Any idiot looks good when they're winning. Handling success is easy. In real life, you gain XP when you lose a fight.
Succeeding teaches you to become set in your ways. It instructs you that you have nothing more to see. Success is kin to stagnation. With success, you risk decay and ultimately death. Going from strength to strength, from success to success, is a bad sign.
Why, it sounds almost like cowardice. The coward successfully avoids the contest, and in so doing, cores out his own existence.
Failure is the true instructor. If you're a terrible softling, you might say it's about the journey, not the destination. The destination is chosen by which journey it implies. The point of the goal is to be a lodestar, not to reach it.
It is through failure that you learn and grow. Though growth, life.
Is Mars, in fact, the god of life? The very god of living itself?
Is this always true? Here I see Nietzsche as correct. Assuming you have chosen, sought out, and humbly accepted the contest, any failure that doesn't kill you is not only good, not only great, not only glorious, but a divine transcendence.
To perfect is to profane. To err, divine.
It is through true absolute failure you truly prove yourself. Any idiot looks good when they're winning. If you're seriously deft you can look good while losing.
Can you handle looking bad?
Anyone can handle committing when the possible rewards, risk-adjusted, outweigh the cost.
Can you handle committing in the face of certain failure?
If you fail in the most important things in the most important ways and survive, if you respond to utter derision and deprivation and despair by standing right the fuck back up, then you can truly say you have stood, for the first time.
The best journey begins by losing everything, proving the challenge you accepted is the greatest you can possibly bear.
To truly live? Die. Die and go on living anyway. Death isn't something to fear, Death is your best friend. No Life, except through Death.
Existence is pointless? Everything is exquisitely doomed? AWESOME. Bring it! Give me the most pointless, useless, ridiculous existence you possibly can! The more failure is preordained, the higher the heights I display by challenging it anyway.
Surprisingly, failure is wealth. Loss is an incomprehensibly generous gift. True strength looks like a true wreck and everyone hates it. Despicable and despised.
Existence cannot possibly be pointless. Upon a pointless existence, I can impose my will. I can overwrite its natural state with my own, and through that, prove anything. Prove everything. An allegedly pointless existence is merely the best possible challenge, the grandest possible present, an invitation to the highest possible party.
Admittedly, one does need to actually win, in some sense, in the end. Looking a wreck must be temporary. Although the destination is chosen due to the characteristics of the journey it implies, if I don't reach the destination, I can falsify the journey. I can pretend I'm on a journey I'm not. I can detour, confusing one journey for another, by confusing the destinations. Lies are bad, mmmkay. Verify and replicate the journey using the destination. Through destination, I impose discipline. Victory is a means, not an end; it is the price through which I purchase greater journeys, higher victories which can only be reached through more glorious failure.
11 comments:
Somewhere else Nietzsche says any idiot can handle loss and what determines a master is how one handles winning
It certainly looks that way.
In practice slaves don't handle loss, which is why they can't win. They refuse to risk loss, which may even be rational, but this means they forfeit every contest.
When a slave accidentally wins, they don't win. They refuse to secure their winnings. It doesn't matter if you make bank if you don't have a bank vault to put it in. Because they refuse to secure their winnings, they rationally know the winnings will be taken from them, and they can save themselves a lot of hassle and pain by voluntarily surrendering the winnings.
A non-slave generally pre-emptively secures the winnings before attempting to win in the first place. Gem goes in gem setting, not sitting loose on a picnic table. A larval winner might mistakenly try to perform the sequence in reverse, but only once.
It's finally here! And it's on topic! What a kinky dink!
https://rezzealaux.wordpress.com/2024/04/22/intent-to-grow-guild-wars-1/
I say in there it's a Mars in Gemini kind of story, which is what I thought when I wrote it, but on posting the posting time was Pluto Conjunct Ascendant in Aquarius. Which also appears to be true.
https://www.astrology.com/aspects-transits/pluto-conjunct-ascendant/
Pluto-Ascendant Aquarius square Sun Taurus: 'revolution-self in society conflicts of purpose in plenty'. Astrology is real.
I got rich in world of warcraft using dust. Buy weapons, disenchant into dust, turn dust into enchants, sell.
This was of course years ago and I'm probably still low-key rich.
Hilariously, players will spend much time farming to avoid having to spend a little time crafting. Take their money and you get rich.
I have a hand calculator I do all my math on.
I guess you wouldn't like Magicka because, by erasing any real prospect of loss, there is likewise no prospect for gain. More like Mario; you do the levels. In Magicka you can start over and do the levels again, infinitely.
I realize Greedy Goblin has an error. He feels the need to justify persecuting M&S. Trust and inclusion are taken for granted, instead of distrust and the need for trades to be profitable.
M&S: "I want X."
Me: "What are you paying me for it?" .... "That's too low, bye." Story over. The End.
longhousing can also be summarized as making kids fear bad deals tomorrow to make them accept a worse deal today. "if you don't do what i want i'll get mad" actually now that i wrote it out i think it's a simpler principle.
"[A]lways attack - whether it is a counterattack or an attack in response to an attack. In the time it takes to evaluate the effects of an attacker’s attack, you could have attacked. Whatever has happened has already happened, and the effect is what the effect is, and no matter the effect - if you will want to attack, attack without pausing to find out what happened to you. It takes focus to do this. People are naturally inclined to respond more powerfully to things happening to them than to things they are doing. This reflex must be overcome so it cannot be used against you."
it's just a battle of wills.
or even without talking about battle, they'll get mad if deal doesn't pass. but what will you get? they can't know what you get. they're driving a sale, but they can't make you sign on the line that is dotted.
alternatively again, this is the difference between a scam and a fraud. fraud is deception. scam is open. they're lying, but it's open: they know it, you know it, you know they know it and they know you know it and they know you know they know it.. "but i didn't want to do it" it's time to follow the voice in your heart and not the voice in your ears.
Putting a finer point on it, Gevlon starts with the assumption everyone is a cooperator, but wants to prove that certain easily-identifiable groups are not cooperators.
That's wrong, if someone wants to be considered a cooperator, they have to ~explicitly ask and then earn that right.
hmmmmmmmmmmm
that does seem to simplify greedygoblins model with basically no loss
though makes me think something unrelated. "everyone is a cooperator" or things like it is like a carryover from a past people today havent or have barely experienced. but then why do we believe it? its like how old people used to get respect, 'if you're still alive you must have done something right', except reversed, 'if he's in front of me he must not have ever defected on anyone in serious times'. except this isn no true. it must've been true at some point but it is not true. neither side has figured it out. unstable equilibrium. clark's industrial revolution, except for decay and degeneration. omae wa mo shindeiru.
my view on greedygoblins model now is it can be simplified as
"[x] will [cooperate with me]"
1. x = the unknown
2. x = other people
3. x = certain other people
4. x = i
Times are no longer serious, ergo, defectors run free.
"""High trust""" == "most criminals are executed, hence I can trust he's not a criminal" lol
You only get high trust if, when someone treats you like a criminal, you attempt to have them executed. ""High trust"" is approximating 'most' criminals are executed as 'all' criminals have been executed, then cowardly running from confrontation that challenges this assumption.
Lex talionis had that problem too. Even if revenge is legitimized as retribution, the victims keep trying to forgive the perpetrator. Someone regularly has to prod them into executing the deterrence. (Not me, but you may have noticed I'm not normal...)
well, being able to trade the right to execution definitely made it a lot better than today.
"does anyone want this guy dead": possibly
"does one guy want this guy dead": unlikely
"does the state ('everyone') want this guy dead": not going to happen
trade really is important.
i wonder what other trades were a big deal that no longer happen.
first one that comes to mind is adult adoption: solves the problem of all your sons sucking.
Post a Comment