Diavolo

But what do you call human nature? Where does it come from? If we were all violent, where does goodness come from? The Greeks loved to perform on the stage. The moral and social structure of their times encouraged them to display and even show off their virtues in public; they saw envy as a positive instinct, reaffirming interest in competition. Christianity, on the other hand, exalts those who display themselves as guilty, sinful, and insignificant. It might as well call an ancient Greek superb. From Arab cultures, from the times of Muhammad, perhaps it still happens, it is known that a ranger could receive an enemy in his tent in the desert for 3 nights and, if the visitor needed it, in the name of hospitality; the host would sacrifice his\her only animal to meet the needs of the newcomer. On the 4th day, the host could already kill the guest if he\she had not left. That was or is the moral of the desert people. Reacting with violence, as you say, is still the moral of a certain context, which is printed in a material environment where people are being oppressed by people with the capacity to oppress with violence. In general, it occurs in the countries of the center/south of the planet, from where natural resources are extracted. Laos was a peaceful country before capitalism was established there. The concept of happiness was different before consumption was established as the way to get there. But, What is human nature? Where does it come from? Why doesn't the morality of a society have to do with the material conditions; of a person?

Cool question, to be honest. There are two very interesting axes, which are often used when the topic of human nature is addressed: nurture and nature. But first, what is natural? If something may define nature, it is that it is transitory. Talking about nature is not talking about the static. Is it talking about instincts? Perhaps, but the behavior of a society or an individual will depend on the moral (obedience to custom behavior/repetition of tradition) of its time and the structure of its society. We call this Nurture. Nature (or what you could call natural) would be the genetic memory that someone carries in their DNA. There have been cases where a Chinese child is adopted by people, who are taken to live in another country and the child speaks the new language perfectly, even though all of his ancestors have spoken Mandarin. We do not inherit behaviors, we learn them from the environment. If you want to change the destiny of a person or society, help improve or destroy their material living conditions. But what do you think that constitutes human nature and why?

Your band sounds great, dude. Total respects.

What was there before the Big Bang? How to solve the Hard Problem of consciousness, which neurology still does not know? Perhaps, in the place where these unknowns find their resolution also lie the answers to all the unanswerable "why". "Why" is the worst weapon of philosophy. And why? Because it dismantles the practical Self to direct us towards the existential Self. Any answer, which is considered definitive within a tradition, can be disjointed with this question. "Why" is the favorite resource of those who have written the history of humanity by challenging the morals of their time along with the daily life that the latter implies. Why do you believe what you believe? Since you got an answer, add another "why" to it. The process can be repeated until one is faced with a kind of Nothingness. Reality is like a Matrioshka. The final "why" is undeniable when the last figure contained by the Russian doll is lifted, revealing an unpleasant emptyness. Is this true? or there is a definitive answer that may enlighten every "why"? And why?

Sure. It would be more of a sociological or historical endeavor to determine how the base of any hierarchy decides to fight to achieve better conditions of life. But let's analyze briefly both examples you put on the table: The mise are subjugated to an external operating force that conditions their environment in such a way the animals can not oppose resistance. The experiment was designed to give them no chance to overcome the trial. Life is not always that way. Let's get radical. The experiment doesn't proportionate them enough time to evolve, to develop a complex language, to build systems of belief, and anything that can be perceived as a sign of civilization. Let's imagine the experiment proceeds during centuries in such a way that mise develops consciousness, enough to realize that among them are no Eloi; enough to comprehend that the Eloi are the humans controlling their environment; their fates. Crazy, huh? Well. Anything that lives enough time may be a candidate, under fascinating, profound, or unexpected phenomena (things that make think) to develop intelligence. Why not mise\morlocks? With some exposure to the right stimuli, Morlocks would be able to question the Status Quo and, maybe, negotiate. Just a hypothesis. In my country, there is an aphorism that says: "no hay mal que dure un siglo ni pendejo que lo aguante". That means: No evil can last a hundred years and there is no one dumbass enough to tolerate it".

It sounds interesting and I like it. Perhaps that initial center, which is subsequently displaced, constitutes the experience that Plato's first man-boy had when he was fascinated by reality, which forced him to think and interpret reality by creating allegories. That is, layers, as you say. Over time, that first thick layer, an accumulation of allegories, gave way to paganism according to T. Carlyle. And, following the same process, paganism mutated into the cult of the hero. The cult of the hero gave way to democracy and other instances until we reached our current stage. The point here is that, as Nietzsche says, there are no truths, but interpretations. What does that mean? That we can only aspire to touch the changing dermis of nature through interpretations; allegories and theories, which are adequate to advocate in favor of our survival, but that does not mean that we have managed to immerse ourselves with the truth: what nature is in itself. The more we peel off layers, the more we realize that there is no natural order of anything: the given order is 1 of many possible and that each one was installed due to a victorious will to power. Perhaps, freedom is to finish accepting such a will or to fight against it. I don't know if it is possible to ignore it. The most honest thing one can do, could it be freedom?

Unlimited food, but reduced habitat. To be honest, I dare not draw conclusions knowing that you can better illustrate the point

Nice point. From a Heideggerian perspective, instead of layers, Heidegger thought reality as a process in which the being is always falling. Every bottom we hit, is not definitive. Culture is a bottom, for example. If we keep digging, we will discover a new abyss to fall in. Is not the center of the onion a state of the being; a confort zone? Not in a peyorative way. A confort zone constituted as a meaning for life: the discovery and acceptance of the unavoidable.

Music in the profile, dude. That would be sweet.

The funny thing is that when one disassociates fom something, one is immediately linked to another condition. Therefore, freedom "to do or not to do" or "freedom of something" must be conceived. In the first case, we speak of a freedom to be or not to be (as an entity) and in the second case as the rupture between the subject and a repressive condition, which when dissolved puts the subject under another condition (immediately subjugates it ). Hence the Lacanian idea that freedom is to accept the condition that ends up being inevitable

Where does the balance come from? What forces operate it? It would not be necessary to conceive before an egemonic justice, which has the sovereignty to define the good from the bad in order to execute a balance? and who or what operates that justice? As for the second thing that you comment, I consider that, with greater reason, those who suffer are the most empowered to do philosophy. I mean the nonconformists. Did you know that when a starfish finds a place with a lot of resources, and settles there, it begins to eat its brain? Well, it seems to me that the same thing happens to those who settle in the world satisfying themselves with what they think they know.

Have you ever loved so much that you are afraid to ask: when is this going to end? Why does it have to end? Is there anything I can do to put off the inevitable? Is every end really inevitable? There are moments when philosophy robs us and we cannot avoid it: the punishment against someone who follows the law; of an innocent, the death of a loved one, the reason behind the sacrifice we make in order to get what we want ... What things make you think?

What is Freedom? According to what I understand, from a Lacanian perspective, freedom is accepting the inevitable. For Viktor Frankl, freedom lies in the way someone reacts to a situation internally. Something similar to the stoic way. The notion that one generates by believing that she/he has found him/herself is confused with a plateau on which momentary identity rests. What is freedom for? Can you be free from or free for?

Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, from Deleuze and Guatari. Recommended to anyone who is interested in schizo-analysis. Such a book critics the Oedipus dogma in psychotherapy: not every person can work under the Father-Mother-Son paradigm; the nature of desire, how the unconsciousness is hijacked by the Oedipus, schizophrenia as a production method...

"Victory Loves Preparation" from the movie "Mechanic" and "Now, the more you sweat here, the less you'll bleed in battle", from "300". Both quotes make me think that there is no little enemy; underestimate any adversary can lead to fatal/undesirable resolutions.

This is a huge one. Phylogenetic vs Endogenetic. The first issue is not only about how one person was raised, but also about the quality of the genetic material obtained from the ancestors. It is known that psychopaths always present a neurologic deficit. The second Issue, endogenetic, may be external factors. For example, the structure of any society: its common ideology, the distribution of wealth, education, social class mobility, and so on. Every social-individual problem is multi-factorial.

Since I stopped to believe in Duality, from a Platonic perspective, yes. I prefer to have in mind that I'm mortal in order to squeeze any experience. I procrastinate less, also. Because, yeah, I will feed the worms any time.

I guess there are quite a few people here who produce music. I would love to hear what yo do. So, I start this topic by sharing the music I make. I'm new to the subject, but maybe my work is worth the time. The name of my project is Diavolo. Music with a dark atmosphere. This one, in particular, has industrial dyes.

Sup? What you're about to read did happen. My heart is violent. When you tell me that you would like to know about me, its aggressiveness turns into euphoria. I would gladly tell you about the time a drug dealer gave me a “ride” on the highway, in fact there were 2: each 1 on different trips, but I found them both (or they found me) in Jalisco during different trips. I would tell you about the time I jumped on a train to return to Saltillo with a witcher, whom I met in Wadley, a ghost town amidst nowhere We were in the desert nowhere under the midnight moon; surviving the cold. I would tell you about the time I almost died when I went to meditate in the Sierra de San Lorenzo. I had brought only a woolen blanket. That night the temperature went down dramatically. It was during that January 5 or 6 years ago. I would tell you about the time I invoked Satan on the Cartujanos plateau. It happened during a December 21; the winter solstice. As you can imagine, he never showed up. Since then I knew that Lucifer was also me. I would tell you that I only believe in me, but that is not true. Nietzsche said that 1 is always wrong and that with 2 the truth begins. So I could tell you that you are the truth and not me. I would like to add that I entered the world of music production a little over a year ago and that I also write. I can share my material with whoever I want. Greetings. It is a pleasure to be (again?) Here.