Traditional gender roles and why are they cool and sexy.

How does compromising...

1.

a : settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions

b : something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things

2.

a : a concession to something derogatory or prejudicial <a compromise of principles>

... works in you getting close to your dreams exactly as dreamed ?
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2011
Messages
111
Location
At the left hand of God.
Because you're not compromising your dreams, you're compromising ('sacrificing') something mundane and unimportant (your grudge with your uncle) for the purpose of achieving your dreams.
 
Joined
Dec 27, 2011
Messages
37
And how does that solve any of those examples I gave when you asked me to give examples?

Also, I wonder what dreams had you in your childhood and your teenager years if you did not need to either compromise or abandon them.
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2011
Messages
111
Location
At the left hand of God.
So, according to you, dear witch, you have to follow your dreams, no matter the price and the damage you may cause to others, right?


What if your dream, your greatest desire is something so abominable that no-one would accept it? What if you were a mentally unbalanced person whose greatest dream is to kill everyone in his town, but currently he's having some remorse issues? Should he embrace his darkest desires and become a full monster, even if it will inevitably lead to his own destruction?
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2011
Messages
5
And how does that solve any of those examples I gave when you asked me to give examples?

I'm following the discussion rather absent-minded, can you quote the examples you're referring to?

Edit: Wait, nevermind. You edited your post, I think? I'll read it and respond.

Edit 2: Okay, assuming we're talking about the same thing: can you give an example of a dream detached from context? I don't see how this is possible, unless you mean some abstract goal such as "happiness". But the way to concretely achieve happiness seems to me, to be dependent on context, so I'm not sure that's what you're talking about.
In any case, assuming we're discussing happiness, I stick to the example of rk's cousin. I just gave you an obvious example of where compromise increased one's happiness. Are you saying severing all ties made him happier?

Also, I wonder what dreams had you in your childhood and your teenager years if you did not need to either compromise or abandon them.

I don't think I had dreams? I was rather content to just live and enjoy life.
 
Joined
Dec 27, 2011
Messages
37
@ Lightbane

Actually, yes. I don't believe other people has the right to tell you to lose your dreams and your happiness so that they don't lose their own dreams and happiness. If your dreams put you against their own, well, some dreams are going to have to go, and you should make as sure as possible those aren't yours.

Morality, law, etc, those are limits imposed upon you by your context. You may be fine if those limits don't opose your dreams, but what do you do when they do? Do you let yourself, your identity, be anihilated and absorved into something that believes itself to be greater than you, or you defy it, willing to destroy even the Gods or be anihilated?

That's the crux of the question. Since the dawn of time most people has embraced the right hand, being absorved into something greater. Be it society, culture, philosophy, religion, ideology, or God itself. The whole being more important than the parts, and being worth sacrifices to keep alive.

The left hand, meanwhile, always approached the problem by a simple philosophy: That the heroic path is about defiance for it's own sake. It's about reaching impossible goals and defeting impossible enemies, or dying while fighting impossible odds. That only those individuals pursuing the heroic path matter. That when you truly lust for something it's do or die. Period.

That's a very simplified version, without philosophy nor ideology, but it will work as a start. And the left hand is as fanatical about those ideals as adamant are the slaves of whatever shape the right hand takes in a given context.

It gets much darker on the metaphysical side, where defiance is, in itself, an ideology. For example, if society, God, cultural context, or nature tells you don't eat people, many left handers go and eat people, just to further strenghten their own identity as entities of defiance and destruction, of taboo and wild passion. If their own minds tell them don't steal they actually force themselves to steal from the ones it will hurt the most to steal from just so that their own mind, influenced by context and culture, is defied and destroyed, and thus something new and more beautiful can occupy the place of that mind they did lose.

Even the subconsious mind is defied. Only those things born of your own will, of your own lust, or your own hatred, or your own passion are allowed. Everything that's external to your will is an enemy trying to defeat you. That's why insanity is the price many may have to pay: You have to destroy your own mind, corrupted as it is by social and cultural context, by fear and self-preservation, etc, to return it to the primal chaos of wild potential, and then you can try to reshape it in a way pure, devoid of all alien influences.
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2011
Messages
111
Location
At the left hand of God.
That's what, again, you don't understand. You are talking about success, while I am talking about victory. Success? What's success? In the end you are getting exactly the same as everyone else: You get old and ugly, and then, if you didn't kill yourself to not be old and ugly at least, you die a horrible and ugly death, and then move either into oblivion or into whatever horrible, dog eat dog metaphysical realm out there, where you are probably too weak to keep your own identity and instead are torn to shreds by the abyss.

Victory is destroying everything that opposes you. Success, meanwhile, is a value born of cultural context, as you must be judged socially to be considered successful. Therefore, success is devoid of meaning for someone in this path.

Reading Nietzsche much, I see not-BC. Identical interpretation of victory and conquest. I don't remember him ever separating the means of achieving that according to genders, but the male element you described mirrors his general idea. Dominance, conquest, fire, friction, conflict is all that form one's character. Incidentally, exactly that message stems from his most popular quote "What does not kill me, makes me stronger."

He also criticised Christianity for being the cult of weakness, promoting nothing but passiveness, self-loathing and idolatory whereas a human must strive to achieve new heights, must seek out new challenges, and above all must act

He was a great thinker in his age - certainly controversial and outspoken though, sadly, misunderstood. That his philosophy was pervated by the Nazi agenda (Nietzche himself derided them) didn't help his image either. Also, when it came to practice - you know, when concepts crash against life - he was not the greatest role-model (he never got married, and in the end he went nuts).

Myself, I am more moderated in my beliefs. While certainly there's much truth in what you are saying, I try (life can be bi*ch, and the world of ideals sometimes has little to do with the reality we live in) to live according to one phrase good old William Blake came up with in his "Marriage of Heaven and Hell": "Without Contraries is no progression".

Full excerpt:

"Without Contraries is no progression. Attraction and Repulsion,
Reason and Energy, Love and Hate, are necessary to Human existence.
From these contraries spring what the religious call Good & Evil.
Good is the passive that obeys Reason. Evil is the active springing
from Energy. Good is Heaven. Evil is Hell."

Once you understand everything in the world is necessary, and your duty is to merely seek out the new challenges to benefit from experience, regardless of the consequnces. This 'philosophy' (too grand a word) promotes activity and movement, but not 'conquest' in the Nietzschean sense. Victory, although desirable, is not the requirement (it does not mean pussying out is condoned).

The key difference, I think, lies in a degree of 'respect' towards every new challange, idea and person as those 'contraries' you are exposed to are necessary to your 'progression'.

That's why sometimes the whole point of discussion is not to prove you are right, by merely see if that is so.
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2010
Messages
88
@ Mrowak

More or less. I did read him, and I like him. He's a modernization, or better yet a new manifestation, of the same current or force that has been present in all regions of the world, through all ages. He took that message, implicitly or explicitly, and turned it into something the modern world would be able to understand, would be able to relate to. It's a pretty admirable task and one he did with style, as the topic isn't simple at all.

And I do understand that marriage you speak of. I speak of Yin and Yang, and aren't those opposite forces whose brutal, eternal conflict spawns the entire of creation, be it in symbol or reality? The left hand is always reactionary: Without something to defy, something to destroy, something to fight against, where's the heroism?

Destruction needs something to destroy, rebelion needs something to rebel against, defiance needs something to defy. It is impossible for reality to become a pure manifestation of either hand, and that's the entire point. However, remember I see this from a metaphysical perspective: The left hand tries to conquer, and by trying to conquer does its part in the great wheel. Sick forms fall, new forms arise, and in time the left hand cuts those down again.

While many left handers consider themselves scions of the forces of opposition (lucifer, prometheus, samyaza, etc) one of its oldest names is the left hand of God. Meaning they, too, are doing their part of the law by giving form to the other side of creation, the side that acuses and slaughters.

Other than that,

codexlove2.png
Huggies!
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2011
Messages
111
Location
At the left hand of God.
I still don't get what kind of dream is a dream detached from context, and what your objection is to saying the cousin should've reached a compromise with his uncle.
 
Joined
Dec 27, 2011
Messages
37
Every time I hear Black Cat talking about how men should be I have an urge to read some Lord Byron. I approve of this.
 
Joined
Dec 27, 2011
Messages
24
Back
Top Bottom