GENIUS FORUMS

millipodium wrote: Your on the wrong board bro, here's something more up your alley

You are ornery as all hell, but I have a weak spot for iconoclasts.

I think most equate Nihilism with hopelessness. Acknowledgment of the fact that everything ends in a black hole would require the corresponding emotional outlook to qualify as Nihilistic, otherwise it would more properly be referred to as Realistic. My own demise does not make the world a less lovely place.

reedsch wrote:

millipodium wrote: Your on the wrong board bro, here's something more up your alley

You are ornery as all hell, but I have a weak spot for iconoclasts.

I think most equate Nihilism with hopelessness. Acknowledgment of the fact that everything ends in a black hole would require the corresponding emotional outlook to qualify as Nihilistic, otherwise it would more properly be referred to as Realistic. My own demise does not make the world a less lovely place.

Nihilism is a devaluation of life. Your emotional linkage is clearly extra-definitional.

millipodium wrote: Nihilism is a devaluation of life. Your emotional linkage is clearly extra-definitional.

Who appointed you arbiter of definitions Mr. Daniel Webster? What exactly do you think "values" are? 100% EMOTIONAL.

But to acknowledge your Webster privileges for a moment, how would you define the difference between a fatalist and a nihilist?

reedsch wrote:

millipodium wrote: Nihilism is a devaluation of life. Your emotional linkage is clearly extra-definitional.

Who appointed you arbiter of definitions Mr. Daniel Webster? What exactly do you think "values" are? 100% EMOTIONAL.

But to acknowledge your Webster privileges for a moment, how would you define the difference between a fatalist and a nihilist?

It's simply not a relevant distinction in this discussion.

in response to reedsch, millipodium wrote:
It's simply not a relevant distinction in this discussion.

reedsch, what you need to understand about milli, is that the word nihilism, to him, has a meaning that is so broad and flexible that it's pointless having a dicussion with him.

Despite I have clearly stated my beliefs and on a variety of subjects(in this discussion, the focus was on agiculture)- I still get labeled the nihilist.

This makes no sense.

----------------------------------

Milli, for the last time, in regards to agriculture - I believe there needs to be a radically shift in our approach to producing food.

Rather than having less than 1% of the population producing food, maybe 70% or more should be producing food.

And the way they produce food should rely less on tilling the soil and should instead focus more on establishing perenial tree and bush crops, there should be more emphasis on any foods that can be produced without anual tilling and sowing. The animals that we eat should be less dependent on conditions that require alot of human labor.

The reason we arent doing this now is because perenial foods and less maintenance animals tend to not taste as good.

Another reason is the factor of entertainment, the aesthetic gratifications of culture have such a powerful hold on young minds and old, that meaningful intelligent work becomes intolerably unstimulating, depressing simply because such work requires a sensitive, subtle mind, a mind that love what is commonly regarded as dry and terrifying. It is simply not possible to produce endless entertainments and luxuries without mercilessly exploiting other countries and regulating the general population to an eneverating and dull work routine.

Another big factor is that relying mostly on tree crops demands a mind that is willing to value the survival of future generations.

One has to be motivated to do work that may not show much profit until one is dead. Ones work should profit future humans as much or even more than the present generation.

- -- the older generation has a hard time mustering up the energy to plant trees because they don't feel that they will profit in any way from the work.

By the time the trees are producing food, the older generation who planted them will probably be dead.

And so that is why a philosophy or way of life aimed at ending the ego (and making the totality ones identity) is important.

The present general population, like milli, is not interested in thinking to far into the future.

living for the shallow gratifications of the moment combined with surviving in the laziest and thoughtless way as possible is all they really value --- and they are unconcsious of this!

And thus their lives are a confused, idiotic struggle - marked by the occasional joy but mostly littered with mostly angry protests towards an illusionary enemy.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

in response to reedsch, millipodium wrote:
It's simply not a relevant distinction in this discussion.

reedsch, what you need to understand about milli, is that the word nihilism, to him, has a meaning that is so broad and flexible that it's pointless having a dicussion with him.

Despite I have clearly stated my beliefs and on a variety of subjects(in this discussion, the focus was on agiculture)- I still get labeled the nihilist.

This makes no sense.

----------------------------------

Milli, for the last time, in regards to agriculture - I believe there needs to be a radically shift in our approach to producing food.

Rather than having less than 1% of the population producing food, maybe 70% or more should be producing food.

And the way they produce food should rely less on tilling the soil and should instead focus more on establishing perenial tree and bush crops, there should be more emphasis on any foods that can be produced without anual tilling and sowing. The animals that we eat should be less dependent on conditions that require alot of human labor.

The reason we arent doing this now is because perenial foods and less maintenance animals tend to not taste as good.

Another reason is the factor of entertainment, the aesthetic gratifications of culture have such a powerful hold on young minds and old, that meaningful intelligent work becomes intolerably unstimulating, depressing simply because they require sensitive, sublte minds that love what is commonly regarded as dry and terrifying. It is simply not possible to produce endless entertainments and luxuries without mercilessly exploiting other countries and regulating the general population to an eneverating and dull work routine.

Another big factor is that relying mostly on tree crops demands a mind that is willing to value the survival of future generations.

One has to be motivated to do work that may not show much profit until one is dead. Ones work should profit future humans as much or even more than the present generation.

- -- the older generation has a hard time mustering up the energy to plant trees because they don't feel that they will profit in any way from the work.

By the time the trees are producing food, the older generation who planted them will probably be dead.

And so that is why a philosophy or way of life aimed at ending the ego (and making the totality ones identity) is important.

The present general population, like milli, is not interested in thinking to far into the future.

living for the shallow gratifications of the moment combined with surviving the laziest and thoughtless way as possible is all they really value --- and they are unconcsious of this!

And thus there lives are a confused, idiotic struggle - marked by the occasional joy but mostly littered with mostly angry protests towards an illusionary enemy.

I go by the actual definition
ni·hil·ism (nī'ə-lĭz'əm, nē'-) Pronunciation Key
n.
Philosophy
An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.
A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.
Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.
The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.
also Nihilism A diffuse, revolutionary movement of mid 19th-century Russia that scorned authority and tradition and believed in reason, materialism, and radical change in society and government through terrorism and assassination.
Psychiatry A delusion, experienced in some mental disorders, that the world or one's mind, body, or self does not exist.


Many of these meanings accurately describe the popular discourse on this site.

And you've changed your discourse on agriculture. Before you agreed that the advances in food production allowed too many humans to live. Now you're backpedalling.

milli wrote: you've changed your discourse on agriculture. Before you agreed that the advances in food production allowed too many humans to live. Now you're backpedalling.

The Advances in food production have [in part] created a system that rests on highly finite resources - the effect is that populations grow to large numbers in areas that really aren't suitable for supporting high populations.

Take Newfoundland in Canada for instance. That place is a rock, hardly suitable for producing much food. The fish popluation has been totally pillaged - there is no fish left - and so that leaves the population of newfoundland totally dependent on other countries soil and oceans (which are increasingly unstable). The Newfoundland population is very vulnerable to being cut off from a food suply.

The advances in food production have also made it easier for the indolent general population to take the availability of food for granted.

People have no realistic conception of reality and instead their minds are focused on the personal lives of Angelina jolie, Brad Pit, Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, the next amercian idol, etc.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

milli wrote: you've changed your discourse on agriculture. Before you agreed that the advances in food production allowed too many humans to live. Now you're backpedalling.

The Advances in food production have [in part] created a system that rests on highly finite resources - the effect is that populations grow to large numbers in areas that really aren't suitable for supporting high populations.

Take Newfoundland in Canada for instance. That place is a rock, hardly suitable for producing much food. The fish popluation has been totally pillaged - there is no fish left - and that leaves the population of newfoundland totally dependent on other countries soil and oceans (which are also increasingly unstable). The Newfoundland population is highly vulnerable to being cut off from a food suply.

The advances in food production have also made it easier for the indolent general population to take the availability of food for granted.

People have no realistic conception of reality and instead their minds are focused on the personal lives of Angelina jolie, Brad Pit, Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, the next amercian idol, etc.

Well these issues go to the illuminati, corporate, military-industrial complex making an active effort to take agriculture out of the hands of the people. And it is wrong. We may agree on this one.

milli wrote:Well these issues go to the illuminati, corporate, military-industrial complex making an active effort to take agriculture out of the hands of the people.

Milli,

Please consider:

Food was never meant to be grown in the areas where large populations have unwisely inflated. Therefore, it is not wise to assert that ‘agriculture was taken away from the people’.

These people never had agriculture to begin with.

People are generally born in areas where agriculture was never practiced and/or can’t be practiced so these people lived their lives (or are now living their lives) buying their food with money they earn doing jobs that do not directly attack the problem of unwise population growth.

These jobs often encourage unwise population growth or the jobs and people running them are simply amoral and completely divorced from any useful information.


Another thing worth considering is that a life of farming does not bring in the luxuries that are concomitant with a hot wife.

A life of a farmer is by no means a desirable one, generally speaking. Especially these days! Men and women have never been so spoiled rotten.

And as I have asserted earlier – there needs to be a brand new approach to agriculture. The old approach not only requires too much labor but it gradually ruins the land.

-----------------------------------------------------

Anyhow, Personally, I think that an indolent, foolish and slavish life is more comforting to the ego than freedom.

People generally, when faced between a) being exploited, unconscious mules and b) living with consciousness, freedom and integrity, will *unconsciously* end up living in a way that leaves them defined by the former definition.

If you have the vitality and health for the job Milli, then the role of, the current prevalence of, and the nature of “unconsciousness” is a factor that really needs consideration if you are to be a sane individual.

I think that things are the way they are simply because the majority of people unconsciously want them to be.

It’s not so much that they consciously want to suffer or consciously want to be exploited and stupid. The truth is that people are born both largely unconscious and endowed with a mind and environment of peers that leaves their mind incapable of developing in a way that inst prioritized around whatever is most sensually gratifying in the immediate.

And that which is most sensually gratifying in the immediate is the most foolish.

In other words, people are naturally inclined to have faith in stupidity (or not have faith in intelligence) and are likewise inclined to be terrified and pained by intelligence.

Why do you think they crucified Jesus and Socrates?

It’s true that the environment plays a big role in keeping people dumb - -but the illuminati? Come on now – look how naturally inclined young children are to be jealous and exploitative. And look at all the silly rituals and traditions that the parents unquestioningly coerce their young children into. There really is not that much ‘forced coercion’ or conspiracy happening here by a cloaked and nefarious illuminati. Just take a good look at your typical approach to parenting.

People are generally very eager to be idiots. No need to bring the illuminati into all of this. If you want to blame some sort of external agency – blame the mainstream, common values, mainstream cultural traditions and methods of parenting.

The whole of societies values are prioritized around the core value of sensual bodily titillation - - - and to change this fact may not be possible through any sort of external coercion!

Over the next century or two, larger amounts of the population may gradually start having an inner impulse to live more philosophically, but perhaps they won’t. Maybe genetic engineering will be required.

Don't tell me Ted Bundy was 'made' fucked up.

The guy was born that way. His brain should have been preserved and studied. Or better, he should have been kept alive and his living brain should have been studied by neuroscientists and compared with normal brains.

But people are too stupid to support much intelligence.

Revenge is far too powerful of an undercurrent for anything too intelligent to happen in society.

millipodium wrote: Nihilism is a devaluation of life.
...
It's simply not a relevant distinction in this discussion.

Your responses are totally loaded with value interpretations, yet you can not or will not defend your own assertions. Is this because you perceive them to be self-evident?

Idle rage against the machine. Your stock is dropping.

Cory Duchesne wrote: The advances in food production have also made it easier for the indolent general population to take the availability of food for granted.

Value is proportional to scarcity. So yes, anything that is abundant is not valued. Farmers happily limit food production when the price they receive for their effort is not sufficient. I have no idea though how you'd introduce scarcity otherwise. Nature never willingly limits itself (at least as far as I can see), it goes pedal to the metal until it runs out of gas or some other external factor constrains it.

Your argument is endlessly speculative. We are playing God, that's what we do. I submit that's what we are meant to do.

reedsch wrote:

millipodium wrote: Nihilism is a devaluation of life.
...
It's simply not a relevant distinction in this discussion.

Your responses are totally loaded with value interpretations, yet you can not or will not defend your own assertions. Is this because you perceive them to be self-evident?

Idle rage against the machine. Your stock is dropping.

I don't care what you think, dipshit. Being an evil genocidal fuckstick is not enlightenment.

millipodium wrote: I don't care what you think, dipshit.

Abject surrender on your part. Stock de-listed. Chapter 7.

reedsch wrote:

millipodium wrote: I don't care what you think, dipshit.

Abject surrender on your part. Stock de-listed. Chapter 7.

No surrender here. Your empty personal attacks are just worthless, that's all.

red wrote:I have no idea though how you'd introduce scarcity otherwise. Nature never willingly limits itself (at least as far as I can see), it goes pedal to the metal until it runs out of gas

I don't think you are aware of the pun you fell into there, nor am I sure if you've given much time and energy to understanding the complexity and precariousness of mainstream agriculture.

"run out of gas"

Are you aware of the extent that mainstream agriculture is dependent on petroleum?

I'm not sure if organic farming could feed the present size of the world population.

By using petroleum products and Petro-based technology we squeezed out of the land an unprecedented excess of food in the span of the last hundered years. Concomitantly, an unprecedented excess of people were produced.

An unprecendented acceleration of food production and people production.

Can food continue to be churned out at this manic pace? Or will that pesky Newtons law step in and introduce an equal and opposite reaction to the agricultural exertions of the past 5 decades?

As long as there is petroleum, perhaps we can keep the car on the road - but not without continued desertification of the earth.

milli wrote: I don't care what you think, dipshit. Being an evil genocidal fuckstick is not enlightenment.

Boy, that's not like you to succomb to hyperbole.

millipodium wrote: I don't care what you think, dipshit.
Your empty personal attacks are just worthless, that's all.

Even the village idiot has a tale to tell, but thank you anyway for proving that your further commentary can be disregarded with no danger of missing something actually useful.

Cory Duchesne wrote: I don't think you are aware of the pun you fell into there, nor am I sure if you've given much time and energy to understanding the complexity and precariousness of mainstream agriculture.

That is one of the problems with bright people, they tend to assume that they are the only ones God gave any intelligence to, and that anyone who disagrees with them is because of faulty logic, lack of information. It is quite obvious that stored hydrocarbon energy has been converted into biomass, a significant part of it human flesh. Sure, the wheels could come off at any time (another pun for you). My point is that nature is not self-limiting. My suspicion is that the mass of humanity will not scale back their consumption until they are forced to by external conditions. However we are not lemmings, and it is possible to change course before ramming the iceberg. The real problem is the vested financial interest in the status quo: factory food and farming, Cheetos culture, etc. Fat cats will indeed drive their gravy train right off the cliff.

reedsch wrote:

millipodium wrote: I don't care what you think, dipshit.
Your empty personal attacks are just worthless, that's all.

Even the village idiot has a tale to tell, but thank you anyway for proving that your further commentary can be disregarded with no danger of missing something actually useful.

Ad hominem attack. Not effective.

Insider, I am quite in agreement with you. You woulnd't happen to know of some teaching jobs open, or some positions for touring and lecturing or something of the sort?... if I'm 21?.. one difficulty for me is that I'm trying to rush my actual "real world" progress/impact considering 2012 coming soon..

Btw, are you "the insider" from those other discussion boards?

Transcix,

I wonder if you could resize your avatar and make it smaller. It's too overwhelming. It gives me a headache trying to read past it.

-

David Quinn wrote:Transcix,

I wonder if you could resize your avatar and make it smaller. It's too overwhelming. It gives me a headache trying to read past it.

-

Oh be a little flexible, ya fuck! Cheers!

<snip>

Thanks for that. The server we use is cheap and basic.

-

Cory Duchesne wrote:

milli wrote:Well these issues go to the illuminati, corporate, military-industrial complex making an active effort to take agriculture out of the hands of the people.

Milli,

Please consider:

Food was never meant to be grown in the areas where large populations have unwisely inflated. Therefore, it is not wise to assert that ‘agriculture was taken away from the people’.

These people never had agriculture to begin with.

People are generally born in areas where agriculture was never practiced and/or can’t be practiced so these people lived their lives (or are now living their lives) buying their food with money they earn doing jobs that do not directly attack the problem of unwise population growth.

These jobs often encourage unwise population growth or the jobs and people running them are simply amoral and completely divorced from any useful information.


Another thing worth considering is that a life of farming does not bring in the luxuries that are concomitant with a hot wife.

A life of a farmer is by no means a desirable one, generally speaking. Especially these days! Men and women have never been so spoiled rotten.

And as I have asserted earlier – there needs to be a brand new approach to agriculture. The old approach not only requires too much labor but it gradually ruins the land.

-----------------------------------------------------

Anyhow, Personally, I think that an indolent, foolish and slavish life is more comforting to the ego than freedom.

People generally, when faced between a) being exploited, unconscious mules and b) living with consciousness, freedom and integrity, will *unconsciously* end up living in a way that leaves them defined by the former definition.

If you have the vitality and health for the job Milli, then the role of, the current prevalence of, and the nature of “unconsciousness” is a factor that really needs consideration if you are to be a sane individual.

I think that things are the way they are simply because the majority of people unconsciously want them to be.

It’s not so much that they consciously want to suffer or consciously want to be exploited and stupid. The truth is that people are born both largely unconscious and endowed with a mind and environment of peers that leaves their mind incapable of developing in a way that inst prioritized around whatever is most sensually gratifying in the immediate.

And that which is most sensually gratifying in the immediate is the most foolish.

In other words, people are naturally inclined to have faith in stupidity (or not have faith in intelligence) and are likewise inclined to be terrified and pained by intelligence.

Why do you think they crucified Jesus and Socrates?

It’s true that the environment plays a big role in keeping people dumb - -but the illuminati? Come on now – look how naturally inclined young children are to be jealous and exploitative. And look at all the silly rituals and traditions that the parents unquestioningly coerce their young children into. There really is not that much ‘forced coercion’ or conspiracy happening here by a cloaked and nefarious illuminati. Just take a good look at your typical approach to parenting.

People are generally very eager to be idiots. No need to bring the illuminati into all of this. If you want to blame some sort of external agency – blame the mainstream, common values, mainstream cultural traditions and methods of parenting.

The whole of societies values are prioritized around the core value of sensual bodily titillation - - - and to change this fact may not be possible through any sort of external coercion!

Over the next century or two, larger amounts of the population may gradually start having an inner impulse to live more philosophically, but perhaps they won’t. Maybe genetic engineering will be required.

Don't tell me Ted Bundy was 'made' fucked up.

The guy was born that way. His brain should have been preserved and studied. Or better, he should have been kept alive and his living brain should have been studied by neuroscientists and compared with normal brains.

But people are too stupid to support much intelligence.

Revenge is far too powerful of an undercurrent for anything too intelligent to happen in society.

You're blaming the victim, because you don't have the nuts to hold perpetrators responsible. The Elite dictate the "common values" you disdain.