Equality -- how can anyone believe this?

[Conservationist]

All your beliefs, your anti-diversity stance, your nihilist philosophy, none of it relates back to any absolute reference point, it only relates back to you. Why do you do it, any of it, why do you get up in the morning? To feel good? Or to be right, to do the right thing?

You could say this about any political belief. If anything, an anti-diversity stance because it involves the individual giving up "rights," is a more selfless stance than a pro-diversity stance.

Also "to feel good" and "to do the right thing" are actually one and the same, but it takes about 4096 cognitive hours to see that.

[Archidamus]

All your beliefs, your anti-diversity stance, your nihilist philosophy, none of it relates back to any absolute reference point, it only relates back to you. Why do you do it, any of it, why do you get up in the morning? To feel good? Or to be right, to do the right thing?

You could say this about any political belief. If anything, an anti-diversity stance because it involves the individual giving up "rights," is a more selfless stance than a pro-diversity stance.

Also "to feel good" and "to do the right thing" are actually one and the same, but it takes about 4096 cognitive hours to see that.

Stoic ethics in a nutshell

[crow]

He's fuckin' brilliant, that Conservationist. Common-sense on steroids.

[Conservationist]

I borrowed all of this shit from Nietzsche and Kant, as filtered through G.G. Allin

[crow]

It's fine to be a wannabee, if your sources are good.
I wannabee able to fly!

[§Transcix]

Through the lens of nihilism we understand that like everything else, human beings lack inherent meaning or value. If inherent human value is the source of human equality in the abstract, then equality in the abstract itself is a worthless concept. Therefore, only our inequities, by the variant values we may develop during the course of our lives, if any, are real. A measure of man's worth is not the fact of his existence but instead what he makes of it.

I disagree. If meaningfulness is a false concept to begin with, then saying humans lack it is as relevant as saying that humans lack purple elephant feathers. In my view to latch onto the notion of meaningfulness, even if "by the variant values we may develop during the course of our lives" as you put it, is to latch onto a false concept. If meaningfulness can be tossed out the window, then what remains? When the mind and its equations are removed from the picture, we still feel emotions, our heart still speaks to us.

One can rightly pursue meaningfulness as much as one can remove their eyes from their sockets and rotate 180 degrees to look back on themselves, or that is to say, affirmation towards seeking meaningfulness is affirmation that meaningfulness is not yet acquired, yet meaningfulness pertains to that which by definition is the most fundamental and inherent of all, that which, well, 'gives things meaning'. If we are free of motives which encourage us to pursue the myth of meaningfulness, then we are free to operate according to our heart's content, without egocentric concern to elevate our self-concepts.

The ego is not based on evil, as if the flaw were a matter of morality in conflict with heart, rather it is based on the illusion that it is possible to make comparisons between people or things on the level of meaningfulness or value. And the heart, for its part, comes in many varieties, to oversimplify slightly--shiny ones, dark ones, fiery ones, etc.

To do something "because you can" is false reasoning, neglecting the reason why you chose that course of action over another. It points to the truth--when all possibilities are open to you then experience itself dictates your path organically, you just do it--yet it takes root in an intellectual reaction of fear or anger towards this choicelessness of 'ISness', resulting in a defiant validation of the ego. Incidentally, operating this way closely mimics the path of the fiery heart, and the two are often confused.

The left-hand path master neither re-makes himself every moment as if choosing among infinite possibility, nor is he shackled by the chain reactions of his past. The key is to recognize you cannot be shackled by those chain reactions because you are precisely them, and to thus work to ensure the various patterns and processes therein are not mutually-contradictory but in perfect coherence and cohesiveness. Where contradictions are found, then the heart may choose which way to go, and perhaps it is inevitable which way it will pick.

However to think it would be a rather dry and un-unique script would be to severely underestimate the breadth of permutations possible in the area of sentient consciousness. Freedom of will is a matter of who's will? Yours. Thus to use it as justification to seek out your will, this seeking is your will. If an infinitely powerful calculating machine could measure every single facet of your consciousness, as well as all of surrounding reality and all possible circumstances you could encounter, then yes it could indeed predict all your next moves. But no such machine exists, nor does any such god exist, the future is truly unknown (though in the great war the perverse lie of 'destiny' is frequently used to enslave). You have it within you to defeat any foe, any would-be deity, because you can still surprise them, and surprise yourself, this is the extent of your uniqueness and your free will, however it requires outside-of-the-box thinking, not a reactionary position against the insignificant absence of choice which indeed grants you freedom through ISness.

Ah, the chains of the past. If you manage to break these with some success, and with some success in calming compulsory desires, leads to a long cold lonely place. The only things you have left are what you will not or cannot throw away.

If they are enough for you they become a path back to where you started, just one level higher.

Otherwise, you may see your things as gifts for the world, to push back the darkness or fix a broken space.

And if you throw everything away, what then? That is to be truly outside, an instance of will embodied yet having no will. If this is possible I don't know what to call it other than using terms barely grasped from Eastern philosophies.

The only starting point we have is: here, now. Everything else is due to local fluctuation.

Thanks for the resonance Transcix.

I realize I was unclear about one thing: when I said that you are your past, I don't mean that you still live in the past, indeed as you say all ties with it should be broken. (Recapitulation, as Carlos Castaneda puts it.) I just mean, in terms of causal continuity and flow of evolution, that it is foolish to wish to deviate from your trajectory, your past leads up to the present and the present must be accepted not rejected, but then in the present you can change it. I was saying this thinking of how some people in the grips of existential angst feel their every thought and action is determined as if the past were a sequence of proverbial dominoes the sequential toppling of which they could not possible hope to change or effect as it enters their present and the future.

[Wolfgang]

All your beliefs, your anti-diversity stance, your nihilist philosophy, none of it relates back to any absolute reference point, it only relates back to you. Why do you do it, any of it, why do you get up in the morning? To feel good? Or to be right, to do the right thing?

You could say this about any political belief. If anything, an anti-diversity stance because it involves the individual giving up "rights," is a more selfless stance than a pro-diversity stance.

Also "to feel good" and "to do the right thing" are actually one and the same, but it takes about 4096 cognitive hours to see that.

Are you even anti-diversity? Isn't your aim, and the aim of this site in general, and metal movement it grew out of beyond that trying to preserve diversity?

Do not attack "diversity", attack modern consumerism replacing culture under the guise of diversity.

With the changes in communication and travel, we cannot stop globalism, the migration of peoples(though we should certainly slow that down by closing all borders to the West indefinitely), cultural exchange or the free market of ideas. What we can, and should, stop are the narratives that teach us to hate ourselves because of our past.

The Japanese love Ninjas as much as Americans do. But why don't Americans love cowboys, confederates, revolutionaries, vikings, knights or crusaders as much? Why are modern gang-bangers the coolest when moonshiners and prohibition era mobsters were every bit as gangster? The Japanese got this shit figured out man.

[scourge]

Faith based secular religion of the liberal democratic prole state:

Agent of Oppression

As we have seen from the development of egalitarianism in modern Western societies, the logic of equality presupposes the equivalence of all humans. A result is that unrestricted immigration and racial diversity become ideologically unproblematic. Because humans are differentiated on multiple levels, racially diverse societies have become, by contrast, problematic, necessitating the proliferation of norms, regulation, laws, surveillance, penalties, bureaucracies, and additional taxation in pursuit of harmonious and continued functioning. The progressive limitation of freedoms never ends, because the above-stated measures address only symptoms, not the underlying cause: difference remains, and results in different responses to each measure, which in turn create the need for further measures. Worse still, because of the need to address an increasing number of areas in an increasingly disparate population with few or no shared values or assumptions, the regulatory effort becomes not only ever more invasive and prescriptive, but also increasingly ill-fitting for everyone. (Jack of all trades, master of none.) Freedom is also eroded economically due to the growing costs of regulating, policing, enforcing, penalising, and administrating social behaviour.

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/equality-as-an-evil/

[Conservationist]

The aim of this site is to restore a sense of natural law, or the idea that informational order came before the material/thought division that plagues our big brains. To do so requires nihilism, or a rejection of "inherent" order, values and communication. "Inherent" to humans means something different from what inherent means. Instead, we can argue that responses to reality are emergent and preferential. If you want to live a beautiful life, be conservative, love one woman, have a family, stay sober and meditatively reverent in transcendental faith. That's the Rolls-Royce. If a Buick is all you need, by all means buy yourself a patio home in a giant city and commence work as Assistant Director of Facebook Marketing.

[Svmmoned]

Particle Physics notes, to its bewilderment, that reality changes, depending upon the one observing it.

Does somebody could elaborate more on it? Describe it maybe?

[crow]

Proof of subjective reality.
Two scientists, observing identical particle behaviour record different results.
Further observation records something very like consciousness, exhibited in subatomic particles.
Imagine the consternation...

[§Transcix]

Proof of subjective reality.
Two scientists, observing identical particle behaviour record different results.
Further observation records something very like consciousness, exhibited in subatomic particles.
Imagine the consternation...

Proof of subjective reality? No. Strong evidence that elements of an objective reality--objective insofar as scientists can conduct consistent and valid experiments about it--may be influenced by the process of human awareness / perception. I'm not nit-picking your words, but if you choose to declare something as "proven" then you're speaking in science's language, except that it's precisely science which rejects that assertion and only you who supports it. To further the irony you probably support it as an argument against science (judging by your other postings on this forum), even though it's based on a scientific experiment in the first place.

[sans maitre]

its not a correct interpretation of quantum mechanics anyway, just because there are some seeming paradoxes, QM does not support any of the  deepak chopra cosmik debris that gets shoved into it

[crow]

To address the OP:
Subjective reality is precisely what exists here.
Pimply adolescents posing as intellectuals, when the only things they 'know' are things they themselves have never experienced.
Hence the endless quotes from other people.
This is so, they say, because I read it, here, and here...
Which is about as far removed from knowledge as it's possible to get.
A parrot does something very similar, but is far less pompous about it.

Yet anyone with actual experience is derided, for not being able to 'prove' his experiences.
Evidence, proof, substantiation, sources, etc...
Anybody who actually experiences life is too busy experiencing it to be concerned with proving it to anal-retentive sceptics.
Maybe you all prefer to inhabit a virtual world where nobody ever experiences anything, and nobody is able to discuss anything.
May it nourish your ravenous egos. May it bring you joy.

And that is subjective reality.
You can keep it.

[Conservationist]

I don't believe in subjective reality.

However... what most humans (especially the odious and tiresome Ayn Rand) refer to as "objectivity" is in fact human projection.

It's more accurate to say that minds influence reality, which is objective, but we are actors within it.

While our language and logic is not 100% objective, it is representatively so through successive approximation.

We're not going to fix our problems by throwing away cognitive tools, only by refining them.

N.B.: Ayn Rand is not a cognitive tool.