Racism Still Exists; How Far Have We Really Come?

Yes, instant satisfaction(id, ego, and superego) separate, interacting, conflicting processes within the mind. The id demands gratification; the superego prohibits it. The ego supplies rational information in conflict and attempts to gain satisfaction within the limits set by the superego - indeed, this is a prison for us. It seems one is only virtuous when it is convenient, indeed, it is monotonous to most, but is it because one fears punishment and hopes for rewards that we strive for moral rectitude!?

I have, for some time now, been in the mix of relinquishing myself from these frivolous pretensions. No doubt, these pretensions are far too magnificent for most others. Which is why like I, and many others have such an arduous time defining "Love." Who wants to hear about temperance, sublime tranquility, Wit and Ingenuity!? Suffice it to say, not most and most would not even care. Of course, it would be difficult for any women to find wit and intelligence as an more amicable trait. I will always assume a women's interest in me would be the hypnoses of dark skin, physique and bank. As the same, given any attractive women.

We are too busy seeking acceptance, success alone defines the man and determines his self-worth. We are too busy trying to develop "Player Theories" to get the quasi pseudo "hot chick", to get in between the legs of the pseudo hot chick, instead of developing philosophical theories to improve our crumbling states.

 

Hopes for rewards are an influence of the ego. Fears of retribution are an influence of the super-ego. The id has no concern about either.

Your personal encounters with various white women put you in this predicament. You feel conflicted about 'Love' for reasons pertaining to your karmic backlashes, however, have you ever thought about what perspectives of love you may like to change?

Seems like you have a bit of self-awareness here.

 

Seven, I can understand where you are coming from. I was raised to use a lot of common sense. I mean before I do anything, I put a lot of thought into it and even then, I am never short of back up plans. I have however realized that when it comes to love, you should just proceed based on your feelings. It certainly helps to limit one's interaction to women of quality. By this, I mean good people who possess all the things you consider relevant. The first time I fell in love with a girl (well, woman), I denied it for a very long time. Who was she to control my emotions this way? Is she trying to use me? Am I just a nice piece of meat to her? and so on and so forth. The great thing is that she was also in love with me. Love is a feeling that most people will have a very difficult time quatifying? All I know is ....it feels good. Sometimes it is selfish, sometimes it is selfless. Even though I was sharing myself with this woman, I, ironically, can't think of any other time that I have felt so whole. I really do believe that love is divine!

 

The id is made up of biologically inherited urges, impulses, and desires. It is called the "pleasure based principle." The ego is the rational part of the mind that thinks, plans, and decides. Thus, the ego mediates between the biological, unconscious impulses of the id. The ego is never meant to control the the id, so the ego never influences to gain rewards. Indeed, the fear of punishment is an influence of the superego. But when dealing with "attraction" the id always overrides the superego sort of speak. Maybe the ego will give you PERFECT reasons for your attractions but it will never "influence" your passions.

Yes, yes, it is a bit of "self-reflection" I do upon myself and reevaluate my situation. Either I condone my behaviour or work to improve a situation already disagreeable. Casting a shadow over my future, it is a gift and a curse.

 

I stated that hopes for rewards are an influence of the ego, not passions. The ego depends on praise in order to sustain itself, while the super-ego merely depends on acceptance of idiosyncrasies, and acceptance itself. The id doesn't concern itself with consequences because it is the pleasure based principle, but yes, it can override the super-ego, if the desire is great enough.

The id seems to also take what is vital to the ego and super-ego, and then run on those impulses, desires, and urges, when it manifests itself also.

 

Love....love.!? What are the exact sensations!? Is it something physical or mental!? How can there be love in a world of vice, a world conceived through Vice!? Must being in love supersede rationality!?

This is what I do not like about "Love." ---- It is not really the question of the "feeling", but how it comes about and how its dissipates. If it dissipates, then the following assertion to be in love must be false. Is it not!?

If it is false, if Love really dissipates, then we are ruled by impulses of irrational thought. Everything develops, differentiates, moving towards complexity and refinement and there are laws governing this process. No!?

I find it extremely hard to believe that "you just know", having "faith" does not sit well with me and MANY OTHER MEN. It must be careful and attentively examined in order to be understood, even if it is not understood in the way I understand the propositions of Science. But I want to understand in such a way as to be brought to the inevitably inexplicable. I want to realise that all that is inexplicable is so, not because the demands of my intellect are at fault, but because I can recognise the limits of my intellect.

Oh!!! But I do have to disagree with you on one assertion - it is the mentally weak who let vice such as desire RULE THEM. Their pleasure principal almost impedes a credulity. Take a gander at how the id disconfigures the character of peyback - weak mental fortitude does not clamour on to common sense. His senses RULE HIM, until it almost destroys him - it will always rule him.

 

Actually, 7, I agree with you on that, and so does this dude:

http://www.buddhist-temples.com/gautam-buddha.html

 

"If normal experience is based on conditions - upbringing, psychology, opinions, perceptions, and so on - Enlightenment is Unconditioned. It was a state in which the Buddha gained Insight into the deepest workings of life and therefore into the cause of human suffering, the problem that had set him on his spiritual quest in the first place."

I really don't understand this, it seems completely contradictory. The aim is worthy, but if you first accept that normal experience IS based on conditions subjective from person to person, how can you expect to solve the problems of human experience by rising above these conditions? Surely it is the conditions themselves which create, simultaneously, human happiness (in belonging, in personal achievement, in recognition by others) and human despair (through conflicts between these conditions, or wrongful perceptions of those living in other states). Surely, if you rise above 'human conditions' in order to attain a state of higher truth, you risk missing the point about 'living' altogether?

 

I posted that because Buddha's philosophy agrees with 7's opinion about the id.

But, it's not contradictory. It's a doctrine on how to rise above these conditions by not being subjected to them with suffering. You take what you gained from your conditions, and then apply it to your enlightenment, which, yes, is unconditioned, but regardless, we are all conditioned/hard-wired one way or another.

 

This was his aim from the start.

 

In which case it's an almost pointless venture, and all it seems to be saying is that people should rise above prejudices and vices based upon their upbringing, which is really just common sense.

 

That's why it isn't pointless. Some people need more persuasion than that, and religion gives people something to believe in.

 

It's a sad world where people need religion to make attempts at self-improvement.

 

Religion isn't the only thing, you know. There are all kinds of programs, clubs, courses, and blogs out there that help with self-improvement also.

But, religion is about faith, not necessarily about self-improvement.

 

I know that! I'm just having trouble with this particular dogma, but maybe I'm misunderstanding it; due to believing in an omnipotent god, have never got that far into exploring religions which don't follow that line.

 

Well, that may be why you misunderstand the religion. It's not something that you, yourself, are accustomed to.

 

Actually, any attempt of self improvement starts with the infinite meaning to the finite existence of life and man. Albeit, I am no spokesmen of any kind of Religion, though, I do find the metaphysical proprieties of any kind of Religion all an necessity.

All immemorial men strive to express the relationship between the finite and the infinite. In order for man and women to exist and continue to exist; he must understand it in such a way that everything inexplicable presents itself to him/her being necessarily inexplicable and not as being something under obligation to believe.

The "Enlighten" one seeks to discover all that is which is true and false and separate one from the other. Even you will start to look at "some" from of "truth" to the infinite on you path for "Independence." I am not surprised you do not recognise this truth. After exposing your ignorance - the "neo feminazi" side of you is going to come out, whilist titillating incoherent conclusions, or other irrelevancies of my character, or you will just shut the fuck up. Which would it be!?

You have vices and pretensions you are unaware of, I could expose more them even within this very FORUM, but I will leave your vices to take over you completely.

 

Enlighten me, 7Seven, you know you're dying to.

And in the process you can flag up where exactly I've ever referred to myself without a grain of self-deprecation, or where I've suggested to you that I might be infinitely perfect. I might be young but those types of black-and-white views are arrogancies belonging to those younger still than I am! If you've managed to extrapolate that type of arrogance from this post alone, you've definitely misinterpreted my meaning.

I don't like insulting strangers but you are a very rude man.

 

No...wrong again....this is becoming a written theme with you....By exposing your ignorance to the subject, I made it a point that you can NOT be "Enlighten" without understanding the relationship between the finite and the infinite. Understanding this "relationship" is an necessity for self-improvement, until you can grasp that capacity, you will always be a person inexplicably conditioned and plagued with complexes. Your perception of anything real is skewed and conditioned by fallacies and you will always paint a picture using ad hominem with your rhetoric.

But lemme guess.......this is Misogynist or whatever yall are calling it these days!? Because that is what they feed you in girly power land, not reality, another complex that is plaguing your senses. But you will never hear me preaching, "black power" down with the white oppressor, because I evolved beyond the pretentious bull shit dogma.

 

I'm afraid you've either severely misunderstood, 7Seven, or I am misunderstanding you. Perhaps when you are writing "you" it is not meant as a direct address to me, but in a general sense of "one does not...?"

If not, you're definitely on the wrong lines. I am a deeply religious person myself, and wouldn't think to deprecate belief: the only point I was making was that it seems a dual human responsibility to try and improve ourselves at the same time as trying to improve the situation for those around us. A 'put your own house in order' project before interfering in the wider world, if you like. That seems to be right as a matter of natural justice and purpose, and not necessarily related to any kind of higher being; in fact, to achieve it, there is no need to conceive of the divine if you can conceive of the selfless and heroic individual, of which there are many examples in history. Of course, it is important in achieving this goal, to understand the long-lasting (sometimes eternal) effects of human action, even in recognising the transience of human life, but still I can't agree that it is necessary to understand the divine. Certainly any atheist with a sense of conscience could well achieve the same goals.

As for the last part - well I can only sit and have a little giggle at you. Sorry, but you do let yourself down with these anti-feminist rants, which I'm not sure quite why you get started on: do you feel threatened? What exactly is girly power land? I'm sure that I don't hold those views to try and irritate you in some way and that I don't try too hard to shove them down other people's throats, so if they have upset you I can only apologise. :lol: You should know by now that it is your ridiculous gendered overgeneralisations that I object to: why not do as others do in this forum and accept that they are based only on your own experience?