The Other as Will and Representation

December 22, 2011 at 06:19 | Posted in Everything | 27 Comments

I plan to, in the following post, have a postmortem reckoning with the truth of the reason for my long absence.

I wanted, honestly, to leave without saying a word, but it seems like that is impossible. My nature is to have the last word:  even after crossing this plane of being for a higher state of consciousness.

Leaving this place, in particular, was of multiple origins. The only ones I shall consider here are those that had no historical-emotional origin (i.e., like an argument), because those are mere scuffles that always ended in the rejoining of the antithetical parts.  Plus, I have forgotten them, so any reasons for my leave that may have had to do with them are now void.

I will instead expound on the socio-philosophical and psychological truths that have convinced me to leave. I will then offer my condolences to those who may get the message wrong; I do this not out of animosity, but out of particular consideration.

Before I start, though, I want to make a distinction. When I say, “the Other,” I am not saying the same thing as “another person” or “others.” The Other as I have understood it is the collective mind, the social environment’s leading archetype, the social world, “god,” or quite simply, the template of the “perfect man” as defined by ALL. The Other is just a blanket term I have adopted for the time being; I think it is a postmodern, obscure term that has no warrant in philosophy, so I’ll change it soon in future texts that I write. But since time is of the essence here, I will continue with its use for now.

Firstly, I have discovered quite earnestly that time cannot be wasted. Second chances at life are spiritual in origin and have no basis in scientific considerations; reincarnation does not work for humans, as it does for physical matter. Of course, energy itself isn’t reincarnated (it is used within a system, then dispersed as unusable), so it would be illogical to say that a state of mind would be, since that is also an energetic state. Not to dismiss the Hindus as incorrect; they have certainly had a profound connection with modern science (Oppenheimer quoted their ancient religious documents when the first atomic bomb was detonated), and all religions have some kernel of truth locked away in their dogma (Herbert Spencer agrees).

This idea, though basic in notion, is practically impossible; I still waste time in everyday life. However, I waste less, because of the orientation of why I spend my time the way I have chosen.

Now, I do not build imaginary cities with magical trickery (Minecraft) to please the Other. I build mental structures with heavy study to  further understand the world for the only reason we exist here on earth:  to push our specie’s survival. But I also do it for my own sake; for pleasure. I can build worlds of my own if I need to within the confines of my own mind, for no-one to see excepting myself, but I like to stick to reality.

Now, I do not watch videos of mindless activity or “jokes” (memes) which are only funny because the Other finds it funny. I rarely watch movies to get an emotional perspective on the world at large or its direction (i.e. “The Road”), or for my own pleasure.

Now, I do not listen to music simply because others revel in it with “taste” which is defined by the Other. I listen to music to acquire a new cultural perspective on things like states of mind or types of personalities, or simply for pleasure.

I have pointed out three of these things in order to save time and make mypoint clear, because it leads into my second point.

Secondly, I have found that the only reason for the existence of the chat rooms (or Facebook and Twitter, for that matter:  I have rid myself of those outlets, but I’ll get to that later) lied in the fact that their was a necessity of the confirmation of one’s existence through the Other. I know I have constantly used this term and capitalized it, and its very obscurantist of me, but it is the only term I can think of to fit this description.

What I mean is this:  one finds himself stranded in a lonely existence, alienated  from other people because of the conditions of their lives. They have formed no being, no true self-consciousness, because they have not yet realized themselves through another person; they have not passed a “reality-check” to confirm their being. This used to be an early stage of life, but now, it has become offset by the maturing technological revolution. Self-consciousness is being eclipsed by mindless collectivism (as opposed to the good conscious collectivism, if that’s even possible), but that is another discussion for another day.

Basically, we had all formerly united (and I use “all” as quite a blanket term here; I mean to distinguish us frequent chat-room goers with this word) in order to figure out how to approach the Other. We each are not complete in being, so we gather together to combine our positive aspects (Hegel’s dialectic). We want to present ourselves as “acceptable” or higher to the social world. I was not exempt from this goal.

Forming the group is the first physical sign of acceptability, since number has always been sacred to humanity (i.e. majority rule). This is a deception, however, until the modes of inauthentic being converge.

Each of us brings to the table some positive aspect, like I said; these can be anything that relates to the social world. For example, one of us brings in a “musical taste” that is acceptable. One brings in “comedic taste.” Another brings in “leisure time taste” (i.e. what video games to play, what comics to read).

This is how social groups survive in today’s world and how the Other is appeased. Our group, by the new standards set quite recently, has definitely appeased the Other and continues to spiral into its mode of being.

This would be fine and well, but the Other is not the “perfect man” it has been called. The Other, the social world, god, is imperfect. Why would we model ourselves after an imperfect mode of being?

So I end this second point. The realm of the Other that the chat rooms seek to appease is a worthless mode of being that is only GRASPED at. It is incomplete in itself. Of course, our mode of being that we had for so long has now become a part of the Other (technology plays such a great role, especially Facebook, in being and society nowadays), so the Other has been appeased, and thus provides temporary fulfillment. I think I escaped while this appeasement was happening on a multi-group basis, so I consider myself lucky, saved by philosophy and the greatest minds of humanity.

The Other, or the social world, has accepted you now. I thought that this was what I wanted also; that this mode of being was the “perfect” one. But I always had my doubts.

Thirdly, and this carries over from that point, my doubts on our mode of being have become great due to my venture into authentic being through self-consciousness and consciousness in general. Reading has opened up the field of inspection I can carry out on reality. Reality can include but is not limited to the individual states of mind toward the world, the social world and its operations, the truth of god, the workings of the natural world and the physical sciences, technological effects on the psyche, and much more. Not only have I become able, with the tools I have gained from deep study, to venture into the “why” of things, but I have also been able to venture into the “why” of myself.

And here I discovered the rotting core of a self that was being connected to the lifeless Other. I fell quite ill (literally, I became sick) during my times with all of you when I read Ayn Rand’s Anthem. It expounded egoism in a philosophical monologue at the end of the book. It was the most extreme form of egoism I had ever encountered. I am not an egoist but this certainly drew my attention away from others and, more importantly, the Other. This is when I began to develop what I call an “authentic form of being.” It continued through the reading of great authors who had even greater insights, like Freud, Marx, P. J. Proudhon, Nicolas Berdyaev, G. F. Hegel, Guy Debord, Edward Abbey, and a host of others I haven’t the time to name.

My whole life had revolved around the Other. My sexuality (which I tried to explain to all of you at some point; my language was certainly obscure and unclear, but I now know why you all rejected it) was based on it. With an application of Freud and Lacan, I discovered that I had been seeking castration BY THE OTHER (i.e., I had lost any form of a castration complex, which is abnormal development for a child) in order to appease the Other; I wanted to become opposite of what I was in order to be even looked at, to even have BEING, in the gaze of the Other. And I wanted the Other to transform me into this subjugated, inauthentic being. This was my being’s thesis. It was the biggest threat to my “self.”

My studies have been encompassing the antithesis of that thesis. This, in time, and according to the rules of Hegel’s dialectic, should take out the positive aspects of each and create a new synthesis that is truer than either state before it. My being is in a process of becoming; and leaving this place is just one stage of that becoming. My self is almost complete and is almost armed with the tools necessary to combat the mindless fervor of Other appeasement going on in today’s world.

My leaving, indeed, is not over some petty squabble, which I would probably return after; it is actually a stage in the becoming of my BEING, my SELF, the most sacred thing in this world.

Fourthly, the reason I must abandon all of you is because you have invested your sexual energies, now sublimated (or channeled into some other form:  much different than not sublimated), into the desire of the Other (or jouissance). I hate using Lacanian analysis and terminology, but this situation calls for it. You wish to “seed” the “perfect man” with your own collective being (which is more perfect than your individual, inauthentic being). You wish to impregnate the Other with your “taste,” your “style.” But what you don’t see is that IT is impregnating YOU with these things; they have never belonged to you, they are INAUTHENTIC. You are being SUBJUGATED by the weaknesses of other people. I cannot stress enough, that I cannot take part in this madness any longer.

Finally I have no desire for the Other anymore. I destroyed my Facebook quite some time ago (maybe a year and a half ago), and I also destroyed my Twitter account a little bit later. I had to create a new one because I was giving a real-life social group a chance, but I deleted it soon after (and I saw that you all noticed its creation; I deleted it because those people that I had honestly tried to relate to in real life were just as inauthentic). I have one friend (or maybe two;  but I call him into question a lot) who is actually becoming authentic.

———————————————————————————————–

I don’t expect anyone to understand this at all, because:

1) The truth of inauthentic beings gathering together and creating a group to appease the Other is too much for that said group to handle; it doesn’t want to think of itself in such derogatory terms; it creates a reaction-formation to combat these notions;

2) The terms I have used and the notions that I have propounded have come from a couple of years of study of more than seventy volumes spanning the timeline of human history, schools of thought, and nationalities, and most likely will not be understood by those who have not taken the time to educate themselves;

3) Most will either ignore this entire post or read it and attribute some historical-emotional origin to it, or attribute some projection of their own weaknesses onto it.

The Other has become the Real. The Real is now unreal. The true has become a moment of the false, and the false has become truth. Until we flip reality on its head, until we test “reality” with authenticity in our consciousness, we cannot discover truth. Too often have truth-seekers stayed within the boundaries of the social world or the gaze of the Other, and thus erred from the path to answering the fundamental question of survival:  “why.” And until we all decide that the social world is not the most important aspect of reality, we will not realize that the most important aspect of reality is actually the human being behind it.

The devolution of man has been occurring since the end of the Renaissance. Unless we act soon, we will return to the primitive state of consciousness we once belonged to:  one where we are controlled by “hallucinations” (back then, they came from the mind; soon, they will be outside of us, technological holograms) that take away thought from the human picture. Being will belong to technology.

Nothing can justify a lifestyle of becoming enslaved. This stage of it is just as bad as the final stage; it is all one Great Chain of Being.

————————————————————————————————

I had planned on handing out individual analyses to aide all of you on your further endeavors through life, but I decided that it was up to all of you to discover for yourselves your own problems. Other people can’t always be the ones to edge you into authenticity, that is what has caused most of the problems today. I hope that I lead by example in critiquing myself (especially on the point of sexuality) in this “essay.” The only way we can become authentic is if we smash our being with new viewpoints on reality and then mold them back together with those same views.

————————————————————————————————

I end this all with a quote and a response, one that should really awaken (even if unconsciously) the authentic self that resides in you all:

“What does it matter how many lovers you have if none of them gives you the universe?”

The universe is a gift of authenticity to self. The Other as Will and Representation is the world of the inauthentic universe, and the death of the subsequently “reality starved” self.

Advertisements

27 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. Oh wow. I’ll admit I didn’t understand all of this, especially the references to most of the authors, but I like what you’ve written.

    I’m not sure I’m really being addressed by this, since I pretty much never hang out in the chat now (not because of a conscious decision to leave like yours, but because of a lack of interest – it’s probably obvious that I’m not very social), but I think we have a pretty similar viewpoint, though mine is neither formed nor enriched by things I’ve read in books (I just have a problem with sitting down for a really long amount of time consuming something – the same reason I don’t like watching movies in my free time, however I have no problems with hours making something).

    I liked the post, so I’m not responding with the things you addressed at the end under the numbers 1 and 3, though I doubt I would’ve if I disliked it, because I actively try to stop myself (I think in an extremely successful manner) from giving in to or acting on defense mechanisms.

    I think I too originally joined the group for the reasons you talked about, but now I don’t need that confirmation anymore.

    I think I agree with most of the things you talked about here, authenticity is being honest with yourself in your opinions and actions (when appropriate – sometimes it can be dangerous to voice an opinion in a certain place or act on a certain desire), right?

    A couple of things though – how does understanding the world help push our species’ survival? (Or I guess, what are you doing with your understanding of the world?) And what makes you think pushing our species’ survival is the only reason we exist here? (My opinion is that there is no reason we exist).

    I doubt the others will see it if you just put it here, so should I go and link them to it or have you already done that/planned to?

    -AKH

  2. Oh, and also, I kind of like the idea that the only thing that matters in reality to us is what we experience – it’s effectively what reality is as far as we personally know, but I think I like it because then it makes reality a pretty cool place, instead of the harsh place it really is, that I have almost zero control over (I neither like the suffering in the world or the attitude most people have that keeps it alive – most people not caring means most people continue to not care, and either don’t have the interest or the courage to question and try and change what goes on).

    However, I guess knowing of that suffering makes it a part of my reality, even if I don’t see or even know about all of it, or can’t grasp its scale. The idea that “well, I’m lucky, and feeling bad about what happens to the unlucky is wasting the happiness I have the opportunity to have” is appealing to me, but it’s still hurting others.

    Many people also think we’re in a fairly utopian society that doesn’t have suffering (in the first world, at least) despite this being very wrong. I wonder if people have been like this in the past, or if this is caused by something else (most likely technology, but how is uncertain – could it be the ways you’ve talked about, or the simple fact that technology is something much more powerful than we’ve ever used in our evolution, leading others to think we’ve made huge leaps all over, such that what problems do remain are trivial?)

    I’m also not certain about reincarnation (or what we’d perceive, if we kept memory between lives, as a similar thing) being something that doesn’t happen, but I really haven’t looked into it much.

  3. AKH you’re absolutely right, I’ve never thought of you as part of the chat room (I almost wanted to just post a little note under it saying that, but I vowed not to point to anything particular). I also wanted to forewarn you of this post (rather than it randomly being here), but I didn’t have a way to contact you.

    I loved the ideas you put forth, and I think you can skip reading for sure to have them. I mainly read to mold those ideas into forms, but you’re right, you don’t have to read to be philosophically minded.

    You said you weren’t very social, and I can pretty much say the same. I can be outgoing and put on appearances, especially when I used work (and will work in the future), but I hate it, I’m introverted.

    You’re right about authenticity, and yes, until everyone is authentic (which is an optimistic ideal, of course), we sometimes have to hide under inauthentic disguises.

    I saw that you are nihilist, which makes good sense (it’s a reaction to the downfall of Christianity according to Nietzsche). I know that many see no spiritual reason for humanity to exist, but I don’t think many would argue that we have a material reason for existence. The reason that I gave stems from Darwin and Herbert Spencer, where our actions are merely ways to survive another day and to pass on our life-force through sex to the next generation. A vulgar existence, no doubt, but that’s the base of it to me. Aristotle said that this is the true way to immortality, and all of creation participates in reproduction simply to continue living. I’m sure Freud would say the same thing, that the only reason we think is to be pleasured (so an even baser human existence would be to exist for pleasure only, though I don’t go this far), and that thought is merely a detour to this pleasure. On the topic of nihilism/absurdism, you should look into Albert Camus, he writes great fiction on nihilism, my favorite being “The Stranger.”

    I think that our survival depends on our understanding of the world. According to Freud, the mental apparatus originally consisted of an unconscious Id that simply wished and wished for pleasure. When it had to face the reality of becoming a complex organism, it developed an ego that would deal with reality in order to take a detour to real (and not imaginary or wishful) pleasure. I think that this is why we have had a religious understanding of the world in the past, and in its wake, we have a scientific understanding; I know that knowledge for the sake of knowledge is a drive for these undertakings, but they always yield some practical means of survival for their followers (religion offers group protection, science offers technology).

    I added the point about reincarnation because I had no caffeine, at one a.m., and had nothing else to put there…haha…of course that is what I take to be the truth in it. In addition, I would say that reincarnation is certainly a physical thing (i.e., matter is recycled and what was once a human becomes a blade of grass). This idea turns over the ideas of those who say that the embryo is a human: they would have to admit that dirt is humanity also, since it contains the possibility of a human being in it (as building material, at least).

    I didn’t inform anyone of this post, so if you could do that for me I’d really appreciate it.

    And by the way, on Zeonlog, before this post I commented on his blog about the 2 year anniversary of my revealing myself to be a fraud. You will find it interesting, it’s an “apology” in a very vague sense to Zeon but it is for everyone to read.

    I will continue emailing you after this is all over with, if you give me your address. I have always enjoyed your e-company.

    PS: You’re posts are definitely not 1) or 3) responses, I expected you to understand this completely. I remember some debates we had a long time ago with someone named “lukasaurus rex (? can’t remember the name completely)” or someone that was talking religious nonsense, and whatever you said pretty much led me into what I’m studying today.

  4. I have always enjoyed your e-company too, my email is akh500@hotmail.co.uk. Are you going to make any more posts here? Also, I’ll totally check out your comment on the zeonlog.

    I think about Lukasaurus (I think that was all his name was) from time to time, ha ha, mostly because long after that fight ended I realised that perhaps the one good point he made (he said if the earth was more than 1000 miles further from or closer to the sun, it would burn/freeze) was total bullshit, and I really should have researched it, that way I would’ve found out at the time. If I recall correctly, his other arguments basically amounted to “believe because it will get you into heaven, you might as well” a form of something known as “pascal’s wager”, which is totally bull also, because when you take into consideration all possible religions in the world’s history, let alone just the ones around in our current time, being religious “just in case” provides very little benefit. It’s great that that argument/debate lead you into this.

    Matter is indeed recycled, it seems (after a quick google trying to find who said it) that a lot of people say that we are stardust, pretty cool to think about, I think it’s nice to feel connected to the universe, rather than trapped here on the tiny planet Earth.

    I really don’t know about reincarnation, if you just think about it then yeah, it doesn’t seem likely, but apparently there are thousands of kids who have remembered the lives of people who lived in the past, to details they couldn’t possibly learn through their normal life. If true, I think it gives the idea credibility, though I was researching last night and I see a lot of people linking it to souls and religions, which I don’t think it has to be linked to – many religions talk about reincarnation, just like many religions talk about the sun, but just like religions seem to think of the sun as a small ball placed in our sky (by god, of course) that revolves around us (which, of course, is wrong), many religions link reincarnation to souls and such: this could also be wrong, without meaning reincarnation does not exist (just like the sun exists).

    Another, perhaps different form of reincarnation that I consider is something like the final point on this page: http://exitmundi.nl/eternity.htm which basically states that (although I’m not sure of the credibility of this theory) over an extremely long time, the universe will fade out, and then random fluctuations of the quantum vacuum would eventually produce a new big bang/universe. If this happens, could it be possible that our exact same universe, with all the same active/experiencing consciousnesses, would eventually happen again? And if that were true it could also be possible that some of the same consciousnesses we have now would experience life as different people (or probably, different animals) in universes that follow ours, so from a person/animal’s perspective, it would, if it could actually remember past lives at any point, die and then be born again (or more specifically, perhaps become conscious in the womb again) as another creature (despite a very long time passing between the events).

    Additionally, perhaps our consciousnesses are matter and, being recycled, eventually they could be recycled into another creature’s consciousness within this universe? (Though the chance would be low). All of these things are what I usually think of when I think of reincarnation, rather than something that requires a soul or non-material world, so it has credibility to me, but research may remove that credibility.

    Anyways, I have xat informing to do, I’m not sure they’re going to react nicely to this though. Talk to you later.

    -AKH

  5. I can’t say I understand this entire post, or the topic in general, Enox. I am sad you choose to leave for these reasons, but I can’t help but feel that this is a big excuse to not say goodbye. You even got the cold-hearted Conure to worry that you had died, or gone off to live in the wilderness and starved or something, when you started to erase yourself from the internet. We hunted for a long time, hoping that we might find you under a new username, or anything, really. The thing is, Enox, that we enjoy your company. Even if there are the occasional disputes and things, we wouldn’t be here if we didn’t, I don’t know if you will even read this, but I think you owe an actual goodbye, if you really must go…

    P.S. For a little while we even thought maybe the government had ‘erased’ you from everywhere, as crazy as it sounded. We really had nothing to go on. XD

    -Affle

  6. (Edit: To Enox) Reading your comment on the zeonlog, I see a lot of similarities in you to me. The AKHLog and the things going on around it were one of my first real, involved social experiences, excluding those I had in early childhood (say, less than age 8) that I don’t remember very well. Later on I did, among different people I think, put on a macho/”confident” facade (a douchebag personality basically, and looking back on it it was certainly no use for what I hoped it would get me – people liking me, which would lead to girls liking me sexually). I’m glad that I’m myself now.

    I’d always had you pegged as a pretty big extrovert though (from the picture you painted of yourself). Was that a lie, or did you really hang out with a lot of people before, without being authentic?

  7. This is some incredibly delirious biznasty.

  8. After reading it again and again, I can see (sort of) your point. We try to change the world, and it changes us instead. But you don’t have to let it change you. Being yourself is not as hard as you make it out to be. The Other can do what it likes, but I will always be that idiot with the crazy game ideas that will never come to fruition. Maybe we could talk again sometime? I have a few emails you could use, if you aren’t against the idea…

  9. Axle, I died laughing at the theory of the government erasing me. I would have told you guys to watch out for that by now, haha. You guys don’t have to worry about me going into the woods to live now, it’s completely impracticable and I’ve got a different plan that involves…HOUSING. Shocking, isn’t it? “…or gone off to live in the wilderness and starved or something” I am still laughing at this line, I’m pretty sure my parents had this thought once, too. And anyone else I told that “idea” to…

    I’m very sorry for leaving for so long, if I could remember the exact reason for doing so I would certainly tell you now. It was probably something that had to do with some argument, or Minecraft (that was my terrible problem: NOBODY TOUCHES MY STUFF) no doubt, but that doesn’t matter too much anymore.

    Of course I’d like your email address, and anyone else’s on xat- we always had great conversations.

    I apologize for seeming to skip out on the goodbyes: that’s why I decided to come back here, to at least tell you all why I had left. The thought of just abandoning everyone (and everyone thinking I had died) was killing me.

    By the way, I would have responded on twitter to conure’s VERY OBNOXIOUS (VERY OBNOXIOUS [VERY VERY OBNOXIUOS {You get the point.}]) multi-posting, but coincidentally I had to delete the damn thing because of this group that I had tried to affiliate myself with. They were the worst crowd (a small one, at that) I’ve tried to befriend, and I got out of it quick. I only remade my twitter because of them, and I deleted it because of them.

    Finally, you’re definitely right about being the absolute craziest (and thus, funniest) person on earth. I don’t think anyone can argue that point!

    ===============================================================

    AKH, I see where you’re coming from. The theory that the universe remolds itself, to my knowledge, was popularized by Nietzsche as eternal recurrence. I’d like to agree with this theory, because it does make a lot of sense, but I have some different views about the universe and energy itself that I’m currently working on. But yes, I see how this type of reincarnation is possible.

    I recognized your old “macho” behavior (or at least remember it, I read some old posts last night to jog my memory and have some laughs), and I thought, at the time, that that was actually how you were, especially when you uploaded a video of yourself working out (which inspired me to get a weight bench, now sitting in the corner of my room in disuse!). The most hilarious instance was when we got into a fight with turbox and mingmoo…

    And to respond to your edit: “I’d always had you pegged as a pretty big extrovert though (from the picture you painted of yourself). Was that a lie, or did you really hang out with a lot of people before, without being authentic?”

    I was DEFINITELY introverted at that point. I was still attending a private school (there you go!) where I literally had NO friends at all. I was completely alone. And from that same place most likely stemmed my outrageous sexuality that I’m trying to psychoanalytically rid myself of (and this is pretty much impossible right now).

    I did, however, know the “archetype” of coolness, from television, the private school “elite,” and the new public school I would be attending…As the year progressed I’m pretty sure I gained some “cool” friends and popularity with the sports types. And of course, my popularity flared in 9th grade when I was basically the dominant force for about…3 weeks. Ha. New school, one hundred people, who barely knew each other: I put on the facade I had been working on here, and I had a few girls that wouldn’t leave me alone (of course, I had no idea what to do after that: I didn’t date them). And the rest unfolds from there.

    So I guess when I finally had a real-life, extroverted attitude, I decided to destroy this one, thinking it would be uncovered by those real-life people. It was certainly a bad trade off.

    That’s why I came back here after all of that. And felt terrible about it ever since.

    So yes, I was completely inauthentic. I was, at one point, having tons of groups come over to my house for “parties” (trust me, they were not parties as you may see them: just hangouts, really). Now I’ve got my books, family, and one friend for company, and hopefully, you guys again in a new way.

    =============================================================

    Pilot…what to say? I think you were always the doorway to the Other in the group, and along with the fact that your comment was so…precise, I don’t have much to say to you.

  10. By the way (basically an addition to the post), I forgot to put in a 4th reason why “nobody would understand this”:

    4) I am still having a hard time expressing these ideas, so my wording and communication is probably very terrible, and I apologize if the meaning has been lost.

    I’ll explain anything that makes no sense, and if I can’t, I have no sense!

  11. And another comment, to Axle in particular, you don’t have to worry about me randomly leaving again until I give a real goodbye. I was planning on doing it, probably here in another post, but I haven’t chosen when to do so.

  12. Alright well, my email is mckinnon.connor@gmail.com , but I dont check it every day. I will check it more often though if you plan to communicate through that.

  13. I wasn’t sure what to say before, and I still don’t really understand it and don’t know what to say… but I kind of get a little bit of whatcha been up to. A bit..

    I appreciate you not leaving us hanging as affle had said.. you know no one knowing what in the hell you’re doing : P

  14. Oh also ” thedraconianhydra@yahoo.com ” *shot*

  15. Alright, I’ve added both of your emails now, I’ll send out a confirmation in just a moment. That is how I plan to communicate from now on, I’m trying to limit the venues that I communicate through.

    I’m glad you’re aware of what I’ve been doing…but what has everybody else been doing in my absence? I’m curious.

  16. Confirming that the last post was me, and not someone else. I don’t know why but the comment labeled me as “Anonymous.”

  17. Ha ha, funny thing about that fight with turbox and mingmoo was that actually I had developed some kind of OCDish 4-hour daily workout schedule then, and was working out so much and not eating enough (even though if I remember rightly I was eating about 4k calories a day) I was about 135 pounds at the time, I doubt I would’ve been able to kick either of their asses, they were probably bigger than me. But I couldn’t get out of the cycle because it was compulsive behaviour, I felt that if maybe I stopped then things would get even worse. I forget what I did, whether I was just not eating enough in the first place or I started working out less often, but at one point I finally made a leap and went up to 175lbs, I had my appendix out in the November when I was 17 (2009, I think) and that let me change my workout schedule to something lighter because I HAD to take time off from it, then eventually over the years it tapered off and recently I pretty much stopped working out and stopped caring about physical size. I’m very glad I have.

    My macho behaviour in that fight was partly put-on and partly a defensive/insecure reaction, ha ha.

    LOL at you having no idea what to do with the girls after they were interested with you, I doubt I would’ve even had the lack of shyness to put on a facade like yours in real life. And you said the parties were just hangouts – did you wish they were more and they just flopped, or was that what people expected, rather than hollywood american highschool parties?

    I think things have turned out alright in the end, so it’s not so bad. While there are things I’ve done in the past that are undeniably (to me) bad things, if I hadn’t have done them then the events that followed them may not have been the same, and I wouldn’t be where I am today, so for that reason, I wouldn’t have changed anything in my life, but that might be a bit related to my OCD tendencies.

    I’ve got your email, and I’m gonna reply to it now.

  18. “LOL at you having no idea what to do with the girls after they were interested with you”, even now I can’t stop laughing at my idiotic mistake of letting those chances up, because that was supposed to be my Holy Grail back then.

    “I doubt I would’ve even had the lack of shyness to put on a facade like yours in real life.” Trust me, when the facade wore off after those first three weeks, it really fell apart and I became increasingly shy and introverted. Now I’ve reverted back to my original stage of introverted-ness with much more experience of the extroverted world, enough to hate it.

    I was a pseudo-Christian back then, so I didn’t wish for more in the realm of parties. And maybe that’s why I wasn’t smart enough to figure out that I was being “asked out.” However, I was theologically unsound back then…too bad, really. I think theology, in the end, saved my sanity. Which is so funny because it seems to make everyone insane now…

    Anyways, what you said about keeping all of those events in memory is exactly what I do. I don’t cherish them in the sense that I am glad I was in or acted in them, but I do cherish them because they led me to this point. You’re right, all events in life are important to the state of mind you have, so I can’t say that what has happened so far and the things I regret are meaningless.

  19. Hah hah wow, I sure left one hell of a laconic reply, didn’t I? Allow me to (somewhat) rectify that. I actually didn’t even really care you were gone, I always expected you to kind of vanish someday, so the prolonged absence really didn’t surprise me.

    Anyways, I found your post to be interesting (I was expecting TL;DR material but I was pleasantly surprised) and I can completely understand your views. Psychology/sociology type stuff was never really my cup of tea to begin with, though. And I must ask: What exactly do you mean by the “doorway to the Other” comment? I can’t discern if that’s a good or bad thing. :u

    If you want to contact me through email, your best bet is datpilote@gmail.com since it’s the one I check most often. As for what I’ve been doing in the past months? Nothing new or unusual, really. I’m still doing the GM thing every once in a while, I’m still mucking around with Minecraft, still on the same message boards and forums and stuff. I got involved in a couple of weird occurrences along the way, but I’d much rather not go into too much detail about those…

    Regardless of my senseless and sleep-deprived ramblings, good to see you back again.

  20. This is… Interesting. Not even a week ago I was still angry about your departure. I’ve read this, and suddenly I am not. I see that most people have been leaving you email addresses here. I’m going to go ahead and leave mine as well. [conuremaster@yahoo.com]
    I don’t have much else to say, other than I understand where you’re coming from entirely, and I’d be interested in talking to you again, possibly hearing more about this.

  21. Pilot, this is what I meant: you brought the outside trends to the community, which in my opinion, made it lose its value. I admit that I obscured what I was trying to say by calling you the “doorway to the Other,” but that was a minimalist response to your very short remark (which I found funny, that’s classic of you). Our conversations turned into ramblings about memes (or simply memes themselves: like Homestuck-speak). I enjoyed it at the time, don’t get me wrong: I just see it in a very different light now (and I was beginning to see the light when the Homestuck obsession started). I think this was because you belonged to so many other groups and forums, you brought them indirectly to us. I hated pretty much all internet groups besides the one we had, and when we started to model ourselves after them (and when the global trend of becoming “internet-minded” started up) the pressure began to build up on this side of the computer.

    Technically, in regards to you asking about it being good or bad, I can’t decide it. I see it as bad for reasons stated above; but to you, it may have increased our value, since you weren’t as attached to the community. It’s a personal judgment in the case of value, but in the long term, I think it’s a bad thing because it merely molds the somewhat original community into the mass of anomie that is the social world.

    Conure, I got your address (as well as Pilot’s) and I sent you both a confirmation email. Sorry to worry you (and make you angry) over leaving, glad this makes up for it. Technically now, I’m staying, but just not on the chat room, rather doing a few emails a day. Glad you appreciate the post.

  22. Looks like I’m the only one that understands this post then (or at least thinks that he does). For all I know, I could be spewing out some totally unrelated bullshit.

    First things first: Someone has been reading too much philosophy. It seems to me that you’re taking many of those philosophers’ teachings literally. Lets take Hegel for an example. I can see where he’s going with the whole dialectic thing at first but then he takes it too far. There is no magical force that causes the dialectic to function. Hegel insists that the whole history of man has occured as it has because of the dialectic: something good, but imperfect appears, then something “bad” or contrary to this appears to oppose it, and then these two fuse to come up with something better (I know I’m being too vague, but honestly I don’t know how to explain it better. You know what I’m tslking about).

    I find this concept to be ridiculous; I mean, I sure like Hegel (and Marx) but the idea that all history so far has been as a result of this is preposterous. It would be too “neat” for this process to happen over and over again all by itseld without any force or being fircibg it to happen.

    That being said, I now move on to discuss the “Other”. I *think* I know what you mean. There are moments when I feel that I want to be “above” humanity- above feelings and emotions. I feel that there must be something better than all of this, and then enter a phase in which I observe humanity from a “higher” perspective. Sadness, anger and drama no longer affect me, because they are human. I am above all that. I sit back and watch as whatever group is with me panics about something that seems irrelevant from my higher perspective; sometimes, though, I reach this state while I’m on my own and nothing is going on. This phase, this state of mind lasts a few minutes at most. I believe that you have achieved this stage permanently.

    Then again, I might be waffling about something completely different as to what you’re feeling right now.

  23. Oh, and I forgot to ask: how come you are able to listen to music for the sole purpose of deriving pleadure from it, yet you are unable to do the same with a movie?

  24. Yes I understand this
    And hate myself for checking here again >.>

  25. Zeon, I have been reading too much philosophy! Sometimes it makes my head hurt, but I keep pressing on. Anyways…

    “There is no magical force that causes the dialectic to function.”

    Certainly, I think it is more like a historical or sociological force. Some type of “spiritual” force seems illogical to me, so I assume that Hegel means otherwise when I read his work. Hegel was a silly German mystic…

    In regards to what you said about the dialectic, you’re right, you described it perfectly. Also you’re right about it not being such a smooth function, I deviate from Hegel with Herbert Spencer’s analysis of “Evolution.” There are all kinds of things at work like Dissolution (which returns things to an inorganic state, a stage before the current stage).

    “I feel that there must be something better than all of this, and then enter a phase in which I observe humanity from a “higher” perspective.”

    Yes, and you’re almost right about my own state of mind…I try to be as rational as possible, yet at the same time my feelings do find their proper place. I am still human, after all; all too human. I replace feelings, though, for the most part, with viewing other beings as they are, so I feel quite unemotional towards someone who doesn’t deserve my emotions.

    Glad you understood the post, and if you want, we can continue correspondence through email, if you post your email address here (or elsewhere).

    PS: “Oh, and I forgot to ask: how come you are able to listen to music for the sole purpose of deriving pleadure from it, yet you are unable to do the same with a movie?”

    That’s mainly just a preference of mine, I can’t watch a movie unless it goes deeper than just trying to evoke laughter or a smile. That being said, I can’t listen to music if it just evokes primal emotions, I have to listen to it for the meaning. So I guess, if we consider movies/music in the context of meaning, they are both enjoyed just for pleasure (because of the meaning).

  26. Ah right. I just think that that force is not there at all and that sociological changes takr place because of other reasons. I’ve always tried to reach that state, but have yet to achieve it permanently. Still, I believe that you have yet to reach it, since we’re humans and have emotions “built into” us. Have you tried meditation? I haven’t myself, but it ought to work wonders from what I’ve heard. Still, I would replace the term “other” with “irrational self”, since “other” is far too vague. When will your next post be? Also, my email is orangemeganium@gmail.com , although I do prefer to debate on the AKHlog. Still, if you want a conversation to be private then I’m just an email away.

    -Zeon

  27. Yes, I don’t think we can reach that state, I know I haven’t (Hegel thought he did). We can get close to it, though. I have not tried meditation, but I’m sure it is relaxing.

    I posted twice since this one, and I hope to post again sometime this weekend.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: