Notices
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: The Steatopygous Ass and Plump Clitoris- Lonely Vs.Alone

  1. #1 The Steatopygous Ass and Plump Clitoris- Lonely Vs.Alone 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The middle padding on your panties
    Posts
    122
    GOTCHA!
    Now sit still and at least read it, there's butt in here somewhere I swear.

    I’ve always disparaged those that that would use the terms alone and lonely interchangeably.
    The lonely obsesses over your company, the loner is indifferent to it- so who are you to say they are the same?
    Consider:


    Alone is an acquired state of affairs
    Lonely is an imposed state of affairs.

    1. I say acquired because the state of being alone is a choice required of one’s temperament, a *choice* compelled by the naiveté of integrity and maintained by its persitence.
    It is above all a choice subject to the will of that temperament.

    The cost of this choice is usually “others” where by others here we mean ‘company’, lack of which means ‘alone’

    2. I say imposed because the state of being lonely is a burden obligated on one’s temperament, which leaves one no choice but to grow anxious enough to unyoke.
    This is a general anxiety compelled by insecurity and maintained by its fear.

    The cost is usually “self” where by self here we mean either “soul” “integrity” or ‘life’, lack of either meaning “lonely”

    So where one has the luxury of choice, and the other the bondage of no choice, I ask then why would one ever use them both interchangeably?

    Since when is lack of company and need of company the same thing?

    The world is so eager to give both the loner and the lonely their sweet pity, rationed out in equal doses of cloned compassion, but who would pity the wealthy as they would the poor?
    For that matter does anyone ever pity the wealthy? Now, if you like money, and make money, its mighty hard for you to ever claim having pitied wealth.

    Therefore, “alone” is an achievement of one’s temperament and cannot be avoided if it remains true to that temperament.

    So, to be alone is an asset and to be loney an abysmal debt for the anxious.
    Yet the world pities both equally?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman arditezza's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    40
    I only pity the victims of the lonely, but not the lonely themselves. I don't pity people who are alone, as there is nothing wrong with them. The alone are usually that way by choice or by purposeful independance.

    The lonely are a sad lot of co-dependant saplings that can't function without a trunk and roots to latch and feed off of. Without the structure of a relationship, they don't feel complete and they can't find their way in the world. They often need someone to boost and stroke their egos, and constantly repair their ever-failing self-esteem. They create chaos and drama to draw people to them when they need a "fix" and the thing they fear most is not being noticed.

    I would say that;

    Alone is a choice of independant will.
    Lonely is a self-imposed state of dependance.


    Come join the Babbling Incoherents
    A forum of the humanities/philosophy/arts variety.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    34
    No sight of the promised steatopygous butt. I feel dumped alone now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman Xerxes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    30
    Abraxas,

    I've always disparaged those who attach definite meanings to words. Language is not like math where a misplaced symbol can spell disaster. Depending on the context, one could use a word like alone in place of 'lonely' to describe something not conveyed by either word (language is finite.)

    Language itself is irrational. Its purpose is not to convey hard facts, but to grows and evolve as part of a culture. Anybody who speaks more than their native tongue can attest to this.
    where oh where is sciforums?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    GOTCHA!
    Now sit still and at least read it, there's butt in here somewhere I swear.
    Vile trickster.
    And now I have to read through this mass of words looking for a butt?
    But, I clicked for the clitoris not the ass.
    (You show your prejudice... fatass. Ahh. But wait. You're saying that you've actually got the small... heh. I get you. Interesting analogy. I understand it perfectly. (Well, you make no claim to being either/or actually. I guess my prejudice is showing.))

    1. I say acquired because the state of being alone is a choice required of one’s temperament, a *choice* compelled by the naiveté of integrity and maintained by its persitence.
    It is above all a choice subject to the will of that temperament.
    As it is part and parcel of the temperament in such a way, is it really a choice?

    And isn't the other just as part and parcel of temperament? Does the lonely have a choice but to yearn for company?

    What of a lonely one who chooses to remain alone rather than seek to fulfill his/her yearn? And the loner who chooses to insert himself into the group? Aren't these actions more like choice than what I would think of as the *default* positions? The factory presets?

    2. I say imposed because the state of being lonely is a burden obligated on one’s temperament, which leaves one no choice but to grow anxious enough to unyoke.
    This is a general anxiety compelled by insecurity and maintained by its fear.
    I suspect that there are more than one motivation for loneliness. In fact, I should think that the motivations for such are as varied as the human species.

    However, let's focus on your words for a moment. The differences between: "Choice required" and "Burden obligated". Both are forced by temperament. Yet one has negative connotations by your words and the other seems to possess a form of nobility.

    The proud fiend vs. the craven stoolgroomer.

    But in how many humans is their temperament truly so diametrically opposed in such a fashion?

    I suppose that this is where the element of choice comes in. Because no man is an island. Yet he can make choices which might make him an archipelago. Or a commonwealth.

    Hmm.

    For that matter does anyone ever pity the wealthy? Now, if you like money, and make money, its mighty hard for you to ever claim having pitied wealth.
    What about the miser? Hasn't the miser been pitied time after time?
    Don't you pity Scrooge? And feel glad for him when he finally comes alive on Christmas Day.

    Now. Here's an interesting analogy.
    Scrooge forewent his miserly nature. But, he didn't go to some random house to bestow his gifts. He went to the home of Cratchit, his faithful employee.
    He didn't just start throwing money away madly. He instead gave it thoughtfully to those deserving. Yes?
    And wouldn't he who is, by nature, alone do the same should he choose to bestow the gift of himself? He doesn't throw it about madly. But wisely. Sparingly. Usefully.

    What was it Durant said of the Negative Man? Hanging out in coffee shops yakking away to anyone who would listen?
    Craven. Miserly hoarding the attention of others. Giving himself, but in such a wild flurry that it becomes clear that he's giving nothing at all. Only taking. Absorbing. Hoarding. A social vampire.

    So. You have two different misers. One hoarding himself. The other hoarding other.

    But, which chooses?

    Again. I find myself talking of the extreme type which doesn't necessarily exist.

    Therefore, “alone” is an achievement of one’s temperament and cannot be avoided if it remains true to that temperament.
    The same with 'lonely'. The point is 'remaining true'. Do you think that one should never grow beyond oneself? Or should one always remain true to one's temperament?

    Should one have pride in following one's predispositions so faithfully?


    Everneo,

    No sight of the promised steatopygous butt. I feel dumped alone now.
    I see it.
    It's not steatopygous, but it is a butt.


    Xerxes,

    I've always disparaged those who attach definite meanings to words. Language is not like math where a misplaced symbol can spell disaster. Depending on the context, one could use a word like alone in place of 'lonely' to describe something not conveyed by either word (language is finite.)
    In other words, you're disparaging Abraxas?
    You don't think that, while language is not a precise system, that words can't be temporarily defined in a precise manner to make a point? You're unable to accept the given definitions of 'alone' and 'lonely' for the sake of discussion?

    Because words must be wild and running free?
    Or because you can't think of anything to say but came in looking for clitoris (or are you a butt man?)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    391
    Abraxas,


    Alone is an acquired state of affairs
    Lonely is an imposed state of affairs.
    Slovene clarifies:

    "alone" is "sam" (for a woman: "sama"),
    "lonely" is "osamljen" (for a woman: "osamljena").

    "Osamljen" is the participle to the verb "osamiti", which means 'to isolate; to leave one to oneself'.
    Whenever you say "osamljen", the morphological meaning of this departicipal adjective envokes the verb from which the participle is derived.

    As far as language goes, there should be no problem distinguishing between "sam" and "osamljen". Yet, they get confused here as well.

    How come? It very likely has to do with the way the sense of identity developed, and how an individual is valued. Namely, it is unclear, in our "pluralism of value systems" what an individual is and how he relates to others.

    Thus:
    It is both good and bad to be all by yourself (ie. alone). It is good if you do it to declare you indpendence. It is bad because it is selfish (means you are not in accord with society).

    It is both good and bad to be left alone (ie. lonely). It is good if you isolate yourself to declare your independence. It is bad if others have isolated you (means you are not in accord with society).

    It in understandable that in such a mess of evaluations of a state, the states get confused.
    New words surface to fix this, or older words gain momentum: social hermit, quality time (and I'd have to watch Oprah for the newest ones, but I won't), solitude (and some old words I don't remember in English).

    But this can then lead to new confusions, as the words that were meant to fix the confusion of alone/lonely, add new layers of meaning, new evaluational directions.


    Since when is lack of company and need of company the same thing?
    Since "I can because I must" became "I must because I can".

    If one can have company, one must strive for it.
    Because one can die one's hair or get breast implants, one must do it.
    If you lack it, you need it, you must get it.

    This is where ethics derived from empiricism lead to: What can be observed is normal, and thus to be striven for.

    (Hence one is brought to envy cancer patients -- because one feels one lacks something by not having cancer, and one should never lack anything.)


    * * *


    arditezza,


    I would say that;

    Alone is a choice of independant will.
    Lonely is a self-imposed state of dependance.
    And we are gods and almighty ... and *should* be able to be all by ourselves.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerxes
    Abraxas,

    I've always disparaged those who attach definite meanings to words. Language is not like math where a misplaced symbol can spell disaster. Depending on the context, one could use a word like alone in place of 'lonely' to describe something not conveyed by either word (language is finite.)

    Language itself is irrational. Its purpose is not to convey hard facts, but to grows and evolve as part of a culture. Anybody who speaks more than their native tongue can attest to this.
    First of all, how can something be both finite and irrational? It is a mess, then, or what?

    And language is not finite, esp. not if we say that the purpose of language is "not to convey hard facts, but to grow and evolve as part of a culture."


    Language is not like math where a misplaced symbol can spell disaster.
    A-ha.

    Example 1: Language is not like math where a misplaced symbol can spell disaster.
    Example 2: Language is like math where a misplaced symbol can not spell disaster.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman Xerxes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    30
    woops... I meant to say 'words are finite'. Language is irrational because it tries to communicate such a wide range of things with a limited vocabularily. Even math isn't perfect in that respect. But its a lot better until you get into the complex stuff.

    invert_nexus,
    spoken/written language relies not only on the speaker but also the listener/reader. If you give precise definitions of a word for the sake of discussing the two meanings, I think its alright. But to discuss meaning based on a finite set of words is way to limiting. No room for argument if you get my drift...

    I didn't come looking for clitoris or butt, BTW.
    where oh where is sciforums?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: On:Steatopygous Ass and Small Clitoris- Lonely Vs.Alone 
    Blah-blah blink. Ripley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    104
    Abraxas wrote:

    I say acquired because the state of being alone is a choice required of one’s temperament

    I say imposed because the state of being lonely is a burden obligated on one’s temperament, which leaves one no choice but to grow anxious enough to unyoke

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Could both manners, do you think, be stomached within the same temperament, with one officiating over the other as "standard"?

    For example, an imposition of a forced loneliness being challenged by a wilful personality: what was once a regrettably and endless imprisoned seclusion would transmute into an unshackled reclusiveness. Such reclusiveness would have burrowed into the lonely individual's psyche, probably in stages and in fits of inspiration, and elaborate itself.

    Or, the self-appointed loner, during an inconsistent interlude, needing the occasional social fix but not finding any. Such loneliness might not be thought of as need to him, but be experienced nonetheless as a melancholic and probably beautiful disturbance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Blah-blah blink. Ripley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    104
    Abraxas wrote:

    Yet the world pities both equally?

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I've not very good at interpreting pity -- but I can't understand why people must feel it necessary to scorn or ridicule loneliness/aloneness. They, after all, are not affected. But my guess is that they are mind-setting themselves against its influences -- as though it were... immoral?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    391
    Xerxes,


    woops... I meant to say 'words are finite'.
    If words are finite, then they are definable with an analytical set of semems/elementary components of meaning.
    If words are finite, then your "I've always disparaged those who attach definite meanings to words." is misdirected.


    There are several theories of meaning -- I wish Sciforums were here so I could neatly post a link, as this has been worked out at length there! --, the most notable ones being atomism, component analysis and holism.

    Atomism goes to say the meaning of a word is finite and always the same, regardless of the context in which a word is used. (Numerals and colour adjectives are good examples of such words.)

    Component analysis says it is possible to break down the meaning of a word into a finite set of individual meaning components that cannot be further analyzed.
    This holds true for some uses of some words for material things -- like a chair can be contrasted to a bench, and the differences are analytically definable (both are pieces of furniture, both to sit on, but a chair is for one person a bench for more).
    This explanation drastically falls short when it comes to abstracts (try to analytically break down the meaning of "love" or "metacognition").

    Holism says that the meaning of a word is a prototype, which we, according to context shape and fit in. The meaning of a word cannot be broken down into analytically definable constituents.
    Like, we have in our mind a prototype of a bird that allows us to recognize a sparrow, a penguin, a storch, an albatros, an ostrich, a chicken, a thanksgiving turkey in the owen, a roadkill splash of a goose -- to all be a "bird".



    Language is irrational because it tries to communicate such a wide range of things with a limited vocabularily.
    I disagree. Language works perfectly -- it may take several steps of clarification though.

    What definitely is irrational is our analysis of language, the meta-language. This is just a theory, subject to constant change.



    spoken/written language relies not only on the speaker but also the listener/reader. If you give precise definitions of a word for the sake of discussing the two meanings, I think its alright. But to discuss meaning based on a finite set of words is way to limiting. No room for argument if you get my drift...
    When we discuss the "meaning of a word" -- what are we actually discussing? Language or our life-philosophies?



    I didn't come looking for clitoris or butt, BTW.
    Ah. Better say yes, and you will be less doubted.


    * * *

    ad . hoc,


    I've not very good at interpreting pity -- but I can't understand why people must feel it necessary to scorn or ridicule loneliness/aloneness. They, after all, are not affected. But my guess is that they are mind-setting themselves against its influences -- as though it were... immoral?
    Exactly. If A chooses to be alone, this can deprive the company-hungry B of A's company, which makes B resentful. This sentiment then gets generalized and abstracted into "All aloneness is bad".

    If anything, those resenting aloneness give themselves away in that: we can infer they need company (or want it, but feel they have no right to want this), and are threatened if others refuse to give it. What threatens is bad.

    It is the lonely who resents the loner.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The middle padding on your panties
    Posts
    122
    Xerxes:
    I've always disparaged those who attach definite meanings to words. Language is not like math where a misplaced symbol can spell disaster. Depending on the context, one could use a word like alone in place of 'lonely' to describe something not conveyed by either word (language is finite.)
    True.

    We know, but do they? For that matter, do you when using words in the everyday?
    When’s the last time you called another a ‘liar’?
    Often we call others liars and use the term ‘liar’ for someone that’s just spitting bullshit.
    Yet the liar to his core cares for the truth because the better he knows it the better he is at concealing it.
    The bullshitter has no such conviction; he’ll talk and keep talking regardless of facts just to have an opinion.
    The liar is at least informed, the bullshitter is just fucking stupid.

    Yet people call those that simply bullshit, which are many, a liar. When the bullshitter is clearly not a liar..

    That’s what I’m getting at.
    The loner is mistaken for ‘lonely’.

    I want them to think about what they are saying before saying it.

    Language itself is irrational.
    Disagree.
    I think language is by far the clearest testament of reason being possible.
    Hellen Keller was treated as an irrational brute until the brute started speaking.

    So other than this….strange….habit we have for math, I say language is stolid evidence of that brain’s ability to reason.
    Unless we equate language to math.

    Which came first, I’ve always wondered.
    Language or Math? Twins or siblings born with ages and ages between births?


    Invert:
    And isn't the other just as part and parcel of temperament? Does the lonely have a choice but to yearn for company?
    I’ve been invading the internet and here is the sum of what I found-

    “In one psychological research study the most frequently stated description of loneliness by the subjects was "it feels like there is a hole or space inside my chest" (Rubenstein & Shaver, 1982).”

    Further, I’ve been somewhat hounding people of all stripes for the past week with a little third degree:
    Have you ever been lonely?
    How you would you describe that feeling?
    How did you cope with it?
    What was the cause of that loneliness and on a scale of one to ten, one being “minimal” and ten “fucking unbearable”, how would you grade that experience when experiencing it?

    And the answers match that description by Rubensteni and Shaver up there perfectly, in short: it’s a terrifying experience.

    People are terrified of being alone because, on top of being mammals, for them alone *is* lonely.
    Yet A loner is less likely to feel that empty gap of nothingness the lonely do- what’s a buck fifty to a millionaire?

    And when I said temperament what I meant by it was the underlying personality we all show as children and retain as relics with age.


    These temperaments are ransacked by the social stigma of ‘being alone” and the introvert learns to sell his soul to fit in. That he has to keep selling it and keep up with demand, to me, is the root of his anxious slavery.
    He becomes lonely.
    He can’t even stay in a room with no noise.
    He’ll drown silence with television, radio or prostitute himself on the telephone. My sibling, who does not drive, cannot stand riding with poor little me because I ignore her.

    Bwahhahahahhaha…..
    And here we are on a forum. Are we lonely? Or loners in leisure?


    But in how many humans is their temperament truly so diametrically opposed in such a fashion?
    Very, very few.
    Which is why its so neat when one finds another one, you. strike. gold!


    “Those entrapped by the herd instinct are drowned in the deluges of history. But there are always the few who observe, reason, and take precautions, and thus escape the flood. For these few gold has been the asset of last resort." – Anthony Sutton.

    However, let's focus on your words for a moment. The differences between: "Choice required" and "Burden obligated". Both are forced by temperament.
    I’ll cover the semantics at the end of this post
    suppose that this is where the element of choice comes in. Because no man is an island. Yet he can make choices which might make him an archipelago. Or a commonwealth
    Speaking of, no man is an island? Says who?
    A meddling Christian:
    John Donne (1572-1631), from Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions, Meditation XVII.
    "All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated...As therefore the bell that rings to a sermon, calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to come: so this bell calls us all: but how much more me, who am brought so near the door by this sickness....No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
    He’s not defining men as means but as your own identity.
    This is why I rarely repeat what others do until I read it in context-

    So because this man believes that one man’s death is my own….
    That my individuality is bad grammar in need of translation….
    That god or heaven or whatever the hell is above me and not me it…..
    Then I should as well?

    I don’t think so.
    So why would I go around saying ‘no man is an island’?

    What about the miser? Hasn't the miser been pitied time after time?
    Don't you pity Scrooge? And feel glad for him when he finally comes alive on Christmas Day.

    Now. Here's an interesting analogy.
    Scrooge forewent his miserly nature. But, he didn't go to some random house to bestow his gifts. He went to the home of Cratchit, his faithful employee.
    He didn't just start throwing money away madly. He instead gave it thoughtfully to those deserving. Yes?
    And wouldn't he who is, by nature, alone do the same should he choose to bestow the gift of himself? He doesn't throw it about madly. But wisely. Sparingly. Usefully.
    Becautifully put.

    I will not add to this other than to say the miser is pitied because he doesn’t exude wealth.
    They pity his rags or find them insulting until they find he is rich, at which point they’ll either envy or hate him and seek to exploit him.

    If he’s not the meany that Ebeneezer was, of course.
    So it helps to be a cruel miser.

    Water:
    Osamljen" is the participle to the verb "osamiti", which means 'to isolate; to leave one to oneself'.
    Weird.

    So then lonely, in your tongue, means choosing isolation.
    It too smears its concepts because the lonely, I think, would die before choosing what frightens them.

    According to oxford:
    “Lonely: Dejected by the awareness of being alone. See Synonyms at alone. “

    See synonyms at alone????!!!!
    Stupid..

    The lonely are dejected, sad, unhappy, depressed, made bloody miserable by the awereness of being alone.
    The loner is simply aware of being alone, if he is at all.

    Last but not least:
    Here is where Xerxes has a point.
    I can flick one word for another one and a whole sentence will shift context and because of this shift, I feel, Nexus and Ad. Hoc would shut up.
    Kidding.
    This is what I mean:
    "being alone is a choice required of one’s temperament"
    For
    "being alone is a choice of one’s temperament"


    If I say required then I imply a loss of freedom. So if Bazarov (a famous nihilist) remains alone at the end because his temperament required that he should, did he choose?
    Does this loner choose? No.
    But change that ‘required’ up there to an ‘of’ and we’re back to free will again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by everneo
    No sight of the promised steatopygous butt. I feel dumped alone now.
    ..but no regret. Feeling relieved, in fact.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    391
    Abraxas,

    So then lonely, in your tongue, means choosing isolation.
    It too smears its concepts because the lonely, I think, would die before choosing what frightens them.
    No, not at all. The meaning of the verb "osamiti" is 'to isolate', lit. 'to make (someone or something to be) alone' – something that others do to one, something that is not one's choice, something that is imposed on one. Like you said, "Lonely is an imposed state of affairs."

    If anything, "lonely/osamljen" is merely a clarification of "alone/sam"; "osamljen" says how "sam" came to be. Apparently, the act of making someone or something be alone was so important that the participle began to steadily be used an adjective.

    German, with "allein" for 'alone' and "einsam" for 'lonely' is more tricky, because etymologically, the two mean the same, and are often interchangeable when it comes to certain (mostly human) states. To clarify, in German you'd use "verlassen" for 'to be deserted'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Masters Degree invert_nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    638
    Abraxas,

    You never changed the title of the thread back to 'small clitoris'. Lying wench.

    “In one psychological research study the most frequently stated description of loneliness by the subjects was "it feels like there is a hole or space inside my chest" (Rubenstein & Shaver, 1982).”
    No.
    It's not a hole.
    Not empty.
    It's an abundance.
    It feels like there's too much in my chest. In my stomach. My throat. Behind my eyes.
    If it's a hole then it's a hole full of stuffing.
    And it moves. Somehow it is in motion.
    Like water rippling on a pond. Not stormy. But not placid either.
    A strange feeling to be sure.

    And the answers match that description by Rubensteni and Shaver up there perfectly, in short: it’s a terrifying experience.
    I don't think I'd call it terrifying. More like disappointing. Disappointed in myself and in others. And disappointed in my disappointment. Disappointed that I am disappointed.

    And perhaps this is where the sense of emptiness comes from. The disappointment. The emptiness is not a physical feeling but an emotional one. The mind seeks to eradicate the sense of failure and disappointment by eradicating it. By saying, "It doesn't matter. Que sera sera."

    How did you cope with it?
    The answer is obvious. Shunt aside the need. Shunt aside the desire.
    This is an easy thing to do and one which can be accomplished in a fortnight.

    But. What if you don't want to? What if the object of the need was so special that you don't want to give it up even now? Even now that the loneliness is eating away at your insides? Gnawing and biting.
    But not empty.
    No.
    The emptiness would come only when the memory of that person is gone.
    Then there would be an emptiness.
    A comfortable emptiness.
    Dark and warm.

    That's the coward's way.
    To forget. To embrace the emptiness.
    Fuck you, Zen.

    So what then?
    Get used to the torture?
    How much can a man take? Self-inflicted or not?

    People are terrified of being alone because, on top of being mammals, for them alone *is* lonely.
    Yes. People are foolish in this. One can be alone without being lonely. This is undeniable.
    But, consider this.
    What if the one who is alone is not so out of 'temperament' but rather out of a disappointment of the people in the world?
    Disappointment on top of disappointment on top of disappointment. And what would anyone do?
    Either learn to live with constant disappointment or accept being alone.
    Most choose the former. (Actually, I think they have a trick for forgetting the disappointment, if you want to get technical. But I can't speak for them.)
    Some few choose the latter.
    And what happens to one of these few when they find someone, quite by chance, that doesn't disappoint?

    So why would I go around saying ‘no man is an island’?
    Because. Despite the intentions of the man who coined the phrase. The words have taken on a new meaning.
    Words do that.

    That he has to keep selling it and keep up with demand, to me, is the root of his anxious slavery.
    He becomes lonely.
    He can’t even stay in a room with no noise.
    He’ll drown silence with television, radio or prostitute himself on the telephone.
    A completely different sort of loneliness to that which I feel.
    The loneliness you describe is general and vague. It reaches out to grasp something, anything, to fill its darkness...

    Hmm.
    Interesting.
    And mine is aching to overflow. I ache to give.

    I swear I did not think of this until just now.
    The feelings I report on feeling full and watery in my chest is exact.
    How odd.

    Pardon me for this. But Neechee calls:
    <blockquote>"Behold, I am weary of my wisdom, like a bee that has gathered too much honey; I need hands outstretched to receive it.

    "I would give away and distribute, until the wise among men find joy once again in their folly, and the poor in their riches.

    "For that I must descend to the depths, as you do in the evening when you go behind the sea and still being light to the underworld, you overrich star.

    "Like you, I must go under--go down, as is said by man, to whom I must descend.

    "So bless me then, you quiet eye that can look even upon an all-too-great happiness without envy!

    "Bless the cup that wants to overflow, that the water may flow from it golden and carry everywhere the reflections of your delight.

    "Behold, this cup wants to become empty again, and Zarathustra wants to become man again."

    Thus Zarathustra began to go under.</blockquote>
    A dramatist, yes. But still. Some wisdom in this. Zarathustra had become full by going to his mountain. He carried his ashes to the mountains and now seeks to carry his fire to the valleys.

    Yes. The context of Zarathustra is as a teacher or guru. In the way of the lonely, he first attempts to give of his cup to anyone and everyone. But, he soon learns that the common man seeks not what Zarathustra gives. Instead he must find a friend. Must find a like mind. A proper receptacle.

    So that he might pour forth from his cup and be poured upon in return.



    Anyway. There are those who can't stand to be alone.
    And there are those who mourn the loss of something precious.

    Two completely different forms of loneliness, methinks.

    I have no understanding of the former.
    And no answer for the latter.

    And here we are on a forum. Are we lonely? Or loners in leisure?
    I think that we ache to share some part of ourself. Some part that finds no home out there. Nobody wants it. And yet we want to give of it. Here, in these forums, we can.

    Very, very few.
    Which is why its so neat when one finds another one, you. strike. gold!


    “Those entrapped by the herd instinct are drowned in the deluges of history. But there are always the few who observe, reason, and take precautions, and thus escape the flood. For these few gold has been the asset of last resort." – Anthony Sutton.
    I'm not quite sure what you mean by striking gold. It is ambiguous. Perhaps you mean gold disparagingly as something for the herd. Or perhaps you mean it in its common sense as in when one finds one of the few who observe, reason, and take precautions, that they are themselves golden.

    This latter guess would fit with the idea of finding one who doesn't disappoint in a world full of disappointment.

    Edit:
    Ah. Wait. The quote in general was somewhat ambiguous without context. I took 'deluge of history' to be something like the depth of history overwhelms the herd. Now I can see that it meant historical deluges... something like the New Orleans deluge...

    And that gold doesn't really mean much when the precautions one needs is food and water. However, gold is good for getting out of the city beforehand, isn't it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •