If this depression doesn’t lift…

There’s no real hypothetical statement here,—the thought ended there. I may have contracted mono—again. 

  Lately I’ve been reading The Kreutzer Sonata, and the Brothers Karamazov (along with too many ‘coffe-table reads’), but the ennui keeps me from really engaging anything with consistency. Do you have any poetry selections I’d enjoy? I’m mildly interested in Virginia Woolfe, Guillaume Apollinaire, T.S. Elliot, Sylvia Plath, Hesse, Carew, and Lermontov; that’s the general taste of the poets I’ve read so far. 

"There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self."
— Ernest Hemingway (via asterisk-)

(via tragicregimeofinfinitedebt)

Oh look, a near-perfect female who I find irresistible.

…Oh darn, she’s a Christian. 

like honestly if we follow each other i expect to be allowed to sleep on your floor whenever i’m in your city

(Source: kindymaling, via bookoflonging)

Are girlfriends supposed to show affection?

Or was I mislead and their meant to stand on the receiving end while their “baby’s” heart suppurates and pours out deluges of past misery and present loneliness? Maybe I’m just being silly, but I thought a relationship implied longing, not fucking greed. Nietszche, Goethe, and Jung are all crying in my head, “leave her! Find yourself!” But I’ve grown a new dependence; I’ve never been dependent on people, I’ve only hated them.. I don’t want to leave her, but I don’t want love be the reason for my loneliness, yet she’s only a child and doesn’t understand what it means to be human. FUCKFUCKFUCK FUCK FUCKFUCK FUCKC FUCK FUKC AHHHGRRGGG!!!!!!! FUUUUUUUUFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!! 

Our words are always misunderstood and I’m bound to be miserably alone, having “love” (phallic love) has only magnified my sense of utter loneliness and imbued my desolation with jealousy and dejection. I’m sorry for constantly showing my weaknesses, but I’m hoping my grievances will somehow get to God from here cause he’s never returned a prayer. 

"The wilderness is a place where men are either found or lost."

Alessandro Magnasco - Prayer of the Penitent Monks

The tension between their penitence of spirit and the surrounding darkness of the world is very engaging; Magnasco is one of my favorite painters, although he may not have the precise finesse of Jacques-Louis or Caravaggio, his mastery of drama and contrast compensates. 

Alessandro Magnasco - Prayer of the Penitent Monks

The tension between their penitence of spirit and the surrounding darkness of the world is very engaging; Magnasco is one of my favorite painters, although he may not have the precise finesse of Jacques-Louis or Caravaggio, his mastery of drama and contrast compensates. 

Family Devotion, Week thirty-six! (Keep Strong!)

I am most enthused to cordially welcome back our old, purportedly dead friend, the madman; he loathes all aspects of creation as before, and his only hope is tumult,—out of fire my spiteful disposition was tempered, and now it will discover misery’s finest companion: utterly desolate silence, implacable and enraging. Has death’s allure rekindled?—no, only the appetite to see all that is beautiful as equally shattered and dejected. Fuck God’s green earth, it has been cruel to all men: the starved, the oppressed, the warped and ugly, the devoid bourgeoisie,—all. Ignorance is not bliss, but knowledge among the fools reaps no greater harvest, only confused and tangled misery which they can never hope to transcend; curiosity lured me forward, and incompetence has left me stranded in my moral decadence. 

  Your voice is swallowing my soul; consume it, don’t piecemeal and elongate my terrible sadness, my moral shame, my stupid hope, and for the love of humanity,—don’t allow the time for my hatred to continually triumph over love; because once I must face that great disgust on my own, it burns away any shred of idealism left on my fragile frame. I am weak. I am stupid. I am a perennial misery. I live in longing, but my God is dead; he slipped slowly into the obscure and subjected my desire to forever be absurd and corrupted, because it always craves those things it wont allow. I am hateful. I want to know love, and wanted truth. Solomon misled me. I’m insane. I am seeking balance that is self-ascribed; there is no moderation, I crafted its semblance, but I placed it beyond capacity. I am an idiot,—an utter failure. I will die—no, live—alone, and no company will ever assuage my anguish because true company, how I was raised to conceive of it, does not exist; I’m a god-forsaken, hapless animal that will sink to the depths of a vicious river, sullen and silenced, blowing bubbles of somber remorse to the river’s surface, but Dante will pass me, as will Christ and human reason; I will drown for eternity, until that leads me to, well—

   I don’t actually blame God; it’s just awful knowing there’s no justified place for me to put blame, so I pretend I was deserted. Also, I don’t want to die,—in fact, I know that one day I’ll see the massive sky and think, “life isn’t so terrible after all.” And it will only be the setting sun that reminds me to love and understand. So maybe the madman is dead after all.. Although I’d love to destroy something again, especially my knuckles; but that’s what Jui Jitsu is for. Why can’t we be made like puzzle pieces that fit so neatly into our assorted positions, and then our sole task is to find a place to call home. 

somber-and-sonorous:

isayfever:

Perfection

Geovanni Ceretti: I just bought the album Declaration, and I’m really surprised; I took a gamble, the only previously purchased song being “Homesick,” this album feels like a tuscan vacation 

somber-and-sonorous:

isayfever:

Perfection

Geovanni Ceretti: I just bought the album Declaration, and I’m really surprised; I took a gamble, the only previously purchased song being “Homesick,” this album feels like a tuscan vacation 

“The Gambler” @adzt

“The distinction I made between inauthentic and authentic was between acting and being. Acting, meaning the consciousness of being-someone-else.” -adzt

That’s a belief I agree with, I thought you were hinting at a consistency, or integrity, of character; which you were, but only partially. Now I can fully agree with the auspice of that quote, and the inherent suspense between two states of consciousness - the “self” and the “self-as-other.” The truly respectable, some would say foolish, actors are the ones who devote themselves to the abstract idea of a character, then attempt to mediate as a manifest mockery of that abstraction; furthermore, in cases of lunacy, or schizophrenia, the bearing on the “truly authentic” does seems to disappear and leave the actor a mutt, stuck between a vision and the previously self-envisioned. Oh, and Heidegger runs along the same lines - believing death to be an intrinsic trait of the living, and therefore a necessary knowledge for authenticity, I’m not sure if coming to terms with an inevitable demise is a prerequisite for honesty, but I’d say it is an honest confession. 

 ”If a definition of a word especially resonates with how people actually feel they exist in the world (or, at least philosophers, the few that actually want to play this game), then it will rise to prominence. If not, then it will dissipate.”

I just felt like capturing that quote for personal reference. And I consider mass society to be a collection of “beasts” (putting it crudely) because I currently consider myself an atheistic materialist, and see mankind as an extension of natural selection into a more sophisticated (If I’m justified using that word) civilization; yet no matter how far we are from living in trees, or how far technology has progressed, I still see the human mind as primarily impulse driven, although we like to consider that we revolve on an axiom of rationale — fully conscious beings aware of the experience of being. The majority of memories, experiences, and actions (ect.) are formed and fulfilled subconsciously, just as it is with other “lesser” creatures. So when I say beasts, I don’t mean to imply we are cruel, unsympathetic, or any quality typically attributed to beastly creatures — just that we too are animals, even our conscious mind, a result of subconscious activity. 

(Source: somber-and-sonorous)

The Gravestone: Identity & Circumstance

This is a sketch, not an edited writing; I wrote it after visiting my father’s gravesite, where awful thoughts haunted me; which, being personal and insecure as they are, are kept away from the writing.    

   While they drove up, he saw a small group of solemn faces departing from the rows of modestly crowned tombstones; he noticed that the constant countenance between each mourner was remarkably parallel to the cast of the stone edifices - sober, aged, and progressively eroding, yet somehow synthetic or blatantly manmade. The car slowly passed these downcast denizens, drawing his attention towards the place where he would eventually lie, motionless—next to his father, contained by six feet of awkwardly hostile dirt and topsoil: humanity’s last farewell. Even with the regularity of these family visits, he never had been quick to identify the exact location of his father’s grave, or at catching patterns in general; so he tailed closely behind his two siblings, enacting what he considered to be a morosely observant, yet reluctant visage. About ten feet ahead, encompassed by slightly trampled peale green grass, was a dying bouquet of pale flowers in a rusting bronze vase, under which the façade of a contemporary tombstone spoke of a stranger; a stranger even to the boy. He walked around the tomb to face the it directly, and suited his behavior to portray the proper image of a reminiscent spirit, and inevitably confronted thoughts of who this man was. His father did not walk out, was not reclusive, nor did he abuse his children—no, his body simply crippled under the weight of a savage cancer, caused by a foolish decision in his distant past. This man was a stranger because he had to leave at such an inopportune time, when the mind of a boy merely begins the process of understanding; so standing over this man’s grave drew no sorrow from the boy, just as the body’s descent drew no overflowing reaction, only pity. The principal emotion that he felt on this occasion was a misunderstood sympathy for his family, and a strange sense of vertigo by the sheer depth of random circumstance, which I’ll detail momentarily.

            His mother kneeled beside the grave, and according to necessary ritual, she delicately ran a cloth over the face of her beloved’s new home, dropping a tear over the thief that stole her love and dreams—death. Standing upright to assuage their mother’s anguish, his two brother’s reacted to the scene according to the chords it usually struck; one turned away gasping for breath, and the other swallowed the sorrow, allowing it to boil into a deeper anguish, thus convulsing his gentle face into a defenseless cringe. As for the boy, he stood with thoughts frothing over his melancholic mind, such as: how  could the removal of a single man spurn the suffering he now witnessed, and even further, how he was uniquely molded by that stranger’s disappearance so long ago. Attempting to retain his loose semblance of mourning, he again looked sadly at his mother, now noticing her intrinsic connection to this present circumstance, and that’s when a vision apprehended his psychic grasp on the situation. Here is where he lost balance by the sheer depth of a ghastly vision, as if he were standing weightless on a towering mountain, about to fall off into oblivion—his body helplessly succumbing to the gravity of that reverie: this is what nearly drowned him.

            The stock of memories that sketched a mental composite of his history slowly began to materialize into a linear timeline, and each stage was isolated and deconstructed—a perpetual evasion from what he felt was his reality. The terrific scene threw him back in time, taking his hollow memories then instantaneously tracing their effects on his life and character, carrying him in a memoir of mental oscillation—when his father was there, and later when he was there no longer. Such as the countless instances of father-son bonding time, under a luminous sky of deep shades of blue, playing catch with a father and coach set even deeper in his devotion to his son; however, the nostalgia was mercurial and swift to turn bitter, recalling instances when the boy was left utterly alone at meet-the-parents at school, wishing he could smell the masculine scent of his father’s cologne, or the feeling of his brambly beard kissing him goodnight once more; but these images began to fade, each individually. But the submerged horrors of seeing his father prostrate and crippled with sickness began to surface from a vacuous hole in his heart; and the boy stood in this reverie, himself crippled by an innate longing to stop this insufferable turn of time to secure at least one concrete memory with his dying father, the stranger. However, he was soon alone in a field of white—did this mean purity, or absurd blankness? He looked about to realize that the deconstruction had ended, and in its place a new caricature was being drawn; but take that back, it was not new—it was the previous scene, the hospital room. He held his breath, ready to collapse at the stress, but the color progressively yielded a new sight; not of that long-removed stranger, but of his mother: both pale and weak from the chemo. His history was becoming fabricated, now with a new victim to die estranged, his mother; but no, she was his foundation, and he crawled to secure her, but time became (as Vonnegut said) unstuck—propelling him onward.

            The roles were now simply reverse, but the effects were anything but simple; although he was a constant onlooker, the subject that he watched evolve slowly diverged from his constant character—with vague resemblance to what he had considered his necessary essence. Only an inverted reflection remained to tie our nameless boy, who I’ll call Jonathan, to the supposedly identical subject he looked over. The independence he had drawn from years of solitude and refuge from his mother began to dissipate into a stubborn reliance upon the new family fountainhead, his father; yet one constant remained as a factor of contention, his callousness; he still felt little empathy or love. All the frames of a previously assumed genealogy were relived through a new vessel, his counterpart, and the outcome was the further result from consistent identity which could have been imagined. This cascade of projected circumstance finally ended with an almost identical scene in an isolated graveyard under a tempered Fall sky, with three figures each assuming similar roles as Jonathan recollected from earlier that day. Yet with distinct and striking differences: his father was worn, and the signs of a turbulent soul rippled down his aging face, and standing above was a man, apparently a brother of his, with a countenance burrowed with anger and onset mischief. Only his father and a man slightly resembling his brother remained, notwithstanding the absence of his second sibling. Finally he turned to see the figure with a back turned towards him; wandering around this faceless individual as he had with his father’s grave before, and discovered a terror that shook him to the core of his self-identity; the body, which in actually was his “reflected” self, was indeed faceless, a blur. No features to be mentioned, only a mirage of loosely loyal attributes, but there was no clarity or transparency in his eyes—only an empty portrait of absurdity. Yet Jonathan could feel the pressure of encountering a wholly foreign object, this was not himself, it was a gimmick, something to mock his conception of personality and the elusive self. He fell before this statue of indifference, pierced by the consuming confusion and hysteria of feeling isolated and unnaturally produced; and for the first time, he mourned over the tenderness of his fluctuating being, seeking a collective hearth to give him refuge and solace when he began to fall apart. And no, this was not the frustration and anger which he had always felt; it was sorrow, estrangement, and longing erupting his volatile character into a cursed wail, and afterwards, when he could no longer scream—he collapsed.

            But this illusion began to tear and burn away like pieces of paper, each rattling off multi-colored streams of ink, but he was not carried away – how could he? A cool breeze caressed the moist swath that his tears had left behind, and a piquant sunlight warmed the curve of his upturned back. Looking up he saw his love, his reality; and he felt the overwhelming sense of necessity that peacefully rested under six feet of dirt—that was his father, a dear figure. But his family looked down at him with confused and dazzled stared, at the boy which had always stood nameless, now paralyzed on all fours; they each gently pressed a hand to his trembling shoulders, he was in pieces, but not torn apart. Separated from his reverie and discomforting vertigo, he stood to his feet with intent - to love the life he was given, necessary to the man he was to become, and he finally embraced the disheveled reality as his home, his hearth - peace when he was in pieces. 

(Source: somber-and-sonorous)

@ Adzt: Evolution of Consciousness

I’m not going to expound on the entirety of my  personal theory, which is drawn mostly from common sources (Dennett, Hofstadter, and their cited neuroscientists), but I think one suggestion may improve the validity of your beliefs. Language is a means of communication, first with oneself, then with other beings apart of networked society; but in order for language to be of practical use, it must have an object to reference to. Yet in order for a primitive organism to make a semantic reference, it must first be aware that the object is there - this is done by forming an internal model. We have phenomenological models of every object we encounter (keyboard, pet, chair), and apart of this model is the distinction between subject and object, and thus a sense of “selfishness” is acquired. Although organisms function from the basic premise of self-propagation, that doesn’t deduce the conclusion that they are aware of their presence in their activity (for example, the juvenile sea squirt uses its brain to merely find a rock or coral to attach itself to, then consumes its own brain - the “self” is non-existent, only theoretically practical and pragmatically useful in exercise), they merely separate their functions and predict useful sources in the external world to further their survival. 

So, if you’re still following, language is a secondary adaptation - it came after the fact of cognition. We had already a simplistic model of the external world, and used language to communicate necessary information to the pack. Finally, onto Hofstadter’s strange loops: when the subject organism turns the model formation unto itself, an “infinite feedback loop” results, where the model maker has a general image of itself in its own mind. I hope you notice that I’m merely taking your evolution a step back, both biologically and metaphysically; that which is referred to came first, and also the capacity to form such models evolved before the rise of linguistics, although communication was a slight step ahead of full self-consciousness, as it is made apparent by semi-sentient creatures (i.e. dolphins, elephants, monkeys). Hopefully I explained this all well, I should have thought of my writing before I began, but I just wanted to share that caricature of a thought.

     Model > Communication > Model of Maker > ∞ 

I think you would benefit greatly from Explaining Consciousness, but I still have to read Strange Loops and The Mind’s I. Always enjoyable reading your work in writing. 

 Conclusion: Consciousness is not, as Sartre believed, necessarily self-awareness, but the possession of an internal model, and possibly the ability to interact with that model. Self-Consciousness is derived from a turn of the camera lens onto the subject, and language was likely apart of this conclusion, since it (like action) is self-referential while being an outward act. 

(Source: somber-and-sonorous)

AttorneyAtMetaphysicalLaw: What do you think of the concept of prescriptivity in ethics? Is it possible for it to exist? What conditions must be met for its existence?

    I’ve had a theory on prescriptive ethics derived from my past endeavors into natural theology for a few years now, and it’s one of the primary reasons I find most systems of objective ethics to be defunct and ironically nonsensical. 

“Subjective”/Societal Ethics:

   I’ll explain with a chronology of inquiry: we begin by stating that the atheist is incapable of leading a morally sufficient life because there is no ground for them to build their ethos (Greek word for “stable,” where we get ‘ethics’), and if they did construct an ethical theory, it would be subjective and according to the mandates of society.

  Solitary Systems of Ethic:

 Apply that arbitrary-ness, or “groundlessness” to an ultimate standard of ethics; how does this standard exist? Are its mandates necessary by the nature of the physical universe, or is it an ethereal tablet written on the sky, and if so - how does that demand action from denizens in the world? This system cannot muster up a pith, or substance, merely by its existence, it would be a worthless description how the universe is, which falls to Hume’s “Is-Ought Gap.” Hopefully you see the point I’m driving, which is that such a system cannot be prescriptive as a separate entity, it requires something more to actually prescribe morality. Here’s where natural theology comes to the rescue:

  Euthryphro Dilemma: 

 Divine Command Theory (“Do it because God says so”) has always suffered from the Euthryphro dilemma, which asks, “Do the gods say such a thing is pious because it is that way initially, or is such a thing pious because the gods say it is so?” If it is the latter, then morality suffers the problem I presented at the auspice of this response, which was about humans creating their own system of morality, but now it skips a step and it is a divine creator forming an arbitrary set of morals to guide his subordinates. However, if it is the former then there is somehow a transcendent code which does not require God to oversee its existence, which renders God morally superfluous; besides the argument I presented earlier against the existence of solitary systems of objective ethics. So a new theory has been adopted (which, if I were a Christian, I’d subscribe to) as a combination of both called the Natural Ethical Theory. 

  Natural Ethical Theory:

  This states that goodness is a necessary attribute of God, and it is neither commanded into being, nor is it pre-existent; it is simultaneous to God’s own existence. (I believe evil, under this theory, would be the mere absence of goodness, and therefore a disconnect in proper relations of objects) So goodness is the proper relationship between distinct objects, either conscious beings or inanimate objects (natural evil); so if humans were made to be loving, disciplined, and after the image of God, then acting outside of that moral relationship is ‘evil’ (sin is evil, but evil is not necessarily sin). Also, you could take a well-constructed ax, which was made for the purpose of felling trees, but use it in an improper manner - slashing up teenagers on a lake retreat.

So why do we act in accordance to God’s nature? Because according to theistic metaphysics, ultimate reality is God’s nature - without the physical universe, he would still be transcendentally existent. Therefore  his nature is the overarching nature of all that exists, and to be outside of that truth of reality is arbitrary; for example, if I decided that being rebellious was a worthwhile dedication, there is absolutely no grounding for that presumption; however, living as a loving person is “connected” to the nature of reality because God is himself loving.  

   Transcendent Ethos:

  So in the end, in order for a suitable ethical system to exist, there need be some sentient being that transcends the moral indifference of the physical universe, but this brings me to a final conclusion: that being does not have to be God, and Christians rarely recognize this. Their God is as “baseless” as we would be without him; does he have to recognize his nature as “Good?” —or does he merely think, “that is the way I am, I cannot change what is.” At some point we must satisfy ourselves with how everything is vain once pressed to the precipice of itsteos, and content ourselves with a system only partially grounded. So in conclusion, I believe some transcendent being is necessary in order for prescriptive morality to have any consequence, or else it is merely descriptive - there has to be repercussions and some standard to defy. 

 By the way: I’m about to publish a recent theory I’ve developed on whether God could have any ultimate purpose for himself, which investigate the trinity. 

1 of 7
Themed by: Hunson