Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - istaros

[1] 2 ... 53
Interzone / Re: Atheism
« on: January 19, 2014, 10:35:52 PM »
Is THIS the new Ubermench?
Considering the degree to which this (generalized) man can now exert influence over world affairs, I would say, non-sarcastically, yes.

The Jewish question was pretty funny, though.

Interzone / Re: Who are the pests?
« on: January 19, 2014, 10:27:13 PM »
How many of you characters has ever actively hunted?
Of the almost none, how many did it purely for survival?
How much success did you have?
What tools did you use?
Do you still hunt?
If not, why did you stop?
I have been on three deer hunts.

I'm posting on the internet, so it was almost certainly not for survival.

I killed a large doe on the second outing. The first shot went through her shoulder or neck, and the second went through her heart, dropping her. I also shot at a buck on the first outing, but missed.

Shed, .30-06, scent markers, and a feed dispenser on the first two outings. The third lacked the shed and feed dispenser.

I do not still hunt, although I won't say I'll never do it again.

Although the experience was not entirely negative, and it was rewarding, I also found it to be wasteful and unnecessary.

It was meant to be a bonding experience with my father, but I found him too annoying, leaving me with no desire to engage in such an act. He hasn't changed since then, but I have. So perhaps at some point in the future I may attempt this again.

As for the kill itself, it did not provide me with much pleasure. A lot of it felt artificial - the dispenser, the markers, etc. There was a sensation that not only the deer itself, but in fact the region as a whole, would have been better off had I not presented myself. This was not a manifestation of self-hatred or anything like that; it was just recognition of the very simple fact that I had done nothing to improve on what already was.

And to be perfectly honest, I did not enjoy taking the life of a beast. I do not think I would have been able to admit that so frankly at the time, but I can now. One can hear all the arguments in the world as to why it is morally neutral to do so, or on the other end of the scale, why it is no different than buying your meat in a market and thereby paying someone else to do your killing for you. None of this matters once you have the experience of being directly and solely responsible for the termination of something beautiful.

Now, do not take this to mean that I regret having done it. As I said, it was simultaneously rewarding for other reasons. But, the only question you asked is why I stopped.

Interzone / Re: Who are the pests?
« on: January 19, 2014, 10:10:23 PM »
My position is that if you are ethically opposed to murder of humans, then it would follow that you would have to be vegan. And if you believe that racism and sexism are ethically and logically incoherent ideologies, then you have to be against speciesism in the same way.
Perhaps I am missing something. Say I am opposed to the murder of humans because of their fine manipulative control of their surrounding ecosystem, as you put it. This makes them akin to gods. The rest of nature is profane. Humanity is Sacred. How is this position incoherent? By your own definition, nature and humanity are separate entities. "Speciesism" (I feel dirty just typing that nonsense out) is the only logical outcome.

Because the question concerned whether killing could be honorable (which I took to require fairness), even though in my opinion neither of these things are even relevant to the ethics of killing. If you think that using the full tool kit is still honorable, then you would logically have to think that it is honorable to kill a man with a baseball bat while he sleeps.
It is the "while he sleeps" that is causing the debate to stall, and that is because it is contrived to do so. Killing someone "while he sleeps" is not solely part of a toolkit. Whereas attacking vulnerability certainly is part of a toolkit, this particular example ought to concurrently be considered a circumstance, a setting. We're talking about the difference between choosing which weapons to take to a battle, versus deciding under which circumstances battle is an acceptable option in the first place. Those are two completely distinct factors, and the intent to combine them into one is just plain manipulative.

But yes, doing so can be honorable. It depends. Are you killing him to steal his car keys? Then no, I doubt anyone would find that honorable(or even understandable, frankly). But what if you're killing him because he raped your daughter and managed to squirm his way out of prison time? I would consider that an honorable killing.

Honor doesn't have anything to do with fairness anyway, honor refers simply to preserving your reputation among your fellow men.

In context of the hunt, though: you seem to fail to understand that humans use spears, arrows, traps, and guns because humans are at an inherent physical disadvantage. It is not a matter of men already being stronger, faster, and smarter than beasts, and then piling on even more ways to enforce superiority. The animal already exists at a higher level, and is in its element; these tools are ways to level the playing field.

Interzone / Re: "The poor": kill them
« on: January 19, 2014, 09:27:18 PM »
What happens when they hold you up in your car with a knife, or break into your home while your children sleep, perhaps raping one of them and/or stabbing them in a fit of panic?

Do you want to live in a South African type city, where it is unsafe to be anywhere unless it's behind large walls - an effective 'green zone'? Welfare exists not just for the benefit of the poor.

How on earth could someone use a knife to hold you up, especially if you're in a car? I understand most people aren't familiar with real violence, so perhaps simply calling a tool "weapon" makes it suddenly terrifying. Other than that, I can't understand giving in to anyone who tries to threaten with something as manageable as a knife.

Anyway, the answer to your "what to do" question is obvious. You kill them. With bullets. Was that a real question or have I been trolled?

You could also pay someone else to do this for you, if you find blood to be a bit too icky. Same difference. Alternately, if you're more into purity than pragmatism, you could start a cult whose members swear blood oaths to you or whatever.

As to the second part, that issue could be resolved just as easily with slavery as it could with welfare. Why not enslave, imprison, or otherwise punish the poor into absolute compliance?

Interzone / Re: Winter Boozing
« on: December 26, 2013, 12:08:21 AM »
What are the benefits of alcohol?
Well, a bit of history would suggest that drinking wine before battle can make the attacking siege army think you're wild maniacs who feast on blood before fighting...

Also it weeds out the Saracens from the infidels :)

Interzone / Re: Subjects in death metal lyrics
« on: December 26, 2013, 12:06:14 AM »
What are some subjects that are exclusively (or just mostly) relevant in the 1990s or 2000s? Have there been any paradigm shifts in lyrical techniques like the shifts we see in instrumental techniques? Punk rock has run out of stuff to bitch about because the punks won; they repainted their hippy-infested world with a fresh coat of bullshit but were still pushing that agenda of acceptance, tolerance, and equality all along. Will death metal ever get there? Is it languishing or stagnating (lyrically) for an obvious reason or do the subjects of death, war, violence, and Satan remeain just as relevant today as they were three decades ago?
I would say the '90s death metal approach to Satanism was pretty specific to that era. Satanism in death metal has certainly undergone a paradigm shift in the '00s.

Back then, it was pretty clearly tied to the mass hysteria surrounding the idea of Satanic cults hiding in nondescript midwestern towns, abducting children and sacrificing hobos, etc. Satanic lyrics in the '90s were clearly more "anti," part of the genre's total embrace of all things that upset the illusion of order that the visible level of society maintained in order to keep people from realizing the kind of nihilistic morass toiling underneath it, and from which it derives all of its true power.

Nowadays, Satanic lyrics in both death and, to a somewhat lesser extent, black metal have become more focused on the mystical power inherent in the idea of the supernatural than they are on the element of evil itself. This is most obvious in the aforementioned proto-hipster DSO. Of course, there are all those throwback bands that just aim to repeat past successes of others, copying both musical techniques and lyrical themes.

Even here, though, there is a sensation of there little being left to rebel against. Even the most vapid NORPs have, by now, become exposed to (what must be for them) a dizzying array of deception and disorder in the world that "allows" them to feed. Even the most retro "black thrash" band, doing nothing but directly praising Satan's virtues, seems to be doing more than simply mimicking the spirit of the '90s. Because mimicry itself says something about what you desire and what you believe in.

The gist of what I'm saying is that Satanic lyrics in the '90s were revelatory and disruptive. Satanic lyrics now seem more inspired by a search for something mystical to give meaning to a mundane existence. Of course, there have been traces of this since the beginning, but it seems to be the main thrust of such lyrical themes now. '90s Satanism, deconstructive. Modern Satanism, nearly emo. I am by no means a follower of the dark one, I don't even believe in such a thing as evil(much less a personification thereof) - but even I know his aspects well enough to know that a true follower of his would follow his example, and create his own meaning out of the muck in which he festers, instead of following his words/actions/teachings/whatever and wait for a purpose to be given to him as a reward for his loyalty. Nevertheless, it's an interesting shift to go from death metal bands trying to show everyone the world is meaningless, to now... trying to find meaning in the world.

And then there was black metal :p

Interzone / Re: Only in England...
« on: December 25, 2013, 10:46:38 PM »
Your tax dollars at work... But this sort of myopic thinking is prevalent in all bureaucracies. By no means is it restricted to England. The American legal system is rife with it - then again, the basis for America is also English... hmm...

Interzone / Re: Cops rediscover cure for mental illness
« on: October 05, 2013, 07:38:45 AM »
Also, as for the article that the topic is about, can I just get clarified... did she get shot AFTER SHE LEFT HER CAR???
You're surprised? This sort of force is SOP for American police forces.

Interzone / Re: Your Morals: A Quiz!
« on: October 01, 2013, 10:46:37 AM »

Up until about a year ago, the "Harm" and "Fairness" sections would have been much, much lower. Getting old, I guess. Not sure why "Loyalty" is so low, but OK. I do find it amusing to see that my obsession with "Purity" outdoes even a Muslim's ;)

Interzone / Re: Spiritualism
« on: September 22, 2013, 01:05:31 AM »
...a personality, a consciousness. It is hubris to ascribe such to ourselves but not to the existence which encompasses us
My goodness, this was an elegant insight. Never looked at it that way before. After all, just how tangible is "consciousness" in the first place? It's certainly not a physical object. It's barely definable, if at all. You certainly possess a different personality than you did ten years ago, and yet your identity remains the same - you still claim to be the same your-self.

And we keep concerning ourselves only with whether things "beneath" us, such as dogs and elephants, have consciousness... What arrogance to assume that we are the uppermost tier of being itself. Not that I think these investigations are pointless, not at all - but even asking the question displays an innate narcissism.

Interzone / Re: Spiritualism
« on: August 30, 2013, 10:49:39 AM »
I've heard curiosity described by a Zen teacher as the opposite of Zen. I've also talked at length with an eloquent craftsman, who described curiosity as the ultimate form of love. I tend to agree with the craftsman.

knowledge (n.)
early 12c., cnawlece "acknowledgment of a superior, honor, worship;" for first element see know. Second element obscure, perhaps from Scandinavian and cognate with the -lock "action, process," found in wedlock. Meaning "capacity for knowing, understanding; familiarity; fact of knowing" is late 14c. Sense of "an organized body of facts or teachings" is from c.1400, as is that of "sexual intercourse." Also a verb in Middle English, knoulechen "acknowledge" (c.1200), later "find out about; recognize," and "to have sexual intercourse with" (c.1300).
There are two kinds of inquisitiveness. One comes out of love for the thing being studied. A marriage should, ideally, pursue this behavior. The other comes out of love for knowledge itself; a hunger that is by its nature impossible to satiate. A (monogamous) marriage will run into problems with this for obvious reasons.

The first leads to intimacy with and expertise over a subject. The second is the reason we spend three hours on Wikipedia in one sitting when all we originally wanted to do was read about Krakatoa.

Interzone / Re: Your Soul.
« on: August 05, 2013, 12:33:35 PM »
To say that my contradictory tendencies have carried me as far as their limit presupposes both a goal and a limit.
There doesn't have to be a goal, but there will be an end. The limit is not presupposed; you directly state your avoid the limitations of a fixed position. Which is itself a limitation.

To change my mind is to become something new; I may as well wake up as another person every day. On the cellular level, I am not even the same person now that I was born as. This brings me greater joy than anything else.
But if your constant state is to change your mind, then continuing to change your mind is not a change of mind at all. Adopting a dedicated stance would be a change.

...maybe I'm already dutifully dedicated to a position of non-dedication. "The only constant is change" kind of thing.
But in what way does this, an absolutist reverence for relativism, in any way show a reverence for the absolute?

Interzone / Re: Impression of reality
« on: August 05, 2013, 12:21:28 PM »
Solipsism, in this case, refers to placing oneself at the center of things. Once your focus becomes expressing your own impressions of a thing, as opposed to expressing why that thing caused those impressions, you do this. I don't see how such an attitude is incapable of producing art - I'd wager the vast majority of today's artistic expression comes from exactly that.

I don't know exactly what ANUS-style criticism is these days, as I rarely come here, nor how I am projecting it. I am, in fact, projecting only what I myself see. Unless you had difficult understanding my point, your claim that I make little sense, makes little sense. It always makes sense to criticize and challenge subjectivity. How is rationalizing something which is not meant to be rational, in any way a failure of the person rationalizing - is not the point of rationale the idea that it can be applied to anything? How is subject matter not a valid point of criticism - is the choice of subject matter out of the artist's hands, or does it in and of itself express something? Why doesn't mundaneness imply superficiality - because we can inject meaning into it?

I find there's much more projection in the two analyses you referenced than in anything I said. The Caillebotte painting didn't make me think of alienation due to urbanization at all. I found it relaxing, and felt the man's face to reflect this as opposed to apathy. Any sense of isolation was of the comforting, not alienating, type - being a result of the fact that it's raining, not the fact they're in a city. In short, I found the painting to be an expression of the calming nature of rainfall. Even in the confines of a city - which goes directly against the analysis' interpretation that it expresses the impact of modernity on human interaction.

The Toulouse-Latrec painting did not communicate any of the sensations outlined in the relevant analysis to me at all; I found it to be vibrant, not oppressive. Stuffy, sure, but that seemed like nothing but a reflection of the feeling any person gets when in a closed room with close friends, having partaken of copious drink and smoke, in lively conversation pregnant with passion more than meaning. In short, to me it looks like a painting of being heavily buzzed without being outright drunk. A good night out.

Now, my impressions of these paintings are absolutely projections, just as much as the analysts' are. But I will not defend them as being anything more than that. They are fully subjective, and because of that I won't be trying to ascribe any more validity to them than they deserve. And I certainly won't use these projections as evidence of a deeper significance in the things to which they are directed. Any significance I ascribe to the paintings is a significance I invent myself. As such, the paintings are not only solipsistic expressions by the ones who made them - they draw me into solipsism myself.

I don't see how "Among the Sierra Nevada Mountains" is feminine, unless luminescence and enormity are feminine concepts to you. The numinous experience is not something I find to be inherently feminine (or masculine, for that matter) at all. And sentimentality, in and of itself, is certainly not undesirable or feminine; the Greek epics and Icelandic sagas are full of it.

Interzone / Re: The world government
« on: August 05, 2013, 11:24:27 AM »
Istaros: never knew you were interested in the occult. My guilty pleasure too. But I meant occult in its literal sense, hidden.... I felt cool for being the only one with this "forbidden knowledge" that I translated. It's the joy of "fear porn".
No worries, I was taking the term in its literal sense. Cryptids and demons and whatnot can indeed fall under the umbrella it defines, but I meant anything secret or unknown is inherently fascinating. The "joy" you describe is what I was referring to when I said it was a guilty pleasure for me :p

Well, I said it would be unappealing to those who did not believe. It would certainly appeal to those who think Satan real.
It took me a few moments, even after reading this response, to figure out what you meant. Your original statement wasn't terribly clear - I read it as saying "this will not be an appealing explanation to those that do not believe Satan to be a metaphor OR consider Satan a metaphor." Basically, I read "believe or consider" as being two terms describing the same thing for emphasis. Not as "those that do not believe in Satan, nor to those who consider him to be a metaphor," which of course is what you meant. In short, I've got it now :)

I am not sure about evil being the natural state of the universe. If the universe is a sandcastle, then evil is a kick, not loose sand or nothing at all; but I see what you mean and will consider this further.
Given time, the sand castle will be destroyed by the natural processes occurring in its environment. The changing of the tide will weaken its structure. Wind will erode its surface. An earthquake may shatter it. And even the grains of sand from which it is built will eventually be annihilated, as the sun around which it orbits will eventually die. The idea that evil is the natural state can be easily confused because of the assumed weight we give to certain words - "evil," "natural," these things carry additional meaning beyond their most basic definitions. The core concept is not so much that evil is natural, but rather that good is a divergence. Unless one pursues it actively, it will not emerge. It has to be brought into being, it has to be DONE. The most popular acknowledgement of this basic idea, although I doubt many have thought about it strongly enough to see that it does in fact reflect the position I espouse, is the well-known quote of unknown origin: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Almost everyone seems to like this quote, but few people seem to have really considered what is necessary (on a larger scale) for it to be true.

Many things considered to be inherently evil are good, like suffering, which is dispensed by God in His wisdom. I worship it without prejudice. I think this confusion, or difference of position, is one of the reasons metal music petered out. Anti-Christian imagery worked as a metaphor when there was something deeper to say (even incidentally), but it doesn't work literally.
Completely dead-on. One of the greatest shames of the modern West, and it is particularly embarrassing in regards to its religion, is the idea that shame is a bad thing that we should never experience. But this is, as you suggest, just a smaller element of suffering overall, which is the real thing to be avoided in our culture now. And this will not help us; suffering contributes to our growth. I think you really hit on something with how that connects to the decline of metal.

On a personal note, I thought you had wandered into Christianity istaros, am I mistaken? Your position would certainly be heterodox if so.
I still don't know exactly what I am. But I do recognize the heresy of saying Satan, and in fact evil as a whole, doesn't "exist."

Interzone / Re: Esotericism
« on: August 05, 2013, 01:25:44 AM »
What does Satan represent?  What would happen if you worshiped that directly?
This was an extremely good response to Corpse. I also liked the "is our 'scientific' world really objective" bit. We are madly spiraling ever further into the formative strands of material existence, making tremendous and unbelievable strides in this direction. It is as if we feel a pressing need to flee the possibility that there are things we do not know. I have not thought about this enough to fully verbalize what I know, but there is something in our modern scientific approach that reminds me of drug addicts.

I'm sorry to hear about your bunny.
Me, too. I am patiently dreading the day my dog dies. It will be one of the worst days of my life. That last sentence feels very strange to say. Knowing it so absolutely. Odd feeling.

[1] 2 ... 53