Hello - Desperate need for interaction: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Community / Off Topic » Hello - Desperate need for interaction » Hello - Desperate need for interaction

Hello - Desperate need for interaction
A call for intellectual direction

Page: 1 2 3

Hello - Desperate need for interaction

hanuma
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 22, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 133

Posted 09/22/09 - 05:00 AM: Subject: Hello - Desperate need for interaction	#1
Horrible way to introduce myself (and if you get to the end of this you'll be laughing at the title I'm sure), but I've come to a point in life where I am not truly interested in anything else but thinking. However, I am lacking a level of intellectual stimulation from an objective other who is philosophically minded. What I've written below was in response to an antagonism I'd received from a friend (poor person). There's an initial email (A), and then a more explanatory one (B). It was to do with the value of life, the burden of it and my horror at the idea of creating more life. It's really a hodge-podge of ideas, some will seem ludicrous, and I allowed myself to be "creative" with some of the language. I hope it makes some sense though. I'm looking for any sort of criticism any of you can be bothered to put forward and hopefully any sort of intellectual direction. What I've written is not based on any extensive reading of any philosopher. I am a History graduate though and am familiar with Hegel, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, without actually ever reading anything they've written. ------------------------------------------ A Delusion can be defined macro-humanistically as finding purpose and pleasure: Is it real if it feels real, does this matter? It matters that you enjoy life in order to fully engage with your fellow humans so as to reproduce and/or maintain familial stability. Depression and suicide are as much a part of this delusion, functioning as a process of nature cleansing its gene pool of inefficient workers. If I am depressed, is this delusional? 1. Yes, I am rejecting my purpose, my body is not yet rejecting me but convincing me by force to choose another path; firstly in reaction to my attempts at rationalizing the process of our lives, secondly by dint of external stimuli. 2. No, real objectivity may be impossible to attain, but something approaching a non-natural-codification, as an erroristic part of the tool of observation provided to humanity(1). Sex is the lowest common denominator of this process: It functions entirely as a socio-naturalised contingency of the primordial evolutionary continuum. It is not abstract pleasure, it is an intrinsic part of the bio-delusion, informed by and informative to ‘love’, which acts to blind and so our observation being the greatest thing nature can take away, it must replace it with the greatest feeling possible so as to make the loss an irrelevancy. Sex is a necessarily violent act, as within the entire animal kingdom, it enforces gender definition and gender subordination – entirely disruptive and necessary to a generic happiness, itself representative of prostitution(2). Reliant upon a physical disparity and a deliberate altering of body and mind. Depression, emotion, happiness; nebulous terms – the specificity of them here is in their core relation to the animal experience. ‘Emotions’ are no longer considered the total possession of the human mind alone; further study is likely to enhance the idea that they are inherently sub-human in origin. There is no greater enlightenment to be had from them in isolation; at best they can provide, as part of nature’s gambit, a disburdenment, working as the secondary force against the primary weight of our super-evolutionary task. This is the janiform chemical entanglement(3) condemning us to the catalogue of historical development. I am aware of my subjectivity, as far as is possible, and this is proposed as a personal observation (1) – observation is the basis of all science – Quantum physics suggests observation affects outcome – but this is not empowerment. ‘Observation’ is perhaps the significant evolutionary development within the human mind, it is an imperfect tool, evolutionarily speaking, meant to help predict outcome for more efficient preservation of life – but its hydraic and capable of allowing humankind to gaze upon itself, and thus glimpse that which should not be seen; the blindness with which we carry out our predetermined natural task. B Psychological phenomena is remarkably unphenomenal and frequential, whilst it may be an extreme to suggest suicide is a pre-programmed response I still think it follows a certain ruthless logic. We consume ourselves before we consume more resources for the productive elements of society. Socio-Cultural factors are not at all distinct from natural processes, our cities are ponds, hives, or the rats nests in dumpsters. I wasn't suggesting my own depression was some how exceptional, quite the opposite, that depression has fundamental, natural roots and these apply to me now. I was indeed suggesting that "my reasoning denies my desire" and that this is causing great turmoil, quite alien to any rational thought. The word delusion is definitely subjective, illusion fits better. "Maybe to be human is to be deluded" I'd suggest that the "illusion" is the supposed power of our conscious thought, which has its basis in our mastering other species of animals and other fundamental natural powers; it is not specific to humans, every succesful gene pool leads to complacency. I think the drive to pleasure fits neatly with what I said about maintaining happiness and stability in order to become more productive members of a system. That it can be appropriated for our specific sexuality does not change its primary purpose. But before then orgasm is 1. Simply a pat on the head (sometimes literally), just like the sensation of shit massaging the prostate before it's passed, or the relief of going for a piss. 2. Orgasm for orgasm's sake is also a sub-human development, see Bonobo's. (3) "Janiform chemical entanglement" which is a poncy way to say two faces of the same head; on the one hand the basic point of life and its need to promulgate life, and on the other the disburdenment from the sheer weight of such a task. I wonder what studys have been made towards the enhancement of sexual gratification between lovers, with the creation of families, between father and mother, the intensification of pleasure in the act of creation. (2) We prostitute ourselves to nature's pleasure - the more we give of ourselves, the more we receive. I wonder whether the Nazi's had amazing sex. So I conclude that it is precisely happiness which must be questioned and whether it has any value outside of this natural reward system. It is not that I am happy or sad, it is that I want to see if there is anything beyond that, beyond this bio-illusion I've conceived. My resentment is in its choke hold on all of our society, on its natural favouritism towards men and in its upholding of our stupid, gendered, non-sensical systems of disempowerment.

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3286

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 09/22/09 - 06:06 AM:	#2
hanuma wrote: I am not truly interested in anything else but thinking. hanuma wrote: Desperate need for interaction Spot the contradiction. Once one has, alas, given birth to oneself as thought, there is no way to contact the world except by the little death of orgasm, and even that does not satisfy - hence the need for "amazing sex", the ordinary does not do it any more for the thought addicted mind. Amazing sex is just another thought, and all thought is non sense; it is not alive to the world. hanuma wrote: I am a History graduate though and am familiar with Hegel, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, without actually ever reading anything they've written. I am a psychology graduate, and I know you without talking to you; you are the dis-ease of the age. I suggest you explore the possibilities of amazing handshakes, and extraordinary walks in the park. I wish there was something I could say that would touch you, and awaken that which is not thought, not mechanism - ach, you cannot conceive of such a thing. Oh welcome to the forums, by the way, nice first post.
...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

hanuma
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 22, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 133

Posted 09/22/09 - 06:48 AM:	#3
unenlightened wrote: Spot the contradiction. "and if you get to the end of this you'll be laughing at the title I'm sure". Thankyou very much for this response, some interesting positions to consider. It is a pleasure to have someone reach back from the abyss Once one has, alas, given birth to oneself as thought, there is no way to contact the world except by the little death of orgasm, and even that does not satisfy - hence the need for "amazing sex", the ordinary does not do it any more for the thought addicted mind. Amazing sex is just another thought, and all thought is non sense; it is not alive to the world. OK, but isn't it impossible to make thought abstract from the 'world', everything is bundled in perception isn't it? Perhaps I cannot speak in such concrete extremes, but lived experience, our consciousness, is a sort of Gordian knot, whilst we can assume there is something 'beyond' or 'external' it can only be an assumption and so we work within thought. I would entirely agree that the fundamental absurdity, the fundamental nonsense, the fundamental lie is our perception. But perhaps would go further and suggest everything is thought, everything is on some level a cruel non-sense, at least as far as we are allowed to experience it. I am a psychology graduate, and I know you without talking to you; you are the dis-ease of the age. I suggest you explore the possibilities of amazing handshakes, and extraordinary walks in the park. I wish there was something I could say that would touch you, and awaken that which is not thought, not mechanism - ach, you cannot conceive of such a thing. I think you could see this as reaching through, I think this whole interaction has been a process that you might consider being something instinctive and thoughtless. But I would suggest that there are processes of thought that are instinctive to us, that follow a primordial logic with its own systems of morality, but that this is no more or less real/nonsensical than everything we are capable of layering on top, or reconfiguring to suit specific needs. I asked for you, currently the lone representative of a faceless mass, to help in any way you can. Why? Well to assuage, as you so accurately put it, a 'dis-ease' felt; a) through instinct as loneliness, b) through logic as 'insufficient data'; and that the two systems of thought work together, my problem being that I reject a) as being somehow working against me towards a value system (happiness etc) that I do see as problematic or at worst disgusting. Btw, I really am unbottling this here, if what I say sounds like a load of old cods wallop please tell me and I'll try to reorganise it. I also apologise for the inherent narcissism of it all. I am genuinely interested in what others have to say, not just hearing myself.

ms anthropist
successful failure

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 11, 2006
Location: on the highest horse

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 378

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 09/22/09 - 11:22 AM:	#4
In relation to A4: Life is absurd and the most animalistic responses such as eating and having sex are perhaps the most absurd of them all, however, also the most enjoyable. I suggest you deconstruct your horror to sexuality, it must be based on religion. It is not necessarily a violent act, nor does the penetrating male must necessarily dominate the woman. I personally don't take too well to domination. I find it too borring. Have you ever heard of "Women on top" by Nancy Friday or Anais Ninn. Here is a philosophy logism, some is not all. therefore some sex is violent and dominating does not mean that all sex is violent and dominating. You must have seen the "pervert's guide to cinema", true that if one were to view sex from a detached perspective it would seem absurd and animalistic. But surely, even more so is eating, in one side out the other. I suggest that instead of trying to view sex from a detached perspective as if it were an anthropological study of some primitive rite, you try to look at it from an insider perspective. If you find that in so far your sexual encounters have been brutal and meaningless, you probably need to change the way you engage in your sexual activities.

hanuma
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 22, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 133

Posted 09/22/09 - 12:05 PM:	#5
ms anthropist wrote: In relation to A4: Life is absurd and the most animalistic responses such as eating and having sex are perhaps the most absurd of them all, however, also the most enjoyable. I suggest you deconstruct your horror to sexuality, it must be based on religion. It is not necessarily a violent act, nor does the penetrating male must necessarily dominate the woman. I personally don't take too well to domination. I find it too borring. Have you ever heard of "Women on top" by Nancy Friday or Anais Ninn. Here is a philosophy logism, some is not all. therefore some sex is violent and dominating does not mean that all sex is violent and dominating. You must have seen the "pervert's guide to cinema", true that if one were to view sex from a detached perspective it would seem absurd and animalistic. But surely, even more so is eating, in one side out the other. I suggest that instead of trying to view sex from a detached perspective as if it were an anthropological study of some primitive rite, you try to look at it from an insider perspective. If you find that in so far your sexual encounters have been brutal and meaningless, you probably need to change the way you engage in your sexual activities. Hello Ms Anthropist. I have not heard of Nancy Friday or Anais Ninn, I will look. I haven't seen "Pervert's Guide..." although I have recently bought Zizek's 'Know Your Symptom', I've just started reading him properly in fact, very useful so far. Thankyou for the tips though. I'll get back to you on them. I apologise if what I argued came across as a very literal interpretation of the actual act of sex, I was aiming for greater subtlety of meaning. The 'violence' is less in the actual physical penetration and more in the psychological imposition. I also don't wish at all to distance the particulars (dry sounding, I know) of the physical act, and whilst your suggested authors might have gone into this, I've not seen a great deal of writing that explores the significance of the vast array of potential sexual intercourses. Karma Sutra doesn't suggest significance, to the best of my knowledge. But before I get too far away... My point is that sex forces division, it came about through the vivisection of mutuality, and then imposed itself as a necessity within the creation of social cultures. None of this is really to do with whether I enjoy these aspects of life, although I do/have (and no, I haven't found myself violently dominating women before anyone asks, despite there being a rather depressing cultural norm for that), it's really rather why I/we do enjoy certain things, why we have to in fact, and how my answers so far struggle to square that circle. And I assure you God, to the best of my knowledge, has nothing to do with it

ms anthropist
successful failure

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 11, 2006
Location: on the highest horse

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 378

Posted 09/22/09 - 01:11 PM:	#6
What about gay sex?

hanuma
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 22, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 133

Posted 09/22/09 - 01:31 PM:	#7
ms anthropist wrote: What about gay sex? Appropriation of sex for sexual pleasure alone, but sexual pleasure emanating from precisely the same source evolutionarily. You could ask about masturbation too, or oral sex. Whilst not wanting to sound like the most heinous moralist, all tarred with the same brush. Some people like that too

ms anthropist
successful failure

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 11, 2006
Location: on the highest horse

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 378

Posted 09/22/09 - 01:37 PM:	#8
It was your gender division and demarcation that prompted me to enquire about homosexuality. I don't see how sex can "force division" any more or less than playing cards or any other group activity

hanuma
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 22, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 133

Posted 09/22/09 - 01:53 PM:	#9
Gender does not exist without sex.

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 09/22/09 - 02:00 PM:	#10
Percieved gender still would. Gender itself is merely a group caste.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Page: 1 2 3

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.