our text for today

Emeka Nweze enweze at gmail.com
Tue Dec 14 23:50:04 CET 2010


I can speak from personal experience that all these formulas and ethics
simply add up to authority of the individual. My needs are relatively simple
but I am seemingly always swamped by what the late Sidney Parker termed "a
welter of generalities."

Just today, I failed to qualify for three separate positions. It is strange
how something is incidental as melanin level factors into securing even a
minimum wage job.

This morality that is constantly alluded to over and over and over is really
just teleology. Stirner grasped this rather shrewdly, imho. The "wheels in
your head" section of the work the ego and his own is my favorite part. He
is right of course. The shallow pates form the largest class of men. No
difference in any other species. Why should we be the exception?

reasonism, subjectivism, nihilism, buddhism...these are just ways to
clinging to the "spirit world of purpose" and camping in a "sanctuary of
ignorance".

 "We are connected only if we want to be" is the only statement I have to
disagree with. As animals under the same phylum we can communicate but can
we "connect"? To borrow a phrase from John Beverely Robinson, "I am forever
alone. NO one can experience my thoughts and feelings" Took me a while to
accept this fact.

It is a pleasure making your acquaintance. David. Your correspondence is
interesting.


cheers,
Vee

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 9:57 AM, David McDivittt <david at subjectivist.org>wrote:

> > I am somewhat wary about using wikipedia as a single source. Better to
> > read
> > the book than the wikipedia article. That way the bias of hagiography is
> > evaded. it might take longer but better to get the info from the horse's
> > mouth.
> >
> >
> > "If we're going to live and if we're going to have ideas, we may as well
> > rate
> > those ideas good, bad, and how well they serve us". - This John Stuart
> > Millishr statement sounds like something Hobbes could have written if
> > leviathan if he was not a bitch. But it still does not stand up to der
> > einzige.
> >
> > Who is this WE and US you are referring to? I for one have no intention
> of
> > spending time "living, having, and rating ideas"
> >
> > Instead of rating ideas, why not rate something more transient and
> > immediate? like the virtue of olivia olovely's errrr...
> >
> >
> > [image: 6006_big.jpg]
> >
> > actually, that was a lot easier to "rate" than I thought.
> >
> > When not purchase the klipsch image s4 headphones? I can guarantee an
> > incredibly biased opinion as to whether they are good or bad since I have
> > very few life chances or possessions indeed.  Headphones might be better
> > for
> > your utilitarian cause than olovely's virtue since my hands will be less
> > occupied.
> >
> > I apologize for if my style seems idiosyncratic. you are probably an
> > Einzige
> > so to be polite would be condescending.
> >
> > lastly, your axiom:
> > "It's very difficult for people to accept the universe has no authority,
> > meaning, or purpose except what we ourselves attribute to
> > it" - has great verisimilitude indeed.
> >
> > Except for the authority part. authority is simply a euphemism for force
> > and
> > has always been so.
> >
> > Vee
>
> As an antirealist, subjectivist, relativist, whatever, I'm often averse to
> reasons given by people for why stuff is what it is. But we still have
> stuff. Though I don't like physicalism I may still bump into a solid
> object here and there if not careful. Why is that? A realist wastes no
> time pointing that out.
>
> The difference is whether things have essential qualities on their own
> accord, or whether we acknowledge we make all that up as we go about
> defining and categorizing our world. Once we do have things defined, yes,
> let's go ahead and use that. It's OK to have values. It's OK to say how
> things should be. It's OK to have moralisms. The point is knowing where it
> comes from, that it doesn't come from god, that we are not defining or
> discovering anything we are supposed to.
>
> Today there's a faddish idea of innerconnrectedness. This is connected and
> related to that which is connected and related to that, etc., etc., until
> conceptually we have a giant nebulous structure once more, and we're
> unable to move because we've locked ourselves yet again into intellectual
> authority structures greater than ourselves.
>
> You have your thoughts. I have my thoughts. You do what you do. I do what
> I do. We are connected only if we want to be. What functionality
> represents this magic of connectedness? Can anyone say what it is? The
> most anyone can do is make a statement within a given context to sway
> opinion. Why? Why do that?
>
> If there was a god there might therefore be a god perspective, and it may
> be possible for some people to share looking at the universe from that
> stance. Otherwise there is no essential nature to anyone's reasoning and
> we each connect the dots however we want to.
>
> Ontology can kiss my ass.
>
>
>


More information about the nonserviam mailing list