Regarding the Nature of Reality

[Unome]

Every organism constitutes an individuality.

This individuality is your life perspective. More popular synonyms for this are: World View, Orientation, and Metaphysics. Your consciousness, the way you think, your spiritual beliefs, and your most closely guarded personal secrets in life are no coincidence. Life is not ironic. You think what you think, for specific reasons. And these reasons can be traced backward or forward, connecting-the-dots one at a time. Your essence and identity, although unique in an objective context, is predictable. Your life follows natural, biological laws. In the same way all material objects are pulled to the earth by gravitational force. Forces guide & dictate all motion. The motion of your life is your behavior. Mass is to gravity :as: Behavior (action) is to genetics.

In the most objective mindset & mentality, not even genetically identical twins are "equal". Nothing in life is equal. No perspectives are equal. Equality is a myth. Inequality is the truth. Because even genetically identical twins are separated by space & time (spacetime). Spacetime divides all perspectives. Moments are never repeated, but, absolutely unique in nature. No moment can become copied in a 'true' sense. Because all copies are the replication and repeating of a pattern. Patterns indicate an origin. Because material objects are the source of immaterial energy/force. For example, an earthquake causes a tidal wave. The shifting of great mass causes a giant ripple throughout the ocean. The natural disaster, to humans, is the result of unobserved forces. But postmodern science has become sophisticated enough, around the world, to locate and identify the causes of such events.

Humanity has evolved beyond all the expectations and foresight of previous eras. With this great evolution follows an increase in general human intelligence. Because what evolves first, foremost, and finally? What is the essence of life? What is the core motivational force? What reason and purpose moves you and dictates all of your actions? If you begin to understand this motivational life-force, the essence of life, then you will begin to understand and view the reasons-why people do the things they do. Most actions are obvious instincts: reflexes. They do not require fore/thought. Thought is anathema to action. Thought is divided from action :as: Mind is divided from body. The classical, indo-european mind-body dichotomy ultimately represents the division between 'Subjects' and 'Objects'.

Are you, as a human, a subject? Do you have free will?
Or are you, as a human, an object? Predetermined by unknown forces?

[Neanderthal]

I think probably the truth of consciousness would shock us, that if we are ever capable of grasping it.

Human being is so anthropocentric it's ridiculous. We'll never get closer to the truth which such bias.

[Unome]

I think probably the truth of consciousness would shock us, that if we are ever capable of grasping it.

Human being is so anthropocentric it's ridiculous. We'll never get closer to the truth which such bias.
Objectivity is one of the greatest challenges in life, of all life.

Our human specie, specifically hinders an objective mindset. Children across the world are not taught to think "objectively", but instead think subjectively. What's the difference? The most obvious difference is Humanism. Indoctrination begins early even applying to infancy. Infants and young children are taught to "have an identity" and identify with basic categories & concepts. For example we teach infants that "You are a boy" or "You are a girl". Extremist egalitarians and neo-liberals in Scandinavia claim this is "wrong" and promote insane gender-neutrality propaganda. Boys are not "males". Girls are not "females". Because "gender is a social construct". These freaks actually believe this bullshit. They actually believe that you can change human nature (gender, male/female) by lying about it, denying its existence. But a rose by any other name still smells as sweet.

Redefining reality does not change reality.

Thus people must understand the difference between 'Education' and 'Indoctrination'. Social-cultural Marxists teach/preach indoctrination. They do not "educate" children. Because indoctrination is not education. Indoctrination is a form of mental slavery, especially referring to the education of children genetically unrelated to you. For example it is "good" to enslave children who are not of your ethnicity/race. It is "bad" to enslave your own children. It is good to lie to other small children, about reality/nature. It is bad to lie to your own small children, about reality/nature.

I'm going to delve into all of these concepts, slowly and eventually, but need to start with the basics.

Neanderthal, you're a smart fellow, let's get this discussion rolling… :thumb001: :cool_002:

[Neanderthal]

Objectivity is one of the greatest challenges in life, of all life.

Our human specie, specifically hinders an objective mindset. Children across the world are not taught to think "objectively", but instead think subjectively. What's the difference? The most obvious difference is Humanism. Indoctrination begins early even applying to infancy. Infants and young children are taught to "have an identity" and identify with basic categories & concepts. For example we teach infants that "You are a boy" or "You are a girl". Extremist egalitarians and neo-liberals in Scandinavia claim this is "wrong" and promote insane gender-neutrality propaganda. Boys are not "males". Girls are not "females". Because "gender is a social construct". These freaks actually believe this bullshit. They actually believe that you can change human nature (gender, male/female) by lying about it, denying its existence. But a rose by any other name still smells as sweet.

Redefining reality does not change reality.

Thus people must understand the difference between 'Education' and 'Indoctrination'. Social-cultural Marxists teach/preach indoctrination. They do not "educate" children. Because indoctrination is not education. Indoctrination is a form of mental slavery, especially referring to the education of children genetically unrelated to you. For example it is "good" to enslave children who are not of your ethnicity/race. It is "bad" to enslave your own children. It is good to lie to other small children, about reality/nature. It is bad to lie to your own small children, about reality/nature.

I'm going to delve into all of these concepts, slowly and eventually, but need to start with the basics.

Neanderthal, you're a smart fellow, let's get this discussion rolling… :thumb001: :cool_002:

I'm able to see and understand both sides, and whereas I don't think cultural marxists have bad intentions ultimately their methods are completely wrong. You cannot rewrite natural laws to help the weak and the ill; yes, we are advanced beings with high cognitive capability, but still doesn't make it right to ultimately defy nature.

All these people with mental and physical problems are let to live, or further more, they are encouraged to breed, which saddens me. They do so because everyone now has rights, but nobody has obligations. It's disgusting to see the kind of trash hedonism society feed us; only pleasure is good, we live to feel good, 'we only live once' and akin bullshit and no hard work and suffering whatsoever.

It infuriates me when someone without knowledge or mental capacity tries to lecture me about something they aren't even capable to grasp with their primitive/infantile logic. For that I hate the crowd. There's no hope really, people are getting dumber and more hedonistic as time passes by. They don't care about knowledge nor truth, they don't want to work hard for anything. All they know is pleasure and all they speak is bullshit.

Another ice age would actually help the earth to get rid of those we aren't fit, and if I happen to be one of them so be it. I just hope humanity of tomorrow get further in the pursuit of truth than we have been so far and they don't make the same mistakes as us.

[Unome]

It infuriates me when someone without knowledge or mental capacity tries to lecture me about something they aren't even capable to grasp with their primitive/infantile logic. For that I hate the crowd. There's no hope really, people are getting dumber and more hedonistic as time passes by. They don't care about knowledge nor truth, they don't want to work hard for anything. All they know is pleasure and all they speak is bullshit.
Throughout the western world, and global world as a whole, humanity is socialized into civilizations. The majority populations represent respective cultures & races. But "We are all human." Humanism is a dangerous ideology in the sense that it immediately binds all 'humanity' into one group. Racial, linguistic, ethnic, class, economic divisions are all erased. It attempts to "equalize" all people into one solid mass. So this humanist ideology is pervasive; and it represents much of the core concept here. People are indoctrinated (not 'Educated') with this humanistic ideal. This is the beginning of subjectivity. You are a subject; because you are human.

You mention social degeneracy and hedonism. These are necessary ingredients of societies. Socialization requires a lot of enslavement of people. This directly connects with 'Subjectivity'. People don't "think" about the world, don't think about "big questions", and do neglect their innate curiosity. Instead of exploring the world, the universe, and newly possible ideas… instead people are indoctrinated with old cultural dogmas: Traditionalism and Conservatism. Because these (conservative) ideologies are safe & secure. They're the easy-choice in life.

It's life in "E Z mode", the easiest setting. Because many people are scared to think, for themselves. Thought can overturn many, most, or even –all– dogmas. This is the difference between 'Philosophy' (doubt) and 'Religion' (faith). Religious people fear change, new ideas. Philosophical people fear permanence, dogma. It is a battle between thought and emotion ~ mind and body.


Socializing people as humanity, is a form of enslavement. This is achieved through indoctrination. You convince people, beginning at the earliest ages, the youngest children, of lies and falsity. You don't teach them truth. Instead you program them. This is a negative, hurtful, negligent approach to society. One of the primary reasons for this damaging of children, is due to genetics. Parents have a biological interest in raising their own children (genetic similarity). But parents do not have an interest in raising other children (genetic dissimilarity).

Cultural marxism, liberalism, and humanism are ideologies which support the indoctrination of other children. All children are taught "the same". Because all humanity is "equal". These are the logical premises, the foundation of these ideologies. Most people on this forum, and throughout the world, both represent and defend these ideologies. Thus if you dispute these ideologies then you will face a severe backlash from those around you: your closest friends, strangers, or even family members. Because the level of indoctrination (slavery) is that powerful. Many of these ideologies, similar to the christian faith, specifically were created (authored) with the intent to enslave massive amounts of people (entire social populations).

So what we must do (anybody) to begin studying the nature of reality, begins with the overturn and overthrow of such ideologies.

Erase all your premises; your metaphysical view and outlook is wrong. Your subjectivity is false. Let's begin with objectivity and attempt to look at existence as clear as possible, without any perversion of dogmas. What does the universe look like as any "lifeform"? What does life look from the perspective of… any human, any bird, any fish, any cell, any organism? What does life look from the perspective without life? Does plantlife have consciousness without cognition (without brains or a nervous system)? What is the difference between subjectivity and objectivity?

These are all big questions. And as a philosopher you can spend all of your life thinking about them, without much results. Maybe you will have no result, and produce no new knowledge.

But there is a small chance, a risk, that you can and you will, Neanderthal. So I encourage your philosophical interest.

[Hartley]

You're presuming an incompatibilist definition of free will.

[Hierarchalist]

I will reply tomorrow..

[Unome]

Hypothetical question:

Why would it be necessary (if it is necessary) to indoctrination/enslave billions of humans with the moral idea/principle that: thou shalt not kill!

What would happen if instead you taught all 7bil humanity, that, murdering each-other is socially permissible or even socially acceptable and encouraged?

What would happen?


You know the answer… and so this is why humanist indoctrination/enslavement, through forced morality (Abrahamism: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc.) is so widespread and popular.

Does this mean that "all people" would go crazy and wild if their indoctrination were gone? No, not "all", but how many would? What forces keep people civil? And would you want to destroy these chains, links, and restraints, if you could and did have the power to do so? What is wrong with the world as it is now, and, what is worthwhile to change? Which changes are most needed of all? More morality and indoctrination, or less? And to which degrees?


Now that I've covered the introduction to subjectivity, next I will inquire into objectivity.

What would an "objective" perspective be, and what would the world be like without humanist, subjectivist, indoctrination? What is a true education or "highest education"?

[Neanderthal]

I had bunnies as kid. Once the female bunny had offspring. All healthy and beautiful but one; she had a blind bunny. Days passed and I noticed the female bunny would not feed her blind offspring. This was shocking for me, because it was against everything I was told at that time, about love and compassion. But then I would reflect on the gesture and I realized letting her ill offspring to die was actually much more compassionate that raising a cripple. From that time I understood I had to think beyond artificial paradigms on pretty much everything. I would never let myself believe in something without trying to see the logic to it, and finally understand every aspect of that belief.

My family is very loving, but they also have a very brutal aspect to them. My mother would sometimes tell us when she was disappointed at us 'I would have rather kill you in your cradle if I knew you would be behaving like this when you grew up'.

To be honest I rarely voice my opinions with most people. They are just too sentimental plus we aren't, most of the time, at the same logic/cognitive level. They would simply not understand, or become sentimental, or joke about their inability to understand and make a mockery of it. I pass.

No, I don't think I'll be able to uncover anything beyond any human. If I don't die soon I probably will be a very bitter human being for the rest of my days.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

I'm guided by voices.

[Unome]

Children are reared through education or indoctrination.

The vast majority of humanity is indoctrinated, not educated, learn this difference. Indoctrination imposes a distinct idea of subjectivity onto people. You identify more as a 'Human' and less as an 'Animal'. And with the indoctrination of your humanity, you subsequently are taught about human rights and equality. All people are humans. All humans have rights. And all humans are equal to one another. Nobody is "superior" or "inferior" to each-other. This is the nature of your 'Humanity'. You are human; and this is what it means to be human. And you do not doubt this. You doubtlessly accepted your indoctrination without a second thought.

The conclusion of this (humanist) indoctrination is your 'Subjectivity'. You are a person. You are a subject. Because you are a human. If you were not a human then would you still be a person or subject? Most will say no. You are no longer a person. You would not be a subject. Once you lose your "humanity" then you lose your "rights and equality" with it. In this sense, humanity/humanism strictly is a politickal ideology and social designation. Humanism is the ideology that will (or already has) conquered the entire world. This is the "NWO". People who promote humanism are "the illuminati". Don't –you– promote humanity? Aren't you an advocate of "human rights and equality"? Yes most of you are… and there is a specific reason for this.

Humanism is an evolved form of Christianity. In fact I will even analogize that: Humanism is Christianity, but without Baptism, and without the idea/awareness of God. Humanism is the common Christian religion, minus spirituality. It is an agnostic/atheistic form of Christianity. In fact there are too many similarities between the ideologies of humanism and christianity. What is human? Who is human? And the most obvious question is: Who represents the height of humanity, or the "best human"? Once you admit that humanity is represented by "Jesus Christ" then you must also admit the obvious parallel between humanism and christianity.

This is not an irony. It is not a coincidence.


Throughout the US, and other Western, First World Nations, a schism occurs between (Roman Catholic Christian) Church and State. This division has roots for over 2000 years, to the heart of the Roman Empire. Christianity first formed as an antithesis to Roman culture (Romanticism). Christians were Roman revolutionaries, who wanted to overthrow Cæsar, overturn the power of Roman Emperors, and cause general anarchy. Christians were against the power of Roman politicking. The alternative to politicks was/is (to this day) religion. Mass, popular religion presented an alternative to the power-structure of Roman Elitism (Aristocracy). Instead of inheriting power through blood, and being born noble and into a family of nobility, christianity offered a different solution. You could "inherit the Kingdom of Heaven" spiritually, as an idea. And this idea became so popular and widespread that it became powerful over time.

The parallel here is the difference between "Church and State". You choose one form of indoctrination. Liberals tend to be statists; Conservatives tend to be religious (church-ists). You pay your taxes to Rome/Cæsar/Obama… or you tithe to God/Priest/The Pope. But both systems are founded on taxation and theft of wealth. Both forms of governance rely on theft to fund them. But they ultimately are no different.

The point is that you are indoctrinated, to a degree. To a small degree, nobody can escape it, nobody. The difference is that a very small amount of people, just a few, go further than everybody else and call the lies out for what they are. These tend to be philosophical types. These types have the most doubt and distrust. They/You tend to recognize the lies, remember the blaring contradictions, and cannot swallow them. You refuse to swallow the bullshit. But most people across the world, do swallow the bullshit. And they eventually learn to enjoy it. After time, like 2000 years of Christendom in Rome, you cannot discriminate the difference between chocolate and poop. They both taste the same.

That is your indoctrination.


But there are other options, become a free thinker, free your mind:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te6qG4yn-Ps

[Hartley]

Have you been reading Althusser lately, Unome? :roll eyes

[Unome]

No, I was never much of a reader, more of a writer.

Those I do read, are alive, not dead authors. I prefer living philosophy/philosophers.

[Hartley]

No, I was never much of a reader, more of a writer.

Those I do read, are alive, not dead authors. I prefer living philosophy/philosophers.

My comment was more of a joke than anything, due to your critique of ideology being similar to that devised by the Marxists.

[Unome]

My comment was more of a joke than anything, due to your critique of ideology being similar to that devised by the Marxists.
I believe in class hierarchy.

And I promote individuality, against socialism.

Both of these biases rule me out of Marxism. So no, I am not a Marxist. In fact I reject the notion of humanity & equality.

[Hartley]

I believe in class hierarchy.

And I promote individuality, against socialism.

Both of these biases rule me out of Marxism. So no, I am not a Marxist. In fact I reject the notion of humanity & equality.

Marxists reject the notions of humanity and equality as bourgeois abstractions.

While you associate equality with Marxism, Marxists conceive of the advocacy of equality as a concept that only makes sense within the framework of a capitalist economy. Once the teleological cycle of history can complete itself, such abstractions will be meaningless.

I'm not a Marxist (I despise every inch of the ideology), but people do not realize that many critiques of society take the form of a materialist conception of society, as originally outlined by Marx.

Your critique of the framework which society operates within, as a hegemonic force that prevents individual, subjective consciousness precisely because the structure is self-imposing, is a cornerstone of Marxian analysis.

Just take a look here (http://www.cla.purdue.edu/english/theory/marxism/modules/althusserideology.html).

[Unome]

The difference between my approach and Marxism is that Marxism focuses on "human value", particularly in the context of how populations are culled (and enslaved) in order to produce goods/resources for the upper class echelon of societies. However my perspective is much more… radical. Because the idea of money/currency, or value, are specific types of human abstractions. For example can you put a pricetag on your health? Sex? Food? Time? What is value?

I tend more toward my Prussian, Polish philosopher brethren, Friedrich Nietzsche.

Values are derived through 'Evaluation'. People assign values to life, and death. Some people even value death more than life (like committing suicide/homicide in the name of God/Allah).


So you really seem to refer to value here.

If you admit the premise, and say "Yes human life has a value", then you can go into the ideology of Marxism/Communism/Capitalism.

These ideologies essentially require you to put a pricetag on life. For example, "Human X is worth $100000 and Human Y is worth $5555."

[Hartley]

And I promote individuality, against socialism.

If you deny that human life has value, why (or rather, how) do you promote individuality?

[Unome]

If you deny that human life has value, why (or rather, how) do you promote individuality?
Because the price of life can be infinite and immeasurable.

There is a difference between 0 and 1 and infinity. Most people don't realize/care what values are, and where they originate.

[Neanderthal]

If you deny that human life has value, why (or rather, how) do you promote individuality?

Hence he is also hierarchist. He, as well as me (or at least I like to think so) consider only a few individuals as valuable and most others as worthless and disposable.

[de Burgh II]

I've been thinking for a while now and being a individualist is the way to go. The reason why I say this is because there are so many double standards and people who try to play the moral high ground bs its ridiculous. Have of the commercials you see to "donate" to save a starving person in africa where a good majority of donations go into some elitists' wallet and a small proportion of it actually goes to the actual cause.

Nevertheless, that's why I always say take strength in being "selfish" in that regard. Chances are a person's own hardwork and success is justifiable enough. Funny thing is the person who are deemed "selfish" is probably one of the most strong willed people you will ever know compared to some parasites out there that want to mooch off a person's success which is pathetic and shameful sadly enough. Half the people who deem "selfishness" with a negative connotation are deluded fools who believe this world is a utopia when the reality is thats not how the world works.

Chaos that manifests as wars, rebellions, deaths, etc. is simply an integral part of how the world works whether we want to accept it or not. The best thing one can do is accept the world for what it really is and live your life in accordance to how you want to; don't let anyone change that very gift everyone has.

You see, I look at individualism as the greatest gift one can have. Individualistic mentalities are more or less more sane and logical than the "mob mentality" that I despite with a passion to the bone. Sheeples act as mindless/impulsive monstrosities that are a threat to ANY society... that are threat to themselves and other people unjustifiably. Half of these so called "selfish" people are hardworking, decent people that actually contribute positively to society....

The great thing about life is that it tests people... to see if one is TRULY worthy of one's success! Its a test of one's will you may say... that's why I love it! Weeding out all those pathetic parasites for what they truly deserve... divine justice one may say... rightfully giving hardworking, decent people for what they truly deserve... their own justified happiness/success for how it rightfully should be.

That is why I say take strength in one's own "selfish" (fuck them double standards/societal norms! :D) endeavors, chances are your success is well deserved! ;P Fuck society, other parasitic, weak minded fools or delusional pansies that get in your way! Be one with one's own good judgment/instinct and trust it wholeheartedly! Chances are... the only person who knows best on how to overcome the obstacles... is the person themselves...

So in all, strength through one's will, success and most importantly... your individualism! Probably inadvertently the most "humanitarian" alternative out there where it helps benefit the economy in a positive way whereas the dreaded "mob mentality" should be the bane of any society!

[arcticwolf]

Totally wrong thread, not sure how this happened.

This scotch is potent.

[Svipdag]

We seem to have drifted rather far from the nature of reality. But, let me muddy the waters further. The world which each of us inhabits exists only in his own mind. We assume that it bears some resemblance to the world outside our skins, but we have no way of being sure of this. Even though we can communicate with each other and seem to find a commonality of experience, this is only because we agree on certain conventions which we cannot be sure apply to others.

We agree to call the color of the sky "blue". However, the "blue" in my private world may not even remotely resemble what you experience when beholding the sky. There is no way that I can share your experience nor you mine. Which is "real" ? The answer is surely NEITHER. Both are constructs from sensory data. The causes of these sensory experiences can never be known directly, but only through the mechanism of perception.

Outside our skins, light does not have color. It has wavelength or wave number or photon energy. Color is our creation, the way our nervous systems react to wave number or whatever, and, for all we can know, each of us may create something different. We have agreed on names for these creations, though we do not know that these names apply to the same thing. Which is real ? red or 780 nanometers ?

A physicist will tell you that the wavelength , e.g. 780 nanometers, is real and "red" is subjective. Ask him , then, what wavelength is.
What is he measuring ? If this is reality, WHAT IS IT ? I have done this and never yet got a meaningful answer. There is a long ,complicated, operational argument which (sort of) answers these questions. But, it ends up making reality abstract !

Immanuel Kant said that we can never know das Ding an sich (the thing in itself), but only what our perception makes of it.

[HillY35]

Every organism constitutes an individuality.

This individuality is your life perspective. More popular synonyms for this are: World View, Orientation, and Metaphysics. Your consciousness, the way you think, your spiritual beliefs, and your most closely guarded personal secrets in life are no coincidence. Life is not ironic. You think what you think, for specific reasons. And these reasons can be traced backward or forward, connecting-the-dots one at a time. Your essence and identity, although unique in an objective context, is predictable. Your life follows natural, biological laws. In the same way all material objects are pulled to the earth by gravitational force. Forces guide & dictate all motion. The motion of your life is your behavior. Mass is to gravity :as: Behavior (action) is to genetics.

In the most objective mindset & mentality, not even genetically identical twins are "equal". Nothing in life is equal. No perspectives are equal. Equality is a myth. Inequality is the truth. Because even genetically identical twins are separated by space & time (spacetime). Spacetime divides all perspectives. Moments are never repeated, but, absolutely unique in nature. No moment can become copied in a 'true' sense. Because all copies are the replication and repeating of a pattern. Patterns indicate an origin. Because material objects are the source of immaterial energy/force. For example, an earthquake causes a tidal wave. The shifting of great mass causes a giant ripple throughout the ocean. The natural disaster, to humans, is the result of unobserved forces. But postmodern science has become sophisticated enough, around the world, to locate and identify the causes of such events.

Humanity has evolved beyond all the expectations and foresight of previous eras. With this great evolution follows an increase in general human intelligence. Because what evolves first, foremost, and finally? What is the essence of life? What is the core motivational force? What reason and purpose moves you and dictates all of your actions? If you begin to understand this motivational life-force, the essence of life, then you will begin to understand and view the reasons-why people do the things they do. Most actions are obvious instincts: reflexes. They do not require fore/thought. Thought is anathema to action. Thought is divided from action :as: Mind is divided from body. The classical, indo-european mind-body dichotomy ultimately represents the division between 'Subjects' and 'Objects'.

Are you, as a human, a subject? Do you have free will?
Or are you, as a human, an object? Predetermined by unknown forces?

I want to enjoy this whole idea typed out, especially because you refer to this forum. But as a man who has a good eye for all things "cult," this phrase into the first introduction to what follows sends a lightning bolt to the eyes of a reader. Such red flags would tell a careful reader that brain-washing comes next, since the reader has already been reminded of their hell-worthy regrets in their human experience. Have a Nice Day!

[LightHouse89]

If you deny that human life has value, why (or rather, how) do you promote individuality?

Yes that is very contradicting. I think the best solution is to do away with individuality. The probable with the west is the belief of the individual over the mass, or community. The individual to me is unfit to rule a country and such beliefs such as individualism are or have a tendency to become unhealthy over time like modern day America. Individuality clashes with traditional nationalism because such beliefs tend to lean more towards libertarianism which to me is anti-nationalism. Its a headache to look at this stuff but interesting. Philosophy whether or old or new is good but many modernist philosophers to me lean more towards cultural Marxism so I tend to not accept much of it.

[Hong Key]

I have heard some argue we have two forms of consciousnesses. One local (ours) and the other external (shared but with who/what?). I don't know but I do believe we have racial traits.

White traits revolve around social acceptance and respect. We want to be a viable member of the tribe and be respected by those we respect.

A samurai has two deaths the first when he swears allegiance to his master and a literal death. Or the Emperor has no clothes. That is foreign to Whites, our kings were First Among Equals. A drunk German chieftain running around naked telling everyone about the beautiful bearskin he is wearing would be mocked , laughed at and possibly get him beheaded.

Remember the scene in Game of Thrones, the northern redheaded girl captured her captor and said to him something like "you morons crown your kings because of the two legs they came through, we crown our kings because of the two legs they stand on". (not exact quote)

Another example would be an all powerful White ruler who has no equal would be bored out of his mind, what good is the respect from slaves, servants and wimps? Of course they respect you because they suck so there opinion is nothing. But respect from other men who are respected that means something. It was not just King Aurthur it was also Knights of the Round Table.

And to gain that respect we sometimes try to stand out - mastery, bravery and innovation. A warrior would desire to have a large head count (bravery) or out smart the enemy (intelligence) and gain respect from other warriors, a farmer would want to grow the largest and tastiest tomatoes and get respect from other farmers, same thing with poets, priests and prostitutes.

Mastery, altruism, guilt, restlessness, innovation, exploration, individualism and social conformity all seem to be traits we share. Some people have certain traits stronger then others of course.

Whites also seem to have no understanding of mortality or maybe better to say they have very little fear of death. We build airplanes and then jump out of them. A new book says basically that the Celts of Gaul did not care that the Romans kicked there ass because they would be going somewhere better (does that sound familiar?). The Nazis did not murder Jews they just helped them on there way to the next faze.

Not sure if that made sense or is on topic. If you can not explain something simply then you do not understand it deeply.

EDIT: I forgot to write about White leftists and how there traits are still White, just alittle/alot out of wack. Maybe I will write about it later.

The Uniqueness of Western Civilization
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?115514-The-Uniqueness-of-Western-Civilization

Kevin MacDonald - The Dispossession of Europeans & Pathological Altruism
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?122522-Kevin-MacDonald-interview

Pathological Altruism - book review
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?56829-Pathological-Altruism-book-review

The Way of Men (written by my favorite homo)
http://www.amazon.com/The-Way-Men-Jack-Donovan/dp/0985452307/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1400392860&sr=8-1&keywords=way+of+men

Georges Dumézil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Dum%C3%A9zil)
http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&field-author=Georges.%20Dumezil&page=1&rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_27%3AGeorges.%20Dumezil

I think this is the book on Celts.
The Discovery of Middle Earth: Mapping the Lost World of the Celts
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/039308163X/ref=pe_397910_118501200_em_1p_6_ti

[LightHouse89]

Totally wrong thread, not sure how this happened.

This scotch is potent.

It happens.

[Unome]

So I've introduced the difference between indoctrination and education.

Indoctrination focuses on human vulnerability; it appeals to your ego. It convinces you that you are special and unique, when in fact, you may not be unique at all. It teaches you that you are important. You matter. You are loved and valued. But imagine if your indoctrination was disrupted or overturned. Imagine that you are not special, not loved, not unique at all. Imagine that free will is a myth, fate exists, and your life is a set path. You cannot "choose" anything in life; because choice is an illusion. Imagine that the universe is absolutely determined, by mostly unknown forces. Cause and Effect. You can change nothing. You only realize your path. You only discover about these unknown forces.

This is objectivity. It involves a necessary dehumanization. It is humiliating.

That is the main difference between your (subjective) indoctrination and your (objective) education. Education humiliates you. It encourages your (self)-doubt. Forget about God, love, magic, and everything "positive". You are nothing. You are an object. You are not human. You are not special. You are like a rock, a tree, or a drop of water. You are a thing, not a person. Your personage is your subjectivity. But you are no longer a subject; you are now an object.


This is the stark difference between 'Subjectivity' and 'Objectivity'. Are you ready to begin your 'Education'?

Education is challenging; it challenges you to think. Sometimes you think for the first time in your life. Because sometimes people lie to you. Maybe your parents did, your priest, your professors. Maybe everybody is lying. But what then is the truth?

My personal message is this: education begins with yourself. It begins with your authentic curiosity to explore the universe and all within it. It ends at all unknowns. Because the universe is bigger than "humanity". There is more unknown existence than known. Humanity is small. The universe is large. So learn all that you can. And you are responsible for yourself. Not your parents, not your priests/rabbis/imams, not your professors. Both science and religion are lies. Philosophy is truth. At least for the sake of argument, change your premise, and look at the world through a different perspective. Or learn to balance your values.

Maybe it's possible to combine philosophy, science, and religion into one? Maybe truth is the finest balance of human knowledge.

Again my personal message is: educate yourself, trust nobody, not even me. Use distrust (doubt) just as you use trust (faith).

[armenianbodyhair]

I don't think we know enough to know the truth to be honest...all we can do is keep and open mind and keep trying to learn.

[zhaoyun]

Good thread. We are all biased in one way or another. Some are obviously far more self-centric and biased than others, but none of us can escape the bias of our experiences.

It takes a great deal of experience, empathy, knowledge to be able to be objective and escape our immediate perceptions.

[Unome]

Yes it takes a lot of work in thought. And many people either 1) do not want to think or 2) do not have time/priority to think a lot.

Thought/thinking is a type of privilege. At the very least it immediately proves evidence that the thinker has a privileged life. You can think; you have time to think. A vast majority of the human population does not… for example many third world nations, people are starving, work hard, and live predictable lives. Then they go to church/synagogue/mosque. They allow their spiritual authority to do the thinking for them. Or do the believing for them, in the case of religion.

Most people pass the 'Authority' of thought up higher, rather than take it upon themselves.

And people simply have different specific interests of thought. Not everybody is interested in thinking about certain topics/ideas.

[zhaoyun]

Yes it takes a lot of work in thought. And many people either 1) do not want to think or 2) do not have time/priority to think a lot.

Thought/thinking is a type of privilege. At the very least it immediately proves evidence that the thinker has a privileged life. You can think; you have time to think. A vast majority of the human population does not… for example many third world nations, people are starving, work hard, and live predictable lives. Then they go to church/synagogue/mosque. They allow their spiritual authority to do the thinking for them. Or do the believing for them, in the case of religion.

Most people pass the 'Authority' of thought up higher, rather than take it upon themselves.

And people simply have different specific interests of thought. Not everybody is interested in thinking about certain topics/ideas.

I would expound on this more were it not for my busy schedule this morning. But too much thinking especially in regards to abstract subjects or thoughts are also contributors to the fact that many highly intellectual individuals lose common sense or the ability to accomplish practical matters.

[Neanderthal]

Good thread. We are all biased in one way or another. Some are obviously far more self-centric and biased than others, but none of us can escape the bias of our experiences.

It takes a great deal of experience, empathy, knowledge to be able to be objective and escape our immediate perceptions.

I agree with the first part but I don't think empathy leads to objectivity. On the contrary, it requires a very special type of people (cold hearted, cold blooded) to be objective. I was talking with a friend couple days ago, and I asked her; 'If you were a executioner and one of your brothers committed a serious crime, would you kill him?'. She replied me with the heart, not with the head. Told me: 'well if he was a bad guy overall... perhaps'. But what is bad? And does the laws only needs to be enforced on bad people? Breaking moral laws and nature laws must be always punishable, IMO.

I would, to be honest. If I knew my own brother was a pedophile or a rapist I would kill him with my own hands, despite being close for more than 22 years. Every action has a reaction, and we all should be responsible for our actions, something society doesn't teach us to do anymore. Everything is about benefit and rights, but who is taking responsibility?

[Unome]

So now that the preliminary steps are complete, let's talk about reality!

Reality is not subjectivity.

Reality is not objectivity.


Instead reality is the variability between subjectivity & objectivity. It is a movement between these two poles, a flexibility of your mind. Can you think subjectively, as most naturally do? Can you think objectively, even though it is much rarer?

[Neanderthal]

So now that the preliminary steps are complete, let's talk about reality!

Reality is not subjectivity.

Reality is not objectivity.


Instead reality is the variability between subjectivity & objectivity. It is a movement between these two poles, a flexibility of your mind. Can you think subjectively, as most naturally do? Can you think objectively, even though it is much rarer?

Human perception, at least as it is now, cannot really impregnate with the true essence of reality. Svipdag made some nice example with the color red, in reality colors doesn't even exist, they are just light waves and energy, we perceive them as colorful but they aren't. So within the limits of our human mind, there could be something close to the truth, and could only be achieve with knowledge and objectivity. But undoubtedly our perception will be biased and confined to the limits of our species circa 100% of the time.

[Unome]

Human perception, at least as it is now, cannot really impregnate with the true essence of reality. Svipdag made some nice example with the color red, in reality colors doesn't even exist, they are just light waves and energy, we perceive them as colorful but they aren't. So within the limits of our human mind, there could be something close to the truth, and could only be achieve with knowledge and objectivity. But undoubtedly our perception will be biased and confined to the limits of our species circa 100% of the time.
One of the original seeds of 'Philosophy' is Plato's work on the Theory of Forms; Aristotle then expanded on Plato's theorems creating what we call "Science" today.

Science presumes universal laws: Objectivity, "The world exists even if human consciousness ceases to perceive it."

There is a division between perception & apprehension. Apprehension is the presumption of "ideal forms". There are "true chairs" and "false chairs".

Immanuel Kant also expanded these ideas with the "Categorical Imperative".


The human mind basically organizes "objective reality" in such a way that most people, a majority, can understand it. So humanity is about understanding reality to the best of individual & social ability.

[Unome]

Hypothesis: Subjectivity is common in nature; Objectivity is very rare.

All animals, including humans, begin life and become conscious within a subjective (Egotist) perspective. People live inside their own heads. And the vast majority of people neither care nor want to know about other people's feelings, emotions, thoughts, hopes, fears, etc. People naturally, instinctively are self-absorbed. And if any individual could breach a barrier of this subjectivity (ie. Solipsism) then this would be abnormal. It is abnormal to want to learn about other people in such a way as to violate privacy. Because subjectivity is privacy. And people automatically believe that their thoughts/feelings are private, not publik. It is not private property what you think, is it?

Your thoughts are private. To publicize your thoughts, is an act of communication.

So communication, language, and socializing are all affronts to this subjective privacy. Human communication is powerful in its ability to undermine subjectivity/privacy. The internet is the most profound & sophisticated advancement of human interaction and socializing. Thus average people rightfully feel that their "privacy" is being attacked and under assault. How can people remain private in an exponentially globalized world? Where human population growth puts every single person across the world shoulder-to-shoulder, with no space, and no room for yourself?


But the underlying question here, the main factor is, what do you think/feel that you ought remain silent about?

If you are a good person then what have you got to hide? Why is subjectivity/privacy required when you can do no wrong? Are there "wrong" thoughts? Wrong feelings? In Eastern Civilization, the Old World (including Europa), there are still countries with censored speech. You are not free to speak your mind about all things. But some thoughts/feelings are illegal. And if you do not suppress these thoughts/feelings then you will go to jail or worse.

If you question the existence of Allah in the Middle East then won't you face a death penalty? Philosophy and philosophical thoughts are unwelcome & dangerous there.


So subjectivity is privacy. But subjectivity is unnecessary when you are free to speak your mind and have nothing to hide. So if this is the most common perspective in nature then what is different than subjectivity? The step out of subjectivity is to "inter-subjectivity" and then to objectivity. With an inter-subjective mindset/mentality, you begin to realize that other people have their "own" thoughts/feelings, their "own" privacy, and their "own" opinions. People have different perspectives. Everybody has at least some subtle differences, even if not many. Because human perspectives represent individual persons. People are different, unique, and special in a way that cannot be completely repeated. No life is the same; no life is equal. All people are unequal. Because perspectives are sourced in difference. A different person has a different vantage point of senses.

There are limits to human empathy.


Moving beyond inter-subjectivity, the rarest perspective is objectivity. This entails the complete erasure of all things 'humans'. You are not human, but, a machine. You do not have free will and choice in life, but, are determined by unknown forces. You have a set destiny; you cannot change this. What you call "You", yourself, is no different than a rock, a tree, a drop of water. You are a thing. You are not a human. You are not even "alive". These are all identifications of yourself, that you were most easily convinced of, to strengthen your self perception as a subject (ie. your Ego and your Id). But with the objective sense, you are just an object, not a subject.

And maybe there is no real/true difference between life & death. When you sleep, you are not conscious, so can you call yourself "alive" while sleeping?

Are you alive? What convinces you except your consciousness?


These are all very basic philosophical questions which I realize most of you have never stumbled across nor thought about. So consider these questions an introduction to philosophy.

But the underlying point here is that subjectivity (egotism) is common: you perceive/think yourself as "Human". Objectivity is rarest: you doubt your humanity and instead put your "faith" in determinism. You may not even be alive at all. You are just a thing, not a person. Conversely your "personage" is built around subjective premises. Personage rests on the foundation of your "humanity". So why then do you not even know what "humanity" is, and where it comes from?

Instead people take humanity as a given, or worse, as a natural right bestowed by God.

So yes it is obvious that the vast majority of humanity will never doubt… your humanity. Because this is your source of subjectivity, and subsequently your source of privacy.

[Unome]

The nature of reality is not subjective. Existence does not bend to human perception and opinion.
The nature of reality is not inter-subjective. Consensus means nothing, people cannot "vote" the existence of gravity away.
The nature of reality is not objective. Sometimes lies and falsity constitute reality for many people: culture/institutionalization/socialization.

Instead the nature of reality –is– all of the above: subjective, inter-subjective, and objective.


Only the most flexible minds can apprehend 'Reality'. You must understand its foundation. You must understand difference between what is sensed, what is sensible, what is knowable, and what exists beyond belief. Because existence does not require belief. When you fall asleep each night, the universe does not disappear with your consciousness. Other people are real. And reality does not depend upon human consciousness. And reality is outside humanity. The human specie does not dictate reality, although humanity does attempt to intercede and intervene upon reality. Humanity attempts to wrest reality under the control of different individuals, peoples, and societies.

People (including you) fight for reality, fight for control, and fight for freedom.

Reality is not confined to your personal environment.
Reality is not confined to your expectations.
Reality is not confined to earth.

Learn to let go of what maybe impossible to control. Fate? Destiny? Free Will? What can become controlled?

Turning the channel does not turn off your television set.
Switching internet forums does not remove you from the web.

[michelle]

I thought this article was fascinating:
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580394,00.html

[Unome]

As claimed the vast majority (99%?) of humanity, or even all living organisms universally, begin life with a heavily subjective mindset. Subjectivity is default. Objectivity is rarest. So what is the source of this subjectivity? For humanity, humanism is the source of subjectivity. You are a subject; because you are a person (a human). Our hominid specie is defined through the body and appearance. Hominids have two arms, hands, legs, feet, one torso, pelvis, head, etc. And through this identification people relate with one-another across the world and even through social & cultural divisions. "There is no race but the human race." (liberal propaganda) This human identification is the platform & foundation for humanity. Your humanity is your subjectivity. However what makes you 'Human' is also what makes you commonplace, normal, average, and not unique. As a human you are not special. Because there are 7bil other humans, just like you.

Inter-subjectivity is socialism. Objectivity is individualism.

Young humans eventually are indoctrinated and socialized, as a specific means to acknowledge the ego/identity of others. Yes "we are all the same" but also "slightly different". For example we are all human, but, humans do not think & act the same way. People look different, coming from different races/ethnicity. Hardcore liberals/egalitarians/marxists/etc. will claim that all human differences are "human constructs". People look and act different because "society constructs/instructs us this way". Egalitarians presume that all humans can become changed or molded to "one human" type. We can all achieve, do, and think the same things. But this obviously is false.

Socialization is required to separate and manage human egotism. Human egotism leads toward individualism. Many humans are rebellious and want to "stand-out" from the crowd, or stand-alone (the stand-alone complex). This can be interpreted as a natural organic drive to differentiate from specie. In classical European philosophy/tradition this ideology is called "Transcendentalism". Humans want to "overcome" humanity or "become" something different, something other-than human. Socialization is the force that constrains and enslaves humanity. It disallows differences, whether great or small. Socialization is most aptly observed in monotheist religions and monist ideologies: "All are one." If you desire independence, freedom, and fight for individuality then this is an opposite force of socialization, and therefore against subjectivity. Objectivity is a means of acquiring uniqueness, rarity, independence, and individuality.

[Unome]

Very rarely will people doubt their social indoctrination. Are you human? Are you the same as everybody else? Are you different, and if yes, then how are you different? You're athletic, as if there are not 1mil other athletic people? You're nice, as if there are not 1mil other nice people? You like pop music, as if 1mil other people like something else? You're tall, as if there are not 1mil other tall people? How, exactly, are you different? How do you stand out? Do you stand out? Is your favorite color blue? Orange? Green?

True difference begins in the mind. Because 7bil other humans are human just like you. So how do you begin to stand-apart and why? Why do people want freedom, independence, and individuality? Why do people want the spotlight? Many famous figures throughout human history are famous precisely because of this drive toward individuality. A great sports star is great, because his actions cannot be copied. You cannot copy a Joe Montana, Babe Ruth, or Kobe Bryant. You cannot copy a George Washington, Theodore Roosevelt, or John Kennedy. You cannot copy an Isaac Newton, Thomas Edison, or Nikolai Tesla.

It is the truly unique greatness that boldly stands out and apart from all else. But even these types are still human, only human, all too human.

[Neanderthal]

Very rarely will people doubt their social indoctrination. Are you human? Are you the same as everybody else? Are you different, and if yes, then how are you different? You're athletic, as if there are not 1mil other athletic people? You're nice, as if there are not 1mil other nice people? You like pop music, as if 1mil other people like something else? You're tall, as if there are not 1mil other tall people? How, exactly, are you different? How do you stand out? Do you stand out? Is your favorite color blue? Orange? Green?

True difference begins in the mind. Because 7bil other humans are human just like you. So how do you begin to stand-apart and why? Why do people want freedom, independence, and individuality? Why do people want the spotlight? Many famous figures throughout human history are famous precisely because of this drive toward individuality. A great sports star is great, because his actions cannot be copied. You cannot copy a Joe Montana, Babe Ruth, or Kobe Bryant. You cannot copy a George Washington, Theodore Roosevelt, or John Kennedy. You cannot copy an Isaac Newton, Thomas Edison, or Nikolai Tesla.

It is the truly unique greatness that boldly stands out and apart from all else. But even these types are still human, only human, all too human.

The secret lies in being mediocre, but mediocre at everything, instead of being good at just one thing.

I consider myself unique in that regard.

[Unome]

Humanization:

Throughout the world the social indoctrination (Culture) is the same and follows the same universal rules. Humans are "educated" to believe and put faith into the idea of Humanity. You are human. And you probably have never doubted this throughout your life. But a basic philosophical question is: "What separates humanity from animals?" Are humans animals? Here begins a great complexity of humanism. Humans are not only "animals" but are also "something more". This is the creed of Abrahamic religions, particularly including Christianity. Christians are not animals, but "humans". This is an acceptance of humanity (more than or greater than an animal) and a rejection of animalism (paganism, naturalism, animism). The human is civil. The human animal is a beast, or a barbarian. Christian "cleanses" the human animal, and removes the animal nature. At least it attempts to do so.

Abrahamic faiths tend to cleanse and "purify" the human animal into a "human-only" entity. And this presupposition has been taken-up and heralded by the ideology of Secular Humanism today. This is also a strong undercurrent in Liberalism-Conservatism politickal ideology. People are not "animals", but, human. And the distinction of humanity is what gives people throughout the world their life value, intrinsic or not.

The probability and chance is far too high that you are a humanist. Because you have lived your short life thus far only accepting your indoctrination without really and truly questioning the premises you have been "educated" with. Doubt is a powerful force in life, a philosophical force opposed to religion. Whether you are educated through the state, or a pop religious faith (Abrahamism), it doesn't matter. Have you truly questioned your 'Humanity' or at least where, when, and how you supposedly obtained this status?

The 'Atheists' take an ideological shortcut around these arguments. Atheists claim: "I admit that I am an animal. I am proud of this admittance. And animals can have morals." But the huge flaw in Atheistic logic is: "How can animals have morals?" Atheists avoid this question; because it is very damaging to the atheist identity.

[Unome]

Dehumanization:

Just as most humans are convinced of your humanity, so too can humanity become lost or undone…

If the vast majority of the 7bil humans on earth find their subjectivity (and hence moral value/existence) through the humanistic identity then what happens when this identity becomes doubted and destroyed? If you are not a human then are you not at least an animal? Atheists and animists believe so; this is a core aspect of Paganistic belief systems (opposed to Abrahamism). Abrahamism is pro-humanity. You are not an animal, but a human. Atheism, animism, shaminism, and paganism often posit the contrary. You are not human, but an animal. In my personal view, whether human or animal, people should move another direction and consider a rarer choice. As an individual, who cares what you are? Maybe you are both human –and– animal. Maybe you are neither human –nor– animal. And these possibilities are open outside the periphery of most ideologies/faiths/dogmas. In classical Christian/European culture this "moving beyond humanity" is known as Transcendentalism. For Christians this concept is simple. Animals are lowest on the hierarchy. Humans are above animals, "overcoming" animals. And God is highest on hierarchy. As you move up, and all want to move up, you become "more than human".

But that upward Christian hierarchy rarely considers its opposite, moving down the hierarchy. What about dehumanization? What about removing the moral, cultural, Christian element? But dehumanization should not become confused with the common slander: "You are sub-human. You are Untermenschen." Because calling somebody "less than human" still uses humanity as its moral gauge and compass. I'm reminded of Friedrich Nietzsche here. Much of Nietzsche's criticism of Christianity was precisely on the point of humanity and morality. When Nietzsche urged the entire European culture to move "Beyond Good and Evil", what is meant is to look outside the scope of Christian morality. It is not a simple hierarchy of humanization and dehumanization, of being "closer to God" or farther away. There is another dimension to morality, something that is much more complex than Christianity classically created within the European countries.

As an individual there are more options: both human and animal, or, neither human nor animal. Once these options are investigated then new perspectives become available to the classical European mindset. Morality is not just "up and down", closer to God and above humanity, nor farther from God and below humanity. It is not just "Ubermenschen/Untermenschen". There is a "left/right" dimension, and maybe "forward/back".

Morality can be pluralistic (many choices), not merely dualistic (two choices, good v evil).


Dehumanization has another aspect, other than "more human" and "less human". Most people automatically associate humanity with subjectivity. And this is the real point here. You are a subject because you are human. And you are human because you are a subject. This is a common belief and association. So if humanity is your subjectivity then the removal of your humanity must imply objectification. And this is also commonly seen as negative. For example when men "sexually objectify" women, then this has a negative connotation and pejorative context. It is "bad" (morally wrong) to "objectify" others, not just women sexually, but all people. Nobody must see others "as objects". Instead all must reaffirm others as subjects.

And how is this done? It is accomplished through humanism. So you can now see why so many people (most reading this as well) are humanists. Because the alternative is dehumanization, and, objectification. And these are both commonly seen as bad, or worse, seen as morally evil.

It is evil (from Christianity) to objectify people. Because to objectify others, is to remove their subjectivity. It is an attack against subjectivity.


The reason I bring all of this up is to prepare you for the strongest point about "Reality". As mentioned before, reality is not just about subjective & objective perspectives. It is about a mix of different perspectives. And if "being objective" is associated with badness, wrongness, and evil, then this says something very serious about humanity, and humanism. The humanist ideology. I'm covering the basics, as simple as possible. Because I know most readers will not have a strong sense of philosophy or knowledge on these areas. Most people are indoctrinate to believe in humanity, without understanding what humanity is, does, and becomes. People do not understand the connection between humanity, reality, and morality.