Donate Now Goal amount for this month: 30 USD, Received: 0 USD (0%)

User Tag List

Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: The Khaotic Ambidextrous Path

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Beneath a pale sun
    Posts
    126
    Post Thanks / Like
    Points
    1
    Level
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Points
    0
    My Feedback
    0
    (0% Positive Feedback)
    Donations
    0 - $0.00

    Default The Khaotic Ambidextrous Path

    Synchronicity is a weird thing. I posted a, (very brief…never caught on), thread about fate and responsibility a few days back..or rather on drawing the lines between the random chaotic factor that sometimes things just happen, versus those situations that we bring upon ourselves...basically choice vs fate.

    At the same time I was following the rather interesting thread on Lucifer and religion and the terms LHP and RHP obviously sprang up. Now I may be wrong in my interpretation, but in broad terms I read the RHP as being determinist and fatalistic while the LHP is more choice and consequences orientated. (I’m probably going to get flamed by both sides…but that’s what happens when you choose neither.) Regardless, I’ve never been able to determine on which path I’m supposedly treading…so I decided to make up my own one. And so, without any fanfare or dancing elephants…I hereby wish to propose another path…the ambidextrous one.

    OK, so what is the ambidextrous path?…well, as advertised…it’s both and neither and it’s not in the middle of the other two. It posits that chaos and randomness are at the center of all things, therefore the way to make the best decisions in any situation is to make no decisions at all. If heads be Coke and Tails be Pepsi…flip the coin and walk out with a coconut and a rubber chicken. It is the true path of the Khaot.

    Once there lived a village of creatures along the bottom of a great crystal river.
    The current of the river swept silently over them all - young and old, rich and poor, good and evil, the current going it's own way, knowing only it's own crystal self.
    Each creature in it's own manner clung tightly to the twigs and rocks of the river bottom, for clinging was their way of life, and resisting the current what each had learned from birth.
    But one creature said at last, 'I am tired of clinging. Though I cannot see it with my eyes, I trust that the current knows where it is going. I shall let go and let it take me where it will. Clinging, I shall die of boredom.
    The other creatures laughed and said, 'Fool! Let go, and that current you worship will throw you tumbled and smashed against the rocks, and you will die quicker than boredom!'
    But the one heeded them not, and taking a breath did let go, and at once was tumbled and smashed by the current across the rocks.
    Yet in time, as the creature refused to cling again, the current lifted him free from the bottom, and he was bruised and hurt no more.
    And the creatures downstream, to whom he was a stranger, cried 'See a miracle! A creature like ourselves, yet he flies! See the Messiah come to save us all!
    ....I take no credit for this little parable.

    However, what path did that messiah choose? By abandoning all paths he exists effortlessly. Of course some will say, “yea, but as he’s at the mercy of the current he has no choice in the matter…so that’s actually pure fatalism? “

    I say, at that point, the rules change and he has the capability to direct himself within current as he wishes....or even the current itself. The current is only harmful to those with solid form, abandon all form, all belief and what is left? …merely the current.
    The Ambidextrous path is both and neither deterministic nor fatalistic, in fact cogitating on how a situation arose, be it by fate or foolishness is in fact a fool’s game, for the only thing history has ever taught us is that we never learn from it. Instead, it focuses on how to best deal with any situation we might find ourselves in. It is not for the faint of heart and there can be no fear. Under such a paradigm, fear is a form because fear stems from belief.

    We are conditioned to believe in certainties…ABANDON THEM…for once you have learned to think in constant uncertainty, you can choose any form you wish, knowing it is but a transient mask, to be discarded at will.
    This sounds like a simple path to tread…for there is nothing to do, nothing to believe...

    however, one must not mistake a clear view, with a short journey.
    Prick your finger it is done
    The Moon has now eclipsed the Sun
    The Angel has spread its wings
    The time has come for bitter things

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Age
    35
    Posts
    69
    Post Thanks / Like
    Points
    1
    Level
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Points
    0
    My Feedback
    0
    (0% Positive Feedback)
    Donations
    0 - $0.00

    Default

    An interesting idea. I applaud you for its conception.

    I have a few problems, however.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dictionary.com
    Ambidextrous (adj.): able to use both hands equally well
    The name for your path suggests that it is both the LHP and the RHP, not neither. I know you said

    Quote Originally Posted by S33k3R
    it’s both and neither and it’s not in the middle of the other two
    ...but, the path you describe is, simply put, both. Perhaps a better name would be No Hand Path.

    Another problem I have is with your beings in the crystal river. How durable are these things to survive being smashed into rocks? What if the creature that let go did in fact die? It could have easily perished.

    I do not disagree with your idea. I personally am all for inventing ideas and taking different approaches. But, one should not deny objective truths. If the current is strong enough to actually kill the being by smashing it against the rocks, then letting go is fatalistic. There is no way around that. A better idea would be to take the My Hand Path and somehow travel up or down or out of the river by clinging to different debris. And if there is no debris close by, use the My Hand Path to manifest some.

    Those are just my opinions. I hope you do not take it as flaming. As I said, your suggestion is definitely intriguing.
    Last edited by Mirfalan; 05-27-2009 at 06:59 PM. Reason: corrections

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Beneath a pale sun
    Posts
    126
    Post Thanks / Like
    Points
    1
    Level
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Points
    0
    My Feedback
    0
    (0% Positive Feedback)
    Donations
    0 - $0.00

    Default

    I'll admit that I considered other names...The empty Path...the moonlit path, however The ambidextrous path twiggled my sense of humor more than any other and is more resonant with a balanced view..."The middle path" comes off as just wimpy and undecided...a bit of a a fence sitter. But I'm open to suggestions.

    Another problem I have is with your beings in the crystal river. How durable are these things to survive being smashed into rocks? What if the creature that let go did in fact die? It could have easily perished.
    A very good point...allow me to quote someone here:
    Yes, it would be nice if the human race progressed in not just a linear sense, but also in a positive sense where we broke through restrictive morality, actually became educated on a whole, stopped paying attention to Hollywood celebrities, and elected competent, uncorrupted government officials; however, that is probably never going to happen be causes the masses are just that: masses. In other words, they are dominated by groupthink and herd mentality, and will unquestioningly do whatever is suggested to them


    This path is not for everyone, leave the masses to their Pop Idols and TV dinners...of those that try, some may indeed perish, but I don't think the current is strong enough to kill one and all. Utopia is easy to live in...but not to arrive at.

    If the current is strong enough to actually kill the being by smashing it against the rocks, then letting go is fatalistic. There is no way around that.
    But of course its fatalistic, it has to be. This is the Ambidextrous path, and fatalism is embraced as much as determinism. I spoke about fear, and that fear is actually a form of belief...well, letting go of the rock is the symbolic act of releasing fear and thus all remaining vestiges of belief....surrendering yourself to the will of the Universe. However the Universe doesn't just whisk you away as it pleases...instead it stops and asks you.
    "Oi Guv...where to mate?"
    One must embrace fatalism to master determinism....ta da! (oh look...a dancing elephant)

    A better idea would be to take the My Hand Path and somehow travel up or down or out of the river by clinging to different debris. And if there is no debris close by, use the My Hand Path to manifest some.
    Indeed you are correct, but that comes afterwards. These temporary bits of debris that you cling to, (or manifest), are the masks I spoke of...temporary forms of belief used that may be discarded at will. However you first need to understand that you need no fixed form/debris to cling to before understanding that you may in fact use to any form thats available and handy.

    Problem is, you cannot in truth exist in this world without form, the only place you can exist in such a state is within the void itself.

    I hope you do not take it as flaming
    Not at all, this mask is still under formation...all comments are most welcome.
    Last edited by S33k3R; 05-28-2009 at 04:23 AM.
    Prick your finger it is done
    The Moon has now eclipsed the Sun
    The Angel has spread its wings
    The time has come for bitter things

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Age
    35
    Posts
    69
    Post Thanks / Like
    Points
    1
    Level
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Points
    0
    My Feedback
    0
    (0% Positive Feedback)
    Donations
    0 - $0.00

    Default

    I am glad you quoted me "be causes" it makes me feel smart (sometimes I get trigger-happy on the spell check).

    This path is not for everyone, leave the masses to their Pop Idols and TV dinners...of those that try, some may indeed perish, but I don't think the current is strong enough to kill one and all. Utopia is easy to live in...but not to arrive at.
    Yes, I have reached that conclusion. I probably would not go first if I was a being in that hypothetical crystal river. I would wait to see if another died, and then I would not go in that same direction unless I enjoyed the beings that left in the initial wave. In any case, I could use the bodies as debris if they got smashed against the rocks.

    One must embrace fatalism to master determinism
    This part confuses me a bit. I will try to sort it out right now by writing. At first that statement seems contradictory because fatalism is the opposite of determinism. Well, perhaps free-will is the opposite of fatalism, but we all know free-will does not exist. What is real is determinism as there are only certain ways in which an individual will react in a given situation. I suppose initially we had the free-will to developer our personalties that would shape our reactions to various situations; but, on the other hand, a person does not consciously say "I choose will react like this in that situation" because that is a bit silly. Our environment and family (or lack thereof) shape our initial personalities.

    Well... I digressed. Back to the point--If the being thinks "I am going to die when I let go", would it indeed let go? Death is never a decent solution, though I suppose an instant death is better than a slow death in a stagnant world dominated by group-think. Still, a being with an idea, a goal, is going to want to live to achieve such goal. Would not embracing death against the rocks lead to a denial of said goal?

    But... here is what you think you are getting at... let's say a being embraces fatalism and let's going expecting death and... DOES NOT DIE! Then, that being is free to try to reach its goal. That is where objective reality comes into play. Whether or not the beings embrace death will not affect whether or not the current will kill them. The current will kill them if it has the strength, regardless of what the beings expect it will do.

    Is this what you mean? If so, I personally, rather than being pessimistic and expecting death, would rather expect nothing and hope for the best because I would rather hope that I would succeed in moving from the herd than thinking I will die. No, I am not an optimist. As I said, I do not ever expect anything to happen unless there is a decent chance for an accurate prediction to be made based on objective reality.

    Utopia is easy to live in...but not to arrive at
    Utopia is not possible because every individual human being has a different idea of utopia. For some people, this wasteland of a country is a Utopia, or would be if certain "freedom-haters" GTFOed. But, what would be correct is saying "Utopias [which is not a word, ironically enough] are not easy to live in". Actually, Utopias would be easy to live in, but they would not be easy to forge. But, I still understood your point. An individual navigating to his or her personal idea of a utopia is difficult.
    Last edited by Mirfalan; 05-28-2009 at 06:13 AM. Reason: additions

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Beneath a pale sun
    Posts
    126
    Post Thanks / Like
    Points
    1
    Level
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Points
    0
    My Feedback
    0
    (0% Positive Feedback)
    Donations
    0 - $0.00

    Default

    This part confuses me a bit. I will try to sort it out right now by writing. At first that statement seems contradictory because fatalism is the opposite of determinism
    Yes, but in a cycle…the two extremes meet. All things arise out of chaos, distillate through order into our existence, and then descend back to chaos through the principle of entropy. Chaos is as much a part of order as order is part of chaos. Thus, to master order, embrace chaos…to master orderly determinism, embrace chaotic fatalism. It works both ways really, with the ever increasing so called orderly march towards progress; our lives have actually got more chaotic.

    Well, perhaps free-will is the opposite of fatalism, but we all know free-will does not exist. What is real is determinism as there are only certain ways in which an individual will react in a given situation. I suppose initially we had the free-will to developer our personalties that would shape our reactions to various situations; but, on the other hand, a person does not consciously say "I choose will react like this in that situation" because that is a bit silly. Our environment and family (or lack thereof) shape our initial personalities.
    The whole point of this path us NOT to react as people, or you yourself would expect to react, or at least to start questioning WHY you react as you do. This is the whole “nature vs Nurture” debate. The point of this is actually to discover your free will.
    Allow me to explain. Once you’ve stripped away all these layers of pre-conditioning we are all subject to…parents, social conditioning, schooling etc etc you see what’s left. Whatever is left over…is YOU...the “you” that would be if you existed in a formless void and not subject to any outside influence. Once you’ve understood that aspect of yourself…you can very easily start to slip on different masks of reality without ever becoming confused as to which reality or belief is correct. In effect, the current becomes immaterial because you can adapt effortlessly.
    Well... I digressed. Back to the point--If the being thinks "I am going to die when I let go", would it indeed let go? Death is never a decent solution, though I suppose an instant death is better than a slow death in a stagnant world dominated by group-think. Still, a being with an idea, a goal, is going to want to live to achieve such goal. Would not embracing death against the rocks lead to a denial of said goal?
    Its better to burn out than to fade away. Like you said…clinging is just a slower form of death. Just like health is merely the slowest rate in which you can die Its gonna happen…deal with it early and get on with living.
    But... here is what you think you are getting at... let's say a being embraces fatalism and let's going expecting death and... DOES NOT DIE! Then, that being is free to try to reach its goal. That is where objective reality comes into play. Whether or not the beings embrace death will not affect whether or not the current will kill them. The current will kill them if it has the strength, regardless of what the beings expect it will do.
    Bingo.

    It must expect death…it must fully expect to be smashed into little tiny pieces and then get eaten by goldfish…and then it must still let go. That’s the decision…the ultimate “Fuckit…lets do this thing” moment.
    Face it…once you’ve looked at death smiling at you and you just smile back…what else is there to fear?
    Prick your finger it is done
    The Moon has now eclipsed the Sun
    The Angel has spread its wings
    The time has come for bitter things

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2
    Post Thanks / Like
    Points
    1
    Level
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Points
    0
    My Feedback
    0
    (0% Positive Feedback)
    Donations
    0 - $0.00

    Default

    Uh... I don't mean to be a fly in the punch here but you do realize that the terms "Fatalism" and "Determinism" imply the same philosophy, right? They are not opposites. Fatalism: everything is predetermined by "fate" (or a plan of some sort) and Determinism: everything is causally predetermined by a chain of prior occurances. Both denote predetermined actions (Causality), not the chaotic unpredictability of complete conscious reality-creation brought on by true free will. The opposite of Fatalist-Determinist thought would be "indeterminist" or the idea that each moment is created anew by the self (the participator), not locked into a chain of cause-effect. There are good arguments for either.

    I would say you should have a clear definition of LHP and RHP before defining a specific mixture of the two. There inherent difference is between God (Universal Oneness, the Source where we're all One) and Self (the fractured piece of subjective identity in a state of detachment from Oneness).

    RHP says that "the light" or God or Oneness is the ultimate goal, to achieve union with the whole (return to source). Terms like Ascension and Enlightenment are used in terms of re-integrating with a greater whole.

    LHP upholds the idea that the self exists entirely separate from "the source" and doesn't seek to re-integrate, but to instead ascend to "godhood" or self-mastery completely independently.

    I personally have always thought there's not really a difference between the two at all except what you choose to draw as a borderline. If you conceive of "God"/Source as something separate from yourself, something to aspire toward, you place yourself in this dichotomy - to integrate with or to reject said Source. But if you take a neutral stance by saying I AM SOURCE ALREADY, there is no separation of the "paths" anyway. You are already God/Source. It doesn't matter how you approach self-improvement so long as you keep this perspective.

    Thoughts?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Age
    35
    Posts
    69
    Post Thanks / Like
    Points
    1
    Level
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Points
    0
    My Feedback
    0
    (0% Positive Feedback)
    Donations
    0 - $0.00

    Default

    Sorry. Been away from the boards for a couple days. Allow me to respond.

    Quote Originally Posted by S33k3R
    The whole point of this path us NOT to react as people, or you yourself would expect to react, or at least to start questioning WHY you react as you do. This is the whole “nature vs Nurture” debate. The point of this is actually to discover your free will.
    This is where I disagree with you. Humans have evolved too much sentience to really be affected by nature. Enviornment and social conditions play so much of a role in shaping human personality that taking those elements away will leave a person completely different. That person will no longer have any identity. I suppose this is what you are hoping will happen because it allows the wearing of different masks. Yet, a person needs to have a base identity, something to return to when not wearing a mask, lest that person wear masks during his/her entire lifespan.

    Allow me to explain. Once you’ve stripped away all these layers of pre-conditioning we are all subject to…parents, social conditioning, schooling etc etc you see what’s left. Whatever is left over…is YOU...the “you” that would be if you existed in a formless void and not subject to any outside influence. Once you’ve understood that aspect of yourself…you can very easily start to slip on different masks of reality without ever becoming confused as to which reality or belief is correct. In effect, the current becomes immaterial because you can adapt effortlessly.
    Would not a being raised in a formless void be nothing more than part of that formless void, with no emotions or mental capacity? In fact, to say that anything in a void is something other than Void indicates impossibility.

    Quote Originally Posted by seeker
    Uh... I don't mean to be a fly in the punch here but you do realize that the terms "Fatalism" and "Determinism" imply the same philosophy, right? They are not opposites.
    I view them as opposites because they are at seperate ends of the spectrum. In terms of fate, there can either be fatalism or determinism. I do not believe in any higher power that cares about human existence, so I feel there is no source that imposes its will upon human life. Therefore, I do not believe in fatalism. Yet, determinism does exist. A person is going to act in a set manner. There are going to be things that a person simply will not do in a given situation. Even if the person is constantly adopting masks, s/he is doing something predictable: always adopting new faces. In the realm of human sentience, there are only a few ways in which to react to a different situation: resist, accept, or disengage. All other activities are just subgenres of those three responses. So, chaos really cannot exist in beings that are not chaotic. Anytime there is a pattern or a limited selection of actions, there is order. Chaos needs to involve a whole bunch of people in order to be chaotic. But, even if there is anarchy in the most stereotypical sense, there is order. That becomes the current order. The only place I think chaos can exist is in its own domain. Even then, is not constant chaos its order? Unless the laws of the realm change constantly. Then again, unpredictability becomes that order. The beings of that realm will learn to adapt and never expect a static time.

    The opposite of Fatalist-Determinist thought would be "indeterminist" or the idea that each moment is created anew by the self (the participator), not locked into a chain of cause-effect.
    There are no actions that are not based on previous actions. Everything has a cause-effect relationship. That is our realm of physics.
    Last edited by Mirfalan; 06-01-2009 at 11:27 PM. Reason: misquote

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Beneath a pale sun
    Posts
    126
    Post Thanks / Like
    Points
    1
    Level
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Points
    0
    My Feedback
    0
    (0% Positive Feedback)
    Donations
    0 - $0.00

    Default

    Sorry...have been away from civilization myself for a bit.

    Uh... I don't mean to be a fly in the punch here but you do realize that the terms "Fatalism" and "Determinism" imply the same philosophy, right? They are not opposites. Fatalism: everything is predetermined by "fate" (or a plan of some sort) and Determinism: everything is causally predetermined by a chain of prior occurances. Both denote predetermined actions (Causality), not the chaotic unpredictability of complete conscious reality-creation brought on by true free will. The opposite of Fatalist-Determinist thought would be "indeterminist" or the idea that each moment is created anew by the self (the participator), not locked into a chain of cause-effect. There are good arguments for either.
    Semantically you are correct...no arguments there. However to use the term "indeterminist" seems inelegant and "Free Willer" just gives me visions of stupid whales. Determanistic just seems to sound right, as in someone who determines their own future by taking responsibility for their actions. I used it correctly in my first post, but somehow managed to...

    confuse myself
    confuse myself
    confuse myself

    In my second....epic fail on my part.

    The English language is bloody silly sometimes but I'm open to other suggestions...feel free to think of a word that will blow my little white socks off.

    I would say you should have a clear definition of LHP and RHP before defining a specific mixture of the two. There inherent difference is between God (Universal Oneness, the Source where we're all One) and Self (the fractured piece of subjective identity in a state of detachment from Oneness).

    RHP says that "the light" or God or Oneness is the ultimate goal, to achieve union with the whole (return to source). Terms like Ascension and Enlightenment are used in terms of re-integrating with a greater whole.

    LHP upholds the idea that the self exists entirely separate from "the source" and doesn't seek to re-integrate, but to instead ascend to "godhood" or self-mastery completely independently.
    This is a chaos thread...I don't suspect I have to have very clear definitions of anything ...however, your interpretations of the LHP and RHP are intrinsically correct...but as I said in my first post..
    Now I may be wrong in my interpretation, but in broad terms I read the RHP as being determinist and fatalistic while the LHP is more choice and consequences orientated.
    ..now lets look at this interpretation through the lens of your interpretation...they match....sort of.
    In order to be "choice and consequences orientated", i.e LHP, one should by necessity be divorced from any "divine controlling force"...lest the responsibility aspect of existence gets tainted. Likewise, in order to be a fatalist, one needs to be believe that there is an overarching master plan set out for you...which kinda implicates God.

    RHP's reckon that by getting close, or merging with this source is the best method of "getting in tune" with set program and therefore maximise the happy happy joy joy. LHP's want to become Gods of their own destiny and create their own H-H-J-J.

    What I am advocating, (not very eloquently so far I fear...bit nebulouse and misty...must be the real thing then ), is not a middle path, (that would be saying God exists...he mostly leaves us alone to our own devices but sometimes gets involved if some or other random event takes place, or we pray REALLY hard or something)....instead this is embracing BOTH paths at the same time by walking NO path...meh, perhaps "the empty path" is better, but that just sounds like something a rat in a ninja suit would say.

    I personally have always thought there's not really a difference between the two at all except what you choose to draw as a borderline. If you conceive of "God"/Source as something separate from yourself, something to aspire toward, you place yourself in this dichotomy - to integrate with or to reject said Source. But if you take a neutral stance by saying I AM SOURCE ALREADY, there is no separation of the "paths" anyway. You are already God/Source. It doesn't matter how you approach self-improvement so long as you keep this perspective.
    Welcome to the path...the rat in the ninja suite will seat you shortly.

    Now to Mirfalan's post...(never did figure out how to quote people so that the persons name appeared...somewhat annoying really).
    This is where I disagree with you. Humans have evolved too much sentience to really be affected by nature.
    Well, not so sure about that...only once we've fully understood what the role of things like genetics play in the formation of the persona can we make a statement like that. I would posit that these "natural" and unlearned elements of ourselves are closer reflections of who and what we are than the layers we adopt due to society.

    Environment and social conditions play so much of a role in shaping human personality that taking those elements away will leave a person completely different.
    That is 100% abso-noodly correct.

    That person will no longer have any identity.
    No...that person will no longer have their old identity. Its about de-constructing that who you are now. Once you've done that, you will know who and what you are as there will always be something left over. That leftover is the naked soul...you can't erase that...its the perfect pearl that must be revealed by slicing away the imperfect outer layers.

    I suppose this is what you are hoping will happen because it allows the wearing of different masks. Yet, a person needs to have a base identity, something to return to when not wearing a mask, lest that person wear masks during his/her entire lifespan.
    We already DO have a base identity, its just hiding under a layer of detritus...accumulated by the randomness of whatever society we may find ourselves in. Its about knowing when you're wearing a mask...and then figuring out what mask to wear when. Think of it like this...what colour is a chameleon?...only the chameleon knows for sure.

    (please..not factoid about the true colours of chameleons folks...I watch the Discover Channel as well..)

    Would not a being raised in a formless void be nothing more than part of that formless void, with no emotions or mental capacity? In fact, to say that anything in a void is something other than Void indicates impossibility.
    The void is the key here...in order to ascertain the true color of the chameleon...put him against no color at all. Will that make the chameleon disappear?

    Strip away all that makes you appear "you"...whats left?
    One could say "nothing" is left...I say "I" am left.
    Embrace the nothing to find the "I"
    Prick your finger it is done
    The Moon has now eclipsed the Sun
    The Angel has spread its wings
    The time has come for bitter things

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Age
    35
    Posts
    69
    Post Thanks / Like
    Points
    1
    Level
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Points
    0
    My Feedback
    0
    (0% Positive Feedback)
    Donations
    0 - $0.00

    Default

    Well, first of all I would like to apologize for confusing you two. I think I will have to fix the quote in my last post to appropriately reflect the true author.

    I am addressing S33k3R in this post. You make a lot of good points and we tend agree on most parts. Still, let me examine this:

    Strip away all that makes you appear "you"...whats left?
    One could say "nothing" is left...I say "I" am left.
    Embrace the nothing to find the "I"
    Strip away all aspects from a person and you are left with nothing more than a member of the Homo sapiens sapiens. Said person would have a blank slate. In fact, so blank would his/her slate be that s/he would need to relearn everything all over again to even function as an adult. Therefore, the act of stripping away everything was in vain. Unless you are talking about a pure instinct-based animal. Then again, you would not be "you"; you would just be a blank slate running solely on instinct without the ability to even read a children's book, let alone an intelligent, philosophical conversation.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Beneath a pale sun
    Posts
    126
    Post Thanks / Like
    Points
    1
    Level
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Points
    0
    My Feedback
    0
    (0% Positive Feedback)
    Donations
    0 - $0.00

    Default

    Strip away all aspects from a person and you are left with nothing more than a member of the Homo sapiens sapiens. Said person would have a blank slate. In fact, so blank would his/her slate be that s/he would need to relearn everything all over again to even function as an adult. Therefore, the act of stripping away everything was in vain. Unless you are talking about a pure instinct-based animal. Then again, you would not be "you"; you would just be a blank slate running solely on instinct without the ability to even read a children's book, let alone an intelligent, philosophical conversation.
    At this point I suspect we agree to disagree...which is cool, 'cus it'd be really boring if we all thought the same thing.

    Running on pure animal based instincts is a good way of putting it...what would your instincts be?...what would happen to your morals, your ethics?

    Times of great stress, life and death situations often have the effect of stripping away these layers, revealing the true persona. This may be slightly off topic, but its a related concept.

    When the **** goes down...how do you react?.
    Do you step forward and take charge?
    Are you a coward?
    Would you sacrifice the weak by your inaction or would you risk your own existence to help them...how much risk would you take?
    Would you kill another to ensure you're own survival?
    Would you eat them if you had to?

    In this case, the void is thrust upon us in the form of anarchy...the normal rules of society that we live by are no longer applicable. Usually we don't have to think about these things...but what if we did?
    I suspect we'd learn quite a bit about ourselves. I'm not at all advocating intentionally putting yourselves in this type of situation...but this is a possible, if not somewhat traumatic method of ascertaining your "true nature"...stripped, bare and naked. It doesn't have to be animalistic...but it might turn out to be more savage we'd like to believe. Humans have a capacity for barbarity and savagery that makes the wildest ravaging beast seem tame and cultured.

    I don't believe the reactions of the individual in such a situation can be written off to a product of his upbringing or environment...I think there is something more. Some deeper essence that is instilled in us...perhaps its from God...perhaps its just a roll of the dice....its immaterial. Its about coming to grips with this "essence of self".

    isn't it?
    Prick your finger it is done
    The Moon has now eclipsed the Sun
    The Angel has spread its wings
    The time has come for bitter things

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
This website uses cookies
We use cookies to store session information to facilitate remembering your login information, to allow you to save website preferences, to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners.