the archives

dusted off in read-only


posts by Sokar Auditor | joined 11 Mar 2006 | 119

Any suggesations posted 11 Mar 2006, 15:03 in Literature DiscussionAny suggesations by Sokar, Auditor

First off I would like to say hello, I know I should be doing so in the other thread, but I suppose if there is no bio, there is no need to create a thread. I am not so much of a fantasy fan, but the Prince of Nothing (the first two books, the third one is not out here yet) has been something exceptional. To be honest, I have never read any fiction going such deep into the human psychie. I need some suggestions on fiction which are pretty much like The Prince of Nothing, there are none I know of, especially as I have never been a fan of fantasy. I have tried the Lord of the Rings and some similar books, but they do not interest me in the same way. So for those who do have a broad knowledge of books, could someone suggest something for me to read? Maybe by knowing what interests me you will have a better judgment: I am very much interested in Human thoughts, the "roots of thought" (in the first of the books) has made me ponder for a couple of weeks. Philosophy is one of my late passions, yet not one of contsruction, such as Plato or Marx, but those on "analysis" of man, Foucault, Nietzsche, and Gurdjieff, which I read only briefly.. Maybe I should have made a short bio, but still.. Someone any ideas of what fiction I should get my hands on to? view post

posted 11 Mar 2006, 15:03 in Philosophy DiscussionWhat philosopher suits you most? by Sokar, Auditor

An odd list indeed, then again I suppose you just mention philosophers you are aquainted with. From the list I would choose Schoppenhaur, though truely, how can Kant surpass Hegel? view post

posted 11 Mar 2006, 16:03 in Philosophy DiscussionIs Education the Magic Bullet? by Sokar, Auditor

I just schemed through long posts given, so I cannot say much on the contents of arguments given so far. It is, however, always interesting to point out that culture, in my view and that of some scholars I can't name (I never really care who writes, more of what is written) is a mere invention. In fact it is an invention from the West, which in return has ignited the further acceptance of the word. Culture is nothing more than value of traditions, fear of unaccustomed. The admired cultures of the past, such as the Ancient Greek for instance, did not even know what culture was, they did not have a term for such. They did not perceive themselves as being a culture. It is thus wrong, in my view, to separate culture from traditional value, it makes, in fact, no sense doing so. As it goes for education as a solution, I would agree. Though I do not see it as an ultime solution. There will only be a higher limit of hatered. To bring up an example: Soviet Union. During its existance there was no differentiation of "culture" between the states, as is opposite at this time. The Muslims of Azerbaijan were in no way different, nor did they feel different from Orthodox of Russia. True, religion played a very limited role, nontheless, the differentian was only on their practice of tradition, without any of them being superiour to the other. As we see now, there is a strong change in the ex-Soviet states, religion has become the division and personally I think this results from a change in education. A more vivid example: Nazi Germany. The education of superiourity had brought the hatred, whereas now, the European States limit their hatred through education. view post

posted 12 Mar 2006, 13:03 in Literature DiscussionAny suggesations by Sokar, Auditor

Thanks a lot.. I would appreciate more suggestions, though for now I have my hands full with these... view post

posted 12 Mar 2006, 13:03 in Philosophy DiscussionCritique this phrase by Sokar, Auditor

I would say that the statement is fully correct, however, taking Fantasy in its broadest possible meaning. Fantasy is not merely a story telling, for me it is the myths of the past, the Gods, the Ancestors and whoever else you have from the surreal world. After all it is these that have ignited the fantasy of today. By including these types of fantasy, I would say that fantasy can indeed be, and has been, a medium of desires and fears. This does not, however, mean that proletariat is the only one using this medium, I would even say that it is the bourgeois, until recently, that has used the medium. Fantasy has been, in my opinion, the law, which in whatever society, is created for the sole protection of the bourgeois first, and only after as the protection of the mass. This is a different descussion though. To the other point stated out, I would not agree that there has been a blur between the bourgeois and the proletariat, I would call it a shift, but only in economic perspective. view post

posted 12 Mar 2006, 14:03 in Philosophy DiscussionTruth, Lies by Sokar, Auditor

Interesting to see a connection between truth and morality of this Dr Stokman.. What one conceives as truth must go hand in hand with his moral conceptions. Thus, as morality has no definite value, the same can be said of truth. What is interesting to me is that truth and lie are seen as opposite of each other, which I would not agree on. Truth is not necessarily the opposite of lie, especially in connection with both morality and the perception of majority. There is no moral lie and there is no conception of majory in lies. This, in return, shows that lies do have a definite value, probably as lies are more personal, they become a personal burden. This reminds of the passage from The Darkness That Come Before. I don't have the book at hand, but it shows the difference between being deceived and being ignorant. Being the slave of one and being to slave to the world. And finally the first, being deceived, having a higher impact on the individual, then the second. view post

Drugs posted 12 Mar 2006, 15:03 in Philosophy DiscussionDrugs by Sokar, Auditor

After reading the descussion on autistic people, I could not but think of drugs, especially of Van Gogh who is told to have been drinking two bottles of absint every day. What I mean by drugs are only those that change ones perception, indeed also alcohol. I don't want the descussion to lead to "philosophy of excess", neither to the justful, or unjustful, prohibition. I just want to know what people think of drug usage and the perception one gets. Personally, I have used quiet some drugs, in fact I still do, living in the Netherlands is very supporting in getting good quality :D. Through these, I have found myself constantly, of course depending on the drug, being intrigued, to say the least, of human perception of the world. I have solved many problems while being on drugs, though mostly I have forgotten the solution after the effects were over, again depending on drug. I suppose what I want to say is that one stops thinking in a structural formation of the world, while being on drugs, and personally I see it as a wonderful thing. Comments would especially be appreciated from those who have these "inefficiencies".... view post

posted 16 Mar 2006, 11:03 in Philosophy DiscussionDrugs by Sokar, Auditor

Randal -> I am of the opinion that drugs should be used to solve problems. In fact, I would most probably have the same judgemental opinion of a politician using drugs to solve a crisis as anybody else. My point was that drugs give a "new", maybe better to say different, perspective. And through this perspective you can come to other conclusions, which are, to me personally, much mroe simplified. It is true that I don't remember most of the solutions I have had, and ideed most of them make little sense once back in "reality", but when I read some things I have written down while on drugs, I am shocked at how simple some things are, and how much I have thought in directions that are not relevant. Again, maybe it's a personal thing. Gierra -> Just a question, as I used to draw (just made scetches with a pen or pencil) a long time ago. I have never drawn while on drugs, so I would not know if I would be creative. What strikes me is that your brain is overload while sober. For me it is the other way around. While on drugs I cannot stop thinking, in fact I don't want to stop thinking. So my question is, how is that nuisence? I would imagine it to be a gift, to let your mind wonder off in any direction on the painting. Or does it really depend on the art itself, maybe concentration? view post

posted 16 Mar 2006, 11:03 in Philosophy Discussionignorance or enlightenment ? by Sokar, Auditor

We have a saying that goes something like this: Bless the fool and the smile on his face! view post

posted 16 Mar 2006, 11:03 in Philosophy DiscussionNuclear Power by Sokar, Auditor

[quote:2mu1whhs]the unexpected powerful contained explosion, the Z machine released about 80 times the world's entire electrical power usage for a brief fraction of a second[/quote:2mu1whhs] Well there goes the nuclear power being the most efficient, or future of energy supply, arguments. Next to good literature I read, I also read some crap like Dan Brown and his Bernini Mystery (I think the English title is Angels and Demons, though it makes much less sense). Here in his facts he states the anti-matter, which, he says, has no pollution and has a 100% !!! percent efficiency, compared to nuclear power that has 1.5%. I don't know much about physics and his explanation about it are really vague, and even wrong probably, but if such is possible, I would say we will be having no trouble with enenrgy soon enough... Oh and it also has a high risk, but these are usually irrelevant. view post

posted 20 Mar 2006, 16:03 in Philosophy DiscussionCan we really tell history "as it was"? by Sokar, Auditor

My father once told my mother: "We do not write history, we undergo it!" (long story to why he said this) By accepting this, the perception of man in and of history is irrelevant, and so is the relation of truth in history. Morality, or mentality as you call it, has little to do with time, they do not evolve, in the sense as becoming higher of value, they merely change in an insignificant manner into either direction. From this, I would say that history is nothing more than life itself. Through looking into history, one persumes so much has been done and said, that his being is incompareble. Yet, one forgets that all things in history are not written by those actors, merely interpereted by the historian as a groundbreaking action. To make it simpler, here is Nietzsche: "There are no facts, only interpretations!" Aldorian -> Could you maybe elaborate on your "theory" of how history should be? view post

posted 01 Apr 2006, 17:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionPrince of Nothing Film by Sokar, Auditor

[quote="Da-krul":un71ecy0]My pick is none, becasue everyone would fuck it up. It's better left too just books.[/quote:un71ecy0] I totally agree.. I wouldn't know of any book that has become a better movie. Moreover, the Prince of Nothing would not fit the general public, and most of it's brilliance would be lost! view post

posted 01 Apr 2006, 19:04 in Literature DiscussionDan Brown by Sokar, Auditor

I can't believe that someone reading the Prince of Nothing could actually enjoy Dan Brown.. Surely, there is controversy to the Church's actions, but he justified it. I remember some passage: "Langdon knew that the modern Church would never do something like that any more" describing hiring assassins to kill somebody. I read it, and forgot it. He makes little sense in his storylines: the typical American Dream movie. There is always a bimbo and it turns out perfect. Another fragment: His life is in danger, he is asked by Sofie to run with her and he answers: "Only if you call me Robert!", not Mr. Langdon. ??? She finds her family and they drink soup. Where does he get all of this CRAP! There is a lawsuit against him for the Da Vinci Code, if I understood correctly, it is because he stole the story of the sacred feminine. So his book is useless, in fact it is not even his book. The only thing these books are good for is wasting your time... Ok I admit that the symbology part interested me as well, but that is really that. If you read one of his books, you can forget the others (well I read the two mentioned, but I suppose that the others will have nothing more to add) view post

posted 01 Apr 2006, 19:04 in Literature DiscussionDan Brown by Sokar, Auditor

Sorry, I see I have been taken over by rage when reading the first post, without actually readign the responses, there is the same conclusion anyway... view post

posted 07 Apr 2006, 11:04 in Philosophy DiscussionChe Guevara by Sokar, Auditor

For me he was a hero.... view post

posted 07 Apr 2006, 12:04 in Philosophy DiscussionTranshumanism and Genetic Engineering by Sokar, Auditor

The problem with the shift this debate has taken is that it limits itself to the Western world. First off, capitalism in the West is different from that elsewhere. In fact, capitalism in US is different from the one in EU. And we also have the international institutions which again operate differently. Just as example you gave, in EU part-time workers do get benefits, they are as much a worker as full-time workers (at least according to EU Law, I suppose in practice there will be some differences, but they would still get the benefits!) Second, genetic modification elsewhere in the world will not bring about (or increase) this gap between the rich and poor. I believe there it will in fact decrease. The simple reason here is the advancement of technology, creation of new methods of production etc. Take the example of currently used GMO's, they have increased the food production in sofar as to be able to provide the whole world population. I don't remember the exact situation, but in some African (or South American) country after the intoduction of GMO's over 2 million people were saved. Of course, the capitalist pigs made the GM crops in such a way as to be grown only once. Yet, I beleive that this barrier will soon end and once production is not the main purpose, thus survival itself has been overcome, genetic modification of humans will not occur. The "culture" (though I have this term, I don't know a better one at this moment) will not allow them to change there bodies, no matter what the benefit. It is thus, for me at least, irrelevant whether the West will to the point (if ever) of modifying themselves genetically. That will not change anything in global terms. view post

posted 07 Apr 2006, 14:04 in Philosophy DiscussionChe Guevara by Sokar, Auditor

Name one bad thing he did? view post

posted 07 Apr 2006, 15:04 in Philosophy DiscussionTranshumanism and Genetic Engineering by Sokar, Auditor

Interesting point you make.. not for profit but safety?? I would doubt that, but it could be true... Something I personally think. As it goes for EU, it does allow 17 GMO's that are used in foodstuffs, but it does not allow the actual growth of genetically modified crops. Finally, I don't think the term cheap (technology) fits to your meaning, at least if I got it correctly. The reason for technology to remain in the West, is dominance, and while dominant, there is no need for further spreading this technological advancement. See it from AIDS perspective.. There was no care about the virus until it spread itself to the West, the reason for concern about the virus is not the poor Africans, but the ignorant Westerners, thus care about AIDS is evident only in preservation of the self dominance. (though this in a way, of course, proves me wrong in the initial point) view post

posted 07 Apr 2006, 15:04 in Off-Topic Discussionhobbies? by Sokar, Auditor

I love spending time with my only loyal friend Glen Moray, or in better times Chivas Regal, in complete solitude.. On occasion my other two friends, Foucault and Nietzsche, pop up. I suppose true hobby is addictive... Besides that I play guitar (rock, not metal) Recently I started running again, just to keep in shape. view post

posted 07 Apr 2006, 15:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionPoll: What would you be in prince of nothing? by Sokar, Auditor

Nobody wondered what it would be like to be Mog-Pharau? I did... In the first book I like Achamina, the mandate schoolman was something I would identify with. In the second one, it schifted to Scylvendi as well. I don't have the third one yet, but hopefully I will get it soon... PS Scylvendi are the animals within the human form.. they are us without the masks... At least this is how I perceived them, don't know if the author was thinking of the same when he wrote the book. view post

posted 07 Apr 2006, 15:04 in Off-Topic Discussionwhat do you do by Sokar, Auditor

I just study, I don't have any plans of work in the near future, but I do have plans for after... I wouldn't mind to teach as well though, seems like the best job one can have, with all the holidays you get and you have time to actually continue your "study" after (knowledge is just another passion worth the sacrifice of life) view post

posted 09 Apr 2006, 14:04 in Philosophy DiscussionChe Guevara by Sokar, Auditor

I am not going to descuss communism with people who don't understand the basic idea of it. But just to critique your obscure phrases in a simple way, why don't you read the context he wrote/said that in and then tell me if what he wrote/said was actually wrong. Every sentence can be critised outside of its context. view post

posted 09 Apr 2006, 14:04 in Philosophy DiscussionTranshumanism and Genetic Engineering by Sokar, Auditor

Since I have nothing to add to the comments you make (as I understood them from the international point of view, but in a way they do apply to both) I'll just say what my brother keeps on saying when it comes to dangers of technology: Do you think the inventors of a car would actually introduce it to the market if they knew how many people die from a car accident each year? view post

posted 10 Apr 2006, 16:04 in Philosophy DiscussionChe Guevara by Sokar, Auditor

Entropic_existence -> "Unfortunately human nature has prevented true marxism from ever being achieved as a government style." I would never accept human nature as an argument, human nature is created through history. Greed and jelousy (which you are probably referring to) cannot be justified as human nature, most closely a common human trait, yet not one that is absolute and cannot be overcome through change of society. Of course this change should remain consistent. "Some places have gotten close but they've never passed the dictator stage." It is impossible to overcome a form of dictatorial stage in any form of society. The international relations of states will simply not allow this to happen. If you look into a history of US you will find plenty of dictatorial rules applied on the population, keeping in mind the international relations. "I don't think it is likely to work anytime soon, not on large scales anyway." Granted, marxism cannot work on a large scale, but I dare you to find any form of government that can. We don't have democracy, it's the same lie. The mere fact of existence of a bureaucracy is enough proof for this. Peter -> For somebody who studied marxism, you sure have a strange form of criticism. You should remember the endless struggle of classes, this is an ongoing process (actually one of the few critiques that can be applied to Marxism in general). The comments on Che hold no stance, not on Marxism nor on himself. Besides, the context you should see Che in, in my initial comment, was not the speech. For one who studies sociology you should have understood what speeches are and what their essence is. Even so, your interpretation of his speech is not correct. He does advocate war, but he sees it as the only means of following the course that is desired by the state and by the population, instead that one desired by the US. Whether he is right or wrong is not for you, nor me for that matter, to decide, but for the Cuban people, those who actually are dependant on the course taken. I would agree with you on one minor point, he does advocate war by populist means, no doubt that he was one. But in order to succeed in this there is a need for sentiment from the people, and if this sentiment exists, then you cannot "morally condemn" him. This only proves that people share his view, even if he is a populist. I cannot find a single word in his speech where he invents an evil in order to justify the wars (which actually US did). The fact that you are a Liberal and Kantian does not mean anything, it creates a dialogue between us two. I never rejected the fact that a dialogue is not possible, I simply noted that your arguments are obscure and my non-willingness to participate in a discussion with people who are brainwashed with the idea of democracy (just as much as those with any "faith" they have, without any reasoning). view post

posted 10 Apr 2006, 16:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionPoll: What would you be in prince of nothing? by Sokar, Auditor

Thus spoke Zarathustra. I hope you are not simply using the name in vain. But maybe you can also give me some titles, not just the authors. It seems as if the books are academic and not fiction, though it doesn't matter to me.. view post

posted 10 Apr 2006, 19:04 in Philosophy DiscussionChe Guevara by Sokar, Auditor

Let me start with the elitist rule, for bureaucracy is not a rule from the elected elite. Just look the meaning of the word on or something. Bureaucracy by definition means it is not elected. But more importantly, where do you get the idea that we are engaged in decision-making process? More interestingly, should we? I want to refrain from Marxism, not because iit would be difficult to communicate through the message board, but because it will not bring us anywhere. Having said this, there is a comment on the notion "people" and the involvement of the Constitution to this. You are right of saying that the long-lasting war was probably not the will of the "people", but this does not mean that at that stage, where the Cuban people were actually fed up by the US supported dictator, there was no support in resistance and indeed violence towards the ruling crass. That from the whole population, some were indifferent towards the revolution, does not mean that the revolution was unjustified. To bring the Constitution to it, how does one arrive to have a Constitution and why are there endless amendments (to constitutions in general). What if Y never wanted a constitution in the first place, why does his birth become a burden to the society? Why does Y in this situation have to addapt himself to the traditional ruling system? Moreover, what are fundemental rights? Are they not just as well similar to constitution that limits one's action and even thought? I do not call you brainwashed for the reason of lack of thought, I do call you that and the vast majority (including myself) brainwashed as our thoughts are not our own. Thougths are a reconstruction of some experience, be it physical mental or whatever else experience. Our research may change, shape or indeed strengthen our thoughts, but in no means they would be ours. Finally, it is irrelevant to see where arguments come from, the only relevance is what the argument is. Maybe in order to understand the argument there would be a use of knowledge from which angle, but there is no need for such, once the argument is clear (I know I am lacking this ability). view post

posted 11 Apr 2006, 09:04 in Philosophy DiscussionChe Guevara by Sokar, Auditor

Entropic_existence -> Generally we are of the same opinion, except n the human nature part and lack of explanation on dictatorial rule from my part. The mistake you made is saying that Marxism failed because the degree of "human nature" has not been overcome. But you fail to see (or just don't include) two reasons for this: 1. The world as a whole, international scene, thus also pressure from outside. It is arguable how much US influenced the Soviet Union in its course of history, but I would say that without the US, or generally any other international pressure, there would be no need for the leaders to fail their people. Of course the same is true for US, or any other 'superpower'. 2. And as mentioned the consistency. After 80 years of the SU existence, one cannot really change this "human nature", it would be practically impossible, especially if you keep in mind the hardships of the population due to the international scnene. By dictatorial rule I actually mean the manipulation. I am talking about the patriot act of the recent for example (though I heard it there are some things happening to chage that). But in general, in the US, there are many similar situation where the population has no say on the things mostly influencing them in the long-run, reason is usually national security. Again, not only US, but any 'superpower' in history has had the same action. This is the reason I say there is no democracy and that it is the same lie. This just as well explains how there is a need for dictator in the international scene. Peter -> I just remembered, "the majority must obey" part. My critique doesn't make much sense if we disagree on this major issue. view post

posted 11 Apr 2006, 09:04 in Philosophy Discussiontruth glistens by Sokar, Auditor

I wonder which of the three you belong to? view post

posted 11 Apr 2006, 09:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionIncreased amounts of Guests? by Sokar, Auditor

The site doesn't seem much slower to me, at least not really noticeble slower. view post

posted 11 Apr 2006, 09:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionPoll: What would you be in prince of nothing? by Sokar, Auditor

Thanks, I will have a look, once I have more time, the studies are killing me, maybe I should hang on internet less... view post

posted 13 Apr 2006, 11:04 in Philosophy DiscussionChe Guevara by Sokar, Auditor

Peter -> Some minor comments again.. First, I am not a Marxist, neither am I a nihilist. On bureaucracy, I am not against one, in fact I don't see how a large scale community can function without one. I just made a comment to say that bureaucracies are not essentially democratic (and to give you a perspective of my thought, I don't see why there is a necessity for a democratic rule, "it's the same lie") As it goes for the phrase participatory democracy (as EU is willing to have in the near fuure), the problem lies again (just as with bureaucracy) in the phrase itself. Democracy by definition should be participatory, to induce participatory on to it is unnecessary and it doesn't make much sense. With the justice part, I made a mistake, I didn't mean to use the word in that meaning. I agree that justice is limited to states and calling the revolution justifiable doesn't make much sense if looked at from this point. However, this would not mean that other factors can make a revolution justifiable in this sense. The same would go for the constitution, the strive for justified constitution would not make any sense if that constitution is just only by the definition of a state (but we already descussed this issue and simply have different views) The thing I do want to elaborate on, is the rational beings and the thoughts. Again I am not a Marxist, nor a nihilist and the reason for this descussion is Che Guevara whom I see as a hero instead of some type of Hitler. I am not saying that Marxism can avoid brainwashing (as in my view), to be honest I am not sure what can (maybe being raised as Maugli, but even then...) But the point here is that we do not own our thoughts. The argument that this idea (experience shaping our thoughts) is deterministic is not valid, as experiences occur and reoccur throughout history, but not throughout a lifetime. Every life is a new one and I don't see the "eternal recurrence" as an option (there are barriers in physics to this, though I am not sure if I fully understand them. The main point is that laws of physics are limited to earth, in case one of you knows I would appreciate that). I do accept that to a major extent that education in general helps us rationalise, though I guess that from the other persepective as you accept, the reasons for education are completely different. But the limit to this is that we accept that at one point we think that we are rational, but at certain moments of life (crises situations) this rationalised being acts through different means, and thus is not rational at all. It does not therefore "render us free", it merely pumps up the ego of striving for commonly accepted human feature which has never existed. Entropic_existence -> In a way you are right, at least I cannot think of an argument at this point to counter that Communism failed. I disagree somehow, but without an argument, my disagreement is void. I would agree with you not to touch the Capitalist issue, a different story, even if it is related. And as it goes for the praticipatory democracy, I already gave an answer to Peter. But I do have a question, how do you come to see authoritarian as different from dictatorial? I suppose it has to do with the word dictator, which is not so popular in democracies, and I could be wrong, but don't they mean the same thing? view post

posted 25 Apr 2006, 11:04 in Philosophy DiscussionCan we really tell history "as it was"? by Sokar, Auditor

Primal -> I am not really sure where you are going with this: [quote:19cf9c6p]I think we can approach an understanding of the mentality of the past by looking at the mentality of now. The world is not in the same stages of development. Parts of Asia, the Middle East, Africa still have herding, fishing, individual-agriculture that make up the majority of livelihood, not like the mass productions of more tech-advanced civilizations. Also, there are the factors of religion, culture, war, etc, needs, and wants.[/quote:19cf9c6p] How does this support the truth and history as being separate? Are you meaning to say that what there is, is the historical evidence for "progress" in socio-economic sense? Or are you simply illustrating the defferent opinions on how history is perceived, due to socio-economic differences? And of course the connection to truth of these.. The reason I ask, is because I don't agree.. I think... view post

posted 25 Apr 2006, 11:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionHow did you get your username? by Sokar, Auditor

I used to be interested in Egyptian mythology (used, cause I haven't done anything going that direction for a decade). At one point I stumbled on Sokar, the God whose purpose still is in question, there a couple of different meanings given to him, which were quite controversary, so I decided to get Sokar for the online community. Unfortunately with the coming of StarGate, a lot of people have interests in this name, and use it quite often, so I have to come up with extensions to preserve the old one. I will soon change it probably, to keep the uniqueness... Also, I somehow thought that Warrior-Poet was in the same line as Warrior-Prophet, I seem to be wrong. view post

posted 26 Apr 2006, 14:04 in Philosophy DiscussionCan we really tell history "as it was"? by Sokar, Auditor

I should reread posts then, I suppose.. The descussion was telling history is it was, so getting into mentality wasn't really the first thing I thought of. Though on this account I still wouldn't agree with that statement completely. I agree, that by looking at present we can actually (partially)understand the past. But in doing so, there is no need to see the difference between technological usage. The needs and wants have remained the same. One does not want that which he does not know exists. With this, I mean that our society, that of past and the less developed world, still primarily have the same drive for wants and needs. In this sense, the mentality has not changed, all the factors you name are still existing in our society, they seem more remote maybe, but I doubt they didn't seem so in the past. What I am saying here is that mentality is only evident in things that do not affect one's socio-economic needs. In other words, mentality is another psycological invention to analyse (abnormal) human behaviour in present day society, yet forgetting that all behaviour is simply human. What could be part of mentality is the way of tought, the difference in understanding and perceiving things throughout time, but the correct term for that would be episteme. But here I would agree with Alderion as in how far there will be an understanding. view post

posted 26 Apr 2006, 14:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionHow did you get your username? by Sokar, Auditor

[quote="Edge of Certainty":eeb6ngr1]hehe, tell us the Egyptians thought the universe was created.... :lol:[/quote:eeb6ngr1] Do you mean it isn't? :D view post

posted 02 May 2006, 10:05 in The Darkness That Comes BeforeYour favourite character? by Sokar, Auditor

I miss Cnaiur in there.. The human... view post

posted 02 May 2006, 11:05 in Off-Topic DiscussionHow did you get your username? by Sokar, Auditor

Actually that was quite interesting, I don't remember exactly, but it resembled a power game between the Gods, so each of the 'sects' had their own story of how the universe was created. I never heard of that being done by a dung beetle though. view post

posted 18 May 2006, 14:05 in Off-Topic Discussionwhat kind of hat would akka wear? by Sokar, Auditor

Akka doesn't look anything like that Mutisyahu character in my mind.. Now I am interested how you have made him look. Any chance for seeing that already? view post

posted 18 May 2006, 14:05 in Off-Topic Discussiondoes anybody know... by Sokar, Auditor

I have a solution for that bot: How many of you have actually clicked the pages? view post

posted 21 Jun 2006, 17:06 in Philosophy DiscussionModern Soldiers by Sokar, Auditor

Am I happy not to be American and be bothered by this (my apologies) non-sense! view post

posted 24 Jun 2006, 11:06 in Off-Topic DiscussionAny Webmasters out there? by Sokar, Auditor

I used to make websites, but I have not designed any for years.. Not sure if I can still use Photoshop even... view post

posted 26 Jun 2006, 18:06 in Off-Topic DiscussionGophers... by Sokar, Auditor

Who or what is Gopher? view post

posted 27 Jun 2006, 19:06 in Off-Topic DiscussionThe Hangover Whinge: Why oh Why? + A Misery Poll by Sokar, Auditor

Oh my.. alcohol! I rarely have a hangover (this comes from someone who really loves the bottle), the ones I do remember are when I was mixing everything with everything.. it didn't matter as long as you get wasted. For those who like that: mix vodka with beer 50-50. 1 glass and you are wasted after a max of 30 minutes. Fortunately after having introduced myself to some complicated texts (or maybe just coming to age) I only enjoy drinking for the taste of it, not the drinking of it. I like cognac (brady) and of course whiskey. But I must admit, getting drunk is the best drug.. well the best affordable one :D view post

posted 10 Jul 2006, 13:07 in Philosophy DiscussionDrugs by Sokar, Auditor

Actually Marijuana has a strong effect on short term memory.. Using it for a long time daily can affect your IQ as well.. but personally (and I am not a doctor) I think that has to do with lack of "training".. In other words, I don't think it is weed that decreases the IQ, but your personal lack of reading, thinking and whatever else. It is the same for older people, I think. It's not that they get stupid, but because they do not "train" their abilities as much as they did when they were younger, their IQ is lower. BTW I don't see IQ as a good indicator for one's intellect, but you get they point view post

posted 12 Jul 2006, 12:07 in Philosophy Discussionignorance or enlightenment ? by Sokar, Auditor

Do you actually choose to be ignorant or to be enlightened? I doubt it, the choice is probably made in the years where you have no idea what choice is. view post

posted 08 Aug 2006, 10:08 in Philosophy DiscussionDrugs by Sokar, Auditor

Usually their drug "abuse" kicks in after they become famous artists.. countless examples in music (Morrison, Hendrix, Page..hey I am a fan of good music :D).. I am not so much into fine arts, but pretty sure that it is the same there.. I would somewhat agree with Edge of Certainty here.. their personalities play a large role into the addiction, though I would add that personalities change due to their fame, wealth, place in the social ladder, etc... Drugs, after all, just as reading for me, is a way out of reality, getting beyond the created structures as fame, wealth, social ladder etc... Unfortunately, I wanted to hear personal experiences in detail, and the discussion got into what drug use is, why and how and when... view post

posted 08 Aug 2006, 10:08 in Philosophy DiscussionWar in Lebanon by Sokar, Auditor

First, since when do Yanks care for international community..? Second, Iran told Hezbollah to fight Israel to keep attention from its nuclear ambitions (I hate this word)..? Third, let them bomb each other..? Fourth, it is a necessity to kill kids, and destroy a necessary infrastructure, as long as we get that one Hezbollah..? Fifth, ignorance is a bliss, as long as the ignorant does not cross to wanne-be intellectual, supposedly understanding the situation... The only sensible thing is that Uganda soldier, though he has nothing to do with what is happening in Lebanon the last weeks... view post

posted 11 Aug 2006, 10:08 in Philosophy DiscussionWar in Lebanon by Sokar, Auditor

Harrol -> My understanding of politics goes beyond the statements I made..which should have been obvious... Hellscythe -> I am not from England, your point is completely ridiculous... Primal -> We all are pseudo-intellectuals here, if I ever find a real one, I'll let you know... But to respond to what you say: 1. The comment was made due to the war with Iraq, international community, democracy and human rights have been completely disregarded by the US (and still are).. I have never mentioned that a state follows the common good in the first place, or that it even should. The comment is a response to the previous comments of others (you should really read other posts, before you try to crack me down...) And if you are really interested, read [url=]this[/url:37nvg73q], quite insightful, even if I don't completely agree with him.. 2. Same thing, read the other posts... (oh..and cause damage to Israel? Do you have any idea at all..?) 3 & 4. There is much more to the US action during the WWII.. The "German question" has still not been solved, that is at least what some scholars believe. I am not going to go too deep into it, just look up the reasons why there is still a US army in Europe (Maerscheimer, if I spell it correctly) And your scenario is incomplete to the current situation, it doesn't make sense.. You disregard the socio-economic factor, the political one and the security issues completely.. Not to mention the histoty... 5. I never said that I actually understand the situation as a whole, if I would, my first post wouldn't be so cynical.. There are, however, people who try to analyse things with news they pick from CNN (or whatever else you have in the US). Just to show you the difference between CNN and BBC (again, I am not a Brit): CNN -> Israel's view - 70%, international view - 25%, Lebanon - 5% BBC -> Israel's view - 40%, international view - 40%, Lebanon - 20% Think of the reasons, they are quite interesting... edit: added a URL view post

Omar Khayyam (Warrior-Poet) posted 24 Aug 2006, 12:08 in Philosophy DiscussionOmar Khayyam (Warrior-Poet) by Sokar, Auditor

Is anybody else here familiar with Omar Khayyam except for Warrior-Poet since his signature has a verse of his..? I was thinking after reading the Ruba'iyyat that he was just an ordinary poet, not belonging in his time with verses about life..pretty much like Hafiz... After reading Khayyam's philosophical works, I started questioning the Ruba'iyyat, since in those works he comes out more religious, in fact praising God beyond praise itself.. So this is my question, since Khayyam is mostly known in Iran, he is defenately portrayed as one who would be an absolute follower of God.. But the Ruba'iyyat is in total contrast to this (in my opinion, though I have also read some works where the Ruba'iyyat is believed to be written in this riddled manner, yet still being a highly religous work).. What would you say..? For those who are not familiar..the Ruba'iyyat can be found online (just google).. And I would absolutely recommend it for those with even slight interest in poetry and philosophy... not sure about the philosophical treatise... view post

posted 31 Aug 2006, 10:08 in Interviews and ReviewsMy ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT Interview by Sokar, Auditor

See..this is special spam... It reminds you of old posts predating your own registration.. Reminds is not a correct word..but right now I don't really know a better one.. view post

posted 05 Sep 2006, 15:09 in Philosophy DiscussionOmar Khayyam (Warrior-Poet) by Sokar, Auditor

Khayyam was primarily a mathematician, though people mainly know him for his poetry now.. I take it that you have read the Ruba'iyyat..what is your view on this piece..? (I really wonder how the original work is, if the english translation is so brilliant) view post

posted 12 Sep 2006, 12:09 in Philosophy DiscussionOmar Khayyam (Warrior-Poet) by Sokar, Auditor

Mine would be these: A Book of Verses underneath the Bough, A Jug of Wine, a Loaf of Bread--and Thou Beside me singing in the Wilderness-- Oh, Wilderness were Paradise enow! Ah, my Belov'ed fill the Cup that clears To-day Past Regrets and Future Fears: To-morrow!--Why, To-morrow I may be Myself with Yesterday's Sev'n Thousand Years. Ah, make the most of what we yet may spend, Before we too into the Dust descend; Dust into Dust, and under Dust to lie Sans Wine, sans Song, sans Singer, and--sans End! There was the Door to which I found no Key; There was the Veil through which I might not see: Some little talk awhile of Me and Thee There was--and then no more of Thee and Me. ... Then of the Thee in Me works behind The Veil, I lifted up my hands to find A Lamp amid the Darkness; and I heard, As from Without--"The Me Within Thee Blind!" ... I like this whole part, where he continues with "wine and lips" but that's enough for now.. view post

"Have you ever met someone who is smarter than you?&quo posted 12 Sep 2006, 12:09 in Philosophy Discussion"Have you ever met someone who is smarter than you?&quo by Sokar, Auditor

Ok..I have been thinking about this quesiton for a while and this question is so ingenious in its content that there is no "true" answer for it..yet it seems so simple: "Have you ever met someone who is smarter than you?" It was asked by my proffessor to our group of 20 students.. At first the answer seems simple, either yes or no (yes in my case). I did, however, realise that no one else answered with "yes"..and the question was posed with an expectation of a "no". I further thought about the human psyche..seeing that humans are in fact irrational as well as ego-centric, it seems rather logical to expect a "no"... So, I wonder what you guys would have said to this.. view post

posted 14 Sep 2006, 14:09 in Philosophy Discussion"Have you ever met someone who is smarter than you?&quo by Sokar, Auditor

Despite intelligence having different variants and measures, I think the question relates to our personalities..It reminds me of this phrase of Nietzsche (I think): "They don't understand us, they only praise or judge us." (he was referring to philosophers of course, but I think it can be part of the human trait in general) Keeping this in mind, it is difficult to find one who can understand you quite completely, and if you don't (which is usually the case) you cannot see the other as smarter than you. By understanding completely, btw, I mean mainly emotionally, though there is usually a need for a certain level of intelligence in other fields, be it philosophy or mathematics. view post

posted 17 Sep 2006, 00:09 in Philosophy DiscussionOmar Khayyam (Warrior-Poet) by Sokar, Auditor

I think you got the correct copy.. the reason it still rhymes is the great translating work done by Fritzgerald.. though I think his translation was later refined... Anyway, here is an internet link towards the full text online, just in case: the page has loads of other classical works, though it it doesn't really work well anymore... view post

posted 09 Oct 2006, 13:10 in Philosophy DiscussionOmar Khayyam (Warrior-Poet) by Sokar, Auditor

Are you by any chance an iranian..? And how would you see Khayyam's Rubayyat? I mean to say, would you agree to it being a nihilist work, or a riddled religious one? view post

posted 09 Oct 2006, 13:10 in Philosophy DiscussionInfinity, destiny and The Prince Of Nothing's philosophy by Sokar, Auditor

I don't want to read the whole thread, as there are some spoilers in it!, and I still do not have the 3rd part of the PoN. But to come to your first question Schoolman: "If everything that comes before determines what comes after then the universe is controlled by cause and effect. And so all things are predestined." No, this is merely the Freudian belief that our past determines us. Hobsbawm, though a historian in contrast, says that it is us who create history, not history that creates us. Combining history and psychology is especially interesting, but it proves only that it is the present that creates the past, or at least more so than the past creating the present. For example, Hitler's (and I am sorry for bringing him up) actions in the WWII have now been explained by his traumatised childhood, his experience in WWI, his failure as an artist etc. For me these only seem current explanations for WWII, thus we want to believe that his decisions were so because of his trauma's. It is a search for explanation, if not justification of history, it is a creation of a certain belief in order to escape the reoccurence of it - we create history. Of course, creation of history is also done for other reasons..but anyway, the discussion is on PoN. view post

posted 09 Oct 2006, 13:10 in Off-Topic Discussionthe first real poll here you've seen in a while by Sokar, Auditor

What the hell is "an Urscumug"? I voted for it since I have no clue... view post

posted 31 Oct 2006, 11:10 in Off-Topic DiscussionMythology anyone? by Sokar, Auditor

I just recently started reading Greek mythology.. I have always loved the Icarus father used to tell me that very often... Hence, my favourite..but again..I haven't really read much... view post

posted 08 Nov 2006, 14:11 in Philosophy DiscussionWill anything change? by Sokar, Auditor

Are you referring to the internal changes or the ones concerning foreign policy.. (or both?) As I am not following the US in anything else than its foreign policy..I would say there will be no changes. view post

posted 09 Nov 2006, 16:11 in Philosophy DiscussionWill anything change? by Sokar, Auditor

Hey you have a new avatar.. Baldur's Gate is one of the best games.. :D view post

posted 30 Nov 2006, 15:11 in Philosophy DiscussionRight thing to do? by Sokar, Auditor

Well said..though I would say it is not 'desire' but 'will'.. And seven dollars for a pack? They cost that much in the US..? view post

posted 02 Dec 2006, 12:12 in Off-Topic DiscussionConnected by Sokar, Auditor

LOL view post

posted 04 Dec 2006, 09:12 in Philosophy DiscussionEnd of the world by Sokar, Auditor

I would say it is the genius of man, rather than stupidity.. And since we are so genius, it makes us quiet irrational..thus it would be passion, genius and irrationality that will kill us... My first answer though, would be death..plain simple death is the answer to the first two questions... The last..don't think war is history, not is an understanding through literature, not perception... view post

posted 06 Dec 2006, 14:12 in Off-Topic DiscussionMovies by Sokar, Auditor

The new Bond sucks..I only accepted Pierce Brosnan as a good enough Bond after Sean Connery.. view post

posted 07 Dec 2006, 15:12 in Off-Topic DiscussionMovies by Sokar, Auditor

What I meant to say, and did, is that Brosnan was a good enough Bond..not that his 007 action or movies themselves were good... An enjoyable one-timer maybe..just as the rest..whereas Connery as Bond is actually enjoyable to see again..after a while... view post

posted 09 Dec 2006, 15:12 in Off-Topic DiscussionMovies by Sokar, Auditor

I have never read any of the I don't know what Bond is supposed to be..admittedly I had no idea about the blood thirsty murderer to be the case... So perhaps you are right about the last movie being closer to the books.. Unfortunately, for me, Bond will remain the Bond of Connery..the "suave and sophisticated" Bond "with a taste for the finer things in life"... view post

posted 09 Dec 2006, 16:12 in Off-Topic DiscussionRiddles by Sokar, Auditor

Me! view post

posted 12 Dec 2006, 11:12 in Philosophy DiscussionLife and Death by Sokar, Auditor

I am not sure about the will to fact Freud is constantly talking about the will to die! I haven't deepened enough into the subject to say much about this..but I am quite sure it is not a's either genetics or simple 'human nature' (which is also by be undefined, and normally I wouldn't be using this concept). In any case..I just wanted to say that right and left hand preference isn't a preference either..this is really genetics..and until now we have only established that left-handedness (as you put it) is somehow related to incest. I know it sounds weird, I was shocked just as well... view post

posted 12 Dec 2006, 13:12 in Philosophy DiscussionNationhood by Sokar, Auditor

First off..the posts are really too I am going to keep it short and simple in hope you will too... Anyway..the notion of nation is not is our confirmity with the nation that [i:3glmn74t]can be seen[/i:3glmn74t] as irrational. This brings us to the discussion you guys already have..utility vs rationality. Since rationality is just as ambiguous notion as that of a makes not sense to continue this argument. In fact I believe you are tackling the issue from a 'wrong' angle. It would be more interesting, indeed, to see how the nation comes to existance. I have had some history classes only, so I am not sure if i am entirely correct here..but didn't the Greeks have a nation? the Persians? The fact that Euro-centric scholars see the notion of nation slowly finding its purpose! after the Middle Ages, does not mean that they never existed. I was reading Aristotle's Politics some days ago and I am sure that the word nation is in it. Now, I agree that translations (to English this time) can be deceiving, it could have just as well be the new interpretation ("there are no facts, only interpretations"), yet it could just as well be the unity of the Greeks that made them a nation..even if the notion did not exist. Furthermore, Aristotle (and so many other) often talk of the Hellenes and the barbarians, which necesserily implies that there was such a thing as the self and the other... In any case..historical inaccuracies are not the point here..I am trying to show that the existence of nations cannot be disputed, just as both of you already agree.. But also that there is a rational thought for their exitence.. The existence of nation-states is very least them coming into being..the fixed territorial boundaries (initially for the population, eventually for resources) order to keep the population under the rule one must find the necessary legitimacy (based on your interpretation, I suppose you would see these as lies)..legitimacy is won slowly of course..first by security..then by extension of rights etc... I don't have much time to look into the subject right now..but my point is that their is a logical series of causes for a state..thus also a exist... And since I define these causes as might say they are also rational. Our confirmity with the nation is a different matter is bound to the self..yet one must not forget that he/she is not the same as the other, even if he/she is not unique.. That you (and me too for that matter) do not find a rational need for a nation, does not mean that others don't either.. You example of A and B supposing to have the same experience is void..because you do not have this sentiment..yet others might... C, for example, coming from Scottland, might feel the same sentiment for entire different reasons..yet his union with the rest of the Brits! can only be explained by him.. It would be his need/desire for his community (just as your need for the RPG community). I will try to formulate my thoughts on the whole subject better next time... Oh..and I see now that I have failed to keep it short... view post

posted 13 Dec 2006, 16:12 in Philosophy DiscussionLife and Death by Sokar, Auditor

This is not a matter of opinion..but that of science.. I will look that up, or actually I will ask the person I heard it from (just so you know and don't think I base everything on hearsay, the person I heard it from is a biologist). view post

posted 20 Dec 2006, 16:12 in Philosophy DiscussionNationhood by Sokar, Auditor

I am rather busy this week, so my answer is going to be short..or we'll see if it is... In any case, I will just give arguments for nations being natural and the critique on it. First, there are several beliefs on this: modernist, primordialist and the perennialist. The modernist claim that nations are indeed irrational and that they are and have been a political tool to control the masses. Even in the past, starting with the code of Hammurabi even, there was a need to keep and justify the authority over the mass and this was done, partially, through means of 'nationhood'. Primordialists oppose this and say that nations are natural, that they have existed and always will, a clear divide between people has been present throughout history. Similar to this is the perennialist argument that says even though nations were not existent as such, meaning nation-states, there were always collective! cultural ties. There is also a book of Anderson, I think it's called [i:1nvnrwpb]Imagined Communties[/i:1nvnrwpb] or something of that sort. I haven't read it myself, but I read another which talks about him also (Smith, [i:1nvnrwpb]The Origins of Nation[/i:1nvnrwpb]; which I read partially only, for some work in the university). I think you would find it rather interesting.. As it goes for Aristotle, book 7 chapter 7 says that Greeks are a nation, and if it were united into a state, Hellas "would be able to rule the world". Finally, you are indeed tackling the point from a wrong angle, at least even more so after your explanation. To find the cause of things is necessary, given that you find a cause instead of a speculation on the cause. I am not interested on the fact that you shot someone, but rather on the what led you to shoot someone. In other words, I am not interested on the function of your body, but the whole surrounding, the whole setting, not only your mind, but even more so the mind of the other to make you shoot him. To put it differently, to ban something that is irrational is irrational in itself. If you accept that there is a purpose for the nation, the economic or the stability, perhaps even legitimacy of the state, then it is rational to have the nation. If they are useful there is a rationality behind it! Damn how I hate exclamation marks... Finally I don't get your circularity is irrational argument, perhaps you could explain it me.. But I must tell you that everything is circular.. Heraclites was rather interesting on this, but I have to look deeper into that, I never really read his work, just got to know it from others... Also, maybe you should explain to me into a deeper extent why you think that something can be P and not P at the same time. There is a 'rational' explanation for both being and not being at the same physics we are getting to this point where the same object can be in two places simulatneously..why not in thought, which is by far much easier... Oh..I failed to keep it short..but I do have a final question, which I think is the reason why we keep this argument... When you say you mean nation-state or nation itself..? Do you mean the sentiment or the actual application of the sentiment..? And also I am sorry for ignoring Harrol, I'll have a look another time... view post

posted 20 Dec 2006, 16:12 in Off-Topic DiscussionThe Tenth Dimension by Sokar, Auditor

I hate it when I can't view the video..internet too slow and no sound allowd in the library..yeah I am a poor student to get my own internet connection at home. Anyway, has anybody actually bought the book..? I wonder it is any good (indeed, I'd rather spend the money on books than internet)... view post

posted 11 Jan 2007, 14:01 in Philosophy DiscussionLife and Death by Sokar, Auditor

Cordelia -> I give up :D You are right of saying that incest is not a dominant reason for left-handedness. I did not think of the origins here, just of the persistence. Will make sure to read that article some time. Avatar of Existence -> The definition that one lived because he did more with his life sounds obscure. I have never seen life as anything else than growing old and eventual death. Of course I am too young at this stage to say otherwise, but life is just a continuation of habits and interests. No man, however 'important', lives more than the 'useless' is his perception of being more than other that gives him strength perhaps, but nothing more.. Life is a drag, constant drag in search for the beauty (pleasure, or whatever else you want to call it). We live simply because we are born, mostly incidently, and we continue our life mostly out of incidents. That pretty much sums it up, habits and incidents in search of beauty. view post

posted 11 Jan 2007, 14:01 in Philosophy DiscussionDrugs by Sokar, Auditor

I like hearing of experiences, mostly cause I am still 'experimenting' with drugs.. What you say I have seen as well, the opening of doors to the other world, as well as restating the current world, finding solutions and getting broken/insane.. But each time, all of these ended (luckily?) after the drug worked out. Now I have a question, first on the insanity, how does one know what is insane..My favourite on this issue is the beginning of Foucault's Madness and Civilization, who quotes Dostoyevsky: "It is by confining our neighbour that we prove our own sanity" Second question, doesn't this directly mean that drugs are everything in life, that everything is addicting, as someone else already mentioned. And so, that if everything opens doors to the new worlds, finds the solutions for the current one, doesn't this directly mean that our lives are insanities of Dostoyevsky? view post

posted 15 Jan 2007, 14:01 in Philosophy DiscussionLife and Death by Sokar, Auditor

Oh but I do know point is that life is exactly that..this search for beauty (I think you understand that beauty can be found in everything, it is just a term I use). My argument goes against that of Avatar of Existence..that life cannot be valued more or less depending on the 'seriousnous' of it..or the use and inspiration of it..for one self or the others... I would disagree with you though that human behaviour involves true thought.. What I mean with true thought in life and behaviour is that it is not going in depth of the merely involves habits and interests... I agree with the rest of your post..I don't advocate the uniqueness or absoluteness of anything existing..our actions therefore are indeed not all that exist..and indeed we focus too much on the whole instead of beauty of the moment.."the little pieces of insight"... Despite my pessimist view on the world..I would be the first to say that life is worth living..even in my deepest sorrows I would find beauty of the moments gone... Finally..consider these two: "There is no greater sorrow than to recall a time of happiness in misery" -- Dante. Can't argue... but especially, "we can't compare life to anything---that's too dreary a prospect" -- Bukowski. Just read it yesterday..some lines before this comes "reality is a juiceless orange".. What of life..? Where do we find the juice but the beauty..? Cordelia -> I still have to read that article... Sorry.. view post

posted 16 Jan 2007, 13:01 in Philosophy DiscussionLife and Death by Sokar, Auditor

hehe..I miss the snow..we used to have a house in the mountains when I was a kid..haven't seen something as beautiful for some time as in doesn't snow here..and when it does it is gone the next day..or full of dirt from cars... On your comment..i would agree pretty much with everything now..or perhaps it's better to say, I don't see anything to deny in them :D Cordelia -> I read that is rather interesting and puts my previous comment into high doubt.. My brother, the biologist, now denies of saying that..which could be true..that it was my premature conclusion of what he said... Though it does explain the left-handedness in royalty to a certain extent, there is still some doubt of the origins.. thanks.. view post

posted 26 Jan 2007, 15:01 in Philosophy DiscussionThe Meaning of Life by Sokar, Auditor

There is something wrong with the end of your post.. Let's assume that indeed the sun is the centre of our solar system and that a black hole the centre of our galaxy (and I assume simply because I don't know enough on this subject)..but why assume that there is a force to 'control' these galaxies..? If we accept that control is an invention of us..which I do..then this assumption is simply wrong..there can be no force controlling the galaxies... But the first reason I wanted to post here is on your first sentence..the origin of reason..the origin of thought... I have thought on this for too long..starting with the first book of Scott Bakker.."what are the origins of thought?" For if we are to find an answer to meaning of life..then we have to find why our thoughts are questioning the meaning of life in the first place... To which I cannot find any truly satisfying answer..anyone else...? view post

posted 26 Jan 2007, 15:01 in Literature DiscussionWhy Bakker by Sokar, Auditor

The reason I started with fantasy is Bakker actually..I was on my way to Cuba and was looking for a book to read during the holidays..I thought of reading fiction, rather than relax and rest... But when I took his book..the first sentence of the book..a quote by Nietzsche..that thought comes when it wants, not when we want..simply grasped my attention..I couldn't let go... I guess that is the reason I read the book..but my facination with the whole series lay in two questions..What happens to Cnaiur (as I have said elsewhere, he would be by far the most intriguing character) and to a smaller extent, what is the role of Maithenet... Usually with fiction there are some ideas of what is going to happen (ok..I don't read that much fiction)..but with this one I had no idea... So..combined with great literary style as well as thought provoking questions in philosophy..I am hooked.. As I haven't read much other fantasy..for me Bakker is the great author... view post

posted 28 Jan 2007, 13:01 in Philosophy DiscussionThe Meaning of Life by Sokar, Auditor

I didn't see pessimism in that post..though I am with you on infinity... I remember this quote from Einstein on infinity of the universe and that of ignorance of man; him not being sure of the former... In any case, to answer your first question: the Greeks did! and so many others until we the Church took power. view post

Music..not generally... posted 08 Mar 2007, 14:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionMusic..not generally... by Sokar, Auditor

For the past 4 years I have come to know many new musicians..I guess you grow away from your music you listen to as a kid and those of your friends..also stop going to a pub that often to realise that some music has its moment of joy..yet loses that joy directly after.... Anyway, also around 4 years ago I met the fabulous world of Rock, I am not going to state all the names, but Jimmy Page should sum it up :D But as much I as I like that guy..and I mean the much as I can enjoy it at any given moment..there is still Roger Waters and David Gilmour... I can start giving a list of my favourites of Pink Floyd..but I can as well as state the albums and even then the list will include all of them... Does anybody have any clue what I am talking about at this point..? Ok..there are classics..and by this I mean the classical music..Beethoven..Mozart..Strauss..Vivladi..Chopin and Bach (no particular order, and neither exclusive..except perhaps for Beethoven's piano sonata's). But how can that surpass the depth [i:43jkupha]and[/i:43jkupha] the hollowness Pink Floyd..the absoluteness as unmeasurable even in (to my opinion) sonata's of Beethoven..the symphonies of Mozart and Strauss..etc...etc... I know the tragedy (comedy) of Pink Floyd... If, as we have learnt from Bakker, "meassure is unceasing"..than Pink Floyd is paradoxically beyond any measure... here is my question... Can someone state any greater music or musician (not technically) than Pink Floyd's Waters and Gilmour..? Somehow, I see many names coming..but none can compare... view post

posted 14 Mar 2007, 10:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionMusic..not generally... by Sokar, Auditor

The point I tried to make is not Pink Floyd's 'ultimity'..hence the topic "not generally"... What I am trying to show, or perhaps to find, is a combination of what WP is saying "moving of the soul" with the aesthetic understanding of music. I recently looked into Adorno's notes on Beethoven..a great composer no doubt..and of course very close to the heart of many thinkers for many reasons... Similarly of course with all least that enhancing, encouraging, lifting up (more synonyms) the being... About a year and a half ago, together with a friend of mine, we've been looking into how aestheticism plays a prime role in 'evolution', or perhaps even creation, of civilizations... We came to conclude that it is even the basis of every society (after economics).. Now the reasons for this will take a long time (we were discussing for two days in a row..continuesly!).. So to the point (again).. What makes Pink Floyd brilliant, great, "beyond measure", is of course personal..yet this personal is felt by so many that it makes me wonder how greatness is achieved, except for the moving of the soul (I usualy refrain from describing things as such..but the lack of undrestanding makes me do so). Is there an understanding of it pure marketing..? (Please no discussion on how marketing influences music etc..) As to the artists you mentioned..I didn't like Tool..probably not going to if I listen to them again..and they are not comparable to Pink Floyd even a bit..though it was some years ago that I listened to them.. Def Leppard is in my collection as well..though it is not something I listen to often.. The Polish band I will check out when I can get my hands on it I conclude with my last there a greater music than Pink Floyd..any reason to see Beethoven beyond the measure as Bakunin did, perhaps also Adorno..or as someone mentioned Mozart..? Now again..not generally! PS I understand the narrow-mindedness I have right now..perhaps it is the revival of the self..the exploration to the past beauty..yet with an affirmation of undestanding of it... Perhaps it is simply melancholy that I have these weeks... view post

Herbert Marcuse - Eros and Civilisation posted 14 Mar 2007, 18:03 in Philosophy DiscussionHerbert Marcuse - Eros and Civilisation by Sokar, Auditor

I have recently finished this book and I think it is amazing :D.. Has anybody else read it to have a discussion..? I would post a review, but it would take some time to write it... Also I have just finished Story of the Eye by Bataille, the original version..same question and comment... view post

posted 29 Mar 2007, 14:03 in Philosophy DiscussionEvolution vs Creation by Sokar, Auditor

I'll be rather frank on this my knowledge on the subject is rather limited... But none of the options seems to have an answer and they are all as narrow-minded as the other. To claim that one is defenately the reason for our being simply doesn't hold. Let me elaborate: Most of the choices given are mere choices that come from a certain understanding. The religious upbringing will probably give you a more credible stance towards a religious choice, while little religious upbringing will make you more fond of the something scientific (or lunatic). I truly think we are merely [i:1xod9vkz] choosing [/i:1xod9vkz] which one suits us most and does not contradict our life so far. So although my choice would lie in the last (the devil...), it is merely so because I have no religious reference in my life (neither a lunatic stance towards a second similar option of intelligent design - they are the same!). I want to elaborate a little more on choices - as they are made out of pure necessity for explanation. Why this necessity exists is another topic, but this is the reason why we wonder which one would be correct, a certain search for truth. But I think we all agree that truth is disguised in its forms and blurred even more by our human look on things. The discourse of truth is human, it is confined to certain merits and is always present within this same network. For this reason we usually escape the understanding of things and their truths. We make choices of what to believe in other words. I am not saying that [i:1xod9vkz] choosing [/i:1xod9vkz] is wrong and narrow-minded though. A lack of realisation that this is the case is so however. Feel free to criticise my view, but none of the options can explain our lives, they are mere choices of life and thus 'predict' the direction our life will take. view post

posted 31 Mar 2007, 15:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionFavorite Quotes of the Prince of Nothing by Sokar, Auditor

I like lots of them..unfortunately I don't have the copy with me where I underlined some of these... In any case, I was laughing from this one for a long time (not sure if it is a direct quote): "Men are like dogs, they sniff with their eyes." Edit: I'll try to post some more with the copy in hand... view post

posted 01 Apr 2007, 14:04 in Philosophy DiscussionThe Meaning of Life by Sokar, Auditor

I wouldn't be so harsh on you 'cokesomething23'..but the criticism is valid... I guess you are still in highschool..or didn't get over any case you seem quite young.. To the point, there are some interesting claims there, but your wording is completely wrong. I would agree with you on the 'will to power' as I have accepted it as well..yet there is a certain degree to which this 'will' is arts to be rather aesthetic understanding and more importantly in the will to power over the self (I am still working on this idea - any recommendations? I heard of Berkeley and self-perception, but can't get my hands on if someone has other suggestions I'd be pleased). True..our species aren't superior in my eye either, but to say we are inferior is just as ignorant.. Perhaps we should follow Nietzsche again and live the Dionysian life..but that is simply inpracticle..if not impossible.. The instinct is a disputed matter..yet a civilization is necessarily contradicting the idea of liberation of the instinct... Further, I would think the vast majority of the people would rather suppress their sexuality rather than give in to it and live in barabrity... I wonder abour self-perception again! Again..there is a validity in stating that while dating the satisfaction is mostly in the perception of the self in the moment..not, however, loyalty and the woman choosing you over the rest..this is simply not aren't the best and you know that - it is rather the understanding you are..that you exist and that you submit, their is an intersting idea here that I connect with de Sade, the will to be suppressed and to feel rather than to exist in the self. In any case I doubt it is superiority that we strive for while looking for a 'mate'. Yes categorisation is present..perhaps unavoidable as some others claim.. And yes..I'd rather escape it as well.. Yet is it a valid possiblity in the world run by economy rather than other it possible in a civilization rather than a tribal community..? I doubt it is even remains a wish..just a flying on your own, rather than using a plane... It won't happen as it is unnatural! (Ok..I am not sure about this as I haven't devoted enough thought towards the idea of categorisation and escaping it..I simply try! to escape this myself rather find how to make this happen in human psyche). My harshest criticism to you would be something least on this post you seem to have gained an idea that satisfies you into understanding human interaction and you agree with it..yet your knowledge on the subject is limited.. For example, one doesn't satisfy his ego, quite the opposite, his ego is the reason for dissatisfaction, it is the way towards satisfaction, but ego in itself cannot be satisfied..that simply doesn't make sense. Finally also a suggestion..your idea's make me think of should read him and examine him closely..there is much criticism on him of course..and he is quite difficult to understand sometimes (well some paragraphs simply don't connect with one another..there is no flow let's say)..but still you would gain a better insight into what you are talking about... view post

posted 02 Apr 2007, 13:04 in Philosophy DiscussionEvolution vs Creation by Sokar, Auditor

I wonder if you would have said that let's say 500 years ago... Must I remind you of Galileo..? Let's face it..when religion loses its grip it adapts itself to the new views..that must be the reason for all this plurality within Christianity..never mind other religions... In any case..religion and science can indeed go together..there are a bunch of Vatican scholars... Yet, I doubt their function is anything else than to keep their power over the masses and in an age where we value 'technological progress', they have no other choice than to find some way for credibility in the public. I'll give you an example..the Orthodox Greeks were protesting when the barcodes(?) came up on the packages of food and the priests were the reason.. Or the stance of the Catholics towards condoms... Yes they did their own research and found that the AIDS virus can go through the condom..but why preach the use of it being absolutely unnecessary..? You are right of course..they don't have to be a duality..but they are! view post

Spoiler! Kellhus posted 11 Apr 2007, 11:04 in Philosophy DiscussionSpoiler! Kellhus by Sokar, Auditor

Again Spoiler!!!! Anyway..I was recently wondering about one thing about Kellhus..and I am not sure whether I should post this here or in the other threads... It seems better suited here as it is not really a question on the book itself.. If it is wrongly placed, I suppose the mods or admins can move it... To the point, Kellhus seems to get influence in the beginning of the series by simply stating some insight into human "soul" other words, he somehow convinces them that he can see through them and into them..he can feel them even and this in return, the idea of someone being able to feel your pain and thus elevate it and you, gives him followers and we know how that turns out eventually... In any case, my question is on this, I have personally experienced that knowing how people feel at certain moments, to understand them and especially to see through them gives a negative reaction. Although these people would gladly listen to you in the beginning and even admire you for your insight, this admiration eventually turns into apathy of some sort, it is perhaps too much to bare someone knowing you too well... Now to more theoretical, profound and 'scholarly' level. There is something of Nietzsche in "Beyond Good and Evil" ยง 290: [quote:k1rkp0e9] "Every profound thinker is more afraid of being understood than of being misunderstood. The latter may hurt his vanity, but the former his heart, his sympathy, which always says: "Alas, why do you want to have as hard a time as I did?"" [/quote:k1rkp0e9] Nietzsche is too much of a discussion, but I always read the last sentece as this: "Alas, is there no one who truly feels me?" (I read the book in a different language, so I am not sure if this quote is completely correct. In my personal translation it says "as I DO"!) And by this I don't mean Nietzsche as personality, but all personalities, all people in other words have this idea of being misunderstood, or better put, not understood completely. Yes one understands that I am in pain, but not in what pain, yes emotional pain, but not of what emotion, yes it is love, but you wouldn't understand what kind of I unique!? Now take this into Bakker's triology, and we know that there is quite some Nietzsche in it. How does this fit in there. We have Achamian who in the end is in search what the Dunyan is etc.. So in other words he superceeds this level and goes against Kellhus. Yet, in this situation there is Esmi in play, so it does not necessarily mean that he is the profound thinker', rather that his 'passion rules the game'.. There are perhaps other possibilities, but I am not after looking into the book. What I wonder is how or why looking into the people and knowing their feelings makes them think as I described before..? What makes us feel as if we are unique, when it is clear that we are not..? What makes us want to live in pain and suffer the past as Nietzsche, rather than follow the likes of Kellhus and feel..? What, in very simply put words, are we afraid of..? view post

posted 29 Apr 2007, 11:04 in Philosophy DiscussionSpoiler! Kellhus by Sokar, Auditor

I agree with you mostly, but I think you are escaping the first part of the aphorism.. The profound thinker is afraid of his idea's being understood.. Yet it is not only the heart that is hurt, or at least not out of sympathy.. Nietzsche is quite contradictory here, as in other places he is quite opposed to sympathy, or at least in its religious sense..yet, I think all sympathy has a religious background.. I am not sure whether Nietzsche did also..I recollect reading how his 'sympathy' can be used differently in translations... In any case, Nietzsche's sympathy here is not a mere sympathy with the other, with the one who understands, rather it is a lost feeling.. It is being set alone without anyone to feel you.. view post

posted 29 Apr 2007, 11:04 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]Breaker of Horses and Men by Sokar, Auditor

I am with you..I've been trying to explain how he became my favourite, but I still fail in that..I suppose there is something in his 'madness' that attracted me most... view post

posted 01 May 2007, 16:05 in Philosophy DiscussionSpoiler! Kellhus by Sokar, Auditor

This is one of the reasons one doesn't start a discussion on Nietzsche.. Anyway..sympathy and religion are one for two reasons... I don't think that I have to explain 'helping the fellow man' and such being a religious thing..and that this was encouraged by feelings of sympathy should be clear as well.. So here, sympathy is merely a tool for creating a mass... The second, sympathy is as well a tool for controlling that mass.. It advocates the way of life, not only the 'helping the fellow man', but also living to such and such conditions, undergoing these and those pains.. It becomes a power over thought and action. Indeed, religion does not have to be a classical religion in God, but also the modern variation, such as democracy or Human Rights.. It is a method inscribed to move the body and control the thought, or soul.. (This is not all from Nietzsche, rather a mould of authors I have read and who eventually made me think this is how one views sympathy :D ) Now the second part..Nietzsche does show this sorrow.. It is mostly in the language..the use of words: sympathy and heart..the distiction between him and the others, the thinker and the mundane..finally also the last sentence: "why do YOU want to have as HARD a time as I DO?" These all indicate his feeling of sorrow.. To see why Nietzsche would be opposed to being understood..his desolation and loneliness..opposition of enlightenment and would want to read his books... There is too much there to say about this. Now the final part..i wonder whether you are right..whether there is a certain priority to loss of 'blissful ignorance' rather than loneliness... Perhaps Nietzsche does want to show this..but then it would be a side-effect of loneliness.. The other way around! Otherwise it wouldn't fit into context of the book.... Final remark: "Truly I wonder whether not all words are written in shame!" or something like that..guess whose that is..? view post

posted 01 May 2007, 17:05 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]Breaker of Horses and Men by Sokar, Auditor

Actually..I have kind of idolized him..he could live in his insanity... Unlike Conphas, he wasn't delusioned..he knew what he was and what others pretended to be... When I read the parts concerning Serwe, his madness got even more appealing..the parts about Achamian and Esmenet are to feel sorry for, with Cnaiur I didn't, he cut his own throat as a swazond and that something you idolise rather than pity... Again, I am not sure why, but Cnaiur is by far the most intriguing character..he simply in his complexity..and complex in his simplicity... And there is something of madness that keeps you wondering.... I am afraid that the consult will change that, just as Kellhus did when learing the art of war from Cnaiur.. (then again, Cnaiur's madness reached a certain hight after that :D) Anyway, I hope that this maddening character does not become a rational general of some sort in the next of the series..would truly ruin it for me... view post

posted 02 May 2007, 10:05 in Philosophy DiscussionSpoiler! Kellhus by Sokar, Auditor

No..i don't recollect Nietzsche saying that explicitly..though it would defenately be his thought... We should not forget that prior to it becoming a societal thing, however, it was a religious doctrine..then again, our society is always based on religious 'values'..religion, after all, used to represent the society (which it still does to a certain extent).. Now that for you this religious doctrine has become a societal necessity (a stronger community)..and though you question the knowledge of the doesn't take away that the roots are still in religion... This can be a different discussion though..after all doesn't society base itself on many things from the passed..and how do we rightfully claim this not being a 'societal thing' even though its roots are religious..etc..etc... view post

posted 02 May 2007, 10:05 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]Breaker of Horses and Men by Sokar, Auditor comes the difference between idolising someone to such an extent where you simply disagree with something bad being said about the character..even if grounded... Anyway..the reason for Cnaiur not quesitoning this idealogy is because it is present in the acts of the least that's how I see it in both actions of Kellhus and Moengus. And his military genius is evident from two aspects, again to me..first Kellhus wants to learn war through Cnaiur, not through Conphas, indeed perhaps because he knows how to manipulate him, whereas Conphas' vanity has always been an obstacle to that end... But also because he is of the People..they live war! Second, there is a part I clearly remember where Caniur thinks to himself that if he would lead the battle of Kyuth? they would have won..but also Conphas himself acknowledges the strength of Cnaiur at a certain point to the end..when Caniur becomes his prisoner..where he laughs at him in disbelief that this man was the one he was afraid of..yet it is merely his vanity that takes over once again, rather the undestanding the circumstances... view post

posted 02 May 2007, 14:05 in Philosophy DiscussionSpoiler! Kellhus by Sokar, Auditor

You are quite right there..we could confuse the cause and effect rather easily..especially in this case... Yet, before I give further comment, I would like to know where you think morality comes being enforced by whatever institution you must imply that it is either created naturally, out of necessity..or being created by a certain 'force' other than religion, which usually would be out of 'will to power' or domination... The reason I want to know this is that there lies the reason for morality, which you tackle slightly, yet I would like to have a somewhat more depth in your thought..before I comment on your previous remark.... (I am not sure if I have a religion..though if I do, it is defenately not one in any of the 'Gods'; though your point of 'helping the fellow man' is not necessarily religious is well taken..) view post

posted 03 May 2007, 14:05 in Philosophy DiscussionSpoiler! Kellhus by Sokar, Auditor

Seeing that this is your view on the origins of morality, I see that we are in complete opposition.. Morality, in my view is not does not have a biological part..only a social one... That we empathise with our 'fellow man' is already an established morality in my is not an innate human nature..rather an established condition throughout the centuries... The social part is therefore not merely built on the biological here that morality originates in the first place..and indeed it does so out of necessity to make the community or grouping work... Here are of course some controversies again.. Freud thought that it was the pleasure instinct that made the primal father to subject his sons to work and toil..the argument goes further and further..but it is irrelevant now..the only thing imprtant here is that through this subjection laws arrise that restrict our sexuality and our pleasure instinct... Morality then, is a restriction on sexuality in order to make the community function.. Building on Freud, Marcuse tries to efface parts of these for example diminishing working hours and giving time for satisfaction of Eros etc..etc... Thus rules are indeed introduced in order not to bash each other's skulls in when drunk..but this is only a secondary objectives..for in the first place, they are in place merely out of satisfaction of the primal father..the toil that the sons undergo must be enforced by rules so that he can experience pleasure... I think, personally, that Foucault is much better here, he faces the problem without looking into an abstract society, rather finding historical 'facts', or rather his interpretations of them.. His [i:20y2rps8]Discipline and Punish[/i:20y2rps8] covers a certain study done by Kirchheimer (the study was done by two, I miss the first name and am not sure about the spelling of this one) who have found how laws have changed with the change of economy.. For example, modern laws are not necessarily less barbaric, though we have been taught this is not the will to punish less or in a more humane is rather the change in factors of economy and disciple that provide us with these new modes of punishment. Today, and this has been a prices since the French Revolution, we punish with a 'corrective measure', we demonise the punished without a view of damned, rather with a view of something going wrong and thus two ways we gain..we reintroduce the punished into the workforce..and we restrict the crime of multiplying..we 'condition' the bodies into such a way that they are willing to function to the will of the other..the state..or other authority... Compared to the previous punishment, for example slave economy..punishment was simply putting to work..there was no need for corrective measures as the punished was directly put into a workforce... In any case, after this long rambling, it is still unclear which is the cause and which the effect..does the society or grouping [u:20y2rps8]impose[/u:20y2rps8] morality, or is it simply [u:20y2rps8]enforcing[/u:20y2rps8] it to a higher degree... I think it is the first one..yet it is a necessary means to establishing a society..and although we are restricted in our acts it still keeps us from 'bashing each other's skulls in when drunk'... Morality, in other words, is a necessary is an imposition with an aim of control and it is a lie... To live without it is a possibility..but I am not advocating that change as I have no alternative in mind yet... PS As you see there is no Nietzsche in here, since I have to read his [i:20y2rps8]Genealogy of Morals[/i:20y2rps8]..though I really wish to at some point... Further, I am not claiming to be right here and you being wrong..neither trying to convince you of me being right... It is just as you, a rambling on the books I have read, which have put me into this state of mind... view post

posted 03 May 2007, 17:05 in Philosophy DiscussionSpoiler! Kellhus by Sokar, Auditor

Most of Freud is ineed bollocks..i don't agree with most of his writing and especially metapsychology... That's the reason I put Foucualt in it..which is more interesting to read, but also 'historical'.. :D And as far as I know he is not deemed obsolete..perhaps some of his theories... (He thought that women smoking cigarettes were doing so thinking of a penis, so I see where he went wrong) In any event, even though I doubt the primal father and his will for timeless pleasure, I do agree with the restriction of sexuality through morality..for the purpose of the functioning of the community... That empathy can be found in the brain I simply didn't know..that's not my field of interest... But this still doesn't take away the argument I propose..just needs a revision.. Even if empathy is biological, morality does not have to be..the link you make is of course plausible..but not necessarily true... I'll have to think more on the issue.. (Besides I wonder what else we can find in human brain, thirst for blood perhaps..?) Also..since you tackle come they don't have it..? In other words, how do we get the biological substance in our brain..? and how can be sure that this biological substance does not come existence through community..? After all, there are plenty biological substances that come after certain activities..thus being natural..but not necessarily present... view post

posted 04 May 2007, 12:05 in Philosophy DiscussionSpoiler! Kellhus by Sokar, Auditor

Again..since my knowledge on biology is rather limited.. Could we say that this substance has evolved due to our being in a community for centuries..millenia..? In other words..did we acquire this biological trait because we already live a community..or was it ever present and drove us, in a sense, to live together..? view post

Gollancz S.F. posted 04 May 2007, 12:05 in Literature DiscussionGollancz S.F. by Sokar, Auditor

Has anyone read anything from this author..? I got it as a suggestion from Amazon for buying the TFT there..then again..Amazon would suggest a lot of things don't fit... And I don't really trust the reviews there either... Besides that point..i've never heard of this author... So if anyone read how far can I compare him to Scott Bakker..? view post

posted 04 May 2007, 15:05 in Philosophy DiscussionSpoiler! Kellhus by Sokar, Auditor

I'm simply trying to find more on the subject..not disputing natural morality as such.. While looking through my notes on Marcuse I have found that I touch on the subject of 'natural morality' myself.. Though I am looking at it in a non-biological sense.. I have never said that social groupings are constructions of man, or that communities are unnatural.. My question here is more of what do we perceive as natural at this point..that compassion 'is biological' is a given..but how does this biological trait come to existence..? view post

posted 06 May 2007, 13:05 in Philosophy DiscussionSpoiler! Kellhus by Sokar, Auditor

Of always..i don't agree... The Greek God Chronos used to eat his own children because of a prophecy that one of them will take his power.. This would mean that the nurturing instinct is primarily female! As for the man, this 'nurture instict' would mean a subjection to the younger son.. Freud, of course, connected this to sex..but it doesn't have to be :D In any case, similar things can be seen in lion packs..where the son takes over the pack for his own purpose and leaves the 'father lion' in complete idle state..or indeed, nurturing the young ones... But not out of his own will! Another example would be the Spartan state..or the nomadic 'states'..where children are either thrown off the cliffs or left behind for their uselessness.. The nurture instinct, as you describe it so far, cannot be a biological trait for compassion.. So far, it seems a necessity! (For what exactly?) On the other hand, I still say that I don't know enough on the subject itself, so I can't really counter your statement..perhaps you have other examples.... view post

posted 07 May 2007, 14:05 in Philosophy DiscussionSpoiler! Kellhus by Sokar, Auditor

Randal -> If other instincts are also involved..then without disputing natural morality, one can argue that the inforcement of 'Religious Morality' into the society (the compassionate fellow man) is to be disregarded as such. The society might indeed function better by (re)inforcement of such values as morality..yet it does not have to be - one loses sight of what is natural and what is other words one is forced into a certain thought without realising this force! The other insticts..Eros ke Thanatos..are left to the 'immoral'..they lose their value in that given society and the subsequent societies build on this mere compassionate moral doctrine.. (I am not saying this is necessarily a bad is merely a given direction not a chosen one..neither a willed one - thus it dissolves or even eliminates the other instincts and societies built on these instincts) As it goes for men or women having a dominant nurture is recognised that women have a different perception than men (when monitoring the brain in some way) when they see a picture of a baby.. Yet, I have heard (thus am not sure) of tribes in Asia where the men nurture the children and the women go to work.. (this also supposedly happened prior to the domination of man over woman in the ancient times) In these societies the men would probably have a different perception than the women if shown a picture of a baby.. What I am trying to show is that an established society has or creates a certain biological is not necessarily 'naturally' present there but is a mere reflection... Compassion does indeed exist..and indeed it is natural..but is an inforcement of history! On necessity I still have to think about..not a clear thought yet.... Finally..i don't mind you two ganging will only lead to more discussion in this lately dead forum.... view post

Truth and Context posted 07 May 2007, 14:05 in Author Q & ATruth and Context by Sokar, Auditor

I am not sure if this question has been asked before or even if this is the correct place to ask it..but has anyone found it..? I've been looking through google..but no helpful results... Anyone else more successful..? Or perhaps when Scott Bakker himself has time he could help out..? view post

posted 09 May 2007, 15:05 in Member Written WorksVogon Poetry by Sokar, Auditor

I like your first poem..very nice..inspiring in its gloominess... I'm surprised there are no replies though..perhaps there is little to comment on... In any case, nice 'work'... view post

posted 10 May 2007, 14:05 in Author Q & ATruth and Context by Sokar, Auditor

Oh sorry..i kind of thought that the topic would be sufficient to get what I am talking about... In the athour bio you can find this: [quote:3ndyu8lp] In the winter of 2000, he moved back to London, Ontario, to complete his dissertation, which is entitled Truth and Context.[/quote:3ndyu8lp] I've been looking for it through google..but no success... view post

posted 10 May 2007, 14:05 in Literature DiscussionGollancz S.F. by Sokar, Auditor

Oh..i've looked at it again and you are right..a mistake from my part... It a triology (of course) with titles: "The Blade Itself", "Before They Are Hanged" and "Last Argument of Kings" (supposed to appear in March 2008). Rather new athour Joe Abercrombie. view post

posted 11 May 2007, 13:05 in Literature DiscussionGollancz S.F. by Sokar, Auditor

Hmm..perhaps I should take a look at him then..especially that secret "mock Goodkind" society seems very appealing... The only down part is that I will have to wait another year to read the 3rd book..just as with PoN... view post

posted 14 May 2007, 13:05 in Philosophy Discussionthe bible is the solution by Sokar, Auditor

I suppose you want a certain debate on this issue..perhaps you could be a little more specific, since most of the people would directly deny that! view post

posted 14 May 2007, 13:05 in Literature DiscussionGollancz S.F. by Sokar, Auditor

Just above you posted that quote of that quote at least partially true..? Does he indeed make [b:1136o5jz]important[/b:1136o5jz] socio-political points..or explore the universality of the human condition..? view post

posted 15 May 2007, 11:05 in Philosophy Discussionthe bible is the solution by Sokar, Auditor

The "told you so!" comes to mind... view post

posted 15 May 2007, 12:05 in Literature DiscussionGollancz S.F. by Sokar, Auditor

Being interested in politics and philosophy..even in romans!..i guess it's useless...! view post

The idea of global beauty posted 31 May 2007, 16:05 in Philosophy DiscussionThe idea of global beauty by Sokar, Auditor

Here is something I have been wondering for a while always... While reading some aesthetic books (by which I also mean criticisms on social classes and their perception of art, mainly Bourdieu) I have come to wonder if there is something we can call a 'global beauty'. In other words, can we perceive something as beautiful, whether painting or book or music, as intrisically beautiful to the majority of the population of the world (hence 'global')... I'll start myself..yes there is something like global beauty, even though most of research denies it.. As I mentioned Bourdieu..his main idea is that there are several factors which define our taste (in [i:u4zgvltt]Distinction: As social critique on the judgement of taste[/i:u4zgvltt])..parentling, their income, your income, your class etc. and etc.. The list is very long! But he classifies them under two categories: economic and cultural capital. Due to this diversity, his research finds that every distinction has a predisposition for a certain taste in music, art, books, films etc.. In any case, although this is rather valid (his research is truly elaborate and extensive), I think he fails to see that some things can be deemed beautiful to a large proportion, despite the inherent differences in class etc.. The how.. Another Frenchman :D Baudelaire, defines beauty as mysterious, strange and evoking a sense of !unhappiness! This is something I have thought on for a while, and have to realise that beauty must evoke unhappiness to be beautiful. Such as love cannot be understood without feelings of being lost. Or as Khayyam said: "Love that does not kill, is not love." beauty must have related feelings to all..feelings of unhappiness, or some sort of tragedy... I am not mysself fully satisfied with this analysis, so I wonder what others think on global beauty... view post

posted 13 Jun 2007, 13:06 in Philosophy DiscussionWhat is going on in Iraq? by Sokar, Auditor

I don't know much about religious conflicts and the reasons for them, since religion for me has been only a tool of the ones in power. What I do know about the difference about Sunni's and Shi'ites is that the latter confirm to yet another prophet, Ali, which the Sunni's deny. Of course, this is not the base for the conflict in any way, it is, as I have mentioned a mere tool for the populous..short version: indoctrination. There are some comments however on the other topics raised here. TheDarkness -> democracy is not an import product indeed, I pretty much agree with what you say, except for the fact, which I think you support but simply don't mention, the US is not in Iraq for democracy reasons. Eleazaras218, if you are still active -> There is much you point out, most of it true. Except some minor details, China is not preparing for war, all states have an army for a purpose of war, they do not, however, go to war because they have an army (I can argue the opposite just as well :D). And Russian threats are against Europe, they can't deal with the US directly as it would mean the destruction of both (I am really interested in seeing how people can still believe that the Cold War is over, it simply can't end, maybe the actors change, but the war is ever present, Herz calls this 'security dilemma'). There is something interesting you point out, the need to stay in Iraq in fear of losing it to Iran. This is not really true, it is even wrong. Iran has little interests in Iraq, except for spreading its own strength. By which I mean to show that Iran is an actor in politics (and thus defend itself from similar threats), rather than posses Iraq, annex it or whatever other use it can have for the country. The religious hype, yes hype!, has been for no other reason than to involve Iran into the conflict for the future 'demonisation' purposes. It is, after all, recognised, by the West, as a rogue state. As it goes for why the US fights, the reasons are can! The US needs this war also more than the others (allies), although the allies are profitting from it just as well, though less. I don't want to go into this for too is a completely different topic on wars in general, so I'll summarise von Calusewitz in his own words: "war is . . . a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, carried on with other means" and "war is part of policy". avatar_of_existence -> I like your posts in other fields, wide knowledge there, but here you make a huge mistake. Iraq was not a religious state. There was a clear seperation of religion and state, that was one of the excuses for the Iran-Iraq war in the 80's as Iran has a religous state. Saddam was in clear opposition for this (and of course economics was the reason, I am just pointing out this important factor, maybe not that important after all). Zarathunius -> The US public got indeed suckered into much senseless belief, then again, the US government is good at this, it has been doing for a long while as you mention. Nonetheless, you have not failed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the agenda has been reached, this continuation is a mere appeasement of the American public (we are a good state, honestly :D). Also, EU does have a greater Muslim population (percentatively?). But the riots in France were of a completely different nature, unless you simply want to show what the public is capable of if it disagrees with government action. I am not sure if they are more radical, but I wouldn't know, except for that they aren't in my experience. Randal -> Germany alone would have not succeeded probably, at least not easily, but France defenately would, and it wouldn't have been that lengthy, though defenately longer in conquest alone, I am not talking of 'peacekeeping'. The main reason is that they can't start such large scale wars withough consulting the other EU states, and that would have been too lengthy a process, and probably without success. As you say, they are too tied to others in their politics. Just to point out that France at least is not as powerless as it might seem. (personally, I think the reason lay in too much public awareness of the situation, political suicide as you say). A continuation of the current -> I don't think pride has anything to do with this political situation. Probably the estimates were not to continue the war to the present, at least not with the media still focusing on the events in Iraq, but it has never been simple pride (pride for what actually?). And it wasn't ignorace either, these have been deliberate actions (I can't stress enough on this!). There is plenty of theories for the war, by which I mean academically credible ones. Economy and politics combined, plus Israel's need for water supply ("hydropolitics", I still have to look into this one). But in all these, there is a recurrent theme of security..the preservation of state supremacy. Oh..and sorry for the lengthy post..there is little going on on the board... view post

posted 15 Jun 2007, 14:06 in Philosophy DiscussionWhat is going on in Iraq? by Sokar, Auditor

Randal and I said, France is !indeed! too tied up..this doesn't take away that it could, completely on its own, win the war... Don't forget that the US just as well used its bases in Europe during the attacks..exactly the same logistics you say France does not have, the US didn't either (though US probably can have them through a much easier way)... Which is actually really funny, as although Germany opposed the war, they did provide all the necessary support, as in training snipers and indeed having the troops fly through Germany, quite hypocrite... Then again, which government isn't..? view post

posted 23 Jun 2007, 14:06 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]Breaker of Horses and Men by Sokar, Auditor

LOL view post

posted 13 Jul 2007, 21:07 in Philosophy DiscussionDissertation by Sokar, Auditor

yes I am waiting for someone to point out its location for me as well... view post

posted 22 Jul 2007, 21:07 in Philosophy Discussion"Have you ever met someone who is smarter than you?&quo by Sokar, Auditor

Interesting..I posted that a long time ago... And I have apparently grown more convinced of my own ideas... Compare that question to this one: "Have you ever met someone who [i:348lr7ct]loved[/i:348lr7ct] more than you.." I reckon/figure :D this one will have fewer "yes"-es.. But the questions are quite the same... view post

posted 22 Jul 2007, 21:07 in Philosophy DiscussionDissertation by Sokar, Auditor

I am not sure about the copyright laws..but if you can get a hold of it..could you possibly post it (scan the document or perhaps there is an online version)... view post

posted 09 Oct 2007, 17:10 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]Breaker of Horses and Men by Sokar, Auditor

[quote:34vbyjcp] the fact that we can identify with his case and understand his psychoses is down to Scott's skill as a writer [/quote:34vbyjcp] Actually this is most probably because we all have momentary lapses into insanity. Scott writes great, true, but our identification has nothing to do with that.. [quote:34vbyjcp] I think that knowing you are beyond any hope of redemption in your own heart is the basis of the worst kind of insanity [/quote:34vbyjcp] Again, quite the opposite is least that's what I think... When you know you are beyond any redemption (not Christian way), you find peace with yourself, as you realise that nothing will change that. It is the extreme case of willing that is the cause of insanity (which I think is more applicable to Caniur, though I don't agree with it either). Then again, I am simply speaking of my own experience, and I doubt that many perceive this the same way. And something else.. I am not sure if Scott tried to depict our own society, which I think he did not, he simply took elements from it. But all these aspects of insanity, homosexuality, incest and what ever not, are simply morals imposed by the societies depicted in the novel. There can be no judging of these, as our judgment comes from our (I suppose mostly Western, though there is little differences) societies. Then again, I have read way too much Nietzsche in the summer, never mind my previous encounters with Foucault.... PS I am back for this one post, Cnaiur is simply the best character I have encountered. As I said somewhere, he is the most human of them all. view post


The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown.