While I wait

if you don't do it yourself it makes it awkward to live with yourself with the complaints you get for doing it

Last Edited by aether on 12/16/2019 01:00 PM

Damned either way is not a good outlook sounding extinction level event stars of mind

State not stars. Although star is occult outlook lol

Grotesque is never immaculate lol

a man talking to me about crowley said to me about himself not crowley

if it gets so bad you faint and if it gets worse you die what else could happen

i was not motivated to reply

Sadism is wanton destruction

In samsara context is similar as a welcome into new world. Thing is, sustaining is the getting so bad state as many utilize crutches which creates incoherence eventually leading to the dissolution into desolation and back to reality of matter. Lol

Crutches as in mind altering synthetic or organic drugs, crafts like Crowley, sex like the eastern tradition of tantra etc etc yada yada
It’s a wonder there’s a Survival rate in faint

problems within All Mind structure programming of spirituality with empathic telepathic meditation like medium is having elastic properties lucky for the worst case dying lol

Bump for stages lol

No it isn't. Sadism is very systematic. You aren't doing it right. Better go reread what Sade actually wrote if you claim enough competency to represent his concepts.

I'm going to generate an evolving play-list of songs grown from this one as a seed. How phenomenal to discover it like this.

that fits nicely now you have said

Of course. Always do(es).

Not doing what right?

[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

He claimed to be a proponent of absolute freedom, unrestrained by morality, religion or law. The words sadism and sadist are derived from his name.

Is that ^ systematic?

I’ve never read what he has wrote. It is in the definition and I was looking from the perspective of everything not human compared to what humans do.
It is collective conscious All Mind problems that humans have been programmed to believe matter is evil.
That is what I was representing when I said that. Sade? Lol, no way.

I fertilized it with Eyes On Fire by Blue Foundation.
Funny aside, I accidentally looped the list instead of entering explore mode and I listened to a song that I felt would be a perfect addition and when I went to check I saw it was playing the seed. What a wonderful amnesia.

Do you usually perform such a shallow inquiry before forming an opinion on a subject? If you do, you should apply yourself a little more towards your self-education. I myself didn't have the stomach to delve very deeply into his writings, but I read enough to know you’re speaking from ignorance. If you notice how you’re responding to me, it should become obvious to you. You may not be able to conceive of a system that is based in neither morality, religion or law, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one. Don’t worry, you’re not alone in that. It’s a collective conscious All Mind problem that humans grapple with. Sade grappled with it too. Hence, his writings. Sade’s system is what we call Sadism. It’s his system of philosophy, so yes, it’s systematic.

Take care that you don’t indulge too much in allowing convenient links of information and ideas to do your thinking for you.

I’m not sure what the culture is surrounding this model, but I find it very useful to apply in my own contemplation: it measures an individual’s character on a three-part axis of Good-Neutral-Evil and another of Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic. I use it to model effects, rather than character, because I see that as a more accurate way to contemplate the implications. Wanton destruction would amount Chaos, generally speaking, or Chaotic-Evil, if you hold destruction as Evil. Sade’s writing is of the Lawful-Evil effect. Evil as fuck, that man, but definitely systematic in that effect. It’s so systematic it almost made me vomit.

I know myself and with that I never have to rely on the feedback of others.
Some do not do well being alone with themselves and go mad like Sade or project like you show in your example. I could say telling people what they should or should not do shows poor class. So you are aware.

Let’s work backwards. So I am aware what you could say, hypothetically, but apparently don’t, which is: telling people what they should or should not do shows poor class. What this shows is: you are a moral relativist. You relativize morality according to class. You seem to think high class cannot be in touch with moral absoluteness. Or, perhaps, you hold high class as being above morality. How do you know some do not do well being alone with themselves? You don’t know this. If the conditions were true, that they are not you, and are alone with themselves then you are not present to make such observations of their status and ability. Your knowledge is secondhand information, at best. They could very well be doing wonderfully alone with themselves but not do well in your presence with respect to the subject. That would mean the source of the problem is the distinguishing element: you. Sade was probably mad, to be sure, but I don’t know what you think I am projecting. If you point it out to me specifically, I can understand more precisely, and adjust my behavior accordingly. Knowing yourself is good and so is independence. That’s very inspiring. I’m sure you see the value of feedback, even if you aren’t reliant upon it. I could be incorrect about that. Perhaps you don’t see the value of feedback, but I know I do, so if I’m incorrect please let me know. Thanks for replying, even though you didn’t need to. I sure would like to be sure that I wasn’t involved in putting a dirty spot on such an interesting thread.

I exposed you in your education projection folly as you did not utilize your own words when talking to me about me. Therefore, more projection and assumption and antagonizing to get what? What is it that you want? Because there is something you are not getting and here you are.

Squared probs

[link to youtu.be (secure)]

:blankhand:

popular video on glp
hello rik

Let’s work backwards again. It is possible that there is something I’m not getting, but that’d be nothing new. On the subject of getting, it is only a matter of time. My function now is to give, so let’s put the subject of me not getting something out of relevancy. What I want is to preserve fidelity to virtue and to protect it, if I can. I’m still not sure what exactly you refer to as projection in my words, but I’ve examined what I wrote a few times. I’m starting to notice how you might see my words as carrying assumptions as well as antagonism even though I’m putting such care into my words to keep an unbiased, wholistic view. This is likely because I concern myself with the future eyes who read these words as well. I must’ve misrepresented you somehow. I apologize for any such mistake. My intention is not about representing you, but representing accurate thought for posterity, especially those who struggle along a path similar to my own. If they’re anything like me, they’ll need all the help they can get.

Shoot, I missed the part about using one so own words. Nobody owns words, they are all public domain. Intellectual property is philosophical bullshit that doesn’t belong in Law. Perhaps you mean I borrowed another’s rhetoric. That would be false. However, let’s be clear that I do not hold that there is something wrong with borrowing useful linguistic constructions. That is a feature of science, after all.

Your words steered you backwards in education and competency in shallow inquiry on the topics you still are evading any forthright knowledge on the subject of and participants within showing a folly all around.
Just like saying Native American doesn’t hold in law of words but in domain of words it does. Say American Indian and you get somewhere by law.

Add to discussion without the bias or not. That’s up to you. I don’t have to have to explain myself and it’s obvious you do not understand what I say.