Dante B.

Something to think about when you're discussing "happiness," sadness, depression, or whatever mental state - even with yourself - or reading books speaking on such matters.

Reminds me of the women who'll wax poetic about love, and their current lover, soon after saying, "He doesn't listen, he doesn't respect me, he treats me like shit, and his eyes wander everywhere but about me."

Striving and suffering for a string of words, certainly not for ideas that are translated and understood in application and impact. The 40 year old executive who has all the ingredients for 'happiness', but wakes up one day wondering what's the damned point? Yep.

Not to see many things, not to hear many things, not to permit many things to come close - first imperative of prudence, first proof that one is no mere accident but a necessity.

Friedrich Nietzsche - Ecce Homo

Dante B.

Is any of this making sense? I can keep going on and on, so you'd better tell me when to shut up if I start to ruin your journal.



Didn't address the following - misread several statements (going off on unrelated tangents), just out of it. My practice, I gather:

That's understandable. It's a mistake to define, or endeavor to define, a purpose in specifics.

Examples:

"I'd be happy if I was working for this company, having this job, owning these things."

Instead: it's the essence that I define. The various processes of reasoning and doing that I enjoy - which may be applied to many ends, high and low.

Ask yourself: what do I see in the world and in people that's corrupt, and what do I see that isn't. You'll likely arrive at several answers (of your own) that you weren't explicitly aware of.

When a thought, a person, or a situation makes you happy, take a step back to analyze it. This gets back to what we said before: when you're full of life, that's when you have to be mindful of your states and surroundings.

People tend to take their happier moments for granted, "living for the moment" - not understanding what that "moment" is in contrast to the mundane. When it's over, then they're lost.

No. Because a person doesn't know how to apply that experience; like a monkey reading Plato, would it do the monkey any good? Reading books, dropping acid, going to school - each has its benefits. What those benefits are solely depends on who the person is, how they interpret the experience, what they expect from it and how it's applied.


It's okay to experiment (books, whatever), to get a sense of what's out there. Eventually, experimentitation gives way to purposeful action - intent with an understanding of implications. Which isn't to say that purposeful action and experimentation are mutually exclusive.



Yes. I'm sure we've both met and known our share of acidheads and speed junkies. They've often talked highly of their experiences, how it 'opened' them up, away from the limitations of our conscious reality.

But they were undisciplined junkies, that's all. How did we arrive at that conclusion? You know just as well as I do

I'm not a fan of the 'better living through chemistry' mentality, for reasons peppered about this thread.

Every positive or negative experience, even when sober, can serve the purpose. If a person's turning to acid and the like to open up the possibilities, while consistently ignoring the conscious experience, they'd be better off without the drugs.

I generally avoid recreational drugs, save antidepressants. If "conscious reality" is enough to disturb me, then there's enough information for me to learn from. I don't wait for the "happy moments," to learn.

Yes - for reasons discussed with the meditation techniques and pattern recognition.

I simply remind myself that there are reasons why I continue to exist - that I have defined, not others - so if everything falls apart, that essence to everything I perceive and do still remains, even if I've lost the form.

Or: I know why I'm alive, and why I bother, not simply that I am and do.

If you enjoyed being a social worker, for example, and the city you worked in was burned to the ground, you'd be sad. Maybe depressed. Possibly suicidal.

But, the essence of that work remains, and there are other cities to create a form for that essence with; that essence could even be applied to other potential jobs and situations, if jobs as a social worker are hard to cross. If everything goes horribly wrong - the form collapses - the material to breath life into another one remains, even if it's difficult to gather yourself together; but at least you'll know why you're taking the trouble to compose yourself. Think of your life and yourself like that.

Certainly takes time, though, to learn to see through an intense suicidal ideation or severe panic attacks. But, it requires an actual belief, not a recital of what makes you happy.

You know what's real - to you - and what's an illusion, when the moment comes and you stop yourself from pulling the trigger.

Repeat the delusion, and it will be just a matter of time before you're cowering before the jury again. I'm not a fan of the "cry for help" camp. They're asking for a reason to live - they're not simply stating, "I know why I'm here, but I'm having difficulties getting on track and staying there." Even with these people, they may be suffering for the wrong reasons - rather, what they consider "happiness," is the cause, because it's irrational and unattainable.

A TV image, a string of words, which they've never translated. "Mikey likes it! But I don't. Why don't I, why can't I. Everyone else does. Or they seem to. Or that's what they tell me. The problem is me I guess."

Not to see many things, not to hear many things, not to permit many things to come close - first imperative of prudence, first proof that one is no mere accident but a necessity.

Friedrich Nietzsche - Ecce Homo

Monolith

"Goals" appear so distant and unattainable that to imagine them is seen as a waste of time. Just like winning the lottery or becoming the most popular person in town would be great - but neither fantasy seems realistic.



Apathy. Resignation. I can sustain what i am, but lack the motivation or drive to change/improve even the simplest thing. Like in highschool - i passed all my classes with a 60. Just enough to keep me on track to graduate, but never more. Enough to keep the parents from sending me to a private school. Enough to keep things the same, even though i agonized about how i wished they were different. It's an odd juxtaposition, but thats how it was.


Never happy, but always content to deal with the consequences. When i'm not ready to deal, orgasmic images of suicide fly through my mind... not ideas of changing my situation. It's as if life is worth living because its something to do... nothing more. I'd rather kill myself than put any effort into what seems to be a trivial pursuit.


Yet how can you be sure that plan is correct? Isn't it possible to subvert your plans subconsciously even if you're activly watching for that? And what is a direction or plan? The lay definition in this context is usually a career choice... obviously we're discussing things in a more abstract realm, but how do you correlate this abstract existence with the structured world humanity has built for itself? Can you ever truly be happy in a society where that "in the moment" mentality rules?


Can your outlook on life ever be free of misery when the only system of belief that resonates with you is one that makes you an outcast in society? Further, is it possible to ever negate the impact that society/communication/sex has on our outlook? To actually be happy with your esoteric beliefs and unphased by raw human insinctual behavior?



Awesome. I feel like i'm being psychoanalyzed to the point of mind reading. I can in fact think of a recent example of this behaviour - I added a good 12-15 books to my stack after reading a few posts in a book thread at Avant by a couple members i hold in high regard... people who have some of the knowledge, attitude and experience i suppose i wish i had. It's so strange to consider yourself an independent entity, and then to witness instances like this where the mind appears to be nothing except an automaton... interpreting every stimulus into either a conscious or unconscious thoguth of how to get laid. In that case, i was trying to give myself a characteristic that i felt was desirable. Trying to make myself more appealing to a group i thought (think) is better than others. Defining "good" in the context of acting for our own good could be debated for an eternity. You've made me reel, Dante.


Perhaps. Some people spend decades seeing how far they can push their minds in the name of knowledge - they're the MD's and PhD's of the world. While i haven't (yet) experienced a self-induced trance, the thought of meer hours separating me from deeper and deeper journeys through my own consciousness seems like the bargain of the millenium.





So, for you, this exploration of consciousness is simply a means to an end - the act itself is of minimal interest... you simply want to use the knowledge gained from a trance to better yourself in the physical world. The allure the "drug" holds loses its appeal when you realize you must eventually return to this reality...?


What if the goal is to have the most complete understanding of your psyche as possible? I mean, if your current goal is to use the trance experiences to better control your mood and stimulus response in this world, wouldnt a deeper jaunt through your mind elicit even better control and understanding of those things?



What reference do you have to tell yourself the reaction is wrong? I can recall happier moments, but the allure is lost in that hole. I recognize the brevity of those happy times. I view my current state of mind as correct, and the happy times mere smokescreens my biological self creates in order to keep me interested in the mundane ideal of keeping me alive so i can propagate. Sex.





Just because a response makes me happy, why is it automatically correct? How do you differentiate the abstract "good" from the concrete "good"?



Again, the question becomes how do you extricate yourself from societies behavioral/philosophical code? We've evolved to the point where it's nearly impossible to be happy without vindication/respect/acknowledgement. What if you finally flesh out your own individual mental process - and find that it doesnt jive with societies? What wins the battle to control your mood - your biology (pushing you to value social interaction, group think, and that "in the moment" mentality) or your unencumbered mind (pushing you to value independent thought, to ignore biological instinct, and to define your happiness on your specific traits only - not the generic human happiness we're all born with)? Neither can be turned off... so will there always be that inner turmoil if you choose to explore the abstract? If so, then wouldn't even "good" (abstract context, re: reading for yourself and not to mirror others) thought eventually be interpreted as an incorrect path, since your biology will never let you reach a true state of happiness by having to fight against it?


Not incoherent, but challenging (which i like). I wrote this up throughout the day between classes, so if anything, props to you if you can "decode" it. lol


But, it stands to reason that if you can induce a biological process not known to be consciously controlled, then why would it be limited to just one aspect of the body?

http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~ek867/dexamyl.jpg

Monolith

That's an awesome quote. I used it's influence in my last post. It didn't register right away, but now that it does, it's strikingly powerful. In this context, i suppose it's just another reminder to define your emotions before you chase them, no?

http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~ek867/dexamyl.jpg

Monolith

It makes sense and i'm really enjoying it. This journal has only been getting better with each post!



Yeah, i think i got that from your last post. I'm still a bit perplexed on how to define a good emotion/response, though. Like with my last long post, how do you know if your body is "tricking" the independent mind?




I suppose what i'm asking is... while i realize you wouldn't do this, do you think using a drug to reach that meditative trance (where otherwise you would meditate for 3 hours) would lessen the experiences ability to be learned from?






So, why are you alive, Dante? How do you find a reason to exist in such a homogenous world? What have you found that's powerful enough to prevent suicide during a dark phase? I'm asking generally/rhetorically - no need to give personal specifics. In other words, through what process did you come to find these few, profound, life-shaping influences? Do you have a goal, now? Something you can strive for no matter your mood?

http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~ek867/dexamyl.jpg

Monolith

I guess it'd be good if i threw some actualy gym logs up in he'yah...

Training for 9/27: Day B

Squats -
Narrow stance (quads)
215lbx3
215lbx3
215lbx3
215lbx3
215lbx4

Wide stance (hips)
225lbx5
235lbx4

SLDL
235lbx8
235lbx8

Leg Press
400lbx12
400lbx12
400lbx12

Lying leg curl
120lbx12

Seated leg curl
80lbx85s (s=seconds, timed set)

Standing calf raise
215lbx8
215lbx7
215lbx6
incorrect/fucked up tempo. too slow on concentric.
45lbx50s (s=seconds, timed set)

---

Some nice increases for the quads and hams. Four sets of 4 with 185lb on the squats last B day... four sets of 3 with 215lb this week. On SLDL's, went 225lbx8x6 last cycle. This cycle it was 235lbx8x8. Leg press was 400lbx12x10x9 last week... went 12x12x12 this week.

http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~ek867/dexamyl.jpg

Monolith

Training for 9/28: Day C

BB curl -
100lbx2
100lbx2
100lbx2
100lbx2

Seated BB mil press -
125lbx6
125lbx5
125lbx4

Alt DB curl -
45lbx3/4 (left/right)
45lbx3

Hammer machine mil press -
40lbx85s (timed set)

CG flat bench -
135lbx6
135lbx5.5

Pushdowns -
70lbx100s

Superset -
Decline situp - +65lb DBx4x1
Cable crunch - 150lbx6x6

---

Eh. No real increases from the 23rd. The exception is for shoulders, which went from 115lbx6x4 to 125lbx6x5.

http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~ek867/dexamyl.jpg

PreMier

My brain has been tickled, and I didnt have to visit Avant Nice workout Mono.

P-side Inc.

"the post-workout high is more profound than any drug-induced rush imaginable." -Dante B.

Dante B.

Certainly, because anything that's realistic as an end has an action correlate in the present; seeing a mountain in the distance, knowing the training, endurance and steps that are required in order to reach it.

So we have to define what the "goal" is. Indeed, for many, it's nothing more than the TV image.

"Noisy Polaroid faces with their tick tock clock voices."

But they don't know what the image captured meant and entailed; the beat of their 'drummer,' when they're stringing together a heap of meaningless words may very well be the rope they're going to hang by as they're led off a cliff.

For any goal that's real - that is, attainable, measurable - then you have to break it down into its constituent units of necessary action. That's hard to do, of course - often because the person hasn't a clue where they're going, setting aside the pie-in-the-sky dreamers who conceive of everything and nothing at once. I won't speak of them.

I was the same in high school. But, the problem wasn't me, as I'm capable of learning when it comes to abstract and fluid thought. I didn't consider what I was being sold to be an "education." A recital, perhaps, for even the teachers didn't seem to enjoy the Kool Aid and many of the 'top' students said otherwise but only in word; certainly wasn't evident in the patterns of thought and action.


As with anything, you have to see if the problem is you, or the environment. It's easy to beat yourself down to apathy if you're incapable of breaking the arousal threshold with the environment you're in, not certain either what it is that's capable of stimulating you.

If you're capable of seeing the distance step by step, then it's easier to tolerate the present without being thrown too far off course, or too far into apathy; the present circumstances aren't always conducive to the sought end, but if you know (somewhat) what you're aiming for, your spare time can be used for target practice - for "self" preservation in both senses of self-preservation.

I'm not speaking of fools who are simply lazy, pathetic, and stupid. I'm talking to you - and if I didn't like you, I wouldn't bother. So don't ask, "How do I know if I'm simply a lazy fool." Every person has to figure that out on their own as they go along; intelligent people who are very much goal-driven and passionate won't be as easily led to give in, or buy into shallow promises from shadow souls.

Content is generally translated to: I guess I have no choice. Guess it's better than nothing to deal with this shit, 'cause I have no choice otherwise.

But you never totally accept that. If you did, you wouldn't have those explosive episodes where you're trying to find something more in something that's not.

Quoted earlier, I have a disdain for words and phrases - simply because people are throwing slabs of concrete at each other as though each block has the same impact and meaning to everyone; often it has no true meaning to the offending party throwing said block. It was simply inherited, and all they have to show for those bricks is a mental dung hut.

"Suicidal," for many," is revealed with: "The world would be a better place without me."

That's translates to: please tell me why I should be here. Give me a reason to live.


I detest those people; I don't consider them human. That's not what suicidal means for me, and I don't see that in you either. Rather, it's very much explosive in nature; apathy isn't defeat, it's self-preservation in the face of uncontrollable impulses which can't be channeled out in present form. There's only the future potential, which can be realized step by step - but it's hard to see the steps and take pleasure in them.

Which is to say: you actually do know why you're here, you to have goals which are real, to you - not crackhead goals of mountains that exist only in the minds of those lazy enough to conceive of something that isn't real as a mask for an inability and unwillingness to conquer anything that is.

So many what ifs. Vieope brought up the "problem of other minds" in another thread - solipsism. I've been thinking about that more and more recently. As in: I can paint a picture for someone, and it may or may not set. But that's all I can essentially do. Intuitively, people who are self-aware can recognize parallel elements in others.

Why do I bring this up? I think you know the answers to those questions; the problem arises when you're wondering what you can do to reanimate yourself in a present situation where the world is dead to you. If you were totally clueless - read, not self-aware and intelligent (as I define it), then I wouldn't be able to say anything of meaning.

A direction or plan? Something you can conceive, where the future and present are joined process by process - step by step - with intention and action understood; action and intention are meaningless without a comprehension of relevant factors, and consequences.

"Correct." In what sense? That it's something I desire, or something that can be accomplished? This gets back to everything discussed. A direction isn't a guarantee - often you'll fail. But if you're using a model, not unlike a scientist's model for testing a hypothesis, then you can assess what went right or wrong if you succeed or fail.

Unconsciously? Sure. But what leads a person to unconsciously subvert a plan? Often, wanting too many things, or even a few things, without an understanding of consequences.

"I want to be successful in this business I built from the ground up. But I'm investing too much of my time in it. I want to go out and date women. My friends have girlfriends and wives. But I also want to do this. But I kinda want the girls too."

Among other examples. But "self aware" means awareness of competing influences, and the consequences each one entails. People who are highly self-aware aren't merely aware of base or shallowly defined "influences" - as in, "I'd like to have a lot of money, and a nice job, and respect."

Then, it doesn't matter as much what society is doing; it only matters in the sense of trying to get something done, seeing who does or doesn't fit into the plan - if they're helping you to learn (doesn't have to be with those who agree), or if they serve no purpose but to impede you.

That isn't to say you won't occasionally suffer for it; it's only to mean that you are aware of why you're suffering, at a moment, and if that consequence pales in comparison to a higher possibility that you've established.

With the "structured world," we've already discussed that with crackhead dreams. If you're aiming for something that isn't neatly assimilated into an exiting structure, then it's your awareness of the why and hows of that structure which will enable you to build your model accordingly.

No different than understanding psychology in general: if you understand society in general, then it's no matter an issue of disagreeing or suffering. If you see what's wrong, or rather, what can be better, then you can devise a plan.

I doubt I'm telling you anything you haven't previously thought of; if anything, I'm merely reminding you. If I actually had to explain any of this in actuality (taking into account that I'm giving a piss poor explanation in my current state), as though you were totally clueless and unaware, then you'd simply scratch your head.

Or say, "that's great, I totally see it!." Soon to forget; you can't assimilate something that isn't real to you, something you weren't previously aware of on some level. But, a good reminder often serves well as a source of inspiration and clarity.

Outcast? To whom?

If you're blindly striving for goals you aren't capable of defining - to yourself - then you'll learn to suffer for equally vague reasons.

As we've said, if you've build a model and are capable of recognizing the relation between intent and action, goals and consequence, then you're also capable of explaining your perspectives to others; occasionally, even influencing them, if only to a minor extent.

In the process, you may be positively influenced as well. You aren't eliminating "raw" instinctual behavior and impulses - you're guiding them, channeling them.

Think of it this way:

If you look at a woman's face, concentrating on her eyes, all of her facial features are pulled into that focused perspective. She looks different - everything flows, although in another direction from one if you concentrated on her lips instead.

If she lets her hair down, or pulls it up - you encounter the same phenomena. You're staring at the same woman, but each focused perspective automatically arranges her companion features.

I think of it no differently with life and goals. When I'm focused on one aspect of life - as I conceive of "life," my life, as I want it - the other features are drawn in. Not eliminated.

Then, it's not a desire for "sex" - it's sex with a woman. It's not a desire to be with woman - it's an acknowledgment of the type of woman. Same with friends, same with respect - anything.

Independence isn't freedom from all influences, pernicious and otherwise. Independence is failing and learning in order to succeed. The only mistake is to assume that you can guard yourself from all mistakes.

Progress is never linear. If anything, it's the breaks in the line that force people to reconsider the integrity of the direction.

Purpose and experimentation aren't mutually exclusive. Only you'll know when something no longer serves your interest, as you choose to define it.

For example, arguing with the same group of people over a period of time forced me to think only on their terms, but never beyond. If I was dealing with a fool, I became a fool; with intelligent people, if I learned but didn't move on, I was stuck at their level. Never further.

And if a person desired to spend life's remainder getting high, you wouldn't be able to persuade them otherwise. If they had a distinct goal, then they'd be more likely to recognize a contraction - if any, as they saw it in relation to a goal - on their own or with another's persuasion.

But, we've discussed this.

Consciousness is consciousness of something - something before me. Something before me is a reflection of what's inside me. So, I'm not drawing a distinction between the internal and physical.

I'm aiming for symmetry - not balance, not moderation. If I see something on the outside that I'm not presently capable of handling, then I have to correct myself internally. If I see something internally that I can't put to form in the physical, I have to create a vehicle for it externally.

Like the mountain, it's simply a way for me to assess if the mountain is real, or a delusion; if real, than a way to recognize the requisite steps.

And to experience pleasure in those steps. You wouldn't experience pleasure in a movement if you likened it to crawling instead.

Yes - if you're defining "understanding" as would we with knowledge: application, action. The mountain, if you prefer.

I endeavor to understand so to achieve symmetry. Could I "understand" myself, without relating it to the environment around me? And the environment without a concept of self? There's no distinction - consciousness is clarification, not absolute governance.

I dealt with sex, albeit briefly. However, again, once you focus on one feature of life, the companion elements are drawn in; they aren't eliminated, but channeled and redefined.

Is the reaction wrong? All of this goes into the model; if you don't have a model, there's no point in discussing any of this. "Hey crackhead, think of it this way" - "dude, like, I know this is the right way, so shut the fuck up."

But that's not you. What are you focusing on? What were you reacting to? What defined the intensity of that reaction?

If I want to achieve something, but a reaction is burdening me, then something is wrong. Perhaps I was wrong in what I defined as the goal; you can suffer for what you consider the good.

If I had a model, but wasn't consistently aware of it, then all influences and phenomena were blindly colliding and competing for my attention; but they couldn't be prioritized and restructured.

Who said such a thing?

A response is a cue, nothing more, nothing automatic in the process of definition. It's only an axe.

You can suffer for what you consider the good, if you haven't defined the "good" - as you see in - in relation to goals, consequences, and everything we've discussed.

"I was happy when I hung out with this chick. She was also a ditz. At least she distracted me from the sorrows in my life at that time."

A response is a hint, not an answer. The abstract versus the concrete? The crackhead mountain or the mountain that I'm simply incapable of devising a personal plan to reach?

Abstract is in relation to something. I wouldn't consider, say, the castle in the sky, as an abstract worthy of discussion. I don't consider "good job, nice house, trophy wife" a concrete; a given, something that just "is," without an understanding of the factors that went into that perception - and why people bought it.

The concrete "good":

"I met this girl. I liked her. She was fun to be around."

Abstract:

"I met this girl. I liked her. But she also wanted a family, and she wanted to live the life movie star. As much as I liked her, or at least some aspects of her, I realized that my goals and hers necessarily precluded a meaningful long term relationship."


If your goal in life was simply: make money, have a nice house, have a nice girl, etc., then you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Really? We have? Or you have, along with most as they've shabbily defined respect and worth.

But you haven't blindly accept it or rejected it; blind rejection is the ultimate foolishness. Rather, it's simply difficult to manage when you see other people receiving positive enforcement even though you aren't content to eat that enforcement as if it were positive sustenance; but it would be nice to have your craving slaked, as they do, without feeling as though you were starving to death. You may not desire the same things as other people, perhaps for the right reasons - but, even intelligent people often think: "It would still be nice to feel as they do, nevertheless."

As said, we're not speaking of extricating ourselves from anything, as though we merely see something, disagree, lose sleep over it, and have an apoplectic fit. If you understand the code, as it relates to you - as you wish to change it - then the acknowledgement of the whys and hows provide a map for action; ways of approach, persuasion - impact and influence.

Already explained: we're not talking about ignoring anything. We're simply redefining it - the woman's face when viewed with a focus on her eyes, instead of emphasis on her lips.

Is it easy? No. It's easier when you know what you're aiming and suffering for - symmetry is a continual process. But a process isn't anything without a recognition of distance and steps. I view emotions no differently, as they relate to the human experience; measurment, which doesn't exist without a defined standard and an end to achieve.

If you're suffering for the TV image, or even aiming for the abstract without realizing how much emphasis you've placed on those Polaroid snapshots, then you'll never find peace.

I'm not saying the model makes all emotions and impulses automatically drawn into a hierarchical system. It's simply easier, more efficient, where the alterative is absolute failure.

Trust me, I have my share of issues, most of which I conceal; trust me, I could be far worse than I already am. But, that model and subsequent process of organization enables me to restructure my internal and external circumstances; symmetry.

This is a common logical error:

People blindly defined that which is consciously in control, or capable of being consciously governed and to what extent.

(Certain) martial artists learn to control their pulse and physiological reaction to stressors. Does it follow that one should be able to consciously affect the size and strength of blood vessels and the integrity of the heart?

No. Indirectly, perhaps.

What people often describe as impossible is often a misunderstanding; what the remainder describe as possible is often pure nonsense.

And everyone's confused in the middle. Can you exert control over some aspects of your brain in a direct fashion, akin to the mechanism of certain drugs? Yes. Am I saying that you can will or meditate a brain tumor away? No.

People have to define what they think is possible, and why, the same with impossible.

I was flipping through my copy of The Book of Lies that I found under the couch; figured quoting it would serve well in the discussion.

Sure, many people have read similar expressions of thought - people "know" this. Few certainly believe it. What you "know," isn't what you can say. It's what you can see and apply.

And yes, you're correct. Defining any mental state or desire - anything you see in the world or in yourself, to yourself. One perception flows into another within the model.

Another one from that book - a meditation:

This is one of the few poems that holds meaning to me; that is, something that goes beyond sounding pretty - something that sticks.

The gods upon the Titans shower
Their high intolerable scorn;
But no god knoweth in what hour
A new Prometheus may be born.
Courage!
Man to his doom goes driving down;
A crown of thorns is still a crown!




Yes, that can happen. The chicken or the egg. However, once a model is established (already explained, so will save time but not doing so again), it's easy to separate the various influences competing for your attention. Not even attention, but rather, competing for a spot in the definition.

It's easy for your body to respond in such a manner that doesn't seem to have a brain origin, if you're generally acting and reacting - little more.

Don't think of consciousness and independence as anything that's automatic or inherently correct: it's merely a scientist's model for testing a hypothesis, and progressively developing it to achieve a desirable result in whatever field they're chosen.

No, not by necessity. The essence is merely everything we've discussed regarding action and intention, and all in between.

My problem with the "better living through chemistry" mantra, or the "mind opening experience," is that "better" and "opening" is only relevant in the context of moving in a direction.

The experience is only as good as the person experiencing it - the person defines the experience. No different than your waking moments, or the hallucinations of dreaming. Dreaming serves a purpose - it serves little to someone with little on the inside to interpret it and find use for it; actually, the little on the inside determines the richness of the experience.

I wouldn't expect a severely retarded child to rival Dali.

A brief aside:

Dream "interpretation" is preposterous. I think of dreams as an unconscious virtual reality. There's a difference between thinking of death - whether yours or another's - and experiencing it. What's "real," is what's experienced - felt - when seeing and learning.

It's hard to learn from your unconscious moments when you can't see them or feel them. That's why people enjoy hallucinogens, and that also what accounts for bad trips. I think of dreaming no differently, and I use my sleep accordingly. That's also why I don't believe in methods aimed at achieving lucid dreaming; vivid dreaming, perhaps, but not lucid.

I don't see the world as homogenous at all. I certainly see many people who don't know why they're acting; I also see people who are confused, and are worth salvaging. I'm in the latter camp, so I'm also capable of recognizing those who are capable of influencing me in the right form; influence isn't categorically bad, and those who speak blindly of "influences" are those who aren't capable of being positively affected. There's nothing positive within them that's consciously governed; mere action/reaction, stimulus/response.

I'll answer the only relevant question (the one which serves a purpose to answer in a discussion: The process

Once I built a model with some end in sight - even though I've consistently changed the end sought, in form, not essence - I was no longer being blindly thrown around without any rhythm to what I perceived and acted upon. I was just seeing, doing, acting, reacting, with fleeting states of joy and constant moments of grief.

Part of that is due to my neurochemistry. I said part, and that part is merely a channel, not simply a cause. I have a prescription for lithium sitting here, but I'm not going to bother with it. Answering anything specifically wouldn't do anything for anyone - part of the problem of 'the other minds.' However, if someone is capable of recognizing a desirable or similar pattern - a model - then a person can make use of it. So I only explain processes when it comes to myself, nothing more.

Simply, in essence, I enjoy the experiences of pleasure that I've felt. I also enjoyed the thought of devising a plan to realize those experiences on a relatively consistent basis. If I was suffering (or experiencing pleasure) for the wrong reason (as I saw it, for reasons defined), then I had to reassess my goals or the model I was using.

Simply, I enjoy being the scientist in his lab. Other occasionally get to have a hand in the experiment, and that's doubly enjoyable. If someone isn't capable of serving me to that end (and me to theirs - good relationships are symbiotic), then my joy being in the lab eventually overwhelms any negative response resulting from that person.

When I'm on the verge of imploding, I simply recognize that I no longer have a form to sustain the essence; it overwhelms me. But I go over the models I've used in the past, remember the joy I experiencing when employing them and consistently reproducing testable results.

Like many, if you simply experience, even if it's pleasure spread over a healthy stretch of time, there's no way to renew when you never had a model to begin with. Do I know what my goal is, at least for now? Yes. Will I ever get there? I don't know. I don't even care. I just take the steps however small to get there, and take joy in that, even if every remaining aspect of my life is thoroughly fucked up.

But, you won't be able to find joy in anything - or work your way of that hole - without a concept of distance and smaller units of measurement. If you only see the distance - assuming it's not the crackhead's mountain - then everything in the present is worthless. The arousal threshold will never be reached without drugs, and even with drugs that high can only be sustained for so long; every alcoholic has his moment of clarity.

A pile of nonsense? Probably. However, sometimes all it takes is a new way to look at something that's already before you - a way to think of it, recognition in increments, hierarchical thought and focus; the other features will fall in place, as will your reactions to them.

And that's my rant

On another note:

Getting back to other minds, all methods of communicating abstracts are ways which we can interpret the mind of another individual. Perfectly? No. But what's "perfection," other than two elements which are symbiotic in their interaction. Everything doesn't have to be understood, as it is, "in itself."

Language, unfortunately, rarely achieves the purpose for reasons mentioned. We're just throwing blocks of concrete at each other, as it seems. Music, like language, serves a purpose. I posted this over at AL several weeks back..

Don't bother with The Dissolution of Eternity, check out the other two. Simply beautiful music - it reminds me of everything that's good, not merely distracting me from everything that's not.

Not to see many things, not to hear many things, not to permit many things to come close - first imperative of prudence, first proof that one is no mere accident but a necessity.

Friedrich Nietzsche - Ecce Homo

Dante B.

It's more of a cock tease. Give me two dollars and a Snickers bar and I'll be your full service discount bitch.

Not to see many things, not to hear many things, not to permit many things to come close - first imperative of prudence, first proof that one is no mere accident but a necessity.

Friedrich Nietzsche - Ecce Homo

Dante B.