For example, you might consider contacting Oxfam International with this kind of idea. They do God's work and they've been in the poorest places in the world for decades.

Could you give us some more to go on, so I know you're not full of shit?

>>184755
There are many models with a guaranteed wage of 10k in the USA, which is about 3000 more than the basic last resort welfare in my canadian province (which isn't enough to live on, but 10k would be enough, i mean it is enough if you want to eat toast with only margarine on it twice a day, have no internet, tv, music, any form of entertainment, unless you yourself start doing things like dealing drugs, prostituting yourself etc., a bunch of things that are illegal only to keep the poor down. With just 10k of welfare a year one can have enough money to get a little bit of enjoyment out of entertainment which does work as an incentive to want to go back to school or work because now that someone has felt the pleasures of leisure, may they be music, reading books, internet etc., things that require money to obtain...well at least the internet, which requires a computer or other device over 200 dollars to at least have a slow ass 3g connection to it with a cell phone.

There's this debate here about how some start to enjoy welfare and not do anything to better their situation, it's not that, it's that hmm, how does this guy I know who's on welfare has...he gets 618 dollars a month so (welfare is a provincial issue in .ca, like health, education, transportation) so that means 7416 dollars a year and that's just for those who aren't trying to get a job, those who are invalid or temporary invalid have more but for the sake of simplicity I will stick to that number.

7416 dollars a year is barely able to make one rent a small 2 rooms and a toilet apartment for around 400 to 500 dollars, if one lives by themselves, it means they are shit out of luck, which is often the case, especially with males, females on welfare are often girls who had babies too early a lot like in the USA, but the difference is that everyone here has the "safety net" of indefinite welfare if they choose to....

People living in such conditions stop trying to want to get their situation better, they get used to the despair, loneliness and apocalyptic retarded talk radio which is the only thing they can get as entertainment, when it's not the lame fucking commercial radio stations, at lea…

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

I have been documenting this but I'd rather do it anonymously. My biggest problem with charities besides them misusing the money, is how the directors and founders all seem to be seeking fame I don't want to end up jacking off on a San Diego street like Invisible Children lol. I have no desire to attend fundraising parties or any of that bullshit.

They also plaster the faces and names of people they help all over the internet something I don't want to do, especially in that area. I told the girls not to announce to everybody they are getting money because some thugs might just come and take it.

I am though trying to put together a sort of anarchist manual to doing this yourself (albeit, in Canada, I don't know US charity regulations though they are similar).

I also got a nasty email from some Christian NGO in Burkina Faso that doesn't want me doing this, when I asked them if I could pay them to distribute money to a girl there in a village. They want to control the money so I had to mail the girl cash so she can afford to hire a driver into the nearest city and start picking up transfers directly.

There's no proof I can provide except WU MTCN numbers, I don't care if nobody believes me I'm not looking for funding, just letting you know how I am able to change the lives of entire villages, spending my own extra cash, and at the end of the year I get all that money back through tax credits. Anybody can do this and bypass those awful NGOs who cruise around in brand new Landcruisers, eat at the finest restaurants, dig a well and then go home with billions in funding wasted.

>>184762

I've been thinking about this, some sort of phone app or site where people can donate to provide direct basic income to people worldwide in 3rd world countries. It would be hard to verify each person though and keep away all the scammers. It would also require plastering their faces and names everywhere something I don't want to do.

UBC (University of British Columbia) often has students who go to africa to do NGO work. I'm going to start paying them to help me find people to put on the site, then there's some sort of guarantee they aren't just random scammers. That's one idea I had for such a site, it would also be good if the site was in bitcoins, or at least converted the donations to bitcoins to avoid the insane Western Union and Moneygram/Bank fees. I was thinking of hiring one of the girls to run a F/T money transfer business in Burkina Faso so the locals can sell shit on the internet and get paid locally in cash, or just so they can get money from overseas family members working in South Africa.

Watch this, bitcoin or something similar (ripple?) would work well there, these guys getting ripped off sending just $30 back home using WU: http://www.aljazeera.com/video/africa/2013/05/201352033350727917.html

>>184736
On third thought, I'm just going to crop out that sentence completely and say you aren't right.

No bump of course.

>>184734

>He writes in conclusions, much like Nietzsche--the conclusions of long journeys of experience from a heavily cultured, heavily educated, heavily philosophical perspective.

That is no different than saying, he writes in value judgements. And, yes, it is very much like Nietzsche. Nietzsche is not worth a damn thing to the true lover of learning, with the exception of a few of his early works. And that is is why I say that this AK is also trash. No one learns anything of it, if you can already make the types of observations he makes (which do not have the opportunity to be fleshed out, for reason of his value judgements), except for what his value judgements are. No one who cannot make the observations he makes has any possibility of learning something, because the writing has already been turned into useless trash. You can enjoy what he's saying until he calls you a peasant, which he will do -- it only follows that, if he believes himself to be the highest mind there is, that he also believes his entire readership to be subhumans. Its not about, "what iis he saying?" Its more about "what can I get out of this?" And the answer is, for AK and for much of Nietzsche, nothing. History will roll over AK and forget about him. He's already as good as forgotten before he's really begun. He's living in the past. And those who also want to stay in the past will read his work, those few people which AK will find to be subhumans. What he's saying is, I HAVE LEARNED A GREAT DEAL. Well, that might be true, but its already been done before. What will shock and shatter history, bringing light to a new history, the future, is someone who reveals the very nature of learning at a most fundamental level; how one learns, what learning is. That is what will rock the very foundations of humanity. But this? This will be as a piece of trash floating by in the breeze. Beautiful, but forgettable.

>>184737
Ah. Now you've learned something.

Wow OP, out of everything on that site there is one thing that made me feel pretty depressed.

>There's something pathetic about long friendships. They signify that you've failed to outgrow them.

It's fine if he doesn't have any longterm friends, that's his call and it's not always easy to find people of that caliber.

But to have absolutely no idea WHY friendship exists is sobering, and now I feel legitimately sorry for him.

>>184711
Well at least this post cheered me up a little, I had a bit of a giggle at how Americans perceive the concept of class. He really doesn't understand what it's about does he? Peasantry/Class isn't about the kinds of art one partakes in, because if that were the case any peasant could simply become a person of class by buying some video games.

>>184745

1. He's Greek, not American.
   

2. Where did he say that he doesn't have any longterm friendships?

3. Buying some video games =/= having a genuine interest in them, and having a genuine interest in them doesn't automatically mean you know your shit. It does make you classier than the guy who outright doesn't give a shit about them though, because your perspective is outdated without them.

>>184785
Really? Actually now the racist parts make sense..

>Where did he say that he doesn't have any longterm friendships?

That's not the point. The point is he doesn't understand them.

>It does make you classier than the guy who outright doesn't give a shit about them though, because your perspective is outdated without them

Since they're just works of fiction, there are always others means of gaining perspectives.

>>184607

Can you cite this? or give another example? because as a linguisics major I dont get how would language influence thought the way you explained it. It doesnt correlate

>>184611
Its the fact that any type of slang forces the speaker into the immediate moment. Slang is not based on theory, it is based on the immediacy of the moment. This also has much to do with the fact that slang is not based on the alphabet. With the introduction of an alphabet, slang is obliterated. With the introduction of the alphabet, you enter into a world where thoughts and ideas can be broken apart, pieced back together, and forgotten. That's what I mean when I say Southern English is a pre-constructed landscape, or that it is similar to a song. All the rhymes and reasons are spelled out for you, and these are constantly sung in your head, in the form of the experience itself, and you are constantly living within that immediate moment, but only on terms determined by what slang you are using. The moment can only be understood in terms of what slang you employ, and in that way greatly influence your thought and behavior. With the introduction of an alphabet that is written, we can then see that our understanding can be treated in a much more mechanical manner, and the immediate moment loses its resonance. We enter into a world where the moment in which we are standing in does not matter as much as a moment that has already gone past. The resolution of the past becomes an ever present hobby for the man who accepts a written alphabet.

look up the dictatorship of vocabulary by john ralston saul, good read.

>>184532

>I remember when I read 1984 in high school I thought that theory was retarded.

Why did you think it was retarded? We're hopelessly drowning in language. Very near everything we do as a part of the modern developed world is filtered through language. The term "infant" comes from the Latin word "infans" meaning "without speech," because the ability to use language is the most important skill babies don't yet have, next to not being able to shit yourself, which is less of a skill and more of a thing to avoid.

Further, you can't listen to a speaker of your own language and focus on the raw sensory input the same way you can with a speaker of a foreign language because your brain's habitual engagement with language eclipses the actual sounds you're hearing as an object of your conscious focus. Similarly, you can't look at this text the way you can look at text in an alphabet you're unfamiliar with because you're too prone to seeing the meaning your language has taught you instead of the actual image that appears here.

I'd have a hard time coming up with anything nonphysical that could influence your thoughts more than (or even just on par with) language. Your upbringing as a Christian might make you think certain Christian type things in certain Christian type ways, but that's just a TV show while language is the TV channel. What you pick up as an English speaker in terms of context, idiom, and connotation make even the most philosophically divergent two English speakers have more in common than two philosophically similar people with different native languages.

http://www.graaaaaagh.com/2012/08/ideography-pseudology-propaganda.html

>>183442

>A man's anus is not made for fucking

It is, historically. Anal sex between males is a common way of establishing hierarchy among other apes, and it's possible our own ancestors practiced the same thing. We got a G-spot up in there after all.

>>184693
so how does that work? does a male rape another then go "ok im the alpha male, you'll do what i say" and somehow being assfucked makes him less of a man?
WELL WHAT IF YOU TIED SOMEONE UP AND GAVE THEM VIAGRA AND THEM MOUNTED THEM WITH UR ANUS?

>>184715

>WELL WHAT IF YOU TIED SOMEONE UP AND GAVE THEM VIAGRA AND THEM MOUNTED THEM WITH UR ANUS?

If you videotaped it, you'd probably get Internet famous.

>>184715

well actually its more like, the beta male lets the alpha male fuck him in the ass cuz it not only feels good but also makes their relationship feel right. accepting a dick inside you is an emotionally vulnerable experience and letting another dude fuck you is saying, consciously or subconsciously, I trust your manly superiority in this

>>184760
I don't know a human being, male or female can enjoy things as big as a cock throbbing their asshole. They all seem to have to be trained and women take it in the ass way more than homosexual men (truefax, sodomy is more common in heterosexual couples). I've had a finger in there to make me cum from my gf sometimes to touch that g spot to make me finally cum when I am binging on speed with her but something large like a cock that also moves in fast and hard inside your ass...no, it is not really natural to enjoy this, it is a nurtured practice, not making it evil, but I imagine if i was this kind of guy who likes to be pegged by a woman (lolno) I could be trained into enjoying it, I just don't enjoy pain, even sometimes she hurt me with just a tiny finger trying to push on my prostate so that's why it doesn't even happen often.

tl;dr Saying that anal sex feels good by default is a fallacy.

>>184776
Good point. Can we make a distinction between gender as a part of the search for one's identity, and gender as a physiological condition? I think so.

The two may, or may not have anything to do with each other, depending on the identity which one wishes to adopt. Meaning, if the identity that you wish to adopt includes having a penis, but this being inconsequential to your womanhood, then your physiological condition as a male will indeed have no effect on your womanhood. This is the nature of identity. We should be able to look at both simultaneously, realizing that, while there is overlapping, the two are quite distinct.

So what I'm getting is that femininity and masculinity are constantly changing in society's eyes.
>>184768

>Basically what she said was that femininity was a bad ideal because it forced women to either become passive or manipulative,

I see why passiveness can make women weaker than they need to be, but it seems like manipulation has always been useful throughout history for both men and women.

>>184777
I know this is off topic but Paris Hilton isn't really a bad person.

>>184773

I like your style gentleman, unfortunately evolution is totally random and only very partially a survival of the fittest thing, so our kind is doomed to extinction first, then the gluttons and plebians will destroy the earth with themselves, which only infuriates me because I don't think our shallow specie should be allowed to destroy earth's environment as it slowly commits suicide, first by ignoring intellect and etc. you know where i'm going.

>>184748

a rose by any other name smells as sweet.

>>184779
lol, all we saw from her is being Dingbat Queen who's rich from daddy's money, whats the old rock song that goes something almost exactly like what I said.

"Man is troubled not by things, but by judgements he forms concerning things."

OP here.

Heh, we've all got eerily similar thoughts. As I said I am an absurdist, and a materialist by practicality. I see ultimate truth about the meaning and existence of the Universe as impossible for the human mode of being to realize. It thus doesn't matter for us if the universe has meaning in the first place. I believe as humans we should strive to be just that, human beings without shame of being human, inferring moral choices from emotion as well as rationality and embracing mistakes and shortcomings as if they were successes. The strive to live by virtues and being bigger and greater than oneself is almost of spiritual importance in my eyes, and the quest for those things has more value than the goal itself.

>>184692
and when emotion conflicts with rationality what do you do then?

>>184712

>and when emotion conflicts with rationality what do you do then?

That depends on the circumstance in question.

I view emotions as reactions or states, so they are neither good nor bad. They tell you something about being human that pure logic just can't, and should thus inform your decision making(but not rule it). In my eyes human rationality is just as undependable as emotions are.

I believe that there is some simple starting rules (like the rules in the game of life) that creates more complicated patterns and the more complicated ones creates others.If we question the reason behind creation of these patterns I think the reason is "because they can" if there isn't a logic imperfection behind a creation(it can be everything,idea or physical object etc.) it can be created.For example:Think a rod which is n*meters,now spin it around,the rod draws a circle that has a radius of 1m and perimeter of the circle is 2n*pi now.So there should be a coefficent that used to calculate the perimeter of the circle,and it's pi! so pi is created because it can be created(or it must be created).So I believe that raw material used to create universe is just simple 1 and 0 logic.
If we come to "Do you believe to God?" question;I think we must first define what is God.If we assume that God is the entity that created everything,then God is the simple rules that I talked about.If we assume that God is the entity that controls everything,then God maybe exist maybe not,but even it exist,it must be controlled by the rules that I talked about.
If we come to "Is there a fate?" question.Yes,according to the 1 and 0 rules.There is only one way to go.I don't believe "randomness" exists.
About motivate topic,you simply don't need extra motivate resource that can do everything,but it might help I guess.
My world view is this,but I still don't know how can I call it,I can't categorize it.

Meditation would be a lot less confusing if it was just called not-think-in-the-moment.

>>184743
No! Meditation would be a lot less confusing, and less of a topic of discussion overall, if it were called "the natural shit you can't help but do, like taking a shit, like blinking, and like getting angry, furthermore, meditation is just another word for 'understanding' or 'an instance of learning' or 'clarity'."

>>184743
Which is why some prefer to call it "contemplation".

Meditation would be a lot less confusing if it was just called mruzz

>>184747
shut up.

Why not just buy an encyclopedia on philosophy and read it? Internet is great, but sometimes books are just better suited for pursuing knowledge.

You seem to have a problem (or problems) you can't solve, and you seem to believe that the only thing you can do to solve it is to do something about your lack of general knowledge. Well unless your need to pass an exam, ace an IQ test, or impress someone with knowledge, it won't help you.
I don't think you're stupid: from the few lines you've written you seem pretty self-conscious and open to accepting other point of views.
Maybe the hurdle right now is that you feel deeply discouraged. If this is the case, going the road you want to take might just take you back to the starting point, because the problem will still be there, or in the worst case, take you to be even more hopeless because you won't get results. Even in the best case scenario, if some book accidentally make you acquire more clarity, it won't take you anywhere if you're not willing to use it to face directly whatever is troubling you.
Whichever way this road may take you, it could be a pretty long journey before it has any effect.

I don't know why I took you to heart, maybe because the last line resonates very strongly with my past (and present) experiences.. I even went this route looking for a solution, just like you seem to be doing. I say all of this so this won't sound too weird:
If you want to talk to me, I'm available, just say so and I'll drop my e-mail address.
If you want to open a thread on /qq/, post a link, and I promise I will answer it and follow it.
If you decide to go the knowledge route, I will help you this way too. I have some experience in searching for answers while feeling lost.

Oh yeah, and things like ego. You can't ignore the fracturing of the mind into the equation. I hear about those things, but I can't tell what thoughts of mine come from where.

>>184718
because I'm not sure an encyclopedia would answer my question on whether it exists, without reading the entire thing. I was hoping someone would know if it existed.

>>184729
So you believe language can't change anything, or at least a specific level of communication through it. I'm not sure that I believe language only helps in the imaginary world (where on one extreme maybe it could get you more money, but what would that really change?).

>it won't take you anywhere if you're not willing to use it to face directly whatever is troubling you.

and you don't believe language can change that? is there a set of experiences that will change that? I hear about all these experiments on children that instill fear in them, make them insecure and dependent on others well into adulthood, but I don't hear enough detail that shows how you can reverse it.

Yeah, sure on the email.

>something that we know and trust and something that is constant and enduring

But the "I" is constantly changing. With each new experience and every passing thought we modify our World view, behaviors and emotions. Neuroplasticity occurs and we form new memories which redefine us and can influence our future selves.

The "I" that we identify ourselves with, for the most I think, is language itself. That permanent conversation we hold with ourselves inside our mind. A constant chatter asking questions, making statements and passing judgement. "I think, therefore I am" if thought is predominantly done through an internal monologue then you begin to identify the "I" with the internal monologue.

But an interesting thing I have noticed is that instead of internally vocalizing every thought, you can instead just "feel it". Instead of using language, you can just grasp the entire concept all at once. Not only does this speed up the thought process but also has the curious effect of being more meaningful than the language version. It encompasses more than just the rigid and strict structure of language. The "feel" becomes more vague.

Personally, I believe language is incredibly restrictive. I think there are some experiences that cannot be expressed in words. However, this creates the dilemma when someone asks "do you know what I mean?" How can you possibly ever understand fully? Yes, I may understand the vocabulary that is coming from your mouth. But surely, to understand is to share the exact experience, emotions and feelings connected with your thought process when you tried to vocalize it. However, because we can't ever (yet) directly share an experience with someone else then no, I will never fully know what you mean.

Take this post, It is a mere approximation of what I was experiencing. You may read it and take away something completely different than what I was trying to convey and in the same way the OP is an approximation of what you were/are experiencing in relation to the subject.

Also, I would just like to add in terms of personality, let's say you do or say something embarrassing. That is your perception of the OTHER persons perception of you. Meanwhile, they have their own perception of you. They may have thought nothing of it and not have even gave it consideration.

In the same way that you perceive someone else, they too have a perception of themselves - a self image and also your perception of themselves. But then two different people could have two vastly different perceptions of you and both could be nowhere near similar to your own self image.

Extrapolate this to every person you've ever met and there could be hundreds or even thousands of different "yous" depending on how you are perceived by others. Interestingly, which one is the real you? Your own self image? Are there many yous? Or is none of them you?

>>184733
Hopefully this clarifies my position slightly because having re-read my post it's a bit of a clusterfuck.

>>184579

>"My name is Susan, I'm a warm compassionate mother and loving wife, whose a CEO of one of the top 5 corporations in the country."

>We have these schemas of ourselves to give meaning because we don't understand why we're living them and since they will one day end we should put them to use.

You're saying that how a person describes herself is personality I think. The concept is more about what people tend do in a given situation than how they perceive themselves, don't confuse self-perception to personality.



>>184733

The same for you. The one personality that exist in a singular instance is the continuous process of the brain of said person. Whatever pictures people have of themselves or each other are constructs created by them alone and thus nothing compared to the full personality profile of an actual individual.

OP when people ask who are you? (to me) what do I say?
Or when people say, introduce yourself or tell me about yourself

Or in general, when people ask who YOU are, what do you say?

>>184703
>>184694
Yeah you're high. If all you're going to do is a present a disagreeable position and refuse to supplement reasoning you are going to be assumed either stupid or empty handed. Tho it's becoming apparent that you're both.

Also for those who don't understand this chumps intent, he's messaging his own vanity.

"I do not wish to inform, I have been claimed a genius!" Claiming this is what others say of you does not negate self proclamation.

"Confidence is the food of the wise man and the liquor of the fool."

Now I'll dissect your position on happiness despite your lack of an argument. But you'll have to ask for it.

>>184706
Yeah people who think good is relative to the subject or that good is what gives them pleasure are not worthy of trust

>>184706
And if you determine what is good by total benefit to others you're neither a hedonist or a subjectivist so you don't have anything to worry about

>>184705

Can you make an example of this other kind of satisfaction?

>>184716
An example, like, an illustration? Well... being hungry, but not thinking of your hunger while you lay out food for someone else, food which you will not be partaking in. Feeling satisfaction, despite your hunger, in feeding them. Not noticing your hunger as a negative thing which must be remedied, but simply accepting that it is, and feeling satisfied in the knowing of what is and in the acceptance of what is. Another one... waking up at 5 am to work, walking out into the bitter cold, getting to work and working 12 hours, feeling your hands growing tired but not noticing this as a negative thing, simply doing the work that lies before you, not noticing that there is still much time before you go home. Feeling satisfied, despite the pains of labor. Not because of the pains of labor, that would be pride. Being totally irrelevant to the current status of your sense, feeling satisfied by the ever presence of them, whatever they may be, because that is existence. Taking a hot bath, eating large amounts of delicious food, allowing a wide smile to form across your face, feeling the warmth of a lusty woman nearby, being satisfied about what is, and not fearing the disappearance of these luxuries. Existence will throw many things your way, however the satisfaction is unmoved, not declining or increasing, because it simply notices that it is. Recognizing senses as a condition of existence, and not as existence itself.

>>184447
Check image.

>>184448
That's the speculation I was referring to.

That stuff is more there to make you think and make your own personal speculations and symbologies about the world than to take it as fact.

Remembered another example of
>>184398
>>184397

Is the double slit experiment.

>>184627
Would you mind expanding on your assertion and try to clarify please. I'm not sure I see the connection between the Double Slit experiment and the posts you linked to.

Hey OP, this isn't /qq/.

>>184571
>>184572
You sound a lot like Levinas. I mean, A LOT. I think a lot of what you said could be worked through phenomenology better than...traditional empiricism, or whatever you'd classify most subjects of debate in PoR. I like what you said about existing and not existing at the same time. I kind of think of it like...because of things like honesty, if God were God, he wouldn't want all the attention, or he would have really died just to demonstrate humility, and only gone on existing as a sort of weak force that permeates the big picture but doesn't affect the short-term much.

I agree with you about a lot of things. Mainly where I differ is that I'm an individualist, and am more used to thinking about the God relationship in an individualistic way. I steer clear of revelation but that's both individualistic and an integral part of religion, as is faith. I tend to think more about things like doing the things that are right but no one approves of, asceticism, opposition to "the world," holism as a principle, humility, solitude, and God as part of a dialectic with man that ends in spiritual wholeness. It's important to differ with people in order to do whatever is best for them, and not just to be nice to them or help them exist--and not just that sentiment, but I think God is in that sentiment, even if it seems ambiguous and far away from meaning. God is inside you as much as he is in other people.

I could go on and on but I'd basically just be recapitulating influences of mine. I applaud you for getting into such a beautiful subject and I hope that it translates into your life in a way that fulfills you. Everybody else in this thread will be butthurt that you'd rather talk about Western things but I think you're cool.

>>184642
I don't see anybody butthurt except for the OP. I say, discuss anything you like. Only I don't like seeing threads get derailed by somebody bringing God or even Samsara into a talk about, well, anything. Because at that point, we cease to discuss the topic at hand, and begin discussing something else. If you want to talk about God or whatever, is all fine, just make an appropriate thread for it, and then make sure your discussion stays in line.

>>184666
I just wish that people would keep the definition of philosophy as "rational inquiry" in mind more on this board. The OP has come to sort of a cargo cult philosophy, as have I and almost everyone, because he doesn't explain in detail how his beliefs come from rational answers to fundamental questions. But I think it's clear that he takes that attitude more seriously than a lot of people here. I would like to see more threads that try to relate fundamental issues with human reality.

This board is filled with fucking dumb white suburban American faggot buddhist kids who wouldn't recognize philosophy if it hit them in the face.

You're preaching to a concrete wall, mate.