Critique Against Human Nature

chaz wyman · **Joined:** Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm **Posts:** 10592

Ikezall wrote:

If One takes away all the parts of Man, like destructing a car's engine, then what is One left with except the Soul and Essence of Mankind? There exists a spark of life inside Him, that exists as nothing more than a....DREAM. This Dream-State therein is the Imagining of Man. And in the same way Man becomes Imagined, somehow, He also transcends all that is, can be, or can become.

The true limit of Man, or any possibility therein, is His own Imagination, and His own Responsibility to Oneself!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you take away all the parts of Man, you get a pile of male parts where you have moved them to. If they are not attached in good order then you get a pile of dead men.
They can be nothing, they have ceased to be men. They are deceased, no more, they have shuffled up their mortal coil, they've snuffed it, kicked the bucket, dead...

Ikezall · **Joined:** Sat Sep 24, 2011 9:46 am **Posts:** 42

chaz wyman wrote:

If you take away all the parts of Man, you get a pile of male parts where you have moved them to. If they are not attached in good order then you get a pile of dead men.
They can be nothing, they have ceased to be men. They are deceased, no more, they have shuffled up their mortal coil, they've snuffed it, kicked the bucket, dead...

Quit becoming so Hateful and Evil, Cheeeeeezeee.

Why do you "truly want" Man to die? Do you hate yourself?

chaz wyman · **Joined:** Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm **Posts:** 10592

Ikezall wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

This is most curious - and I think a psychologist would have a field day with Ike. Trannies are actually an example of men who do indeed want to be women, and are the closest any man can EVER come to becoming a woman.
Of the three examples I quizzed Ike on concerning his theory of "imagining, wanting then becoming".- the other 'becoming a cuboid planet", and the other being "immortal" - it is the man becoming a woman that most support the view that you can be anything you want to be. But Ike refused to allow this!! This is beyond bizarre!

I really think Ike is struggling to keep up with his own ideas.

But you see, it's clear. "Trannies" do not want to "truly become" women, otherwise what would stop their Becoming except ***you*** Cheeeze?

I do not think you are capable, nor do you have the right to judge them.

I'm not the one stopping Trannies from becoming women/females, Cheeze, YOU ARE!!! You are the one limiting them, and putting *YOUR* impossibility on top of them, like a farmer puts the plow upon his Oxen. It is a type of mental slavery. YOU are propositioning your own impossibility, and lack of imagination.

You are mad. This is a direct contradiction of what you have said.

ME? I'm not the one limiting 'Trannies' to say what they can or cannot do, or should or should not Become!

You have said they do not want to be women, despite them having the courage to tell the world just that.
You are a sick puppy.

I merely relate the essence of Becoming itself, and relate this to the innate, instinctive, "Natural State" of Mankind.

More of which is gibberish.

My critique is a rebellion against rebellion, and attempt to understand and identify the causes for the original rebellion (against Nature).

Your Critique is a meaningless collection of misunderstood words of no value.

This is a Deconstruction of Man, as well as women and children, as well as nature, as well as human nature and "HUMANISM".

You could not deconstruct your way out of a paper bag.
Do you have personal gender issues?
Is that what you problem is?

lancek4 · **Joined:** Sat Oct 16, 2010 5:50 pm **Posts:** 1565

Thanks Chaz! I think this scene came to mind (realize this is a comedy- very silly one at that) because of the "ha ha ha ha ha ha ha" of Izekil reminded me of Vizzini and the end of this scene:

MAN IN BLACK
All right: where is the poison?
The battle of wits has begun. It
ends when you decide and we both
drink, and find out who is right
and who is dead.
45.

VIZZINI
But it's so simple. All I have to
do is divine from what I know of
you. Are you the sort of man who
would put the poison into his own
goblet, or his enemy's?

He studies the Man In Black now.

VIZZINI
Now, a clever man would put the
poison into his own goblet,
because he would know that only a
great fool would reach for what
he was given. I'm not a great
fool, so I can clearly not choose
the wine in front of you. But you
must have known I was not a great
fool; you would have counted on
it, so I can clearly not choose
the wine in front of me.

MAN IN BLACK
(And now there's a
trace of nervousness beginning)
You've made your decision then7

VIZZINI
Not remotely. Because iocane
comes from Australia, as everyone
knows. And Australia is entirely
peopled with criminals. And
criminals are used to having
people not trust them, as you are
not trusted by me. So I can
clearly not choose the wine in
front of you.

MAN IN BLACK
Truly, you have a dizzying
intellect.

VIZZINI
Wait till I get going! Where was I?

MAN IN BLACK
Australia.

VIZZINI
Yes -- Australia, and you must
have suspected I would have known
the powder's origin, so I can
clearly not choose the wine in
front of me.
46.

MAN IN BLACK
(very nervous)
You're just stalling now.

VIZZINI
(cackling)
You'd like to think that, wouldn't
you?
(stares at the Man in Black)
You've beaten my giant, which
means you're exceptionally strong.
So, you could have put the poison
in your own goblet, trusting on
your strength to save you. So I
can clearly not choose the wine
in front of you. But, you've also
bested my Spaniard which means
you must have studied. And in
studying, you must have learned
that man is mortal so you would
have put the poison as far from
yourself as possible, so I can
clearly not choose the wine in
front of me.

As Vizzini's pleasure has been growing throughout, the Man
In Black's has been fast disappearing.

MAN IN BLACK
You're trying to trick me into
giving away something -- it won't
work --

VIZZINI
(triumphant)
It has worked -- you've given
everything away -- I know where
the poison is.

MAN IN BLACK
(fool's courage)
Then make your choice.

VIZZINI
I will. And I choose --

And suddenly he stops, points at something behind the Man In
Black.

VIZZINI
-- what in the world can that be?

CUT TO:
47.

THE MAN IN BLACK

turning around, looking.

MAN IN BLACK
What? Where? I don't see anything.

CUT TO:

VIZZINI

busily switching the goblets while the Man In Black has his
head turned.

VIZZINI
Oh, well, I-I could have sworn I
saw something. No matter.

The Man In Black turns to face him again. Vizzini starts to
laugh.

MAN IN BLACK
What's so funny?

VIZZINI
I'll tell you in a minute. First,
let's drink -- me from my glass,
and you from yours.

And he picks up his goblet. The Man In Black picks up the
one in front of him. As they both start to drink, Vizzini
hesitates a moment.

Then, allowing the Man In Black to drink first, he swallows
his wine.

MAN IN BLACK
You guessed wrong.

VIZZINI
(roaring with laughter)
You only think I guessed wrong --
(louder now)
-- that's what's so funny! I
switched glasses when your back
was turned. You fool.

CUT TO:

THE MAN IN BLACK

There's nothing he can say. He just sits there.

CUT TO:
48.

VIZZINI

watching him.

VIZZINI
You fell victim to one of the
classic blunders. The most famous
is "Never get involved in a land
war in Asia." But only slightly
less well known is this: "Never
go in against a Sicilian when
death is on the line."

He laughs and roars and cackles and whoops (ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!) and is in all
ways quite cheery until he falls over dead.

lancek4 · **Joined:** Sat Oct 16, 2010 5:50 pm **Posts:** 1565

[quote="chaz wymanI really think Ike is struggling to keep up with his own ideas.[/quote]
absolutely. maybe that is what also reminded me of this scene.

chaz wyman · **Joined:** Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm **Posts:** 10592

Ikezall wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

If you take away all the parts of Man, you get a pile of male parts where you have moved them to. If they are not attached in good order then you get a pile of dead men.
They can be nothing, they have ceased to be men. They are deceased, no more, they have shuffled up their mortal coil, they've snuffed it, kicked the bucket, dead...

Quit becoming so Hateful and Evil, Cheeeeeezeee.

Why do you "truly want" Man to die? Do you hate yourself?

I'd rather live forever, but do not think that is possible.
If you really think that I truly want "man to die" , then according to your theory that is exactly all I need for that to BE true.
You are contradicting yourself again.

But consider who is being hateful? It is you that is ranting and calling me evil and "cheeeezee". It is you that is bleating like a pussy and running to the censors in the hope of getting me banned.
And yet - you are powerless. You say all you have to do is truly want something. And you truly want me to disappear. And yet I'm still here. I'm not dead. and I'm not going away.

chaz wyman · **Joined:** Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm **Posts:** 10592

lancek4 wrote:

Thanks Chaz! I think this scene came to mind (realize this is a comedy- very silly one at that) because of the "ha ha ha ha ha ha ha" of Izekil reminded me of Vizzini and the end of this scene:

VIZZINI
You fell victim to one of the
classic blunders. The most famous
is "Never get involved in a land
war in Asia." But only slightly
less well known is this: "Never
go in against a Sicilian when
death is on the line."

He laughs and roars and cackles and whoops (ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!) and is in all
ways quite cheery until he falls over dead.

Hell I don't know whether to call Ike Loretta or Vizzini now!!!
AH the paradox of choice!!
I so love to see him take his own poison again and again.
IKEVIZZINI

lancek4 · **Joined:** Sat Oct 16, 2010 5:50 pm **Posts:** 1565

but it is entertaining (for a little bit) to keep going --

Ikezall wrote:

lancek4 wrote:

Ok: man is pure potential. And your elaboration of this idea does nothing to tell me what 'man' is compared to anything else I might propose. The sky is pure potential also. So is peanut butter. What differentiates 'man' from any other thing with pure postential?

Categorization, an act of Discrimination/Judgment, separates & divides all that is.
your priveledged position.

Whether you believe it or not, you have a definition of Man/Him in your own mind. My job here is to use an ice cream scoop, open your cranium, and scoop that definition out of you, if you will not freely hand it over to Me. I want your definition. I truly want your definition. I offer you my own. And I expect an exchange here, even if it is in your own favor. What else is Philosophy than this?
My tenetive definition, since you have not the tact and will not exaplin yours to coax mine out from me, is : man: 1) an individual human being that is not woman. 2) the whole of humankind, 3) that element of the universe which is a living creature and ... (add linneus taxonomic scheme) ... and not otherwise categorized differently, 4) a word in the english lanaguage, 5) a term of discourse used to indicate any of the above definitions.

hows that for 'on-the-fly' definition. Now what is yours? (and you can use mine to distinguish yours if you wish)

lancek4 wrote:

if a noumen is something that exists independantly of knowledge, then it does not exist in reality in position. It either exists as 'all reality' or 'no reality'. How can we know of something we cannot know of?
when we posit a specific numen, then we are dealing strickly with the individual and its knowledge.

The individual is the position. Because the individual has a location in space and time that may not reflect other types (categories) of objects.
yes, we have agreed on this.

This is the Reason-Why man is that "Magnificent Beast" of the OP. Because Man...He is Transcendental within time and space.
one could argue that such is a definition of God. If you are conflating the ideas then you have not presented a sufficient defence of that idea, and it is what we are trying to get from you.

lancek4 wrote:

Being-concerning knowledge ? ok, I can see that. but the probelm is that you contradict yourself by positing such a thing that is beyond knowledge. What is knowledge?

Knowledge is comprehension, and realization, of ones own Dream-State.
ok.

Knowledge is the Reason-Why behind any Dream-State, whether your own or of any other living thing.
ok I am following this..

One could ask: Why do people dream? in the same way: Why does life-itself dream?

ok.

Ikezall · **Joined:** Sat Sep 24, 2011 9:46 am **Posts:** 42

chaz wyman wrote:

you are powerless.

I'm not the coward, lizard brain who believes in Impossibility.

All is Possible, to Me.

Ikezall · **Joined:** Sat Sep 24, 2011 9:46 am **Posts:** 42

lancek4 wrote:

My tenetive definition, since you have not the tact and will not exaplin yours to coax mine out from me, is : man: 1) an individual human being that is not woman. 2) the whole of humankind, 3) that element of the universe which is a living creature and ... (add linneus taxonomic scheme) ... and not otherwise categorized differently, 4) a word in the english lanaguage, 5) a term of discourse used to indicate any of the above definitions.

hows that for 'on-the-fly' definition. Now what is yours? (and you can use mine to distinguish yours if you wish) [/color]

I already gave you mind.

chaz wyman · **Joined:** Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm **Posts:** 10592

Ikezall wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

you are powerless.

I'm not the coward, lizard brain who believes in Impossibility.

All is Possible, to Me.

You do not have the ability to convince me.
QED; not all is possible to you.

I'm not the one who is deluded.
With each insult you weaken your argument.

Ikezall · **Joined:** Sat Sep 24, 2011 9:46 am **Posts:** 42

"You fucking moron."

Arising_uk · **Joined:** Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am **Posts:** 10396

Fair comment I think.

chaz wyman · **Joined:** Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm **Posts:** 10592

Arising_uk wrote:

Fair comment I think.

SO do you think that Ike can do the impossible??
How remarkably naive of you.

Arising_uk · **Joined:** Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am **Posts:** 10396

No idea how you jumped to that?

My comment was just a reflection upon his upon yours that each insult weakens an argument.

Philosophy Now Forum

Critique Against Human Nature

Who is online