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 - Ratatosk

[1] 2 ... 8
Interzone / Re: Iconographic difficulty of nihilism
« on: September 26, 2013, 09:33:02 PM »
Nihilism is a tree, growing in all directions at once. It is the identical fractal structure that fractures and feeds off earth and sky, reality and idealism.

It will grow through a rock, or around. It will absorb wire fences along the way, and demolish sidewalks a millimeter at a time.

It reaches for the sky by reaching deep into the soil. It reaches deep into the soil by using the energy it gathers from the sky.

It drinks anything, eats anything, but the leaves don't change from year to year.

It is valuable in life because it grows strong and supports others. It is valuable in death because it was authentically natural, thus useful.

This is nihilism.

Interzone / Re: Point of reference
« on: August 02, 2013, 07:39:25 AM »
As the human mind works not only via contrast, but also from personal experience. Bandying about terms such as good or bad is meaningless without context except in one instance - it is always great to have a ladyboy dressed as Jesus ram an aubergine silicone rod into your ass.

Interzone / Re: Your Soul.
« on: August 02, 2013, 07:32:05 AM »

Who are you, really? What point of reference could you use to be sure?

It may happen that someday you will sense a hidden aspect, like feeling an unexpected draft in a room that hints at further exploration. But then again, maybe it was nothing after all...

Sometimes, however, things like this are only forgotten by one part of the mind. You may sense a hollow tinge in the morning newsfeed or radio program, or [if you are lucky] you may hear it in yourself. Why would anybody care about other people knowing who and what they are? Who is anybody? Just what the hell is behind all this anyway?

At some point, if you live a reasonably honest life, have mastered and simplified your environment, and have the courage to pursue potentially reckless ideas, you will find - rather suddenly - that appearances are not essential qualities. Finally most human ambitions fall into place! How far does this rabbit hole go?

If I replace my car door, is it still my car? How about the engine, now the frame? What about me? Am I the same person I see in childhood pictures? My mind and body have undergone complete transformation, what is left that is permanently me? The mind flounders like the organized cacophany of a symphony until WHAM the cymbals clash, and there follows only silence, nothing.

Pregnant nothingness. Being, perfectly and evenly distributed, taking on and shedding forms like so many bubbles in the wake of a wave, never always changing. You look down and inside and see the same process in you as in the grass and airplane and moldering sidewalk.

Like a plant uncurling from it's seed husk you finally begin to understand that it was being curled up inside the shell, being trapped in a feedback loop, that created the illusions that until recently you tried desperately tried to resolve. The echo chamber reduces from compulsion to skill, and the camel becomes a child.

Living now, like a tree walking and taking nourishment from all forms, you find yourself curious and exploring the possibilities of this pregnant void.

Thank you Crow.

Interzone / Re: Esotericism
« on: July 25, 2013, 08:52:18 AM »
Exoteric religions tell you that a dogma can set you free.

Esoteric religious thought instructs you to explore and discover.

The best parts of esoteric thought are the hermeticists, the Hindus, and the Perennialists.

If religions were more like those... we'd all join.

But they're not very individualist/populist. More like solitary and contemplative. That's not a big seller in Idiocracy-land.

I see what you did there.

As another data point, there are a great deal of esoteric Christian paths to explore. Meister Eckhart springs immediately to mind. William Blake espoused a pseudo-Xtianity. On the modern lighter side you have "almost-not-Christian" Emerson, and a more hard line in C.S. Lewis.

I think you made a good distinction. Popular religions tell you to be one of them, while esoteric ones explore how to be. Their respective numbers and influence is a good reflection of the human population.

What would be interesting is to explore these two human trends, which this umbrella of sites does from a political perspective. Do they run concurrently with little interaction? It sure seems this way, with occasional breaches this way or that.

Metal / Kvelt
« on: July 03, 2013, 07:58:20 AM »
When being “true” becomes the trend, the intellectual members of a group have two options. Either rejoice and enter the fray and grind out new paths, or realize the “truth” was their trend and now abandon it for other means of dominance.

Interzone / Circles versus Foundations
« on: June 17, 2013, 12:30:44 PM »
Traditional religious views often hold that mind and life are separate from matter. This creates a perceptual dichotomy of reality, and is used to the effect of psychologizing the universe.

As a result, further generations have found the concept of a personal universe not only disconcerting, but non-demonstrable. Reductionism became in vogue.

In as far as accepting an issue, then taking the opposing view, is an acceptable way to break free of mental barriers this has been profitable. But look at this:
-Biology states that minds are reducible to physical brains.
-Neurology frequently shows that mental processes are physical processes.
-Physical processes are governed by Physics.
-Fecund interpretations of supra-Newtonian physics takes the concept of mind as an integral part of the physical process.

Thus we are left with a circle, a system of dynamics where any center is a temporary frame defined only by the surrounding frames. The mind is simultaneously "nothing but" and a "core variable."

It is of high value to be able to follow a chain of reasoning, and to carry it further. But the first success isn't the only one possible, and will lead one in circles if taken to be the paragon of thought. Or to PhD research fellowships where you compete with the Chinese to see who can have the most monotonous life.

Interzone / Re: Drunk, Destructive, and Disturbed
« on: June 17, 2013, 12:17:18 PM »
My question is, How are we supposed to legitimately show that we are feeling repressed, angry and tired of the bullshit we are bombarded with on a daily basis, when any action of rebellion is tied to fines or "public disturbance"?  How do we cause/announce our problems and not be apart of the governments master plan?

Those who do not appear to be repressed, angry and tired, they often are.

If you think the government has a "master plan" then you could chalk them up as being complacent within it.

To take on the feelings of repression, anger and tiredness, one must become free, peaceful and vital.

To do so, it is important to first accept the repression, anger and tiredness.

In order to shed light on the feelings of repression, anger and tiredness so many mask behind a sterile gauze of happiness, never give any recognition to their charade, but remember that their charade is betrayed by their every word and action as their ruse is terrible and foolish and could only ever hope to fool a half-brained goldfish.

People swept up in the charade are terribly upset, but they know not at what. People who are free of the charade have no time for it. People who are beginning to wake up to the charade's nightmare are most disturbed by it.

HOOAH brother!

Interzone / Re: Loneliness
« on: June 14, 2013, 06:22:36 PM »
Today I am lonely. Not in the usual sense, for I have more than enough quality company.
But today I lost the most amazingly awesome cat I've ever known.
A large female Maine Coon, otherwise known as a Norwegian Forest Cat, who wandered in from the woods about five years ago.
I feel sick at heart; my heart is intolerably heavy. This is awful.
My wife, too, is in a real state.

It must have been poison, to go from a strapping specimen, overfilled with vigor, to dead, in under two days.
I assume she's dead: she was at death's door last night, and was gone in the morning, having chosen to find somewhere quiet, outdoors, to die. I searched all day, but nothing. No sign.

Well. We'll get over it, I'm sure, although it may take a while.
I don't feel much, really, when humans die. But somehow this is very different.
It's definitely empty, and lonely.

Goodbye Lily. Thank you for the love you gave us. You beautiful, rough, tough, monster.


Losing an animal can hit you in a weird way, as there is no real accepted way to deal with that kind of grief. My condolences brother.

I believe an individual can be and often is wiser than a society or civilization. I mean this in the sense that the civilization is basically wrong where the individual is basically right. If you want to paint the picture that a civilization is actually right, is actually wise, and can be more-so than any individual, then I don't understand--either the lessons of that civilization are progressively lost (forcibly), or they are retained and individuals living in the end of the civilization's age retain the full breadth of that civilization's wisdom.

Also, I believe there is a limit to truth, or at least there are limits insofar as the human condition can realistically appreciate. Therefore I find it most plausible that numerous people while incarnated in human coils possess equally optimal levels of wisdom... but this day is not yet here, heh..

Ok, I see where you are going with this, and we will have to define a bit.

Is is more proper to say that truth is "top down" or "bottom up", with the Universal [we Anii] or Individual [liberalism], or is it more proper to say truth is context specific?

So if I were to rewrite my OP, perhaps define time as a defining characteristic of the capacity for truth, but not exclusively so. Each container having it's own "shape" of truth.

I was considering today what sort of statements could flip the values of the last value. This would be an interesting discussion.

For example, are mathematics valid on the Universal scale? Its easy to make an argument both ways.

If I get you: in this case, the "universal" would probably require continued metaphysical divisions / designations, i.e. complexity of number and concept reflecting a distance in principle from the "One" / the essential oneness of all things.

It would seem that T/F statements regarding the universal must be self-referential, and maybe blatantly obvious/contradictory. For instance: (T) the universe encompasses all of known and unknown existence. (F) the universe is spatially lesser than the Pacific Ocean.

An interesting game nonetheless. Maybe a fun game to try to match an instance to a code:



Yes, I think that is the problem of most metaphysics is that tautologies reign. I believe the point is to experience the tautologies, where the logical analysis would simple brush over as not interesting. This gives rise to all sort of situations, from the bliss-ninnies to the koan.

You have my thinking now about this ordinate system. I almost want to arrange a truth table, and consider circumstances to fit... It will be a personal book of changes for the uber-nerd.

Interzone / Re: Childless relationships
« on: June 14, 2013, 06:10:22 PM »


I can posit that overall this does indeed work. If it didn't relationships and families would as a rule of thumb [permitting exceptions] deteriorate over time. This isn't something we see on a macro level, and I can bring either specific examples or archetypes/tropes to bear as witness, as could you.



At the species level, I'm certain love plays a role via identity in mortality. Perhaps love is a side-effect of this cause. At the individual level however I am certain knowing my wife and family will die doesn't make me appreciate them any more or less.

An interesting question for you, as you are Christian: In heaven, when all perfected souls are immortal, will there be love? This assumes souls will retain identity, which is safe if we take Jesus's resurrection as a prototype.

Aninihilation: I was considering today what sort of statements could flip the values of the last value. This would be an interesting discussion.

For example, are mathematics valid on the Universal scale? Its easy to make an argument both ways.

Trystero: I pulled the 5 categories out of my head. Please feel free to adjust the number up or down. Ideally one would not have to use any particular system, but use this concept loosely to designate their frames of reference.

Spoogemiester G: Will do, thanks for the pointer.

What if we assumed that truth can only be judged according to time spans?

For example, a particular man may gather less truth than a civilization. A civilization has less truth potential than a species. So on until we run out of categories, or reach tautology/vagueness.

This would explain the awe of one in the forest, the wisdom of the elders, why this site keeps returning to race > society.

Perhaps we could tongue-in-cheek create a truth ordinal system denoting in what frames of reference particular truths hold sway. This way we can acknowlege the perspective of others, but disagree not on facts, but in application. For example, we may argue that genetic selection of all breeding human pairs is ideal for humanity. We can agree or disagree if we designate our ordinal positions, whether in the individual/family/civilization/special/universal sphere.

Assign a truth value of True, False or Neutral. This can be assumed to be Desireable, Undesirable or Neutral for you Buddhist German Idealists out there.

For example:

Human genetic pairing should be done regard only to scientific principles, as currently best understood.


I love putting glass in my poo spigot.


We should treat people as individuals in this modern 2010+ era, ignoring genetic tendencies. Everybody should be equal in some way.


Interzone / Re: Childless relationships
« on: June 11, 2013, 05:42:21 PM »
I believe we both agree Trystero.

It is also feasible a glacial values change may occur as resources become more scarce, or perhaps having children will be the new "overweight" or "ripped abz": a highly situated value based on relative difficulty of obtaining such a state because of current environmental/cultural conditions.

Frankly we are considering having one genetic, adopting others, but in our mid-30s. Any later and my sperm or her ova will likely produce Corky St. Grishnack.


As a little project I'm expressing my paradigm in collage. Share in this thread images that are special to your black metal heart. (Maybe I'll steal one or two.)

I prefer my 6/1s as 7/1s, but they still die in the end. Meow.

Interzone / Re: Childless relationships
« on: June 10, 2013, 01:32:26 PM »
Somebody open a window, we got some aspies burning their gears in here.

If you take Darwinism as telos, then of course childless relationships are FAIL.

Granted, instinct comes from a survival process, but that does not mean it necessarily serves it all the time. Thus the love instinct can be enjoyed without filling said need. Much like assholes and aubergine rubber mushroom tubes one could say.

Being really philosophical myself, I see my wife as a second brain running introspection on me, and I on her. There are also efficiencies to be gained in a marriage [I hate laundry, she is bad with money], but that comes with the possibility of inefficiencies based on taste.

Relationships can also add a depth to a personal life that is unavailable to a loner. Friendships fade with time, some grow stronger. Your mileage may vary.

Metaphysical love, Darwinian need? It is said the 5 flavors will deaden the palete, can't imagine having only two.

[1] 2 ... 8