Structure of Worlds

[DjDreamer]

Originally posted by PRMoon
Revolutions will come, nations will rise from ashes, but the invevetable reality is that, speaking in the long term, none of it matters because life does not care about anything that is forged at the hands of man, and it subjegates us all in that the rules of life cannot be broken or altered by us.

So true...

I would say that the meaning of life is "continuation"...and "continuation" is rewarded with "pleasure"...

 

[prosemont]

Citizen Dildo Reporting for Duty!

I just read the blog link. I, too, could have written many parts of that blog but I lean towards the player mentality that blogger writes about. Part of that is my own recognition that most women want something from men and that the poor chump ends up, one way or another, being the beast of burden. This is my own view, it need not be anyone else's here. Being a "player" for lack of a better word is to turn the tables ... to get what we want from women (and I don't mean merely sex, but companionship, an ego boost, yes, raw sex, and everything else that is gotten from being among humanity and having relationships which is what living comes right down to) but without giving up any power or allowing that relationship to metamorph into one where the guy becomes that beast of burden.

 

[Nocturnal]

MindOverMatter

Regardless of how many hours someone works, how many women they sleep with, how advanced on the political/social ladder they are, the discrepency in what we're discussing really comes down to how they view success.

You're just looking at it backwards. You're seeing it from the point of view of "Some man ___ works a lot. But that doesn't mean he does it because he thinks working will make him successful."

You're right. But Pook isn't saying that everyone who works a lot is a materialist. He's saying that materialists are defined as people who work a lot FOR THE SAKE OF being successful or gaining status/superiority over others, and that materialists have the wrong idea about success.

The big point is that we should

...follow OUR dreams instead of women's dreams

If it really is your dream to work all day for the rest of your life, so be it. If that's what you love, go for it. If you're doing it because someone else told you it's how you could live a fulfilling life, then you're on the wrong track.

 

[SELF-MASTERY]

If it really is your dream to work all day for the rest of your life, so be it. If that's what you love, go for it. If you're doing it because someone else told you it's how you could live a fulfilling life, then you're on the wrong track.

So obvious.....

I disagree how ppl put women in the middle of everything.

example: dont live your life for women, but for yourself. substitute anyone for women and then we have a better quote.

I think that when ppl feel the need to take on anyone of the aforementioned roles they do so for acceptence, not just from women or other ppl, but they need to accomplish certained things to accept themselves. They feel like sh** unless they do certain things.

 

[SELF-MASTERY]

none of it matters because life does not care about anything that is forged at the hands of man, and it subjegates us all in that the rules of life cannot be broken or altered by us.

This had a nice ring to it until I reread it. The rules of life can and will be broken and altered by man. The rules of life can and have been altered. I don't agree with all this we are a slave to our simplest biological urges.

Example: sex from a biological standpoint is to create offspring and spread our genes. What separates us from low level life form is that the majority of ppl dont have sex for its biological purpose. The sport fuker doesnt chase women to spread his seed, he does so for pleasure. Institutions such as marriage are stiffling for the male who wants to massively spread his seed. Marriage is man creating a system that goes against the rules of life. This is man evolving on his own accord in response to his changing environment. Now the need for this unit and the traditional family have evolved in such a manner that it is becoming less important.

How does the rules of life or evolution explain homesexuality. A union that is antithetical to "the rules of life."

We as "individuals" are not a slave to the cirsumstances of this world. Another poster wrote that the whole marriage, procreate, retirement scheme is best. It is best for society, but not always for the individual. I think we get the needs of society confused with our needs as individuals. Society needs the family, as individuals it is less important...Society will always need some sort of mythos or ideal, but as a free man, I dont have to submit... I can ignore the rules of life and find my own course.

 

[DjDreamer]

Originally posted by SELF-MASTERY
How does the rules of life or evolution explain homesexuality. A union that is antithetical to "the rules of life."

Why do insane people exist?

Gravity ensures that no man can float away into space but that doesn't mean no man won't believe he can float away into space.

If we all naturaly followed the rules then we all wouldn't need to learn the rules...

 

[George Gordon]

http://mirrorofthesoul.blogspot.com/ (note: his tone puts off many people. Also, some ideas he has are a bit too isolationsist. But his heart is in the right place: live your life instead of living for women.)

This guy sounds like a woman. Why he spends his time biatching about women for pages and pages is beyond me. That's what women do! Not men!

Let's take a look:

"Common sense tells you or at least should, that if you bash a person or gender, they are not going to be around for you to bash anymore."

Did he forget to flip the mirror on himself?

No wonder he spends his time with miss saggy-tits and LETS her bytch at him about how much her life sucks while he plays playstation.

Men never listen to women's "my life sucks because..." Why? Instead, they use that same time to make their own life awesome!

If a guy's going to spend his time with women, he could at least make it positive. When women start bytching at me, I turn it around instantly--within seconds--until we're both having fun. Now she's forgotten about her 'poor, poor' life because she's entered my 'rich, rich' life--for the moment, anyway.

We're leaders. We create our own circumstances. If he wants complaining women in his life, that's his choice. I prefer to have excited, playful women in mine. And that's what I get!

Imagine sexuality was a battery. You must mix the positive and the negative to create energy. When man adds his positive pole to a woman's negative pole, he creates energy. But if he is negative, you've got yourself a dud.

All women bytch. And there's a reason for it. Maybe he should have invested his time in figuring out why women bytch.

Sure, this guy 'lives his life instead of living it for women', but with an attitude like that, isn't he still giving a lot of his attention to women? He can't seem to stop complaining about them.

Why didn't he smoke a few more cigars and have a couple more cognacs instead of writing this feminine jibberish?

!GEORGE GORDON!

 

[whistler]

Originally posted by SELF-MASTERY
This had a nice ring to it until I reread it. The rules of life can and will be broken and altered by man. The rules of life can and have been altered. I don't agree with all this we are a slave to our simplest biological urges.

Example: sex from a biological standpoint is to create offspring and spread our genes. What separates us from low level life form is that the majority of ppl dont have sex for its biological purpose. The sport fuker doesnt chase women to spread his seed, he does so for pleasure. Institutions such as marriage are stiffling for the male who wants to massively spread his seed. Marriage is man creating a system that goes against the rules of life. This is man evolving on his own accord in response to his changing environment. Now the need for this unit and the traditional family have evolved in such a manner that it is becoming less important.

How does the rules of life or evolution explain homesexuality. A union that is antithetical to "the rules of life."

We as "individuals" are not a slave to the cirsumstances of this world. Another poster wrote that the whole marriage, procreate, retirement scheme is best. It is best for society, but not always for the individual. I think we get the needs of society confused with our needs as individuals. Society needs the family, as individuals it is less important...Society will always need some sort of mythos or ideal, but as a free man, I dont have to submit... I can ignore the rules of life and find my own course.

Let's not forget that deviation is natural.

 

[Bonhomme]

What is failure? All four personalities differ on it. But I would define failure as betraying your soul, as living someone else's dream, and having no direction in life.

I'm with you there.

But having the characteristics of a "Shining Star," "Citizen Dildo," "Nice Guy," "Materialist," or some mix thereof and following one's own direction are not mutually exclusive. Consider Hugh Hefner.

The key point, as I understand it, is whether you're being true to yourself, or doing it to suck up to others.

Also, it's very easy to make the mistake of considering "independence" in the wrong light when everything is essentially interdependent.

 

[SELF-MASTERY]

Let's not forget that deviation is natural.

True, but society needs more followers than thinkers to maintain the status quo.

 

[diplomatic_lies]

But if everyone was a deviant, wouldn't we all be conforming to deviance?

 

[whistler]

Originally posted by SELF-MASTERY
True, but society needs more followers than thinkers to maintain the status quo.

Luckily for us, we're in no danger of running out of sheep.

 

[whistler]

Originally posted by diplomatic_lies
But if everyone was a deviant, wouldn't we all be conforming to deviance?

LOL

We can escape that loophole because deviance is by definition not normal. If most people become deviant, then deviance redefines itself.

Point being that genetic variation (and the way that genes change our behavior given a certain environment) is a constant part of life in the bigger sense.

Well, unless you're a strict creationist -- but I'm not.

There aren't rules so much as simply "things we do." Those things we do are sanctioned by our genes. They might not always make sense in terms of propogation of the species, but evolution doesn't make perfect beings, it makes adequate beings.

Homosexual sex, for example, is a common "deviant" behavior in many animals.

In some cases, deviant behavior is useless but harmless, so it sticks around. In other cases, deviance (in genes or behavior) simply reflects the natural mutations that provide variety and better odds that a species can adapt to a changing environment.

It's hard to pin down what the "natural order of things" is if you appreciate that the natural order changes.

 

[Visceral]

Originally posted by SELF-MASTERY
True, but society needs more followers than thinkers to maintain the status quo.

Originally posted by whistler
Luckily for us, we're in no danger of running out of sheep.

That's an interesting predicament: choosing between the dehumanization of conformity or the chaos that would result if everyone decided to be a little ubermensch wannabe.

 

[sifer]

Originally posted by Visceral
That's an interesting predicament: choosing between the dehumanization of conformity or the chaos that would result if everyone decided to be a little ubermensch wannabe.

Not quite so, leaders can work with leaders where sheeps and followers can not.

The society would indeed be better.

 

[Visceral]

Originally posted by sifer
The society would indeed be better.

Perhaps for those who survived the transition and benefited from it ... I doubt you could say the same for the millions, perhaps billions, who either would be killed outright or forced into servitude.

 

[sifer]

Originally posted by Visceral
Perhaps for those who survived the transition and benefited from it ... I doubt you could say the same for the millions, perhaps billions, who either would be killed outright or forced into servitude.

Ah, like life and death it's not that state that's hard, it's the transition that's always troubling.

You're right, which is too bad for the human race as a whole, that there are people who can't or won't be a leader, that they would rather be a sheep.

 

[Visceral]

Originally posted by sifer
You're right, which is too bad for the human race as a whole, that there are people who can't or won't be a leader, that they would rather be a sheep.

Actually, I think that most if not all people would gladly be leaders.

IMO, the reason they don't try for leadership is the fact that the odds of getting there are not in their favor ... to the extent that, if the world I described were to come to pass, only the strongest of the strong could survive in it, and they wouldn't be able to enjoy that fact because they would be constantly at each other's throats.

Few if any people are loyal to the system out of love for it. The majority are sheep not because they want to be, but because they need the herd and the shepherd to protect them from the wolves.

The system - civilization - was built by the weak for the weak, because what need would some Darwinian man-god have for laws, morals, or cooperation?

 

[sifer]

Originally posted by Visceral
Actually, I think that most if not all people would gladly be leaders.
I have read a couple of blogs before and actually have friends who told me, "why not be a follower? Why work so hard? Why not just follow orders?" You'd be very surprised if you're like me, go out a lot and not to mention, your profession is based on socializing. You tend to learn that most people want to be sheeps than leaders.

IMO, the reason they don't try for leadership is the fact that the odds of getting there are not in their favor ... to the extent that, if the world I described were to come to pass, only the strongest of the strong could survive in it, and they wouldn't be able to enjoy that fact because they would be constantly at each other's throats.

Few if any people are loyal to the system out of love for it. The majority are sheep not because they want to be, but because they need the herd and the shepherd to protect them from the wolves.

The system - civilization - was built by the weak for the weak, because what need would some Darwinian man-god have for laws, morals, or cooperation?
Perhaps you misunderstood. I meant people need to work together as a whole, as a single collective unit.

 

[whistler]

Originally posted by sifer
Perhaps you misunderstood. I meant people need to work together as a whole, as a single collective unit.

Like Voltron