.A.
Hear hear. Feel free of course, but I honestly wouldn't even bother. In five attempts at rebuttal, Khk has done nothing but repeat his/her initial assertion, rationalizing a dogmatic refusal to examine the veracity of his/her own claims or put them against a body of potentially superior reasoning (e.g., Grayling) and all the while either ignoring or failing to realize that the attempt to defend such claims rests on the same body and mode of reasoning as that which he/she says is circular and merely an "imposition of will." Adding the subjective qualifier "For me!" demonstrates a total lack of understanding about the nature of what is being argued in the first place. As I said in my last response, I have nothing more to add and no desire to waste my time with argumenta ad nauseam, but I will close by calling a spade a spade with an image to which I linked there.



The defense rests, Your Honor.


Z.
_________________________
Nihil sit tam infirmum aut instabile quam fama potentiae non sua vi nita.

Top
#37615 - 04/14/10 11:26 PM Re: To Doomsage [Re: Zophos]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
This was a trial?
Top
#37616 - 04/14/10 11:33 PM Re: To Doomsage [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
I'll reply when I can in full - but both of you gentleman mistake my convictions as being an either/or scenario. Interpreting that what I am saying is that language CANNOT serve a purpose or that LOGIC IS useless and circular. Logic, and Zopho's logic - is impeccable - on its own plane.
Language, which I have cited as a necessary "evil" - is not evil it is at best neutral but English was derived from latin, the Churche's universal language and thus contains restraints of time and morality - it doesn't have a sentience that seeks to deceive - it simply omits information via its function as a filter. My aims are to reveal the functions of ego and the subtle functions and processes in interaction without engaging your egos, but that is too late too - you seem to think the ego is a dirty word something to be ashamed of by my saying that it has jumped in - but its not, like language, it has a function and its function is stasis of belief, orientation of thought and form - and it fights on the behalf of what it believes regardless of the fact that each ego's beliefs are subjective - as are mine. Both Language, Logic are all extremely powerful adept tools used by humans to create the Empires we have, but they themselves are both a product of something deeper than is always obscured by this process of the ego jumping in - fear.

Top
#37617 - 04/15/10 12:04 AM Language and its limits [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Okay, here is one of the glaring problems that I see with language.

Firstly - it is utilized and put into motion by the ego.

Secondly - the ego is a function that aims to preserve its stasis - everything from its name, identity, beliefs, and orientation in the world. (Because of its history with Fear.)

Thirdly - whenever the ego writes using language, because the way language IS - it omits information by focusing the mind's contents into structures that cannot help but push other structures out of the visible way. Words, are like magnets, they can attract and repel on another - and to say one thing in words, has a counter-reaction that pushes something else away. Two things that don't go together are not able to be used by the ego, so it discards all nonsensensical data.

But - what is happening here, through this same process each of us are applying, is that language is limiting the potential of expression by translating it into words. I do not believe in the either/or - my ego does - and if I don't use a language that other egos understand - it is rejected. Yet, I want to communicate, that is my human bent, my intrinsic desire - but how to do it without falling into the trap of the above?

If I say something in language, it begins to immediately cancel out alternate views, alternate angles, because the words on the page limit the potential of expression; there are of course every other possible theory and point and counter-point that can be made (language incites them, invents them, thrives on them) but even if they too are as valid as my own point - to even make a point - one cannot write down every single possible thing about every other single thing so that nothing is excluded. One cannot 'beat' language at its own game of multiplying itself. (As does Logic).

So, that is why I accept that my views may be right as well as wrong - but THAT is irrelevant to me - and the cause of much writing and anxious egos rushing to assert - while what is relevant to me, is to somehow reveal the process we are each using to put together our thoughts, transmit them, and understand them that happens before our egos jump in, or before we tangle ourselves in language and logic and form. Of course, purely and precisely BECAUSE my views are subjective, every other ego that doesn't agree with them jumps in. I do't care if I'm proved wrong or right in the language plane, logic plane, but I am struggling to make something visible that has been invisible for thousands of years and taken for granted as the means to Be.

It's like pushing a rock up a hill, what's his name, Sisyphus? though, everytime the ego jumps in - because the whole process proceeds forward in this mode without taking stock of the very subtle engines that engage that mode. We get lost in words and logic and language and lose a great deal of information in the process. Call me mad, crazy and all that - but it's just a point of view - and if it's so crazy, why are our ego's getting so upset about it? Are you in control, or is it? It is a defense mechanism, like logic or language, designed ot protect us, insulate us, and define us so that we may function, have a gorunding base from which to proceed - and it works marvellously. But it is not all there is.

I reduce all of our human experience and action to resulting from a reaciton to fear.

Top
#37618 - 04/15/10 12:20 AM Re: Language and its limits [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Taking this in hand; if you don't mind Zophos,

Your above example of the fallibility of language proves only that you do not recognize the power language has to change the world around us. Of course, you could contend that these changes do not concern you, or that they do not constitute any change worthy of concern. Even so, people have used their mastery of language for thousands of years to effect change in their surroundings. Just look at religion as an example. It is a fantastic mind-control machine, and is changing the world on a daily basis. People parrot the words and ideas they have received, inifecting others along the way. It is the ultimate negation of sense, reason and intellect in favour of faith, loss of self and suppression of heterogeneity.

- Perhaps Zophos, my above example does do what you say it does, But what if I also believe that what you say is true but haven't written it down alongside the first supposition? That both my view and your view are equally valid as well as many other views too. What if I want to share something from my mind that can't be understood without tensioning it by the inclusion or absence of something else? What swings the vote, is it objective reality or the determination of the ego to have its own way? Why cannot two, or more things co-exist - sure, Hot can't be Cold, but that is because Hot is the tension of Cold. Cold explains Hot. Hot can't be Felafels, because Hot and Felafels have a tension that keep them apart specifically to denote seperate 'things'. Words have tensions that pull them together and force them apart and we each Know this because we choose our words Very carefully.
My words trap the all-ness of potential, *shrug don't know another word* they seek to singularize the limitless possibility of all ideas and thoughts into singular blocks on the page - simply because one cannot express something like the mind's full contents using words, any number of words - but that is where the idea originates - in the fullness of the mind's content and its extensions and connections to everything else, including the subconscious content famous for its insanity. In fact, pushed back by our ego so that insanity didn't overwhelm.

Even so, people have used their mastery of language for thousands of years to effect change in their surroundings.

Yes they have - that is true - but what if language were more than it appears, if it were for more than communication, and communication were for more than sharing ideas, if ideas themselves were a function that arose out of necessity to survive - the singlemost important trait in all human beings observable today. And again - in language, x often negates y - while inside our heads, x = abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz+. Only when we try to communicate x - does it become x - and then a problem for y. abcdefghij might make it in, but there's only so much that can be done to share every view available, because they are all equally valid as subjective inference.

By negating the mind's power to change your surroundings, you are abdicating a real source of power. Of course, no one is forcing you to accept the notion that language has any power in itself, but it makes you look pretty silly arguing your case without it.

But by trying to understand the mind's power by pushing its main habitual functions aside, we may learn more about it and everything else than we ever have before.

Top
#37620 - 04/15/10 01:47 AM Sensation of Propulsion [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
LOLOLOLOL

KHK you really did have something to say after all that nebulous mind-screwing didn't you?

Yes of course I do - but it's new so I've no idea how or if it can be communicated in a better way - I'm a pioneer so all I can do is keep trying. Imagine, guys/girls, that for whatever reason,
because of the drugs you took, the experiences you had, or whatever - that your brain was hard-wired differently to other brains, had made a chance leap (you could call it evolution?) and discovery that you were aware of having, but because it was so new had no way to share it - but something in you WANTED to share it, forced you to persevere even without the words or the convenience of words to do it.

Honestly, I never said as much but always suspected you of just trolling around talking about THEM as if it were an organization that had any real effect in the world outside of their own minds.

I'm not going to say I haven't spruiked the Temple - but that's not all I do or have done. If you felt what I think you felt, then you know for yourself there is more than just clever wordplay behind all my efforts to get my point across.

This concept you have of words being limiting, while questionable at best, seems to have something of some hidden interest in it to me. Your thoughts on direct speech seem to have some truth to them. And reading your comments and my own words seemed to be an interesting conversation, as if I had known beforehand what your train of thought was. Unless I did...

What is vitally important here, is that I suspect you actually FELT the propulsive momentum of something in you on a physical or mental plane - you FELT the subtle energy I'm talking about going into action where as before you've probably always been unconscious of it. Getting people to FEEL the physical or psychic or mental propulsions (I don't know what they are or where they come from) is tantamount to communicating on a new level whilst being forced to MAKE words say what they aren't designed to say. Because that awareness changes the driving mechanism of consciousness from the dominance of the ego to the ego and an else.

If you can FEEL your ego going to task, and sense something more than abstracti suggestion present in the process I am speaking about as a reaction, as a resistance, a force, an energy, or whatever, THEN you have an intuitive understanding of what I am communicating without and beyond the power of any description however creative. You Feel what I Feel: beyond abstraction and as a pure communication not from me, but your own body and being.



A beautiful way to say this, not my quote: quote unknown: To use language is to standardize thought.


Edited by Khk (04/15/10 01:58 AM)

Top
#37621 - 04/15/10 02:11 AM The 2nd problem with language and its limits: [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Is that language, evolved to cover things out of fear. Strong remnants of it remain in all language and form and communication;

I am often arguing against language and other ego's - which often skip conscious knowledge of the processes that engage them in the first place in favour of launching its defense mechanisms of the rational mind. It does this simply because its so used to not noticing those prior processes - is in fact encouraged by the entire world to do exactly that - to FORGET them - and that, precisely because covering things is the human beings time-honoured modus operandi of survival.







Edited by Khk (04/15/10 02:12 AM)

Top
#37623 - 04/15/10 02:47 AM Physis of the Sinister [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
A copy of my working, Physis of the Sinister, is now available as a free file from my 101 group. It's more than 50 pages and so I haven't just posted it here.

If you want to know why I think the way I do, what my proofs and evidence are for my assertions, then this is the file to read.

Top
#37640 - 04/15/10 09:34 PM Re: Language and its limits [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
A falafel wouldn't be hot to a volcano, or the surface of the sun. It would, however, be *hotter* to the coldness of deep space, for example. The tension you describe arose out of the conceptions of your mind, and are a priori suppositions based on your subjective experiences. They cease to have any value when faced with the overriding imperatives of objective reality. E.g.: have you ever made an ice cream cone spontaneously combust by force of mind alone?

No.

Likewise, the linguistic tensions you describe are man-made constructs, *not* something holding discrete existence. Ever opened a grammar book and found a specific temperature range that qualifies as 'hot' or cold'? I sure haven't, even though I've spent a lot of time studying languages.

No. But that's not what I'm trying to communicate - I'm not trying to prove right or wrong, subjective or objective - and that's the problem with trying to communicte it using words, people are getting hung up on the words - not the process that engages them. I'm trying to communicate the propulsive momentum of the ego as a sensation that occurs before we write ANYTHING.

However, I can also see the hand guiding you to think such a thing, and it is Rand's Witch Doctor holding your mind hostage. Someone has told you that your beliefs somehow have a higher quality of existence than what they termed 'the causal universe'. This leads to all kinds of logical fallacies and is detrimental to your critical thinking.

Yes it would I agree - but in this case, the logic, the words, the ideas are all irrelevant and secondary causal effects to the first effect of the propulsion of the ego.


And that's all they remain; subjective inferences. A priori ramblings. The human mind is uniquely susceptible to the illogical and counter-intuitive. A good lie, a good joke or a riddle are all things that stick to our thought patterns like flies to fly paper. Simply saying because you can imagine something it must exist is like a xtian phenomenon that has been debunked before.

OK - but in debunking what I am trying to do - consider why each of you are trying to do it.

Imagining an acausal universe and saying it exists and has a higher-quality existence than this one because you say so,

Sorry mate, where did I say an acausal universe? That's older ONA lingo, and you did infer earlier that I would turn it into acausal things, but I haven't and didn't.

and because a second-hand source claims knowledge of it doesn't make it so. It just makes it a bad joke at your expense, and I hate to see clever people being made fools of. You're better than this.

Thanks, friend, but I'm no stranger to people telling me I'm a fucking idiot with no sense in my head - I can take it. I've been patient all my life and persistent, I'm not about to stop because just one more person tells me I'm wrong. But this is not about secondhand knowledge, its about what I fele in my head when I go to write, or what I discern happening in others heads when they act the way they do - based on my research over more than a decade with the mind. I'm clearly NOT a university scholar, I don't have the skills to present things in academic fashions, but I know what I know goddamnit and all this talking is still just obscuring it. It's not that I don't tihnk you undestand me - it's because you're trying to use the mind to -understand- that is the very problem in trying to show you that the mind is like our body, it has moving parts and discernable sensations if you take the time to shut down the talking thinking part and detach to watch it in action. I don't say that everything comes from fear for nothing. I've done a lot of study and exploration. Sure, I don't expect people to care or give it more than a nod, they have their own live, but this is important to me and maybe it is strange and new, buts if people keep focusing on the words we're using and trying to be right or wrong then they are missing the point of what I'm trying to communicate (not SAY) - yet affirming what I am saying about the ego by doing exactly what they're doing.

I'm dismissing *your* beliefs here, because they are yours, but I'm questioning the logic you use when dismissing critical thought. Any mental construct/meme that is hostile to critical thinking by default is one which has poor chances of survival when faced with a critical mind.

I'm a magician, not a logician. If Zophos's logic was impeccable he'd have noticed that I did send him a link to my assertions on the tautology of why but he just didn't want to use it. Then when he offered me books to read I refused on the same grounds that if he wasn't going to hear me out, why should I hear him out? Now he's all upset and its gone down to personal attacks - something else which definitely shows the nature of the ego in action - except to the ego. And that's fine man, I'm not going to get upset for your dismissing my beliefs - I'm not ATTACKING your beliefs, you can have your beliefs, whatever they are, it just doesn't change anything for me because I don't need reassurance of them.

Oh, for sure. No question about it. But the moment you say your *beliefs* and your subjective perceptions are more true than objective reality in the face of all evidence to the contrary you are doing yourself a disservice.

Yes sure - on some level - but thats not what I'm saying. And all that we're all saying is only making more noise that hides the point I AM trying to communicate. *shrug* But I don't see that reality is objective. You can call a chair a chair, but there are thousands of other levels that whatever we percieve in that space to be occupied by a chair - can be. But that's irrelevant too.

There are all kinds of mental constructs the mind is better off without. Logic and critical thinking are not among them. They are the lowest common denominator for all development of intelligence.

I don't disagree - but this argment should never have descended into something about logic's power - because I was trying to use language, despite its limitations, to illustrate the propulsive momentum of the ego in action whenever we go to speak. That's why direct speech is unsuitable for communication of anything except what is acceptable - it is not a language for esoteria.

Language *is* biased; you're right about that. All languages lend themselves particularly well to the individual's survival in the environments the languages were developed in. Icelandic has a single word for 'taking revenge for your father's death'. Eskimos have, famously, oodles of words for 'snow'. The Japanese language does not have a word for fighting, which is a weird trait of a language developed in such a historically warlike culture. However, they work around this deficiency, and there is a huge number of ways in which ancient battles are described regardless of this shortcoming.

Yeah, but language being biased is just one way of showing the thing I'm trying to communicate, by weakening the ego's confidence in language - it might just shut the fuck up and feel itself.

Language is primarily descriptive. Its shortcomings and flaws are not always the result of design, so there's no need to get paranoid about it. It can be used for manipulation, which may or may not be the main reason it was originally developed. Even so, language in itself is no more dangerous than, say, a loaded weapon.

No man, you're right about all that, as right as you can well be wrong pending who comes at you with what - but language is dangerous because it is weilded by the ego to protect the ego - and language is a tool that can be used to argue anything ad nauseum - see tautology of why in 101 (or if everyone is too paranoid to go there where its convenient for me to collect my thoughts in one place, Ill post it) - it is a tool that allows anyone to slip out of anything precisely because of the way it has been constructed. Yes, useful, etc but also in this case dangerous because it obscures our own conscious awareness of the functions of our psyche by getting us tangled in abstractions that cause us to get distracted and ignore its physical/mental movements prior to language being engaged.

Without a skilled wielder, the weapon is inert. In the hands of an unskilled wielder, it becomes dangerous not only to the wielder's surroundings, but to the wielder him/herself.

Oh yes, we're all skilled at using it. That's the problem.

To mirror your question: By pushing our notions of language as an intrisically foreign concept aside, don't you think we could learn a whole lot - not just about language, but about our own consciousness?

Yes and we have - but this communication of mine is not out of the blue madness, its an attempt to go further on in my work which culminated in a knowledge of knowledge and fear at the root cause of human interaction - and can go no further backward from there, having now been written down as the root cause of Being the way we are, I have to now trace that text's causal origin as coming from my head and wonder why.

Don't agree with me, thats ok, doesnt matter, you're still using the process I'm talking about. agree with me, cool, thanks, but you're still using the process I'm talking about. and in both cases, your ego is getting the better of you because you can't feel it, literally feel it moving to type, to react, to think, to retort. If you each could - then that might change the world.

You're right, lots of you, on many levels - but for the last time, this is not about being right, its about the engine that tells you if something is right or wrong.


It's about a PHYSICAL sensation that occurs - that you can feel - your psyche moving - not all the stuff that comes after it has happened.




Edited by Khk (04/15/10 09:56 PM)

Top
#37641 - 04/15/10 09:47 PM Re: Language and its limits [Re: Khk]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Language, Logic, Critical Thining, Value Judgements... etc, ad nauseum - where do they all come from?

From you.

Which part of you? Because we know there is more than just the conscious part. We know there something called the ego. We don't know why we are so afraid though - and why the ego came to be instead of humanity just remaining unconscious the rest of its life. We accepted a stage of evolution occurred once in human thinking, so why not again? because its on a forum? written by some guy who doesnt make any sense because he's not using any of the normal procedures for talking? Consciousness doesn't have to remain seated in the skull.

Now, look all you people out there, I'm sorry if this is a drag for you - I'm sorry if I can't make myself clearer - but I don't have much choice but to keep trying, its how I am - and its not a pleasant place because I appear to be alone here in feeling my psyche's subtleness. But what choice do I have - I'm clearly not able to share what I think/know because it's not something that involves thinking, knowing. It something that puts all that stuff into play first. And that's the nature of who I am. And I'm going to keep trying, because I think I'm onto something that would be a terrible loss to let go.



Edited by Khk (04/15/10 09:52 PM)

Top
#37647 - 04/16/10 02:07 AM Re: Language and its limits [Re: Khk]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
Khk,
how do you know I am not fully aware of my ego? I too have spent years of introspection and ridding myself of guilt(the concept, not just specific things) and to say I am not aware my ego reacts in the form of language is to underestimate my knowledge of psychology. That our ego's control what we say, how we say it, and even that they reveal why, is not a new thought. It might be new to you, and certainly feels new when one begins to become aware of it, but this concept of knowingly experiencing insecurity and the ego's will is not exactly groundbreaking.
Though I did understand your earlier posts, I can say that I have never felt propulsion on any plane other than the one I know to exist- the material plane. I have falsely believed in the existence and participation on other planes, with non-earthly beings, but have since acknowledged the power of the mind to conceive and deceive.

I can tell you, as someone with years of experience in public speaking(debate), rapping(including freestyling, which is spontaneous thought-verbalization of ideas) and singing in choir(connecting emotion and disciplined self-control to language) I can say that language is only limiting if you allow it to be. If you feel language is limiting, make up some new words. Friends will learn their definitions through use and the more descriptive the word, the more easily it might be picked up.

Language is the most powerful tool of expression the human body can independently create, other than dance(I'm probably forgetting something). Learn it well and you will never feel limited by it, but rather, liberated.
It's a human construct anyway. Be a Satanist.

Go in peace to Construct and Manifest yourself to the world.
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#37668 - 04/16/10 03:56 PM Re: Language and its limits [Re: Doomsage680]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
Khk,
how do you know I am not fully aware of my ego? I too have spent years of introspection and ridding myself of guilt(the concept, not just specific things) and to say I am not aware my ego reacts in the form of language is to underestimate my knowledge of psychology.

I don't - and can't. I cant know if what I feel to be the ego is what you feel either. And it is all too easy to underestimate people - or for people to feel underestimated online due to the overwhelming lack of information. But being aware of your ego could mean something different than I mean to feeling your ego?

That our ego's control what we say, how we say it, and even that they reveal why, is not a new thought. It might be new to you, and certainly feels new when one begins to become aware of it, but this concept of knowingly experiencing insecurity and the ego's will is not exactly groundbreaking.

No - you're right - what about locating the ego within the skull as a sensation? I think I can bring out what I'm trying to demonstrate using an experiment... But it's really my interest in FEAR and the egos role in it that ties it in and brings the ego into my field of vision.

Though I did understand your earlier posts, I can say that I have never felt propulsion on any plane other than the one I know to exist- the material plane. I have falsely believed in the existence and participation on other planes, with non-earthly beings, but have since acknowledged the power of the mind to conceive and deceive.

I could try something to see if it works. But I don't know if it will work or just cloud the issue further.


I can tell you, as someone with years of experience in public speaking(debate), rapping(including freestyling, which is spontaneous thought-verbalization of ideas) and singing in choir(connecting emotion and disciplined self-control to language) I can say that language is only limiting if you allow it to be. If you feel language is limiting, make up some new words. Friends will learn their definitions through use and the more descriptive the word, the more easily it might be picked up.

I feel language is many things - but it is still a key to my studies and whether it is useful or not is mostly irrelevant to them.

Language is the most powerful tool of expression the human body can independently create, other than dance(I'm probably forgetting something). Learn it well and you will never feel limited by it, but rather, liberated.
It's a human construct anyway. Be a Satanist.

I sincerely appreciate your tone and time - though I am unsure if I have made my points clear enough on reading what you got from them?

Top
#37670 - 04/16/10 04:54 PM Re: Language and its limits [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Khk Offline
member


Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 398
OK - but in debunking what I am trying to do - consider why each of you are trying to do it.


Because it's good to pick at thoughts to see if they'll withstand the stress. Good thoughts stand. Bad ones fail. You end up with ideas that are sound. I don't want to debunk you to see you fail. I want to pick at your brains. Er. You know what I mean...

Yes I think so. ;\)

I like your ideas. They're fresh and different. You seem game to discuss them, so I'm discussing them. If your ideas are any good, I'll use them. If they're not, I won't, but I'll still have learned something. Either way, we both win. It's no mystery. The moment we descend into ad hominem attacks and cheap insults, everybody loses. Nobody learns anything.

Thanks man. I don't know if my ideas and the foundations behind them can be made very clear without reading my other work which focuses in more detail on many things including time, space, and language, human evolution, and physis. There is a huge body of work that I have produced leading me to my conclusions - which are mostly centred right now on the premise that fear and its absence are the motivation behind human behaviour. But as with you, I appreciate your tone and time - I have a great deal of patience to see things through and it helps, especially when dealing with matters of the ego because they can easily get hurt, jump to the wrong conclusions, and it can be messy trying to sort out the aftermath. I think, if I am able to navigate all of the challenges and probably just defensive personal attacks on a lot of different levels with the way I think - then one might conclude there is a strong continuity and foundation in it that allows all of these divergent rivers of information to come together easily. That makes me think, I am either, mad as two snakes rubbed together i.e. a psychopath who can't see others views - or, onto something that allows me to simultaneously process all views. My experiences with ONA and THEM might have helped it along.


You are quite adept at outlining your ideas, I think, so I'll discuss them with you. If we keep it civil, we can both learn something, and sometimes we can even learn something if we argue our points aggressively. The point is not the ego (different use here than the ego you mention; I'm talking about the part of you that needs reassurance and comfort and the occasional compliment) but rather the adoption of the right kinds of ideas and the exercise of your mental faculties.

I try to be coherent. It's not always easy. I don't know if your interested in arming yourself with more of my thought process to help you understand where I'm coming from better so that you can ask me more pressing questions based on that knowledge - but if you are, I have six or so papers that are key to understanding what the hell angle I am coming from. RADIA SOL, IN SINISTER SOLIDARITY, THEORY OF THE BEAST, DIVINE JOY, AN ANALYSIS OF FREQUENCY, THE 23 CURRENT, CHRONO-BET. They're all free downloads from Ryan Anschauung wordpress or the Nonagon or I can send them to you. I don't mean to be forcing things down your throat, but these papers are each detailed analyses of things that require a lot of space to relate, and I hope that people appreciate I wrote them down for people to read so as not to have to re-write them anytime I wanted to mention them - because if I was to try and touch on them here I'd need dozens of pages of text. I am also trying to elaborate on my grand theory using 101 to progressively explore and break things down. please feel free to take a look, its like a giant but more organized paper. Alternately, I am more than happy to stay and chat.

I try to be right not because it would mean some sort of qualitative benefit it would give me to be the one who's right, but because being right is better than being the one who's right, if you see my meaning. I know this can seem weird, but the moment we hang on to our ideas in spite of being wrong, we are doing ourselves a disservice. I do appreciate what you're trying to do, and it seems like an interesting bit of introspection you're engaging in. You're basically trying to see what's hiding in your psyche. It's something most people don't have the stomach for. I wish you luck. Sincerely.

Yes - and in the psyches of everyone else - looking for a constant that would explain Everything. I thought I found it with my RADIA SOL ms which was a theory of ego and selves having unique emanations that acted like radio waves on one another - but ego and self are abstractions - I looked deeper, further back, as far back as I could go based on the evidence I could observe in the world today, in front of me right now, all around me, and as a consciousness - and reduced everything to a reaction caused by fear. The ego functions as the key reducer of human fear by controlling things, naming things, and plays an important part - not yet determined - in my work.

I see where we got off wrong here. Our *perceptions* are not true, sadly. Our perceptions - sight, for example - are limited by our ability to only perceive certain wavelengths of radiation. To an insect seeing into the ultraviolet, colours are very different. Also, to a creature with limited depth perception, objects appear as something other than to you and I. Our perceptions are incomplete; this is true. However, this doesn't mean that for our intents and purposes we can't utilize the terminology for all the benefits it entails.

Yes - I both apply the factor of limitation but also constructivity - I don't draw clear lines between things being things or not being things. Our perceptions can be as close to real as we can get, they can very well be illusions in one sense, but still real enough to work wonders and magic - in the sense that we have covered the world with such wonders precisely because we trusted our perceptions. The view I am taking would not be... servicable... for use in the daily world, if you decided you could walk through a bus because of quantum or power over the mind, I think you'd get hit by it regardless. I do not dispute that something solid is there - only question whether calling it a bus is its true name, or just a convenient label; which little silly example leads on to more important examples with heavier connotations.

We perceive the world through our limited sensory apparatus and relate to it through our imperfect language. Even so, there is - sadly - no way you can suddenly develop the ability to see electro-magnetism with the naked eye. At present, anyway... If we could perceive everything in its magnificent, multi-faceted splendour, I have a hunch our minds would shut down from sensory overload. Interesting thought, but the simple negation of our sensory impressions as misguiding is insufficient for a wholesale dismissal of them. We want *greater* perception, not lesser.

Visual stimulus is not what I would contend to be as important for greater perception than our size... I believe that for most people, consciousness is seated in the skull, giving rise to a human-centred perspective; i.e. we percieve things in a very certain way due to our specific Size, and thus importance to other things, directly in relation to how big we are. How big we are, changes our time perception, and so on. There is however, a huge problem in working with the ego on the level I am trying to - which is getting it to admit it is afraid. Any psychologist will tell you that to unearth sensitive details from a person requires utmost care and long periods of time, trust building and established methods. Trying to get our collective egos to admit they do what they do because they are afraid - is a highly explosive, dangerous, and messy business - because they are super touchy about being probed if they get probed the wrong way.

As for your contentions about your psyche and the way it moves in ways that cannot be fathomed within the framework of language and cognition - Cool. I say go for it. I think you're onto something interesting, but you're going about it in a way that's different from the way I did it. I've done my share of introspection as well, and became all the better for it. However, that's just my perception of the matter, and others might contend that it made me worse. \:\)

Well maybe both of you would like to help me conduct an experiment. Presently I can think of only one way to bring out the reaction without bringing on more talking.

I try to be right not because it would mean some sort of qualitative benefit it would give me to be the one who's right, but because being right is better than being the one who's right, if you see my meaning. I know this can seem weird, but the moment we hang on to our ideas in spite of being wrong, we are doing ourselves a disservice. I do appreciate what you're trying to do, and it seems like an interesting bit of introspection you're engaging in. You're basically trying to see what's hiding in your psyche. It's something most people don't have the stomach for. I wish you luck. Sincerely.

See, I can't touch this - I recognize this as a gentle way of your ego making its stasis known. Even though -I- want to tell you that there is another explaination for your behaviour -I- am aware that it is my ego getting defensive because there is a burning anxious propulsion in my skull that wants desperately to write something else to make you conform to its view (the imposition of will I was talking about)- but which -I- know would be both impolite, and etiquette suicide.

I don't see that language and logic are my own inventions,

No they're not your inventions, just something you have accepted as a standard tool for life - they were invented before you, but you use them to perform the same function the inventors did.

but I've learned how to use them - and, not leastly, perceive their shortcomings! - and thereby grow from my application of those tools. I've used other parts of my psyche as well, and those experiences were in many ways more important to me than becoming *clever*. Any monkey can become clever given time, but strength of will can only be developed by those who repeatedly get back up in the face of adversity.

Well said man.


If this is the will and character you are fighting to develop I can only applaud you. The will is key to all self-betterment. However, you are taking your dismissal of objective reality so far I fear you'll become lost.

My dismissal, as you have probably already gathered from comments about the bus, does not deny that there is solid masses, bumps, landscapes, earth, and forces like gravity, the sun, the tides, etc - it is very hard to analogise - but imagine that I see the world as composed of a black clay. Just black clay that anyone can come along, and mould. In moulding it, they add colours, and shapes, and put flags up and cities and use the clay (by exerting their will) to their advantage. But, everything that is made of the clay is temporary. It will dissolve without sufficient will to keep it there, or if another stronger will decides to change the shape. The black clay is amorphous, and has no name. The shapes that are made form it by will, are given names to distinguish them from the totality of the black clay. These names are attachments to something that has no name. Attachments for convenience - but always temporary. Thus a chair, is willed from a tree, into wood, into that shape - but without someone to look after it, keep it out of the rain, polish it, it eventually loses its chair formation. But note that even the chair is still part of the black clay, there is no separation from it even if the chair is thrown up high and appears seperate, it is still part of one unified nameless thing. We might call it matter, but when we call it things, we change it with our wills. See, the six mansucripts I mentioned for more on this theory...? So what I am dismissing, is THAT philosophically there can BE an objective reality - but for the purpose of survival I settle for practicing its existence where necessary.


I hate to see people of worth get bogged down by ideas they cling to so fervently they lose perspective. I'm not talking about common sense or herd mentality here, but rather a structure of thinking that has become self-reinforcing and rigid.

Aye - but mine is not. It shifts and changes, and in order to pin some things down, sometimes, other things have to be presented in a particular fashion - and due to being excluded by being written out into space somewhere as seperate from my total idea, they may be construed as something they are, for me not, which is isolated ideas at the expense of others. If there is no objectivity - as I claim - then it does not render other peoples views inert - it does somthing much trickier for which I have no word or description and can only say everything becomes of equal value all at the same time whilst retaining all perceivable differences too.

I support your cause of chaos to the extent that sometimes we must destroy and dismiss the past in order to move forward and grow. However, sometimes we let go of things that have potential merit, and which could be better employed as our tools than compost filler.

I agree with you there. I have made something of a reputation on recording my life from the age of 12 showing all the many things I have believed unassailable and my transition from that iron-clad belief into something else... This is just another stage.

The mind's ability to know itself and develop into something pure and strong is something we're all trying to accomplish for ourselves. It is a uniquely individual journey, and one where you've taken it further than most of us.

I would definitely not say that I have, though I've been trying and will keep trying my whole life - and I appreciate the good cheer. There are sciences and applications I would love to get a hold of or full understanding of in which others have progressed to understand many more mysteries on much more intimate levels than I ever have.

I can only wish you luck. I think I understand what you're doing, but it is something I don't think will benefit me. I've done something similar, and I'm aware of the questions you raise, but I didn't think it prudent to throw the baby out with the bath water.

I think the conceptual attainment of a zen? or multiplicity of simultaneous ideas even apparently contradictory ones that can all be reconciled is a difficult sort of viewpoint to elaborate... The ego thing, language thing, fear thing, they belong to my one dynamic - but perhaps I have introduced to many elements and muddied the waters I meant to test.

Top
Page 11 of 13 « First<910111213>


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.036 seconds of which 0.004 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.