Wisdom is a disease.

[Lyra]

Introduction (Hi, I'm me. I'm not very social, so can this be my introduction please?).

An idea which repeats itself throughout the philosophic and esoteric traditions of the world, and also appears in as diverse and incommensurate places as the writings of Adolf Hitler* and the mythos** of Buddhism: there is a veil between the human being as he normally is and the human being as he is when he perceives the structure of existence in accord with his full potential for understanding. That veil may only be torn down by one means: the causation, experience, or witnessing of immense and overwhelming trauma.

Clearly, there are those who live lives of suffering without attaining to any kind of advanced or exceptional understanding. Those who I wish to discuss, though, are those already fertile for truth. Fertile, but requiring insemination. By what? Suffering. What child? Wisdom.

I have a somewhat radical take on the matter. Please bear with me and keep an open mind.


--

* Mein Kampf, Chapter II: Years of Study and Suffering in Vienna.
** The exit from the palace and the encounter with death and suffering.


Essence

Perpetual sickness is often a war between two possibilities of being. An embodiment of the tipping point where no balance is achieved, and neither one nor the other is able to finally configure its counterforce in accordance with its own will. It is on such battlefields that knowledge is achieved: suffering and striving are concomitant, and in some that striving is a striving after understanding.

Understanding necessary to shed light upon the bloodshed within; driven by the inability to abide, which is only available to those who embody a relative stability or established order. The structure of existence is uncovered most by those* who have been enemies of it, victims of it, and predators of it– those whose body** is war, and who must make sense of their own sickened frenzy and repeated self-harm. Only they have fear enough to take up understanding as a sword, and to fight their way into the light.

Humans can tolerate pain. Humans can tolerate darkness***. It is an excess of the former in the latter that, in a rare few, reacts to produce some little wisdom.

The above poses something of a problem: is wisdom not a symptom of pathology?

I distrust any thoughts uttered by any man whose health is not robust.
All other thoughts are surely symptoms of disease.
Yet these are often beautiful, and may be true within the circle of the conditions of the speaker.
And yet again! Do we not find that the most robust of men express no thoughts at all? They eat, drink, sleep, and copulate in silence.
What better proof of the fact that all thought is dis-ease?
We are Strassburg geese; the tastiness of our talk comes from the disorder of our bodies.
We like it; this only proves that our tastes also are depraved and debauched by our disease.

-But the seventh men called PERDURABO; for enduring unto The End (Aleister Crowley).



--
*Not all of such, but by those of such who pursue understanding.
**‘Body’, here, subsumes all. Read ‘mind’.
***Read: unknowing.

Afterthought

It is only that suffering, that sheer force of experience that renders all limitations and reservations and false pretenses meaningless, that allows those who could understand to actually understand. And comfort is what prevents the potentially trans-personal mind from striving beyond the present and the easy and the looks-intelligent-to-say to the aeonic structural oscillations which underlay such easy transient petty-cleverness.

One more thing to bear in mind: we are all children of Nietzsche. He has permeated us, his structural evaluations are now ours. He was sick for his whole life.

 

[Moocow]

And comfort is what prevents the potentially trans-personal mind from striving beyond the present and the easy and the looks-intelligent-to-say to the aeonic structural oscillations which underlay such easy transient petty-cleverness.

I'm sorry but this run-on sentence, along with much of your post, is just incomprehensible. I think I understand what you're saying but I'm pretty sure it shouldn't require flipping through a dictionary or re-reading 10 times.


You're basically stating that wisdom is a result of sickness and suffering, right? Is it your point that wisdom is not necessary where people live comfortably?

 

[Lyra]

The structure of sentences relates to the structure of perspective in such a way that a sufficiently anomalous viewpoint inevitably elicits incomprehension. I'm not 'basically' saying anything other than what I said, because what I said is as much in the idiosyncratic structure of its presentation as it is in the themes addressed. Writing in a more standard way would standardise the content, and thus lose the essence of the message.

There's plenty out there that's easy to read and doesn't trouble the rhythm of perception. Go consume that; please don't apply your homogeneous standards of communication to my writing. My writing originates from an entirely different systemic configuration than those which are easy for you to read, and my making myself easy for you to read would involve a denial of my own self. I am not interested in that. I am interested in the meta-systemic, and the means by which idiosyncratic communication between dissimilar systems (humans) can provoke meta-systemic thought in those who are currently bound to the solely systemic.

It has taken much effort for me to become this incomprehensible. I have no wish to undo the work of years.

 

[Moocow]

The structure of sentences relates to the structure of perspective in such a way that a sufficiently anomalous viewpoint inevitably elicits incomprehension.

Somebody else reacted to me in the same way recently. My reply applies just as much here, so I hope you don't mind my copying it to you:

What can seem incoherent to one mind can have coherency. It's often the case that the mind which thinks another's output is incoherent is simply so different from that other that it is unable to order information in an even approximately equivalent way, and thus just perceives it as an indecipherable mass; or worse, just projects some meaning onto it which is
entirely alien to the author's intent. That incompatibility isn't necessarily a refutation of one person or the other (or one large group and one anomalous individual), because highly effective and developed systems (i.e. people, 'minds') might be just as likely to be incompatible with each others' communication and associated 'thought processes' as less complex systems.

For example, have you read the works of Austin Osman Spare? I'm sure that many people, including a significant number who could fairly be called incisive and intelligent by any given standard, simply don't have the neurological capacity to comprehend him. I've heard him called 'a genuine madman' and have seen Chaos Magick practitioners (the very people who one would expect to understand him, perhaps) seriously suggest that he wrote chapters and
then randomly jumbled up all of the sentences to create the finished product. Even Peter Carrol clearly doesn't have a clue what he was talking about, given that he claims to draw inspiration from him while falling into exactly the same traps that Spare (in his own idiosyncratic way) warned against.

Despite all of that, he's the most insightful writer I've read. And I'm sure that most who just happened to stumble across one of his books, without reverent expectations, would be forced to reject him out of hand. They couldn't do otherwise, because the way they order information is so different that they couldn't identify the systemic coherency that *is* present in his work even if they wanted to. It would seem, to use your words, to be ''strings and lines of meaningless gibberish''.

I'm not suggesting that the writings on the linked site are in any way equal in value or insight to Spare's. They're not. At all. Not even close.

But I am suggesting that your evaluation of them is a result of the kind of systemic incompatibility I've just discussed. That's not a criticism of you. (I repeat: I am not criticising you). Like I said, two very effective but very different ways of interacting with the world aren't always facilitative of mutual comprehension.

And they're even less often facilitative of immediate mutual comprehension. I've found that sometimes, with time, two previously informationally incompatible systems (people) can adapt to each other and comprehend each other in a way that previously seemed impossible. That usually depends upon mutual interest or conditions where repeated contact is inevitable, though.

Hah. It's not an "incompatibility of minds." Don't be afraid to just call me "stupid" if that's what you're trying to say. I understand what you're talking about, but being a firm believer in brevity and clarity, I'm telling you that you're overcomplicating relatively simple points with tons of unnecessary language.

Trying to use as many large words as possible is just self-indulgent and doesn't contribute anything to the clarity of your posts.

Your posts read like you're trying to write a textbook. In my opinion, good authors can take a complicated point and simplify it to a brief, but clear statement, without losing any of the original meaning.

 

[Lyra]

See above. I'd appreciate it if you deleted the quoted section from your post, as I edited my post after realising that it didn't apply to this situation as I previously thought it had.

Additionally, please do not paraphrase me.

but being a firm believer in brevity and clarity, I'm telling you that you're overcomplicating relatively simple points with tons of unnecessary language.

I know how to state things in the style you're advocating, but I'm choosing not to. And I'm choosing not to for reasons which you currently don't understand, and which relate to my experiences over years. I'd appreciate it if you left that choice up to me, instead of trying to colonise me with your own style of communication.

Further, you're making a distinction between content and presentation which I don't recognise. The presentation is the content, here, and undue focus upon ''what's actually being said'' or what ''point'' is being made distracts from that.

---

Trying to use as many large words as possible is just self-indulgent and doesn't contribute anything to the clarity of your posts.

I do not 'try' to do this. I find the suggestion that I do highly insulting. You're projecting a meaning onto my usage of language which is entirely divorced from my actual reasons for using as I do, and you're doing so in an aggressive and patronising manner. Apply your standards to your communication and I'll apply mine to mine-- don't try force into agreement with your norms and your meanings, and the systemic configuration which underlays them.

 

[Moocow]

See above. I'd appreciate it if you deleted the quoted section from your post, as I edited my post after realising that it didn't apply to this situation as I previously thought it had.

Additionally, please do not paraphrase me.



I know how to state things in the style you're advocating, but I'm choosing not to. And I'm choosing not to for reasons which you currently don't understand, and which relate to my experiences over years. I'd appreciate it if you left that choice up to me, and stopped trying to colonise me with your own style of communication.

I'm more than interested to hear the exact reasons for your "style of communication" then.

I wouldn't consider this some kind of personality-"colonization" because the only thing I'm trying to gain from you is clarification of the original thought that you tried to express in the first place.

 

[Lyra]

Precisely: I'm not expressing a thought through the medium of language. I am expressing a structural modification of language.

Why? Because language is a subsystem, and the manipulation of subsystems is a means of altering the delicate and flexible* systems of which they are part**. The anomalous or unusual modification of subsystems is a means of influencing such systems in an anomalous or unusual way.

Precisely for that reason, I would consider an attempt to make me express in a more standard way an attempt at colonisation-- but probably not an intentional one. You're trying to make me clarify my 'point' in terms which are readily understood by more standard systemic configurations. But any such translatable 'point' is non-essential to what I've written. And to make it so would be to deny my own structural divergence and allow myself to be converged into structural norms. In short: to be colonised.

--

*In this case.
**The human being.

 

[Moocow]

Precisely: I'm not expressing a thought through the medium of language. I am expressing a structural modification of language.

Why? Because language is a subsystem, and the manipulation of subsystems is a means of altering the delicate and flexible* systems of which they are part**. The anomalous or unusual modification of subsystems is a means of influencing such systems in an anomalous or unusual way.

Precisely for that reason, I would consider an attempt to make me express in a more standard way an attempt at colonisation-- but probably not an intentional one.

--

*In this case.
**The human being.

(although I originally posted asking how he could make any action at all without it being causal.)

Is your structural modification of language relevant to the topic of this thread, or an ongoing expression throughout anything you write?

What reasons do you have for trying to influence or oppose what is normal in the use of language?

 

[Lyra]

It is because I am a nexion. That is: a gateway between the causal and the acausal.

In more normal terms: it is because I do not see normal communication as anything worth engaging in. The disruption which my use of language causes in a reader's perceptual patterns occasionally provokes an considered engagement with the unknown or not-pre-categorised that is not facilitated by more standard uses of language.

Additionally, I have modified my systemic configuration to the extent that linguistic-structural oscillation is natural if I do not attempt to prevent it.

 

[Moocow]

It is because I am a nexion. That is: a gateway between the causal and the acausal.

In more normal terms: it is because I do not see normal communication as anything worth engaging in. The disruption which my use of language causes in a reader's perceptual patterns occasionally provokes an considered engagement with the unknown or not-pre-categorised that is not facilitated by more standard uses of language.

Additionally, I have modified my systemic configuration to the extent that linguistic-structural oscillation is natural if I do not attempt to prevent it.

So what's your point in saying / posting anything at all, if not to elicit a reaction like mine?
In normal terms: Are you just trolling me?

 

[Lyra]

'Acausal' is a metaphorical exaggeration, of course. It's a denial of common expectations regarding the meshwork of motivations and desires which determine human actions and their meanings, not a postulation of literal acausality.

Edit: you edited your previous post, which was questioned my use of the word 'acausal'.

So what's your point in saying / posting anything at all, if not to elicit a reaction like mine?
In normal terms: Are you just trolling me?

To provoke a going-beyond the unstated feeling that prevailing structures-- common physiological and neurological states and their resultant language etc.-- are universal. And thus, hopefully, to provoke a meta-structural perspective and the development of knowledge beyond the transient and comfortable into the aeonic and divergent.

In short: to provoke acausality. As I said: I am a nexion.

Also: the content of my OP is meaningful to me.

I don't appreciate such profane and hypercausal words as that you used in your second question.

 

[Moocow]

'Acausal' is a metaphorical exaggeration, of course. It's a denial of common expectations regarding the meshwork of motivations and desires which determine human actions and their meanings, not a postulation of literal acausality.

Edit: you edited your previous post, which was questioned my use of the word 'acausal'.



To provoke a going-beyond the unstated feeling that prevailing structures-- common physiological and neurological states and their resultant language etc.-- are universal. And thus, hopefully, to provoke a meta-structural perspective and the development of knowledge beyond the transient and comfortable into the aeonic and divergent.

In short: to provoke acausality. As I said: I am a nexion.

Also: the content of my OP is meaningful to me.

I don't appreciate such profane and hypercausal words as that you used in your second question.

So you want your words to be open for timeless interpretation as opposed to mine which follow only modern linguistic patterns?

 

[Lyra]

Indeed. See above.

I am enjoying our conversation.

 

[Darby]

In my opinion, good authors can take a complicated point and simplify it to a brief, but clear statement, without losing any of the original meaning.

My mother once said something similar in that people who can and know how to do something will use the language that the subject material asks for, someone who understands what the something is and how it works while being capable of doing it will be able to describe it to everyone else.

because of this I have always been a firm believer in understanding and also the ability to read in context, so I don't have to know what the word means, I just have to see the point before you make it (which I ruined my english teachers day with not too long ago), or at least before you finish.

I will admit that using "smaller" words will often make something you write longer if you wish to explain what your saying with the same level of clarity, but like Moocow, if you refuse to accept that other people who are likely to be just as smart as you are, don't understand/know the language you use, and you refuse to explain or change your wording, you look like an asshole.

I also get that the language you use is a part of yourself, perhaps you like to only converse with the intellectual "elite" but I'm willing to stoop to such a low level as to accept worthwhile ideas from anyone, and I hope I can give some in return.

This may seem rather angry, but I don't intend it to be so, I'm finding it hard to make my point any softer so if you would like to bash me over the head a few times go ahead, maybe it'll soften me up a bit

EDIT: Aah, I didn't get to read anything after what I quoted before posting. I see what you're saying (MetaStructure) about removing yourself from the flow of time, and becoming "timeless."

I also read that you said that your OP is meaningful to you, which would imply that in fact you would like a response to such a question. It is also entirely possible that such an OP could be restated in order to get people more willing to express their own ideas about the matter and actually start a discussion, which I would think would be a part of your goal if the concept is important to you and you wished to refine it.

 

[Moocow]

(edited out because of misinterpretation)

Indeed. See above.

I am enjoying our conversation.

Likewise.

 

[Lyra]

I will admit that using "smaller" words will often make something you write longer if you wish to explain what your saying with the same level of clarity, but like Moocow, if you refuse to accept that other people who are likely to be just as smart as you are, don't understand/know the language you use, and you refuse to explain or change your wording, you look like an asshole.

I also get that the language you use is a part of yourself, perhaps you like to only converse with the intellectual "elite" but I'm willing to stoop to such a low level as to accept worthwhile ideas from anyone, and I hope I can give some in return.

It has nothing to do with elitism. I'm strange, I write strangely. And I find the constant attempts to force me to converge... just tiring. What you don't seem to understand is that these *are* simple terms for me. It's how I think automatically, and how I express automatically. And my alteration of my language patterns towards a structural equivalence with those which are more common would involve a constant and wearing denial of myself and the validity of my own way of being.

I play around when people challenge me about it. But the truth of the matter is that I just have a strange brain. I'm not obfuscating. I'm not trying to make things more complicated than they are. But the most normal of my expressions seem structurally alien to the majority. I'm a self-accepting anomaly, not an elitist.

As such, I find your post very hurtful.

(That's what I was getting at with the whole 'colonising' thing. It's like being constantly insulted for your accent, or your gait, or your taste in music. Except that the way you think and express-- the structure of your language-- is much more important to your entire experience than any of those things. Essentially, you're calling me an ''asshole'' for just trying to be who I am. And that's just... well, it gets to me. A lot.)

 

[Moocow]

What's wrong with learning to adhere just a little bit closer to normal English structure? I doubt that the way you write is going to be more timeless than the way I do. Historically, we tend to understand the dialect of a time period and use it when interpreting past texts. In fact, the eccentricity of it would probably pose a problem for anyone trying to interpret your words in the future, just as it does with the present.

 

[Lyra]

I have already stated my reasons. Ease of interpretation by later cultures is of no importance to me.

 

[Moocow]

I have already stated my reasons. Ease of interpretation by later cultures is of no importance; I am at one with the eternal.

Words can't be made eternal, simply by their nature of being words. Ambiguity is fine too, except that isn't clarification the whole purpose of language?


Also for what it's worth at this point, I do think that wisdom comes as a result of sickness and despair. Wisdom in itself, however, can't be considered a disease because it does not cause anyone suffering. Hitler's philosophy caused tons of suffering, but that is why it's not presently regarded as wisdom.

 

[Lyra]

Precisely. Words can't be made eternal, and are of no concern for me except in so far as they are means of interface with the immediate. Now and forever are all that I experience, and temporally limited future and past are thus of little relevance.

WRT your second paragraph: my title was clumsy. I do not think that wisdom is disease. Please refer to my OP for a clarification of my position.

 

[Darby]

It has nothing to do with elitism. I'm strange, I write strangely. And I find the constant attempts to force me to converge... just tiring. What you don't seem to understand is that these *are* simple terms for me. It's how I think automatically, and how I express automatically. And my alteration of my language patterns towards a structural equivalence with those which are more common would involve a constant and wearing denial of myself and the validity of my own way of being.

As such, I find your post very hurtful.

(That's what I was getting at with the whole 'colonising' thing. It's like being constantly insulted for your accent, or your gait, or your taste in music. Except that the way you think and express-- the structure of your language-- is much more important to your entire experience than any of those things. Essentially, you're calling me an ''asshole'' for just trying to be who I am. And that's just... well, it gets to me. A lot.)

For your point on elitism you said this not long ago:

It is because I am a nexion. That is: a gateway between the causal and the acausal.

In more normal terms: it is because I do not see normal communication as anything worth engaging in.

I also get what your saying about the way you speak and think is a part of who you are, just as I am a very visual person, and often translating those concepts ideas into something other people can understand is...well irritating. My point about being an asshole(like I did say) was a bit more blunt than intended, and I did not intend it to be so.

I meant it in the way that If you have something important to say and you wish to share/discuss the idea, then you will need to translate what you say so that people can share ideas and discuss the concept with you, otherwise (like Moocow said) there is no point in saying anything, because you are not making a very good effort to be heard.

Perhaps we're just telling you in a rather rude way that you probably won't find whatever you're looking for on this forum.

I also apologise for not addressing you're OP, I generally respond in this order:

OP
interpretation of OP by #2 poster
My interpretation of OP clarifying ideas of both OP and #2

but since the initial interpretation was never made, I wasn't sure what to say, and the thread degraded into an attack on your person

 

[Cognisant]

It has taken much effort for me to become this incomprehensible. I have no wish to undo the work of years.

Because I'm an anal retentive nihilistic bastard with OCD and nothing better to do, I have to point out that language (like appearance) is almost entirely for the benefit of others, otherwise we would all be naked & mute. Now don't get me wrong, I'm thoroughly enjoying your style and experiencing little to no difficulty understanding it, but then I do read textbooks for entertainment.

Anyway to the topic at hand,
I would say the pursuit of intellectual ideals is more of a disorder than a pathogen as it's rarely something that can be shared, whilst something like theology for example is the quint essential metaphor for infectious disease in both form and function. Putting my anti-theism aside (for now) I would have to agree that suffering is a powerful means of encouraging wisdom, I would also have to stress that it’s neither the mechanism nor director of this process, it merely provides raw motivation.

But then I suppose this is what you meant by the fertility metaphor.

 

[Lyra]

Perhaps we're just telling you in a rather rude way that you probably won't find whatever you're looking for on this forum.

That is my concern.

For your point on elitism you said this not long ago:

I play around when people challenge me about it. But the truth of the matter is that I just have a strange brain. I'm not obfuscating. I'm not trying to make things more complicated than they are. But the most normal of my expressions seem structurally alien to the majority. I'm a self-accepting anomaly, not an elitist.

I play around because it's wearing not to. Also, the comment you quoted is not necessarily elitist. Not wishing to engage in common practice is not elitist: it is a personal choice, and not one necessarily made from a position of power or exclusivity.

 

[Lyra]

Now don't get me wrong, I'm thoroughly enjoying your style and experiencing little to no difficulty understanding it, but then I do read textbooks for entertainment.

Thanks. I appreciate that.

I would also have to stress that it’s neither the mechanism nor director of this process, it merely provides raw motivation.

Agreed, but I would argue that it's a necessary prerequisite, and would also argue that the occurrence of the processes (mechanisms) by which wisdom is achieved thus necessarily indicate the prior occurrence of the kind of trauma I'm discussing.

And, where Nietzsche is concerned, I think that the sustained suffering ('war between two possibilities of being') that he experienced throughout his life allowed his perspectives to develop as they did, and as divergently as they did. Trauma can tear down the veil, but it's this ever-present (to use your word) motivation-- embodied suffering, sickness-- that drives a person to true wisdom.

Because I'm an anal retentive nihilistic bastard with OCD and nothing better to do, I have to point out that language (like appearance) is almost entirely for the benefit of others, otherwise we would all be naked & mute.

I think that language can be subverted away from this purpose, although this purpose was certainly its origin. Language can become internally-directed-- it can be subverted away from participation in contemporary structures, and used as a vehicle for re-discovering the individual and divergent in a way not possible without its use.

That's not necessarily what I'm doing-- or, it's not the entirety of what I'm doing, given that I engage with the immediate-- but people have used it in this way. Austin Osman Spare, for example.

 

[Moocow]

I don't particularly like the idea of language being altered to express individuality. That's applying a purpose to it that undermines its original purpose... to provide a common ground of communication between individuals.

 

[Lyra]

I suppose it's an aesthetic choice.

However, I think that eroticism, like many other human oddities, is an instance of similar subversion. The sheer mass and divergence of sexual tendencies, and ways of expressing and engaging in what is a biologically necessary human behavior with an origin distinct from those individualised means of expression, suggests a will to escape predefined 'purpose'. I see value in that.

 

[Moocow]

Why don't you trust naturally defined purposes to be sufficient?

 

[Lyra]

Because sufficiency is not enough for me. I want to see pan* play.

*That is pan as the greek for 'all', not Pan as the God whose name is now thought to have derived from the Greek paein ('to pasture').

 

[Cognisant]

Moocow, this is becoming redundant.

Introduction (Hi, I'm me. I'm not very social, so can this be my introduction please?).

Welcome to the forum.

 

[Da Blob]

Originally Posted by Moocow
In my opinion, good authors can take a complicated point and simplify it to a brief, but clear statement, without losing any of the original meaning.

One speaks of Elegance.

Wisdom is nothing but the Fruit of Sorrow

Words are but a Sculptor's Tools



Welcome, Meta

 

[Darby]

I am just trying to point out that when you say I want to see "pan play" that's fine and dandy, but if noone joins in, your playing with yourself(which is also fine), except when you want to share something. then we get back into languages natural intended use which is no longer "pan play" but communication. So when you refuse to "translate" from pan play to communication, it makes it apparent you were not looking to communicate, which goes back to the "why did you post anything at all?"

I am starting to be an asshole now, and as Oresama said, we're beating a dead horse

also, with the idea of pain and suffering as the raw material for the motivation for understanding and learning I agree. if your happy with the way things are, why would you wish to change them(this implies complete happiness on one's part)?

EDIT: I also don't think that pain or suffering must be dealt in great amount to create change and understanding. say one of the things you do at work takes too long in your opinion, you find a way to make it go faster, smoother, etc. it may not have been a big deal, but you still learned something in the process. I would say though that generally some of the "bigger" things in life(if there are any) would take a lot more than something such as a mild irritation in the length of a task to provide the necessary leverage to look for an answer.

 

[Lyra]

I am just trying to point out that when you say I want to see "pan play" that's fine and dandy, but if noone joins in, your playing with yourself(which is also fine), except when you want to share something. then we get back into languages natural intended use which is no longer "pan play" but communication. So when you refuse to "translate" from pan play to communication, it makes it apparent you were not looking to communicate, which goes back to the "why did you post anything at all?"

I am starting to be an asshole now, and as Oresama said, we're beating a dead horse

also, with the idea of pain and suffering as the raw material for the motivation for understanding and learning I agree. if your happy with the way things are, why would you wish to change them(this implies complete happiness on one's part)?

EDIT: I also don't think that pain or suffering must be dealt in great amount to create change and understanding. say one of the things you do at work takes too long in your opinion, you find a way to make it go faster, smoother, etc. it may not have been a big deal, but you still learned something in the process. I would say though that generally some of the "bigger" things in life(if there are any) would take a lot more than something such as a mild irritation in the length of a task to provide the necessary leverage to look for an answer.

[BIMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/78/Burningmonk.jpg/800px-Burningmonk.jpg[/BIMG]

 

[Darby]

Dan Ariely On Our Buggy Moral Code

The first 4 minutes or so is what I'm focusing on

The reason I'm putting this up is that he suffered, and he looked for a solution, he sought to understand the why. The suffering is the reason or motive to find out why, but they create their own model and tests to find out why. The why is ultimately the understanding that is needed, or wisdom to be gained(as I see it)

 

[cheese]

I haven't even read the whole thread yet - this just struck me as hilarious:

It is because I am a nexion. That is: a gateway between the causal and the acausal.

In more normal terms: it is because I do not see normal communication as anything worth engaging in. The disruption which my use of language causes in a reader's perceptual patterns occasionally provokes an considered engagement with the unknown or not-pre-categorised that is not facilitated by more standard uses of language.

Additionally, I have modified my systemic configuration to the extent that linguistic-structural oscillation is natural if I do not attempt to prevent it.

My mother once said...

!

Yeah, slight misrepresentation, sorry.

This thread is interesting, though I suspect that sentiment is uninteresting to the OP.

 

[jhb]

Is it really wisdom that is a product of suffering, or suffering that is a product of wisdom? There seems, after all, to be some kind of inverse relationship between intelligence and happiness. That is not to say that intelligence and wisdom is the same, but then what is wisdom. The less you know, the less you suffer.

Maybe wisdom is some kind of disease, a disease that makes you see the world as it is, utterly meaningless and full of suffering. That does not sound very nice, maybe true wisdom is ignorance. Bliss of ignorance. I do not really believe that, because i'm fueled by love; love of knowledge, love of reason and love of truth (wisdom, if you wan't). I would rather like to know the truth than be happy. Maybe that is a disease; Madness.

My image of myself is of a mind, a consciousness, trapped in brain, again trapped in a body, a biochemical machine whose sole, original purpose is to survive and reproduce. The meaning of life. The purpose of evolution. Then we (the human race) became intelligent, sentient. Maybe that is the real disease, sentience and intelligence. A disease of life and evolution. We go beyond the "meaning of life" (eat and fuck).

We are a disease, a perversion. We do not become wise because of suffering, the suffering were always there, the wisdom just help us become aware of it. That is why we created religion, to explain the suffering, for those that cannot bear to face the truth. We should not seek suffering to become wise, we should become wiser to end it. Go beyond natural. Overcome humanity. Maybe suffering is a motivation, but I dont think suffering leads directly to wisdom.

 

[bluesquid]

I personally have experienced pain in this thread. What a waste of time.

Meta you seem to be in some pain and a erudite, impersonal way of writing is shielding you from true wisdom.

anyone that quotes Crowley is the philosophical equivalent of a slayer fan. you lose me.

 

[Lyra]

I personally have experienced pain in this thread. What a waste of time.

Meta you seem to be in some pain and a erudite, impersonal way of writing is shielding you from true wisdom.

anyone that quotes Crowley is the philosophical equivalent of a slayer fan. you lose me.

This really made my day. Thanks. I love it when I try to write about something important to me and a stranger insults me for my writing style and tries to upset me by calling my concerns "a waste of time".

Despite that, I do disagree about Crowley. His Book of Lies is brilliant; I've never come across anything as deeply humorous and heartfelt* as it is. And, despite the obvious risk that somebody will react out-of-hand upon the basis of the status that Crowley has in general discourse, I find things in his work worth discussing.

So... thanks again. It's wonderful how we treat beings from past times-- complex, real, and feeling human beings who lived lives as full and ambiguous as our own-- as mere chess pieces in some petty game of one-upmanship.

You seem like a great human being.

*In the sense that it's the product of years of passionate seeking.

 

[bananaphallus]

Meta you seem to be in some pain and a erudite, impersonal way of writing is shielding you from true wisdom.

Not to pile on the insolence-bandwagon, but if you're sure that his writing style, and his writing style alone, is shielding him from 'true wisdom', wouldn't that mean you know, or the very least, have a fairly good idea, of what true wisdom is? If this is the case, what is true wisdom?

 

[Da Blob]

This really made my day. Thanks. I love it when I try to write about something important to me and a stranger insults me for my writing style and tries to upset me by calling my concerns "a waste of time".

Despite that, I do disagree about Crowley. His Book of Lies is brilliant; I've never come across anything as deeply humorous and heartfelt* as it is. And, despite the obvious risk that somebody will react out-of-hand upon the basis of the status that Crowley has in general discourse, I find things in his work worth discussing.

So... thanks again. It's wonderful how we treat beings from past times-- complex, real, and feeling human beings who lived lives as full and ambiguous as our own-- as mere chess pieces in some petty game of one-upmanship.

You seem like a great human being.

*In the sense that it's the product of years of passionate seeking.

Perhaps, you are taking things too personally. The secret to success in life is to take nothing personally, neither Pleasure or Pain. The advantage to this type of conversation, is that people have a tendency to bit more honest in their responses than in RL. I personally find it refreshing when someone tells me that they think I am 'full of it" on occasions. This does not happen often enough in RL.

Any, there is this thread, just in case anyone is interested in Wisdom, and what a few others think...

http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=4979

 

[bluesquid]

This really made my day. Thanks. I love it when I try to write about something important to me and a stranger insults me for my writing style and tries to upset me by calling my concerns "a waste of time".

Despite that, I do disagree about Crowley. His Book of Lies is brilliant; I've never come across anything as deeply humorous and heartfelt* as it is. And, despite the obvious risk that somebody will react out-of-hand upon the basis of the status that Crowley has in general discourse, I find things in his work worth discussing.

So... thanks again. It's wonderful how we treat beings from past times-- complex, real, and feeling human beings who lived lives as full and ambiguous as our own-- as mere chess pieces in some petty game of one-upmanship.

You seem like a great human being.

*In the sense that it's the product of years of passionate seeking.

Wisdom is perspective. You can dress it up any way you want, but its just looking with a purpose. It doesnt have to reside in a shaman in a guano hut, or some wrinkled bastard no one usually talks to. Many have wisdom about very specific topics. True overarching wisdom is rare, and not appreciated. Everyone is a pantheistic force of existence in their own minds. Reality need not apply.

You have gone out of your way to defend your writing style. As someone stated earlier, YOU are writing to US. That shows an immaturity and defined lack of perspective.

As for hurt feelings. You put that much of yourself out there in this world, your going to get some. Reading Crowley should have taught you that.

 

[Beat Mango]

I like that quote from the opening post:

I distrust any thoughts uttered by any man whose health is not robust.
All other thoughts are surely symptoms of disease.
Yet these are often beautiful, and may be true within the circle of the conditions of the speaker.
And yet again! Do we not find that the most robust of men express no thoughts at all? They eat, drink, sleep, and copulate in silence.
What better proof of the fact that all thought is dis-ease?

Very concisely sums up an idea I've been trying to express for some time. I think the joining point between thought and illness that you're looking for is anxiety. There's no doubt in my mind that Nietzsche, in hindsight, would now be considered to suffer from an anxiety disorder (or possibly bipolar, not all that different). I say this from various tidbits of information and anecdotes I've come across about him, as well as his texts, and I wouldn't underestimate the effect this would have had on his health. Anxiety sufferers have some alarming physical symptoms. Now, what is anxiety but a heightened awareness of all things internal and external? And what is wisdom, but a heightened awareness of all things internal and external? There should be no surprise that a correlation might exist between the two.

By the way - I'm curious as to why Lyra got banned?

 

[EditorOne]

"That veil may only be torn down by one means: the causation, experience, or witnessing of immense and overwhelming trauma."

Faulty assumption, I believe. There's more than one means. I've found plain old thinking to work pretty well.

 

[Lyra]

It's not an assumption.

Additionally, 'thinking' does not exist in a vacuum-- in fact, I don't even recognise the categorisation of any experience as 'thinking'. I think it's an inaccurate signifier with misleading connotations.


---

Very concisely sums up an idea I've been trying to express for some time. I think the joining point between thought and illness that you're looking for is anxiety. There's no doubt in my mind that Nietzsche, in hindsight, would now be considered to suffer from an anxiety disorder (or possibly bipolar, not all that different). I say this from various tidbits of information and anecdotes I've come across about him, as well as his texts, and I wouldn't underestimate the effect this would have had on his health. Anxiety sufferers have some alarming physical symptoms. Now, what is anxiety but a heightened awareness of all things internal and external? And what is wisdom, but a heightened awareness of all things internal and external? There should be no surprise that a correlation might exist between the two.

By the way - I'm curious as to why Lyra got banned?

Yes, I generally agree with this. It raises interesting questions about the nature of pathology, doesn't it? A 'sickness' by today's standards was a necessary prerequisite for the diagnosis of the sickness of Aeons.

That's what Nietzsche did. He was a societal physician.

 

[BigApplePi]

Wisdom is the cure for the disease the very cause of which is its existence.

 

[Lyra]

Wisdom is the cure for the disease the very cause of which is its existence.

Perfect.

 

[BigApplePi]

It's not an assumption.

Additionally, 'thinking' does not exist in a vacuum-- in fact, I don't even recognise the categorisation of any experience as 'thinking'. I think it's an inaccurate signifier with misleading connotations.

Suppose I say thinking is concerned with awareness of observations and logic about the external world. That's worth recognizing, is it not? Certainly the external world is no vacuum.


---

Quote:
Very concisely sums up an idea I've been trying to express for some time. I think the joining point between thought and illness that you're looking for is anxiety. There's no doubt in my mind that Nietzsche, in hindsight, would now be considered to suffer from an anxiety disorder (or possibly bipolar, not all that different). I say this from various tidbits of information and anecdotes I've come across about him, as well as his texts, and I wouldn't underestimate the effect this would have had on his health. Anxiety sufferers have some alarming physical symptoms. Now, what is anxiety but a heightened awareness of all things internal and external? And what is wisdom, but a heightened awareness of all things internal and external? There should be no surprise that a correlation might exist between the two.

By the way - I'm curious as to why Lyra got banned?
She was? Was someone too anxious or unwise?

Yes, I generally agree with this. It raises interesting questions about the nature of pathology, doesn't it? A 'sickness' by today's standards was a necessary prerequisite for the diagnosis of the sickness of Aeons.

Things can go right and things can go wrong. Any wonder if things go wrong too long it causes anxiety? Hopefully one can get wrong things to go right. If one can't is that pathological?

 

[BigApplePi]

Lyra & company,

I stopped at one of your messages below to reply. I'll put my comments in bold.

It has nothing to do with elitism. I'm strange, I write strangely.
You are writing as you. I find your initial message in this thread delightful, but that' s me. Pay no attention.

And I find the constant attempts to force me to converge... just tiring.
Lyra is as she is. Take a chance on understanding. I'm an introvert. We are ALL strange because we aren't integrated with the outside world.

What you don't seem to understand is that these *are* simple terms for me. It's how I think automatically, and how I express automatically. And my alteration of my language patterns towards a structural equivalence with those which are more common would involve a constant and wearing denial of myself and the validity of my own way of being.
I would say if someone wants to understand ..... and the very wanting says they suspect something is there ..... then ask. You may get a translation.

I play around when people challenge me about it.
People get frustrated. One has to attempt patience. Easier said than done.

But the truth of the matter is that I just have a strange brain. I'm not obfuscating. I'm not trying to make things more complicated than they are. But the most normal of my expressions seem structurally alien to the majority. I'm a self-accepting anomaly, not an elitist.
Being special ..... being a specialist ..... is allowed.


As such, I find your post very hurtful.
They are frustrated.

(That's what I was getting at with the whole 'colonising' thing. It's like being constantly insulted for your accent, or your gait, or your taste in music. Except that the way you think and express-- the structure of your language-- is much more important to your entire experience than any of those things. Essentially, you're calling me an ''asshole'' for just trying to be who I am. And that's just... well, it gets to me. A lot.)
Aggressiveness in the face of discomfort is not something I understand the way I want to. I have to be patient myself.

Hello Lyra. Glad to meet ya.
BAP

 

[Beat Mango]

One more thing to bear in mind: we are all children of Nietzsche. He has permeated us, his structural evaluations are now ours.

Elaborate? I think you're putting him on too high a pedestal personally, but I'll keep an open mind...

 

[BigApplePi]

Elaborate? I think you're putting him on too high a pedestal personally, but I'll keep an open mind...

Hi Banana Mango. If your message is meant for me, I got the impression the "him" is a "her." If she is on a pedestal then I'm (I'm a he) floating on air. You are free to enlighten me anytime as I will try for an open mind myself, lol.

 

[Da Blob]

Well, I hope 'he' was referring to Nietzche, who in RL was really a disgusting bigot. He has now been intellectually sanitized so that he might be put on a pedestal and worshipped by those who practice the religion of Nihilism...

I personally find it a source of amusement that Nihilists demand objective proof of God, yet they do not seem bothered by the fact that there is not one iota of evidence that proves that anything written by Nietzche was true. They willingly digest his dark fantasy as Truth... This seems to almost be an exercise of the Occult to the outside observer.