Messages

Can I be a little uncouth for a moment here and ask how old you are?  Just to sate my own curiosity.

I've said it before, I'm 18, as of March 13th.

If it quacks like a sociopath, but also ponders its own sociopathy, it's probably just an asshole.

Newsfeed.

^^^ YES 

If it quacks like a sociopath, but also ponders its own sociopathy, it's probably just an asshole.

I've been reading more into sociopathy and psychopathy. It seems I exhibit many markers for both (Unaffected by death and violence, limited/non-existent morals, etc.), but I lack specific, key qualities. My constant recognition of consequences/punishment and ability to feel fear (however limited) are some key markers that I don't exhibit. Also, the probability of me being psychopathic (Born this way) is negligible, considering I was, apparently, a very happy, loving, and nice child. I'm not sure if there are varying degrees of sociopathy, but you're probably right, I am an asshole. I just don't find anything wrong with that. The people I do care about think I am "too nice." The people I care about are the only people I refrain from hurting under any/all circumstances.

I get the impression he's genuinely trying. That makes him infinitely cooler in my book than someone who isn't trying, regardless of how far he still has to go.

Go on poo-guy throw my optimism back in my face, I'd much rather hate you right now 

If you'd much rather hate me, read above ^^^

However, I DO like LOVE humans. This world is so boring, cold, and unforgiving sometimes. But human consciousness and the human condition is infinitely interesting and makes it all so worth it.

I really am on the fence in cases like this. On one hand if I hadn't given myself a chance, way back when, I'd have been forced to suicide. On the other hand - life's too short to surround yourself with assholes. I aint no fucking saint.

I tend to cut the borderlines a lot of slack but then my guess is most people won't remember being as much of a waste of fucking oxygen as I can vividly remember being.

I definitely remember being an outrageous fucking cunt. I think everyone is capable of change. I am trying, when I think it necessary.

Haha, will do (Later).

No argument.  I'm just saying I prefer him to a lot of other noobs we've had... like Scilon Agent, for instance.  PlightOfFernandoPoo hasn't melted down once from all the criticism, so far.  That's got to be some sort of achievement.   

Melt down from criticism? How could one ever learn with that weak of a predisposition? I could've gotten nowhere near where I am today if it weren't for criticism. The verbal and psychological torture I received in Junior High was well-deserved because of my "cunt-ish" predisposition. If you think you could hurt me with insults after all that, you're sadly fucking mistaken. The thought is comical at this point.

Oh, yeah, no argument with any of that.   In fact, I'd place him a great distance beyond Scilon.  I mean, being called "better than Scilon" is like being called "the smartest kid on the shortbus".

There's really no comparison.  But still.

I missed him. I'm gonna have to go back and look for that one.

True.   

Sorry PlightOfFernandoPoo, nobody deserves that.

All good.

I re-read some of your above posts, and am now concerned about your mental well-being.

We all seem to be. Thank you for your concern.

The semantics of my posts are very deliberate and are key when trying to understand them.

The burden of comprehensibility in any communication is on the sender, not the receiver.

Just saying.

Actually, most classes and texts on communication seem to claim that the burden is equally on both parties in every situation.

Regardless, I try to say things blatantly, and outright, so that there's no confusion on underlying meanings, etc. Take everything I say literally - completely for what it is, assuming no underlying message - and you will usually come very close to my intended meaning. I'm not creative, so you'll find no intended/comprehensible messages beyond the words themselves.

Nobody is blowing up at you. I'm questioning on what grounds you object to what you interpreted as my deliberately misinterpreting you.

Nothing has any meaning dude, I don't see why your posts should be any different.

The semantics of my posts are very deliberate and are key when trying to understand them.

And one of the reasons why I came to this forum is because of the blatant flaming, tag-teaming, etc. It's funny as fuck. Don't bother taking my feelings into account, because you're right, none of it has any meaning.

You haven't actually seen me blow up.  Just saying.  It's more fun than even I really want.

I've had an account for years, and I was on here reading your rages even before that. It's almost paralleled my anger at times.

And I'm a huge fan of the way you lose control and turn into an enormous green rage monster.

Thats a bit of a privilege that knowledge and research gives you, as in saying accurate things.

Knowledge and research gives you the ability to state personal interpretations as facts? That's funny, I think that's the basis of Solipsism

"My interpretation is right, because it's the only one that could possibly exist."

1. Yeah, it does. If you think otherwise try using the word fag in every social situation you can imagine, including applying for a job, or ordering a pizza, or trying to get laid, or, I don't know, interacting with people who don't have the same apparent social impairments you do.

2. This, of course, is a valuable life skill that will bring you admiration and respect.

3. Interesting. What is the name of your homeworld? You're certainly not from Earth. Unless you're totally oblivious and surrounded by people who are incapable of interacting with human beings. All humans have filters, even if they're incompatible with those of other groups of humans.

4. Now, by "here" do you mean in normal everyday society amongst presumably Western human beings, or just on PD? Because if it's the latter, you're really kinda missing the point.

1. I don't "try" to use the word "fag" or any other bigoted term in any social situation, unless it calls for it. In this case, it was simply a slip of the tongue. Keep in mind, I don't actually give a shit, unless it helps me in some way. Obviously, being a blatant cunt is almost never helpful in any social situation. I don't have some uncontrollable urge to excrete bigotry from my fucking face.

2. I know, that's why I make a conscious effort to watch what I say in every situation. But, because it is conscious, things do slip sometimes.

3. Again, I must point out, I don't have an urge to spew bigotry. And I also don't spend much time in professional social locations, like offices, or whatever. But I generally don't talk much anyways. So, most of the time, I don't need a filter, because I don't need to hold something back that isn't trying to jump out. Rarely does something bigotry-related pop-up in conversation for me, because I refrain from having discussions with people likely to bring those things up. And if I do have a conversation with someone that is bigoted, I generally go with it to not seem unusual. Words don't affect me in negative ways, so I don't give a fuck about what I say if the person I'm talking to doesn't care.

4. Here, on PD, and anywhere else I find along the way that would be damaged by bigotry-related terms.

IF THE DEFINITION IS VARIABLE, IT IS NOT A DEFINITION.

Cruise on caps because of obvious.

It is if the definition is an interpretation. The definition is an interpretation when the thing being described by the definition is an interpretation.

Example: Love - A mental construct - has a varying definition, because, by being a mental construct, it is made up of interpretations. Interpretations vary from perspective to perspective/person to person.

Right?

Unlike the relationship between energy and work, which is mathematically described and directly observable (I don't even have to get into Instrumental Relativity here), the relationship between power and its effects are complexly abstracted and based on perspective and predispositions.

As LMNO has demonstrated (With the spoon-bending argument), sometimes the energy-work relationship can be encompassed by the system of power that you're referring to, along with other relationships (societal, metaphysical, etc.).

WAAAAAAAAH.

Is that observation related to the morality of thinking to speak for you? The social acceptability of the act?

Not sure I follow.

The notion of ignoring the deliberate semantics of my statement to make it appear that I've meant something, I certainly did not, just doesn't seem conducive to this discussion. Unless, of course, it was your attempt at being comical at my expense. In which case, I don't find it very funny. Not because it was aimed at me, but because it's so thoughtless and dull. At least when Roger blows up at people, he BLOWS UP. The aftermath always has interesting colors.

Interesting that you thought it cool to put words in my mouth, though.

[just the information/view is different.]

I also must point out that you seem to state things with the same preachy and righteous tone that I use(d). So, it seems, the format is similar, just the information/view is different.

Read bolded as "you are right and I am wrong."

Not what I meant at all. I don't think he's wrong. Nor do I think I'm right.

So you don't have much by way of empathy, you want to amass power, and you came to a forum to tell people so.

Have you, by any chance, been reading M.E. Thomas?

That's a strange summary. I didn't come on here to tell you those things in particular. Those pieces of information were a result of the flow of the conversation, and in turn, the flow of my thoughts. As one thing led to another in this discussion, I was reminded of related tid-bits, and decided to reflect on them openly. Keep in mind, the simplicity of the original topic that I ranted on.

I just looked her up, and I'm quite interested. I may, in fact, read her on my free-time. Let's hope there aren't too many similarities though, if you know what I mean.

Power isn't a goal, it's a method and means.

Now THAT, is an interesting way to look at power. This will dominate my thoughts for tomorrow, I'm sure of it.

Foucault was a boss.  But yeah, that may be a bit, uh, complex for a discussion that has mostly revolved around that perverted heroin addict attached to an ego, aka Crowley.

However, I was going to make two more points.

1. What is the purpose of seeking power, if not to have an effect on the world in the way one desires?  As much as I hate to reduce people to psychology, I would have to conclude that they are probably seeking the sense of security, importance and relevance that wielding power lends.  In which case, like Paes said, " becoming a solipsist and declaring total control over your own reality is probably the easiest way to get there."

2.  Power is socially constructed.  And that's socially constructed in the sense that it's constructed by society, not in the sense that it's not real, as so many kids chose to believe socially constructed means nowadays.  Power derives from networks that exist in society, and as a result bind one more closely to that society.  Sure, there may be specific relaxations and exemptions - society is not a monolithic bloc, after all - but by and large, one gains power in the modern world through a significant amount of social interaction.  It's not a path for someone who wants to be free of social mores and restrictions, and indeed trying to combine the two is an exercise in futility.

1. I was only talking about the acquisition of power because "the affect on the world in the way on desires" is variable. What I want to affect now may not be what I want to affect later. And YES  We've established that Paes's description was spot-fucking-on.

2. I do agree that power is a construct. But I see it as one that is constructed in many ways, in many places, and to many extents depending on the perspective I'm looking from. I don't think that society is the only place it shows up.

I'm sorry to say I don't know much about/by Foucault.

I also must point out that you seem to state things with the same preachy and righteous tone that I use(d). So, it seems, the format is similar, just the information/view is different.

No.  I was discussing the definition of the word "power", and then foolishly added a comment thinking it wouldn't complicate things beyond discussion, because I am a fucking slow learner and I hadn't yet realized - despite all the other shit in this thread - that you are incapable of having a simple discussion.

Fucking flake.

There's not much that I know of that's simple.

If you felt what I said was unrelated, you should've ignored it. I wasn't expecting a response on that part of my post anyways.

NOT. MY. REAL. DAD.

DON'T TELL ME WHAT'S RIGHT OR WRONG, YOU'RE NOT MY REAL DAD.

[Note that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with #2]

No, your problem is that you aren't certain of anything at all, and you're rude about it without being funny.

I state the above with certainty because that's the way the universe works, even if you don't like it.

That's because I try to be skeptical of everything. And I'm not very funny.

I try to remain indifferent on how things work, to eliminate confirmation bias.

Also:

You know the difference between right and wrong,' he repeated finally... You are a genius, a sage, a giant among men. You have solved the problem which philosophers have been debating since antiquity—the mystery about which no two nations or tribes have ever agreed, and no two men or women have ever agreed, and no intelligent person has ever agreed totally with himself from one day to the next. You know the difference between right and wrong. I am overawed. I swoon. I figuratively kiss your feet.

What the jabbering FUCK are you talking about?

Okay, I'm out.  There is no use speaking with crazy people.

Note that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with #2, as the motives behind the wielding of power determine the morality or lack thereof in the exercise of power.

Were you not preaching moral right-wrong here?

I'm just arguing definition, right now.

Power can mean two things:

1.  The physical storing and transmission of energy, OR
2.  The ability to have people do as you please whether or not they want to do so.

You state this with such certainty. I thought that was MY problem.

Note that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with #2, as the motives behind the wielding of power determine the morality or lack thereof in the exercise of power.  I can give examples of this.

Motive varies as well.

Leave my morality up to me, I'm not telling you what's right and wrong. And just because I may not have much going for me in terms of morality, doesn't mean everyone else is obligated to set guidelines for me. Just know that I won't breach most societal boundaries - that is, in most cases, counter-productive.

Hi PlightOfFernandoPoo,

I totally get where you're coming from.. a couple years into RAW and Crowley and you reach a headspace where you are free. You have broken the bonds of old programs and either applied a few bugfixes or even new apps to the old wetware. "Thou Art God", "Do As Thou Will" and "Think For Yourself, Schmuck!" are the Firewalls and Intrusion Detection Systems. protecting your new freedom.

Its good to get there. Hell, I think its necessary for some people (It was for me). However, little Psychonaut, the trip isn't over, you're not anywhere near the end of the ride yet. Making any assumptions, claims or conclusions at this point (or at any point) will probably cause embarrassment later.

29.Learn What You Will Is The Whole of The LOL, Lulz in the LOL!
30.Yet, the LOL has no TRUTH, except that it be LOLful.
31.Which is truth enough for those who are Wise in Some Ways.
32. Pun in the LOL, LOL under Wit.
- Liber AL Vel Lols

Hello Bebek Sincap Ratatosk,

I agree. But I never planned on stopping, and embarrassment is part of the process. And, OH, you people (This forum) make the embarrassment so much more inviting.

And I do enjoy that version 

I'd re-read what I said a few times. Not sure how you could get that from what I said. Stretching my words into your predisposed notion does not make it true.

POFP: Power is still my ultimate goal.

Hoopla (paraphrased): What do you mean by power?

POFP: It's whatever I understand to be power at the moment.

So if power is whatever you understand it to be, it could be money one minute and influence the next. And then it could be cake. You could understand power to be cake and try to amass cake.

The assumption that I'm capable of amounting power to cake is hardly rational. There is a realm of infinite possibilities, I presume. But cake is not one.

My goal is to obtain power - Power, being a perspective-based idea. If the definition is variable, so is the method. Is that better?

Meh.  I've accumulated quite a bit of actual, real-world power over the last 6 years or so.  I move an enormous amount of money, have the power to "bind and loose" with respect to the careers of dozens of people, and can make or break companies based on my choice of vendors. 

After that, weird-ass metaphysical wankery is kinda limp.

If I am a sociopath, why would you want me to see the rest of the physical world as "up for grabs?" You see that my obsession with power is focused on the metaphysical, yet you insist that I take it out on the real world (and indirectly, the people in it). Are you even trying to be constructive (or helpfully destructive, depending on your views) at this point?

Well, if you're looking to amass power, becoming a solipsist and declaring total control over your own reality is probably the easiest way to get there.

IKR? 

So your goal is a word  that you've flexibly defined to mean anything you like at any given moment, making "power" synonymous with "my current goal".

So your current goal is your current goal. Smooth.

I'd re-read what I said a few times. Not sure how you could get that from what I said. Stretching my words into your predisposed notion does not make it true.