100% Metal Forum (Death Metal and Black Metal)

Metal => Interzone => Topic started by: crow on August 22, 2013, 09:47:22 AM

Title: A.D.
Post by: crow on August 22, 2013, 09:47:22 AM
The mind finally stops. Then what?
That depends.
Did you create anything useful, in life? Anything that would outlive you?
Did you give birth to, successfully raise, and set free a soul?
If you did, you are - literally - laughing.
The soul is you, and you it.
Now it is everywhere. Always.
Not 'you', but far more than 'you' ever were.
Your own, unique, essential contribution.

Or did you produce nothing?
Oh well. Lights out.


Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: death metal black metal on August 22, 2013, 02:24:29 PM
I think for most people death is like a commercial break.

Just a really long one.
Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: diesel on August 23, 2013, 05:26:26 PM
could immortality in religion be just the values/stories/traditions you pass on to your loved ones (so you technically continue to exist in an abstract realm) and also your part keeping the church alive?
Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: crow on August 23, 2013, 07:49:50 PM
No.
That is one way of looking at it, for sure, but immortality is real and possible.
It does not apply to the identity, though. That is definitely mortal.
Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: death-metal on August 24, 2013, 03:18:13 AM
That is one way of looking at it, for sure, but immortality is real and possible.
It does not apply to the identity, though. That is definitely mortal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hDtHjksVNw
Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: crow on August 24, 2013, 10:35:34 AM
Haha :)
I thought he got eaten by the Alien, but maybe he didn't, after all.

Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: Phoenix on August 24, 2013, 12:48:24 PM
No.
That is one way of looking at it, for sure, but immortality is real and possible.
It does not apply to the identity, though. That is definitely mortal.


Since I have a fairly specific understanding of this issue, and I see falsehoods about it chronically perpetrated by vagueness, I like to be clear. (Not to say the falsehoods are by you, but in the world in general!)

In your view, surely must some identity beyond the ego not remain? Identity in the sense of individuality. In the sense that if there is oneness, and you are a part of the oneness, then the oneness obviously can't be completely unadulterated, rather there has to be divisions lest you not be part of it in the fist place - a unity is only a unity with a healthy variety to unify in the first place.
Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: crow on August 24, 2013, 01:56:34 PM
Identity does not survive. It is entirely superfluous in the A.D. context.
Enlightenment is a way of previewing this: even in the absence of physical death, one may not attain enlightenment while carrying an identity.
Eye of the needle.

The idea of unity (and it is an idea) is non-applicable here, because no other state can exist but oneness.
Even a crow knows this, while humans see themselves as 'individuals' separate and apart.
The difficulty you, and everyone else, has with all this is your using mind to grapple with what is beyond mind. The mind makes a hash of it, because it is unable to grasp anything beyond mind.

A granite mountain remains that, if it loses one molecule of granite.
Yet it is diminished by the loss. While the lost molecule is nothing.
It certainly is not a granite mountain, or can ever become one.
Yet it remains granite.
It has no identity, beyond what it is.


Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: Phoenix on August 24, 2013, 02:23:16 PM
I understand perfectly what you're saying Crow, but why do you not state more clearly that individual immortality is impossible in your view? Why do you say "immortality is real and possible"? What do you wish to express by such a statement?

Do you believe that some part of you, a part without identity, is immortal in a way that's to some extent separated from everything else? How do you define this separateness, or do you not presume to do so at all?
Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: crow on August 24, 2013, 02:27:43 PM
I don't 'believe' anything.
I observe my own experience and report what I experience.
Reporting must rely on words, yet words can never clearly report it.
The missing ingredient is supplied by the reader/listener.
Curiosity, a sense of awe, wonder, mystery...

I would consider that the idea of 'identity' as understood by living beings, simply does not apply A.D.
Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: indjaseemun on August 24, 2013, 02:55:19 PM
By your semen, you can create light-bodies which will resist time... if you're strong.

The semen in earth is the result of a trans-terrestrial inteelligence manifesting itself on the physical plane.

Christ is Semen. Chrestos mean semen
Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: crow on August 24, 2013, 02:56:55 PM
Ah. I had been wondering about that very thing. Glad it's been cleared up!
Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: crow on August 24, 2013, 04:50:35 PM
Incidentally, I had, in fact, been reflecting upon sperm, and its similarity to unenlightened vs. enlightened humans, just the other day. Very, very few seeds, no matter their potential, end up becoming viable.
Usually, only one, per generation.
I had a view, for many years, while being put-upon by the millions, that millions of people couldn't be wrong.
But now I know that millions can.
Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: indjaseemun on August 24, 2013, 09:25:38 PM
How do you like this guy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MhQI47DFsWU#t=166

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5S8KogG6y1Y
Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: crow on August 24, 2013, 10:25:31 PM
I don't know anything about him, except for the things everybody knows, via the media.
But I don't imagine I'd want him around my place, though.
Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: indjaseemun on August 24, 2013, 10:31:54 PM
He says and does some interestin stuff in these videos
Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: Imposition on August 25, 2013, 07:20:53 AM
(Charles Manson talks random, psuedo-mystical nonsense)

When we die the physical substance that is our mind and body takes on a form that no longer gives rise to celldivision, metabolism, and consciousness. Given even more time, the physical form of our being returns to recombine with the earth.

Rather than ignore the reality of death, we need to make it meaningful, which requires an upright and mature recognition of the Being we emerge from - physical processes. This where death metal comes in.
Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: crow on August 25, 2013, 09:40:30 AM
We are never going to 'make' this reality meaningful.
But we could, perhaps become aware of its meaning.
Where we go is where we come from.

What is it about deathmetal? Is ugly necessary, in order to appreciate beauty?


Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: Imposition on August 25, 2013, 06:04:38 PM
We are never going to 'make' this reality meaningful.
But we could, perhaps become aware of its meaning.
Where we go is where we come from.

We have different philosophical perspectives. In my own, human beings create meaning in the world. It is subjective. In other words, if human beings had never evolved, then there would be no meaning in the world. Test? Point to a meaning in the world. It can't be done. It is not objective.

What is it about deathmetal? Is ugly necessary, in order to appreciate beauty?

Essentially, sometimes ugly is necessary, because the truth is 'ugly'. It's 'ugly' insofar as it doesn't fit with our 'default setting', which is to walk around thinking the world exists for us as individuals and that we matter. When you perceive the truth, that we don't matter, it is confronting. I think it's the role of great art to redeem this, and to give it meaning in the way the Greeks gave it meaning. The greatest art is tragic art, in some sense.
Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: Wild on August 25, 2013, 06:46:03 PM
I am growing convinced that the words subjective/objective no longer mean anything.
Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: crow on August 25, 2013, 06:52:51 PM
Point to a meaning in the world? That's a strange challenge.
The world, the cosmos, life, evolution, all are meaning(s).
Meaning has zero to do with the human condescension of doling one out.
Reality is its own meaning, as life is, to us, if we even get to being able to recognize it.

As for 'objective', nothing a human does is objective, unless that human has aligned himself with reality.
Subjective is the only view an ego is capable of. Objective only results from ego abandonment.

I don't know what truth you are referring to, as being ugly. Truth is beauty, to me.
What is great art, anyway? Who decides? I've seen art I liked, but none ever 'moved' me.
But perhaps deathmetal is art to those who can see it as that.
I can't, personally, but that is neither here, nor there.
I imagine it fulfills the role of a catalyst, of sorts.

Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: Imposition on August 25, 2013, 07:49:16 PM
Point to a meaning in the world? That's a strange challenge.
The world, the cosmos, life, evolution, all are meaning(s).

Before we go any further, what is your definition of 'meaning'?
Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: crow on August 25, 2013, 07:54:53 PM
Meaning is that which follows manifestation. You might call it 'effect'.
Water flows over a cliff. It falls. The meaning of this is water following the laws of Reality.
The water reaches for the lowest place it can be.
It subordinates itself to gravity.
Water, itself, has no use for meaning. It does what it must.
Humans require meaning, until they no longer require it, to define their Reality.


Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: Imposition on August 25, 2013, 08:00:35 PM
To me, 'meaning' is something like a way of representing some state of affairs.

For example, I can say either:

1. 'Superman was born on Krypton', or
2. 'Clark Kent was born on Krypton'

Both 'refer' to the same thing in the world (the guy called either superman or clark kent - (and that he lives on Krypton)), but they do so each in a different *way*.

Compare also:

1. 'Crow'
2. 'The moderator of a death metal forum who, paradoxically, does not like death metal'

Both refer to the same 'object' (yourself), but in two different ways.

So meaning is tied up in subjectivity - or, the way a subject represents something objective.

---

If meaning is just 'effect', then I think it is a redundant concept. We can explain what water does (effects) without using concepts like meaning.

However we cannot talk about the way subjects refer to objects without using concepts like meaning.

To go back the example, if we dispense with the concept of different meanings in the two sentences, then we can't explain what is different about them, for they both refer to the same thing-in-the-world, or object (and posit that this object was born on Krypton). We NEED the concept of meaning when it comes to subjects representing objects, as opposed to when it comes to talking about the 'effects' of stuff like water.

This is my account of why the concept of 'meaning' is subjective; it is bound up with the way in which subjects represent objects.
Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: crow on August 25, 2013, 08:43:18 PM
A purely human construct, then, bound up in subjective ego.
Meaning, for me, has little to do with that. Although I understand the way in which ego employs it.
To ask, for example, "what is the meaning of life?", is to wonder what life is, and how it is supposed to serve the one asking the question.
Thus 'meaning' is most often a way for an ego to assign hierarchy to something, but assign it always a lower spot than itself.
Purpose, is different. "What is my purpose?" How may I serve this life-thing, as opposed to how may it serve me.

Anyway, we already know that most communication is no such thing.
Meaning, itself, has become a concept too abstract to understand.


Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: Imposition on August 25, 2013, 08:50:33 PM
I think in recognising death, the meaning we as subjects give to the world changes. It becomes more like your 'purpose'.

Death metal is, to people like me who have been visiting this here site for some time, our soundtrack to this process.

Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: crow on August 25, 2013, 08:53:34 PM
Fair enough, then. I had suspected as much.
Now: if people could see beauty in death, rather than ugly...

How would that impact Purpose?
Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: dead last on August 26, 2013, 06:24:23 AM
Crow, you implied that death metal is ugly. Do you mean that? I don't care why you do not listen to it (you're old, that's a no-brainer  8)) but if you do think it is an ugly thing, what standards do you use to judge beauty?
Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: crow on August 26, 2013, 08:48:08 AM
Deliberately offensive. Painful. Opposite of beauty. Decomposition as art. Industrial cacophony as anthem.
As you say: I am old. It took me many years to become so, and it was mostly not easy.

Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: dead last on August 26, 2013, 11:33:11 AM
The comment on your age was not meant to offend, it was mostly a joke. But at once I could understand why you do not like death metal; it is the same reason that my dad does not like death metal. It is music made by people from a different time, dealing with different threats at different ages.

But that's not the whole story. You think that death metal is intentionally offensive, and an anthemic reflection of industrial cacaphony, right?
Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: crow on August 26, 2013, 12:25:50 PM
What I wrote is what I meant. Yes.
Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: dead last on August 26, 2013, 12:51:25 PM
You don't think that death metal could be a step toward people coming to accept and appreciate (and maybe even find beauty in) processes of reality like death and decay?

Or do you see it as a way to try to reign in and encapsulate reality through a fearful reaction?
Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: crow on August 26, 2013, 02:09:48 PM
I don't know what it is, other than it is something I instinctively avoid.
But there are quite a few things I feel the same way about: people, in general, for example.
I really have no need to know why this is, although I'm sure if I considered it, I could come up with all kinds of reasonable hypotheses.
But I am not going to, because, really, it doesn't matter what I think.
Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: dead last on August 26, 2013, 02:14:58 PM
Your unwillingness to hypothesize is mildly infuriating!
Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: Imposition on August 26, 2013, 05:52:15 PM
Deliberately offensive. Painful. Opposite of beauty. Decomposition as art. Industrial cacophony as anthem.
As you say: I am old. It took me many years to become so, and it was mostly not easy.

Can I ask, benignly, why did you put your hand up to moderate a death metal forum in this case?
Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: crow on August 26, 2013, 05:53:06 PM
Your unwillingness to hypothesize is mildly infuriating!

Aha! There's an advantage I had not considered  :)
Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: crow on August 26, 2013, 06:02:21 PM

Can I ask, benignly, why did you put your hand up to moderate a death metal forum in this case?


How many times do I have to explain this???
I didn't put my hand up, apply, or otherwise volunteer.
There was this forum, see, and its owner, with whom I have had dealings with over several years, recognized the boundless extremes of talent I possess, on many fronts, over many subjects. He was also aware that I shared many of his political and lifestyle views, in addition to being sufficiently mature for the task at hand.
He enquired as to whether I might like to try sorting out the ugly chaos that previously reigned, here, since nobody else seemed able, or willing to.
So here I am. The content is of no consequence. It is the human interaction I am concerned with. Period.

But since I spend time here, I put it to good use, honing my ability to endure the previously unendurable, without becoming in any way upset, emotional, or crazy.

How am I doing?

Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: Phoenix on August 26, 2013, 09:26:11 PM
If meaning is just 'effect', then I think it is a redundant concept. We can explain what water does (effects) without using concepts like meaning.

To translate, I think what Crow's getting at is that what water does, to flow, is precisely its meaning, and to deviate from that would be to lose focus of the Now; akin to how being kept in thought, desire or other preoccupations hinders you from experiencing Being.

I would consider that the idea of 'identity' as understood by living beings, simply does not apply A.D.

Crow, could you please elaborate? In order, in your view, to believe that "the idea of 'identity' as understood by living beings simply does not apply A.D.", you must have some kind of understanding of it.

If there is something, and we know not at all what it is, not WHATSOEVER, then we can make no comparisons of it to something else. So therefore you must have some inkling as to what existence without 'identity' is after A.D. Why not share it with us in more specific terms?
Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: Phoenix on August 26, 2013, 09:42:11 PM
Can I ask, benignly, why did you put your hand up to moderate a death metal forum in this case?

'Kudos' for being so benign. But I think I can answer your question. You see, this is not just a death metal website, this is also one of nihilism, and moreover of "transcendental nihilism". The owner of the website, who remains to this day most anonymous, happens to have met in Crow someone who, apart from the millions that are wrong, agrees with him in the most philosophical of ways. That is why Crow is moderator, and this signals to me that the owner is most devoted and self-obsessed with his website.
Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: crow on August 26, 2013, 09:48:57 PM
Enlightenment, as hinted-at, repeated and exhaustively described, previously.
A preview of death.
Having previewed it, I describe what I know of it.
Unfortunately, if the reader/listener is not suitably equipped to respond in wonder, curiosity and openness, any description will convey only baseless gibberish.

What I know of the subject at hand is this:
'Heaven' is that state one may ascend to if one is able to relinquish one's identity.
'Hell' is the descent that is inevitable to any who cling to identity.

Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: crow on August 26, 2013, 09:51:16 PM
That is why Crow is moderator, and this signals to me that the owner is most devoted and self-obsessed with his website.


Astute. But he is not self-obsessed. Although he may be obsessive about his work.
Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: Imposition on August 26, 2013, 10:35:34 PM
Can I ask, benignly, why did you put your hand up to moderate a death metal forum in this case?

'Kudos' for being so benign. But I think I can answer your question. You see, this is not just a death metal website, this is also one of nihilism, and moreover of "transcendental nihilism". The owner of the website, who remains to this day most anonymous, happens to have met in Crow someone who, apart from the millions that are wrong, agrees with him in the most philosophical of ways. That is why Crow is moderator, and this signals to me that the owner is most devoted and self-obsessed with his website.

From i've been told, it is precisely just a death metal website now. That is why it is not the DLA anymore.
Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: Imposition on August 26, 2013, 10:39:32 PM
If meaning is just 'effect', then I think it is a redundant concept. We can explain what water does (effects) without using concepts like meaning.

To translate, I think what Crow's getting at is that what water does, to flow, is precisely its meaning, and to deviate from that would be to lose focus of the Now; akin to how being kept in thought, desire or other preoccupations hinders you from experiencing Being.

Yep, my point was that this use of the word 'meaning' is 110% redundant. What water 'does' is what water does. It is an objective property of the world. We already have the concepts to talk about that. We need concepts to talk about how subjects represent the objective. This is what 'meaning' means!

Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: Phoenix on August 26, 2013, 10:39:41 PM
Enlightenment, as hinted-at, repeated and exhaustively described, previously.
A preview of death.
Having previewed it, I describe what I know of it.
Unfortunately, if the reader/listener is not suitably equipped to respond in wonder, curiosity and openness, any description will convey only baseless gibberish.

What I know of the subject at hand is this:
'Heaven' is that state one may ascend to if one is able to relinquish one's identity.
'Hell' is the descent that is inevitable to any who cling to identity.

Are you saying, then, finally, that if one is able to relinquish all sense of 'identity', and (in corollary) if one is able to relinquish any desire to have an afterlife, then indeed an afterlife they shall have?

Yep, my point was that this use of the word 'meaning' is 110% redundant. What water 'does' is what water does.

Anyway, what word should we use to describe the mode in which subjects represent objects in the world, if we start using 'meaning' to (mean) the same thing as 'what things do'?

Sometimes conversations do get bogged down with certain terminologies that not everyone can agree with. Maybe we can agree to disagree or, barring that, we can use the word "expression" instead?
Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: Imposition on August 26, 2013, 10:47:46 PM
Or perhaps people can move towards other people's views a bit more around here, if they seem the most rational, parsimonious, common-sensical.

I think we would be hard-pressed to find one example of humanity using the word 'meaning' to mean 'what something does'. Meaning is intimately bound up in subjectivity, no?

Anyway, that's my two cents worth on this topic.
Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: Phoenix on August 26, 2013, 10:57:35 PM
Crow, as you say that water's meaning is to flow, is to go with gravity and go.. I think you would take yourself to be the river, and the other forum members here to be the observers of such a natural, serene sight. To be inspired by nature, to glimpse enlightenment from a flowing stream. But I cannot take some of your words in isolation, I must consider the whole of your person that's saying them, just as a painting can surely not exist without a painter--just as a unity can surely not exist without a variety. And you often seem to be quite.. enervated (such as when confronted by leftists or.. Canadians). If you are not in all times, in all circumstances, the serene flowing stream, then can you not offer us anything more specific about your views of the afterlife? Can you not speak at all to the other subjective side, of which you are inextricably a part? To my knowledge you are not telepathic, so you are using words whether you like it or not. To say that words cannot fully describe something is fine, but to say that they cannot whatsoever is rubbish. To say that words cannot whatsoever describe something is to describe that something a fair bit, and would be like saying that married bachelors can exist, a non sequitur.
Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: crow on August 26, 2013, 11:06:40 PM
I would rather leave subjective chatter to the billions who know no other mode of operation.
Nothing, other than the thought processes of humans, has any 'meaning'. All of it is what it is. It does what it does. It makes no apologies or excuses.
You might say I have managed to move beyond meaning, into a realm where meaning is meaningless.
This is my obscure connection with 'nihilism', I suppose.
Clearly, this would create communication problems with people who know nothing but subjective meaning.

The idea I fruitlessly (mostly) attempt to put across, is that I have something unheard-of to offer.
A view you never see. A thought you never have. A way you never found. A vision you never dreamed.
Some love it. Most hate it.
That's life.
Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: Phoenix on August 26, 2013, 11:13:44 PM
So just for the record, you are unable to engage in the subjective arena of definitions and correlations, or unwilling?
Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: crow on August 26, 2013, 11:25:03 PM
For the record, I am not as you, or many others are, any more.
I can no longer do whatever it is you are doing. I can not process it or respond to it, without active thought.
And I do not actively think, unless I have a vital problem to solve.
None of this is vital, nor a problem. Why would I bother with it? All I would end up with is a headache.

In fact, the words that people write generally go right past me. They are mostly meaningless.
I take note of the theme, the intent, the white space between, and see galaxies of information.
I know you by what you don't say, as much as by what you do say.

But none of it intrudes, because it can not. Unless it is genuine, sincere, true.
There is precious little of that, around here, and mostly what there is of it comes to me by way of PMs.

I regret I am not as you expect me to be. It must be irritating. But it allows me to remain what I am, and I am what I am only through many years of having no idea of what I was, but knowing I had to find out. Now I am what I admire. That's a good start, eh?

Please don't ask me for any more explanations, unless your intent is true. Because mostly, if not always, it isn't.


Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: Phoenix on August 27, 2013, 12:06:14 AM
For the record, I am not as you, or many others are, any more.
I can no longer do whatever it is you are doing. I can not process it or respond to it, without active thought.
And I do not actively think, unless I have a vital problem to solve.
None of this is vital, nor a problem. Why would I bother with it? All I would end up with is a headache.

In fact, the words that people write generally go right past me. They are mostly meaningless.
I take note of the theme, the intent, the white space between, and see galaxies of information.
I know you by what you don't say, as much as by what you do say.

But none of it intrudes, because it can not. Unless it is genuine, sincere, true.
There is precious little of that, around here, and mostly what there is of it comes to me by way of PMs.

I regret I am not as you expect me to be. It must be irritating. But it allows me to remain what I am, and I am what I am only through many years of having no idea of what I was, but knowing I had to find out. Now I am what I admire. That's a good start, eh?

Please don't ask me for any more explanations, unless your intent is true. Because mostly, if not always, it isn't.

This reply serves just as well. Once again you show your true colors. It's truly a privilege to pick the brains of people so self-inebriated as you, since usually they're unavailable behind corridors of money, power or religion. I get to learn a lot about the ego. I could talk more to religious folk in the flesh, but that would just make my skin crawl and there would be no audience to share in the investigation. This correspondence has gone on longer than I anticipated, as I've been thrice banned but each time allowed to reappear; I guess you didn't really get what I was about, after all. I would have delete my account several times to make a point, but this forum doesn't allow it, so I just took to speaking my mind until I knew the ban would come. I suppose a fourth time is the charm. I'll peep in from time to time, of course, for a quick laugh and to restore my incredulity if I ever doubt the insanity of the human condition. Namaste Crow, and I hope you realize that, from my perspective, this has been nothing but a perfectly noble pursuit. Sometimes enlightened folk simply don't get along well with others.
Title: Re: A.D.
Post by: crow on August 27, 2013, 02:12:39 PM
After many failed attempts to discover the good in this character, it has become inescapably apparent that there simply isn't any.
RIP.