PDA

View Full Version : So, it's been a while.


jcs
03-04-2007, 04:05 PM
Seven months or so, to be imprecisely exact. I think I was supposed to write letters to three or four people. Never got around to that, appy-polly-logies. And, if I recall correctly, I was supposed to inform Fade that I'm still Catholic, or something.
The internet still tempts me to be idle, but I'm slightly ill and can't really focus on anything else. It's this or porn.
So, anyone remember me? What's new with you?

Geist
03-04-2007, 04:10 PM
I remember thee. Nothing much has happened except I have entered the dark night of the soul.

Jimbo Gomez
03-04-2007, 04:12 PM
I remember you. It's good to see you're still in one piece. Welcome back.

jcs
03-04-2007, 04:13 PM
I remember thee. Nothing much has happened except I have entered the dark night of the soul.
Good to hear.
Nothing's happened? Not even another hack? I'm actually kind of disappointed. There were two things I thought I could count on in life: the Phora will get hacked, and--?

jcs
03-04-2007, 04:14 PM
I remember you. It's good to see you're still in one piece. Welcome back.
Only sort-of back. If I post outside of this thread, do me a favor and ban me. It's for my own good.

Helios Panoptes
03-04-2007, 04:39 PM
JCS, hey.

What's new with you?

Not much. Going to school, keeping out of trouble, and so on.

jcs
03-04-2007, 04:43 PM
JCS, hey.



Not much. Going to school, keeping out of trouble, and so on.
"Going to school"--pfft! All the cool kids are dropping out.

Actually, I went back at the beginning of this semeseter. Dropped out again a couple weeks ago. I thought, hey, I can take classes that will interest me, and get $800 of financial aid in my pocket. Long story short, I really dislike academia--not just modern American schooling, but the nature of academics itself--and I think I'm going to owe the school about a thousand dollars.

Jimbo Gomez
03-04-2007, 05:10 PM
There was a hack attempt a few months ago. Some turk managed to take the forum down for about five seconds, until we managed to solve the problem. Does that count?

jcs
03-04-2007, 05:14 PM
There was a hack attempt a few months ago. Some turk managed to take the forum down for about five seconds, until we managed to solve the problem. Does that count?
My world is no longer shaken, knowing that the Phora is permanently threatened with instability.

Jimbo Gomez
03-04-2007, 05:17 PM
It was the most pathetic hack we had ever witnessed. But if it makes you feel any better: it was horrible to endure.

jcs
03-04-2007, 05:21 PM
It was the most pathetic hack we had ever witnessed. But if it makes you feel any better: it was horrible to endure.
'We must not allow anyone to live or die in peace.'
-Cioran, a very bitter man--which, of course, is why I like the fellow.

1-800
03-04-2007, 05:40 PM
Hrm. Nothing has changed.

I just sold a bunch of my old black metal LPs on Ebay.

:viking:

I'm going to stop smoking marijuana, as I have said before. It does nothing for me. I know some people use it and claim that it improves their ability to think, but, for the most part, they're talking about progressing to the next stage in their video game whereas I am doing very serious research.

Ace Rimmer
03-04-2007, 05:45 PM
Seven months or so, to be imprecisely exact. I think I was supposed to write letters to three or four people. Never got around to that, appy-polly-logies. And, if I recall correctly, I was supposed to inform Fade that I'm still Catholic, or something.
The internet still tempts me to be idle, but I'm slightly ill and can't really focus on anything else. It's this or porn.
So, anyone remember me? What's new with you?

You've been missed.Welcome back.

Carlos Danger
03-04-2007, 08:00 PM
Welcome back jcs.

sugartits
03-04-2007, 08:39 PM
Greetings.

While away you missed many of Stan's name changes.

Nyx
03-04-2007, 09:13 PM
Why are you here?

Incitatus
03-04-2007, 09:17 PM
Why are you here?
Let's not get too philosophical here, it's the lounge.

Jimbo Gomez
03-04-2007, 09:23 PM
Greetings.

While away you missed many of Stan's name changes.


What are you talking about? I was Charles Martel a year ago and I'm Charles Martel today. :D

Nyx
03-04-2007, 09:25 PM
Let's not get too philosophical here, it's the lounge.It was not a philosophical question. I was enjoying jcs's absence.

Berianidze
03-04-2007, 11:01 PM
I remember JCS, good to hear from you again. I imagine your stay is temporary, you'll be leaving once you've recovered from your illness?

jcs
03-05-2007, 04:47 AM
It was not a philosophical question. I was enjoying jcs's absence.
Didn't you plan on leaving? What the hell happened there?

I imagine your stay is temporary, you'll be leaving once you've recovered from your illness?
Probably. Forums are a big waste of time for minds as great as mine. :p

OVERWATCH
03-05-2007, 05:53 AM
Good to see you back, gracing our presence with the Tireless Rebutter once more.

Hails! :crusader:

antibuddha
03-05-2007, 08:29 AM
The internet still tempts me to be idle, but I'm slightly ill and can't really focus on anything else. It's this or porn.

Fora are porn for your mind.

Tiberius
03-05-2007, 03:28 PM
Welcome back, jcs. You may very well be the most interesting poster here in my eyes. (I've read the Phora for years though I haven't written much at all, and also followed ANUS/Corrupt and its younger Swedish branch.)

jcs
03-10-2007, 04:07 AM
Feeling physically better and intellectually frustrated. Forums are for the mob; I can't imagine anyone who ever accomplished anything I consider great having done so while submitting his greatness to the smallness of the mob; and having pretensions of greatness, aspiring to accomplishment, I am generally too disgusted to stick around.
The amusing thing is, the only thing I see separating higher from lower is that the higher tries to be higher. There is intelligence in the thought of many posters here--why not apply it? It would demand more thought, openness to thought, but at least you wouldn't find it difficult to live with yourselves. Or are you content? Perhaps the forumula for acheivement is this: do not live with yourself.

I hope not to return. But no one hopes for illness.

Vasily Zaitsev
03-10-2007, 04:11 AM
That was, like, deep, man.

il ragno
03-10-2007, 04:19 AM
Yeah, for a 19-year-old Opus Dei youth, JCS tends to find many amusing things in the world around him.

Thomas777
03-10-2007, 06:52 AM
Feeling physically better and intellectually frustrated. Forums are for the mob; I can't imagine anyone who ever accomplished anything I consider great having done so while submitting his greatness to the smallness of the mob; and having pretensions of greatness, aspiring to accomplishment, I am generally too disgusted to stick around.
The amusing thing is, the only thing I see separating higher from lower is that the higher tries to be higher. There is intelligence in the thought of many posters here--why not apply it? It would demand more thought, openness to thought, but at least you wouldn't find it difficult to live with yourselves. Or are you content? Perhaps the forumula for acheivement is this: do not live with yourself.

I hope not to return. But no one hopes for illness.

I like you, jcs...but I gotta tell you that you can't 'discover' manhood in the commercialized mumblings of 'Daily Show' guests and Toughman Contest champs.

Maybe someday soon you'll eschew the Papist superstition and stop worrying about striking social poses...if and when that happens, I think you'll be pretty valuable. You have the intellect...just get the rest in order.

jcs
03-13-2007, 06:25 PM
Thanks to an attempt--successful, but--to tackle a rather large (and tasty, but less-than enjoyable) cigar, I feel rather ill. So, being too nauseous to do any heavy reading, too buzzed on nicotine to head to the gym, I'll allow myself to engage in general stupidity, i.e., forum-ing.

Yeah, for a 19-year-old Opus Dei youth, JCS tends to find many amusing things in the world around him.
This is precisely what I meant by 'smallness.' Pettiness, the urge to ridicule without considering--not my feelings, neither of us gives a damn about those--but the content of what is written.
I think children tend to find things more amusing than adults, by the way. Give a kid a ball and he'll be amused for hours.

I like you, jcs...but I gotta tell you that you can't 'discover' manhood in the commercialized mumblings of 'Daily Show' guests and Toughman Contest champs.
I think you've missed my point entirely. Not surprising, though: we argued, or you argued with a person who was not himself arguing at all, about who could kick whose ass for about a page. There's a bit of a barrier of misunderstanding between you and I.

Maybe someday soon you'll eschew the Papist superstition and stop worrying about striking social poses...
Pretty sure I don't care all that much about social poses. No more than a human, by virtue of his humanity, cares about what others think about him, at least. But I only really care about what people I care about think of me, not society in general.
The concept of identity is rather interesting, though. What defines that which one is? What is the quiddity of a man? Human being refers, as far as I can tell, to one of two things: our capacity of freedom, which is man's essence, insofar as one can speak of essence--that is, his nature, because instinct doesn't define character at all; and that which man has chosen to be--that is, his past, what he has become, the image created by his choices.
The question of identity, in short: who do I want to become.
"Become who you are!" cried Zarathustra. Indeed, but any 'who I am' is a denial of some other possiblity of who I could be. Become who you are: become who you ought to be. Or, if one denies the 'ought,' merely who you want to be. But 'ought' makes more sense, or at the very least sounds nifty.

if and when that happens, I think you'll be pretty valuable.
If value is not inherent, it seems you mean 'valuable' toward some end. Toward what end? I'm not sure I want to be used, by you, anyone, or any ideology.

Thomas777
03-13-2007, 06:42 PM
I think you've missed my point entirely.
No I didn't. You started a thread about the dissonance between thought and action, and how the former can preclude the latter. Then you started to flesh out what you think represents genuine manhood, and then retracted your statements with 'haha, I'm just kidding' sorts of backpedaling when the usual suspects started mocking your proclaimations.

Not surprising, though: we argued, or you argued with a person who was not himself arguing at all, about who could kick whose ass for about a page. There's a bit of a barrier of misunderstanding between you and I.
Actually, that isn't what occured at all. I don't know what exactly I'm supposed to understand: You're a dogmatic Catholic who regularly praises apostate, teutonic philosophy and is trying to incorporate the notion of redemptive violence into his life and worldview. You are something of a confused person.


Pretty sure I don't care all that much about social poses. No more than a human, by virtue of his humanity, cares about what others think about him, at least. But I only really care about what people I care about think of me, not society in general.
If that was the case, you wouldn't care about convincing the gallery of the merits of Ernest Hemingway tough guy antics and Muay Thai cage fighting.
The concept of identity is rather interesting, though. What defines that which one is? What is the quiddity of a man? Human being refers, as far as I can tell, to one of two things: our capacity of freedom, which is man's essence, insofar as one can speak of essence--that is, his nature, because instinct doesn't define character at all; and that which man has chosen to be--that is, his past, what he has become, the image created by his choices.
This is incorrect because man doesn't actually have a 'capacity for freedom'. He is biologically precluded. Free Will is a comfortable mythology, but its ontologically false. Embracing one's own nature and not resisting it is the closest approximation that actually exist. You should appreciate that sort of thing, as you seem to be very concerned with 'overcivilization' and the like.


If value is not inherent, it seems you mean 'valuable' toward some end. Toward what end? I'm not sure I want to be used, by you, anyone, or any ideology.

Valuable people recuse themselves from the herd and resist (rather than embrace) decrepitude. They are life-affirming (rather than life-denying) sorts of people. What direction thier efforts take exactly is largely irrelevant.

jcs
03-13-2007, 07:09 PM
No I didn't. You started a thread about the dissonance between thought and action, and how the former can preclude the latter. Then you started to flesh out what you think represents genuine manhood, and then retracted your statements with 'haha, I'm just kidding' sorts of backpedaling when the usual suspects started mocking your proclaimations.
Were I as serious as you suspect, the thread would not have been created in the lounge. Again, to take an example you ignored, a manual laborer, farmer, etc. represents the same thing, per the case I was making, as a person getting punched in the head.

You're a dogmatic Catholic who regularly praises apostate, teutonic philosophy and is trying to incorporate the notion of redemptive violence into his life and worldview.
What redemptive violence? And, again, Catholicism does not preclude an appreciation of certain elements of Nietzsche's (etc.) thought. For instance, the heart of his philosophy: the search for meaning. That he rejects morality, inherent meaning, etc. is where a Christian will find problems with him.
What redemptive violence? I did not posit any sort of redemptive element of violence. Rather, I merely proposed that a man engaged in physical activity has a different perspective on the world than a man living in some sort of ivory tower.

You started a thread about the dissonance between thought and action, and how the former can preclude the latter.
I didn't state this at all, by the way. Thought is an action. The opposition I put forward was one of attitude: an opposition between withdrawal and participation. Physical activity seems more participatory than abstract thought; though one can obviously perform a physical action while being withdrawn from that action, and one can think in a more participatory sort of manner.

If that was the case, you wouldn't care about convincing the gallery of the merits of Ernest Hemingway tough guy antics and Muay Thai cage fighting.
"No more than a human, by virtue of his humanity, cares about what others think about him, at least." Meaning: all people have some sort of egoistic concern for what others think about them. This was admitted.
But being myself neither Ernest Hemingway nor a cage fighter, I don't see how convincing anyone about the merits of Hemingway and cage-fighting would be an action performed with an entirely egoistic, "Hey guys, I'm awesome" motive.

This is incorrect because man doesn't actually have a 'capacity for freedom'. He is biologically precluded. Free Will is a comfortable mythology, but its ontologically false.
Impossible to substantiate via empiricism; even more difficult to substantiate ontologically, if only because by entering a more abstract realm, all one's claims are more objectionable.

Embracing one's own nature and not resisting it is the closest approximation that actually exist.
How does one know one's own nature?

Valuable people recuse themselves from the herd and resist (rather than embrace) decrepitude.
How is rejecting the herd defining oneself less socially than being part of the herd, some part of society, etc.? And why is there value in this? It seems all you can say is, "I find such-and-such more valuable; I personally value such-and-such." No one cares, unless we ourselves value your opinion highly enough that you become some sort of ethical (in the etymological sense; ethos) authority, or make a case for universality.

They are life-affirming (rather than life-denying) sorts of people.
The whole life-affirming/life-denying thing is silly. Christians, Platonists, etc. 'deny life' because in positing a 'true world' or 'other world' or anything more valuable than this world and life, they devalue this life. Well, dear sir, in valuing, say, the future, you devalue this moment--perhaps not entirely, but at least in part. One might live for the future, but one lives nevertheless in the moment. Living for the future, for one's goals, or for some afterlife (another goal, really)--all this devalues one's current existence. The question, then, is: what is the totality of my existence, and ought I value the whole of my existence over the present? Well, we're all, Nietzscheans or Christians or..., dissatisfied with the moment, unless it happens to be a very good moment; as such, we value something beyond the present moment, generally the totality of our existence. Precisely what this totality is, is the question. If there is no other, after, or true world, it is certainly life-denying to posit some goal beyond life. But if there is something beyond life, it is existence-denying to live for this life and this life alone; and furthermore one misses the point of this life in living only for this life. A Catholic believes life has an inherent purpose, a purpose essential to life; and as such, it is a denial of this purpose and therefore a denial of this life to live only for this life.

Hence,
What direction thier efforts take exactly is largely irrelevant.
I disagree.

Blaphbee
03-14-2007, 03:17 AM
Hi jcs.

I love you.

That is all.

luv,
blaf

jcs
03-14-2007, 03:35 AM
Hi jcs.

I love you.

That is all.

luv,
blaf
Why, O why, is the shoutbox gone? Alas, my dear! No more raunchy e-flirtation! Woe! Misery!

Blaphbee
03-14-2007, 10:48 AM
Why, O why, is the shoutbox gone? Alas, my dear! No more raunchy e-flirtation! Woe! Misery!
Trust me, no one is more depressed about this than I am.

:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(