Bad trips are frightening and exhilerating. The important factor there is the fact that I'm not handing my "control" over to another human being, that's why it's preferable.

You say above "Extremism is no way to live" - bullshit. There is no such thing as a set way to live, so live however you want, extreme or not, doesn't matter.

NineInchNails wrote:What is wrong with professional wrestling?

Granted, it's not a real sport, and is a joke, but other than the 'lawls', there's really no point in being against it.

If I'd ban anything, it would be vodka shots, since all college kids seem to think that it's the height of cool. But even that, I wouldn't ban. People have to get their jollies off somehow.

It's called "sarcasm". Look it up.

Ethnocide wrote:You say above "Extremism is no way to live" - bullshit. There is no such thing as a set way to live, so live however you want, extreme or not, doesn't matter.

Extremeism is only a means to death but then again complete moderation in itself is death, lol . . . but suffice to say, everything sways back and forth between equilibrium and fall too much out of an acceptable range will only lead to self-destruction. . . moderation and equilibrium is a guiding principle of life.

I use 'extremism' to explain a non-social asexual lifestyle of a social sexual being, in that regard, it is no way to live - we, as a species, are not programmed that way and we are not designed to function that way - but I agree, for an individual, yes, it can be a way to live IF that individual is one of the exceptions to the 'norm'

The main part of that post was this, "For some this isolation seems to work, however this is the minority, and it's a vast minority where the isolation makes one content and ultimately happier." . . . the main difference is you're talking about yourself specifically, I'm talking in general and trying to relate encompassing theories to help the certain groups of similar people - an virtually impossible feat, but hey?

-

btw, it must be a personal difference so I probably won't understan . . . but I still don't understand what the difference between handing control over to a person versus losing control to a stimulant? maybe I just see it from a 'result' point of view, either way you lost your control, so what's the difference?

The difference between a stimulant and a human being is the difference. A stimulant isn't going to manipulate you to satisfy its own needs/wants. That's the difference. It's a pretty major difference actually, I'm surprised you had trouble figuring it out.

Why should I do what I'm programmed to do? I see biological programming/desires/limitations as a hinderance to free will. I see "my" will as being seperate from the will of my biology. I consider myself to be a seperate entity from this vessel I'm currently animating. This is how I am experiencing life, as a duel entity. The desire to have sex, eat food, socialize, get ahead in life, make money.... I don't actually want any of those things, my programming does. All I want is permanent silence, stillness, and contentment. I have to satisfy my biology to a degree or suffer, but I will not let my biology run the show. Too much biological satisfaction leads to weakening of character and ultimately suffering when the source of satisfaction ends.

It's a pretty major difference actually, I'm surprised you had trouble figuring it out.
I'm not sure why, maybe I do understand but just don't care?. . . I can only really relate it to how a person is used as an object VS how an object is used as an object - if you are controlled and manipulated then you are in essence an object that us used by someone to get their desired needs/wants VS if you are allow the stimulate to control and manipulate you . . . I could assume that a person wouldn't want to be equated to an object and would want to be important and have life, importance, rights, free will, etc

-

I see biological programming/desires/limitations as a hinderance to free will.
ultimately we are satisfying our personal preferences and thus both pleasure fulfilling - although we have differences in what 'pleasure' is and how we go about experiencing pleasure we are in essence hedonists, always trying to get our 'fix', whatever that fix may be. . . it's actually amazing, both of us are rather detached to humanity, you are isolating yourself from human society and biological urges and use this to be an detached rational asexual asocial being - assuming I'm detached from humanity, I use this to be an hedonistic emotional hypersexual social animal.

All I want is permanent silence, stillness, and contentment. . . . sounds like eternal unconsciousness, you'd only achieve this via coma or death

. . .as for why should 'you' do anything, 'you' personally, it doesn't matter - you do whatever you want . . . I'm saying in general, biological life is to continue biological life - we are only carriers for our genes, our life is to live and make more life, we are G's C's A's and T's - for a sexual social species, being aseuxal and asocial is for lack of a better word absurd.

If you didn't care, why ask? There are lots of obvious differences between a stimulant making you lose your mind for a few hours, vs giving a person power over aspects of your life. The former is preferable to the latter for obvious practical reasons. Mainly what you described before, I determine the duration/location, etc.

No, I'm not feeling very much pleasure in my life. I'm not getting a fix. On purpose. I eat bland foods, don't masturbate much, don't entertain myself much, yet I work a lot, and train a lot. I allow myself pleasure to a point, then cut it off. I allow enough pleasure to keep myself sane and functioning only.

I think life itself is absurd, this planet is absurd, and so are all of the species on it. The universe is absurd, existence, consciousness, and experience are absurd.

Ethnocide wrote:If you didn't care, why ask? There are lots of obvious differences between a stimulant making you lose your mind for a few hours, vs giving a person power over aspects of your life. The former is preferable to the latter for obvious practical reasons. Mainly what you described before, I determine the duration/location, etc.

No, I'm not feeling very much pleasure in my life. I'm not getting a fix. On purpose. I eat bland foods, don't masturbate much, don't entertain myself much, yet I work a lot, and train a lot. I allow myself pleasure to a point, then cut it off. I allow enough pleasure to keep myself sane and functioning only.

I think life itself is absurd, this planet is absurd, and so are all of the species on it. The universe is absurd, existence, consciousness, and experience are absurd.

I never want to be what Ethnocide has become.

EDIT: Fine, fine, I'm not clever enough to pull this off. Long story short, I accept the absurdity of existence with open arms - if I am to have no choice about being born, where I am born, and as who, so be it. But I have the power, or at least the illusion of power, to decide what I like and what's worth pursuing. Nature has set the rules with no input from us. You don't want to play this game? I want to cheat, and strangle every last drop of happiness out of it. That's what makes being human great. I can figure out the rules and exploit them, being happier, more intelligent, and more satisfied than ever intended while still giving my genes the finger.

I'm with the Buddha on this one - take the middle path. A life of thoughtless hedonism leads nowhere, but thoughtless asceticism gains you nothing, as well, except the illusion of control.

If you didn't care, why ask?
I guess I wondered why you care . . . I guess I knew the difference between the two originally, but still?

Say if a girl controlled you where you wanted, when you wanted, essentially a girlfriend who you had a schedule which you mutually consented to control you (essentially she 'acts' like a drug) . . . what's the difference then?

No, I'm not feeling very much pleasure in my life. I'm not getting a fix.
Yes, but IF you weren't doing this isolationist lifestyle, would you be content? Sure you're not hedonistic in the typical sense but you're still doing what you want and, paradoxically, by limiting your pleasure gives you pleasure - and being in control of the situation gives you pleasure . . . you'd find no pleasure in socializing and sexual and human nature, thus to satisfy your preferences you are isolationist.

The universe is absurd, existence, consciousness, and experience are absurd.
So if everything is absurd then even what you are doing is absurd, care to elaborate on that one? . . . sure there are many fundamental unknowns which we most likely never figure out but to just discard everything won't bring progress, but then again progress is absurd, etc . . . I find this reasoning, for the most part, useless and unhelpful.

EI: With your first paragraph, I don't know. I don't really understand how that would work out in practical terms, so I can't answer. Actually, spite is another reason why I wouldn't want to hand power over to another human. I dislike the thought of another person knowing that they have some kind of power, especially over me.

Yes, I am doing what I want to do, but no, I am not getting pleasure from it. You don't seem to comprehend motivation outside of pleasure seeking. To you, everything seems to be motivated by the pursuit of some form of pleasure.

Elaborate on what? Everything is absurd. Pretty simple. This reasoning is useless? Unhelpful? Useful to what? Unhelpful to who? This is all coming from the mindset that things matter, that you matter. You don't. We don't. This species doesn't. It doesn't matter what is useful, or helpful to you, or anyone else.

Stefan, you just keep milking that happiness. Also, unless you meditate and lead a strict lifestyle, you aren't taking the middle path, you are taking the hedonistic path. I am not an extreme ascetic. Did you ever read about Buddha's life? The middle path is far more disciplined than the average modern man's lifestyle. The average person would have to become far more disciplined and more ascetic to even reach the middle path. Buddha rejected extreme asceticism, such as not washing, bathing, sleeping, eating, etc. He did not embrace the type of lazy, hedonistic, over-sexed lifestyle the average person lives today. You don't know what the middle path is.

I guess it's just another fundamental difference . . . it's like that empathy discussion

I'm utilitarian and hedonistic, I like maximizing usefulness and pleasure . . . You, as an ascetic, you're just becoming a life-less computer - if you are devoid of passion, then what?

I'm not devoid of it. It will always be in the background. I just keep it from flaring up by manipulating my environment.

Ethnocide wrote:Stefan, you just keep milking that happiness. Also, unless you meditate and lead a strict lifestyle, you aren't taking the middle path, you are taking the hedonistic path. I am not an extreme ascetic. Did you ever read about Buddha's life? The middle path is far more disciplined than the average modern man's lifestyle. The average person would have to become far more disciplined and more ascetic to even reach the middle path. Buddha rejected extreme asceticism, such as not washing, bathing, sleeping, eating, etc. He did not embrace the type of lazy, hedonistic, over-sexed lifestyle the average person lives today. You don't know what the middle path is.

Thanks again for the assumptions. I could list the things I've done in my practice, but it would be irrelevant, since in Buddhism the things you do are less important then the attachment you have to those things. You strike me as very clearly hung up on your asceticism, clinging to it as though it will save you.

It won't.

What assumptions? The only assumption I made was that you don't know the middle path. I don't think anyone really does. I try to. I am not ascetic, dude. Maybe compared to the average person in modern society today I am, but in Buddha's days, asceticism was eating the bare minimum, sleeping the bare minimum, not cleaning yourself, just meditating and working. That's it. That is an ascetic. I am not an ascetic. I believe I am taking the middle path as best I can. I splurge and allow my Earthly desires to be fulfilled, but to a point. Most people that I have known in my lifetime are solely motivated by visceral desires. Always looking for that next bit of sex, always wanting to be entertained, to talk to someone, to eat a certain food, take a certain drug. People's lives are dominated by these types of motivations. That's not middle path.

Buddha went on the middle path, and he was ten times more disciplined than I am. He and his monks would be considered insanly ascetic by today's standards.

Ethnocide wrote:I believe I am taking the middle path as best I can. I splurge and allow my Earthly desires to be fulfilled, but to a point. Most people that I have known in my lifetime are solely motivated by visceral desires. Always looking for that next bit of sex, always wanting to be entertained, to talk to someone, to eat a certain food, take a certain drug. People's lives are dominated by these types of motivations. That's not middle path.

Your assumption, as far as I can tell, is that I am motivated solely by visceral desires. That might be correct, but most of my practice has been in careful mindfulness of those desires. I do not claim I can control them, but understanding them is an important first step.

Ethnocide wrote:Buddha went on the middle path, and he was ten times more disciplined than I am. He and his monks would be considered insanly ascetic by today's standards.

First, the Buddha was enlightened - he neither expected others to follow in his exact footsteps, nor did he claim that he was infallible. He spent all day begging, not working, a practice required of wandering medicants of his day. He and his monks never experienced modern life, and he and his monks were widely scorned for their laxity during their own time. It seems to me if the Buddha was transported to the modern day, he would find a new compromise between heedless hedonism and bitter asceticism.

Second, the middle path is clearly defined in the parameters of the eightfold path. To the best of my knowledge and ability, I follow that path. Who are you to tell me I don't know it? That is the assumption that worries me. Your scorn for hedonism betrays you.