A. A movement caused by the will starts because he believe it causes pleasure to him or to another entity.
If he seeks pleasure for another entity, it's through his own pleasure that he understands what shall please it.
Thus, all movement begins by apprehending what causes pleasure and trying to achieve it.
As for causing pleasure for another entity, the will does this to cause pleasure to himself (by helping a client, he gains money and purchases goods with it), or because he loves the other entity.
B. Let's say that pleasure comes from relieving a pain.
We enjoy food because it relieves our hunger.
If we eat excessively, it will cause us pain.
And so, the amount of pleasure in our life is at best, equal to the amount of pain.
When the amount of pain is equal to the amount of pleasure, we are left with no desire which also causes us pain, this is the same pain we correlate with boredom.
And so, the amount of suffering is always greater then the amount of pleasure.
C. We can solve this problem when presenting love to it.
Love is the pleasure in pain toward a certain thing.
Pain with meaning is not insufferable.
Let's say we love a country, we suffer to build it up and we are able to deal with the suffering for the country.
D. Moving toward the love is considered morally good, moving away from it is morally bad.
E. The disappearance of love is considered evil. And so, love is considered prevailing.
We fight for it's existence both physically, as in the example of the state, and mentally, as in fighting against it's falsification, as with the abrahamic god and creationism.
F. A nihilist can't face suffering.
All his acts should produce pleasure because even the slightest pain is unbearable.
G. Words can be divided into the object of desire or repulse, and the means to them.
A nihilist can construct the first, but struggle with the latter.
Let's say a man desires the seed of a nut. In order to attain it, he uses a rock to smashes the shell. This requires labor, which is suffering. A nihilist, with no preference to the nut then any other thing, wouldn't suffer to achieve it. He'd chose to eat something else.
But if he loves nuts, he would struggle for the nut.
Let's say he loves nuts so much he wants to live off them.
He starts to investigates ways to break the shell, and better his technique.
The bigger the love, the more we are able to suffer for it, the better tools and techniques we develop to achieve it.
Thus, the more a person loves, the more he is able to practice the crafts and philosophy.
H. Our use of the words: nihilist, love, crafts and philosophy, is very theoretical now.
Let us use them only for the highest degree of each of the definitions. Thus, love would address only the love for states, women, god and so on, a nihilist would address only beasts incapable of love, philosophy and crafts such as roaches.
I. So long as men have will, they must have this abilities: consciousness and contemplation.
The first is our physical interaction with the world, the second is our thoughts on it. The consciousness deals with the physical, the contemplation deals with the metaphysical. The one absorbs reality, the other divides it.
As long as there are loves and morality, there are consciousness and contemplation.
The two faculties of those are the crafts and the philosophies.
Thus, so long as men desire, men prevail on crafts and philosophies. It is no wonder that these were always considered morally good.
Without love, men will never look for new words to describe reality because this causes suffering.
Men would never improve his technique.
J. But those have no end goal without love or morality. Without ideals to strive for, the craftsman can never know if his technique is good for something, without goals, the philosopher simply plays with empty thoughts.
K. A deep connection to reality is formed by a will for a divine love.
The nihilist would never discover the world. It is a road filled with more suffering then the reliable norm.
But you ask, why should I define it as god? And you should not. I am not going to use the Sanskrit name, used in the christian world, but rather his original name: יהוה, Jehova, as the chant goes: והוא היה, והוא הווה, והוא יהיה לתפארה. The only thing I am able to tell you about the deity is that it always existed.
But existence is a property of metaphysical objects. There are no true objects in the physical world, no divisions, so nothing can exist but reality it self which is the whole we see.
And so, either Jehova reality in itself, or everlasting in the subject mind.
L. But the only thing subjective and everlasting are the loves. Yet each individual has a separate love.
I state that the general name for all lovable entities are Jehova, and they all share the same properties, the same feeling of miraculous awe struckness.
M. Yet there is an obvious blind spot to human beings. The beings they assume are not actually everlasting, they use force to insure their existence and react in irrationality about the supposition of their nonexistence.
And so, we are sincere with our reach for the goal, scientific, as we may call it, but insincere toward dealing with the love itself.
If he seeks pleasure for another entity, it's through his own pleasure that he understands what shall please it.
Thus, all movement begins by apprehending what causes pleasure and trying to achieve it.
As for causing pleasure for another entity, the will does this to cause pleasure to himself (by helping a client, he gains money and purchases goods with it), or because he loves the other entity.
B. Let's say that pleasure comes from relieving a pain.
We enjoy food because it relieves our hunger.
If we eat excessively, it will cause us pain.
And so, the amount of pleasure in our life is at best, equal to the amount of pain.
When the amount of pain is equal to the amount of pleasure, we are left with no desire which also causes us pain, this is the same pain we correlate with boredom.
And so, the amount of suffering is always greater then the amount of pleasure.
C. We can solve this problem when presenting love to it.
Love is the pleasure in pain toward a certain thing.
Pain with meaning is not insufferable.
Let's say we love a country, we suffer to build it up and we are able to deal with the suffering for the country.
D. Moving toward the love is considered morally good, moving away from it is morally bad.
E. The disappearance of love is considered evil. And so, love is considered prevailing.
We fight for it's existence both physically, as in the example of the state, and mentally, as in fighting against it's falsification, as with the abrahamic god and creationism.
F. A nihilist can't face suffering.
All his acts should produce pleasure because even the slightest pain is unbearable.
G. Words can be divided into the object of desire or repulse, and the means to them.
A nihilist can construct the first, but struggle with the latter.
Let's say a man desires the seed of a nut. In order to attain it, he uses a rock to smashes the shell. This requires labor, which is suffering. A nihilist, with no preference to the nut then any other thing, wouldn't suffer to achieve it. He'd chose to eat something else.
But if he loves nuts, he would struggle for the nut.
Let's say he loves nuts so much he wants to live off them.
He starts to investigates ways to break the shell, and better his technique.
The bigger the love, the more we are able to suffer for it, the better tools and techniques we develop to achieve it.
Thus, the more a person loves, the more he is able to practice the crafts and philosophy.
H. Our use of the words: nihilist, love, crafts and philosophy, is very theoretical now.
Let us use them only for the highest degree of each of the definitions. Thus, love would address only the love for states, women, god and so on, a nihilist would address only beasts incapable of love, philosophy and crafts such as roaches.
I. So long as men have will, they must have this abilities: consciousness and contemplation.
The first is our physical interaction with the world, the second is our thoughts on it. The consciousness deals with the physical, the contemplation deals with the metaphysical. The one absorbs reality, the other divides it.
As long as there are loves and morality, there are consciousness and contemplation.
The two faculties of those are the crafts and the philosophies.
Thus, so long as men desire, men prevail on crafts and philosophies. It is no wonder that these were always considered morally good.
Without love, men will never look for new words to describe reality because this causes suffering.
Men would never improve his technique.
J. But those have no end goal without love or morality. Without ideals to strive for, the craftsman can never know if his technique is good for something, without goals, the philosopher simply plays with empty thoughts.
K. A deep connection to reality is formed by a will for a divine love.
The nihilist would never discover the world. It is a road filled with more suffering then the reliable norm.
But you ask, why should I define it as god? And you should not. I am not going to use the Sanskrit name, used in the christian world, but rather his original name: יהוה, Jehova, as the chant goes: והוא היה, והוא הווה, והוא יהיה לתפארה. The only thing I am able to tell you about the deity is that it always existed.
But existence is a property of metaphysical objects. There are no true objects in the physical world, no divisions, so nothing can exist but reality it self which is the whole we see.
And so, either Jehova reality in itself, or everlasting in the subject mind.
L. But the only thing subjective and everlasting are the loves. Yet each individual has a separate love.
I state that the general name for all lovable entities are Jehova, and they all share the same properties, the same feeling of miraculous awe struckness.
M. Yet there is an obvious blind spot to human beings. The beings they assume are not actually everlasting, they use force to insure their existence and react in irrationality about the supposition of their nonexistence.
And so, we are sincere with our reach for the goal, scientific, as we may call it, but insincere toward dealing with the love itself.
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה