I get to a point like this every once in a while, where I don't enjoy anything for a few weeks, but then I start being interested in things again. So, perhaps it's not exactly the same if you're not going to come back from it any time soon, but when I'm like that I usually just sleep, like you mentioned, or visit places like this and just read everything.

>>16050
Same.

>>16050
>>16051
Same thing here too. I've always thought of it as the ebb and flow of interest, probably related to chronic depression. Eventually things pick back up, or at least they do in my experience. I guess if they don't, there's always suicide.

Just find a new interest. I'm sure you haven't tried nearly everything. Try listening to a kind of music you've never heard anything like before— musique concrete, highlife, sound poetry, free improvisation, jungle, afro-funk, or turntable music, to give you ideas. Maybe you'll find out that Japanese avant-folk really warms your heart. Start to get into the world of film and check out genres like New American Cinema, Japanese New Wave, French Impressionist Cinema, or Surrealism. Maybe something will really spark an interest and you'll get to spend time delving into it and discovering a world of new things. Most people don't read much past what they were assigned in school, and there's a massive world of literature out there. If you try to comprehend it all, you'll realize that the amount of art in the world is so ridiculously extensive that making a dent in it would require insane amounts of time. Just finding completely new things and hidden gems is interesting on its own. If you start getting into things, you'll quickly realize that you start accumulating a growing desire to make things yourself. Pretty soon you'll have so many interests and ideas for learning things and making your own art that you actually wish you had more time. Hell, you could even explore fashion, develop a taste, then start putting together fits that look really good while saving up money for things you like, because it feels really good and ignites another sort of passion. There's just so much out there, man. I bet that statistically, considering the vastness of things, there has to be something that'll catch your eye and start making your heart pound. More than one thing. Just start looking.

>>16053
Your post is both insulting and inappropriate for the board. That there is a solution, more, that your solution is more of the problem; listing off hobbies that anyone here with enough care to ever bother themselves with would have already dabbled and for long grown blasé. Personally I've never been able to enjoy things, but only manage to distract myself with addictions, yet since building tolerance, these past years have been a forgotten mire of waiting.

>>16053
Funny, this sounds like something I would be saying years ago. I didn't understand how anybody could have no interests. Now I know. Even if what I was excited about was layers of pretenses and following trends, I certainly did delude myself well enough to believe I loved those things.

The problem I see with what is written in that post is that it seems to completely ignore the core problem. Essentially putting different colored buckets under a leaky ceiling instead of fixing it. This feeling is extremely heavy, and it does not end once something new is found. It's always lurking there.

>>16054
I think he was just trying to help.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCHzicKq3W4

What you don't have now will come back again.

>>16054
It was an answer to
>How do you handle it?

There's no way everyone has "dabbled" in all of art and become tired of every genre. That was basically my point.

>>16058
>Essentially putting different colored buckets under a leaky ceiling instead of fixing it. This feeling is extremely heavy, and it does not end once something new is found. It's always lurking there.
If you have a way of fixing the leaky ceiling, I'd like to hear it. If not, why is just leaving the leak without any buckets and letting the water drown you somehow the best and only acceptable option?

Post edited on 12th Oct 2013, 6:44pm

>>16058
The solution to the leaky ceiling would be to get out of the house, figuratively and literally. All NEETs eventually either kill themselves or admit they were wrong and get a job, friends, get married etc.

>>16059
The getting a job part definitely. Uncertain about the validity of the 'friends' part and definitely 'marriage' part. Lots of neurotypical guys won't touch marriage with a 10 foot pole.

>>16059
For a NEET to toss in the towel and join propriety is effectively giving up. Normalisms are merely other sets of interests - socializing being the publicly sanctioned addiction. And just as OP wrote: "This feeling is extremely heavy, and it does not end once something new is found"; for how long does one who has faced the emptiness, remain bemused working their spirit away. No, I'm afraid that admitting mistake is no solution at all.

>>16057
But it won't necessarily. It's annoying when people trot out these trite 'positive' sayings as if they have any bearing on reality. Obnoxious actually.
"Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem" is one of the most egregious examples. I can't think of any others right now.

>>16055
>Essentially putting different colored buckets under a leaky ceiling instead of fixing it. This feeling is extremely heavy, and it does not end once something new is found. It's always lurking there.
You're right, but the problem is that you're searching for something that doesn't exist, i.e. a solution. The "leaky ceiling" is the search for meaning, trying to find it in lifestyles, ideologies, art, other people, etc. Eventually, what we were believing doesn't offer the meaning we desire (either because we've exhausted the idea that motivated us or become bored of it) and we slowly move on to something else we think will offer a more complete contentment; that too will be found lacking and we'll move on, the process repeating as long as we live and desire.

What I'm saying is that there's no absolute source of contentment. Looking for one, you're only bound to be disappointed.

>>16079
The leaky ceiling metaphor has run its course and you have only confused yourself. The search for meaning may be your source of despair, but it is not necessarily the prime mover--you try to see the reflection of yourself in other which is nothing but egotistical. That there is no absolute source of contentment, you have no argument to reason this, other than the fact that you've had no luck. Your charlatanistic air of wisdom is but a waft of miasma.

>>16055
So here is the thing, because I was exactly where you are right now.

You've basically over-saturated yourself with the things that you like to the point that you've lost interest. This is quite frankly, completely normal. It's called burnout and everyone gets it at some point in their lives. Like others have suggested, the best thing to do would be to take a -break- from things you've liked and try other new things.


But here's the thing. You consider yourself fairly intelligent. You're not going to try the other things because they're horse shit. You've already looked into them and they're bad because they've got negatives. And in the grand ultimate purpose of things, what exactly am I achieving by occupying myself with this new activity? It does not fix the fundamental problem with myself which is that my life is shallow, I serve no grand purpose, the things I enjoyed are no longer enjoyable, and the very act of consciousness has filled me with dread.

I'm going to be completely blunt here, but things are never as fucking shallow as you think they are. You think you're a smartass and that you've seen everything and understand everything, but that could not be farther from the truth. You live in a society of quick access and spoon feeding where everything is diluted into a simple catch-phrase, where complex ideas are stripped of their intricacies to appeal to the least common denominator. Do not fall into this trap. Nothing is ever that simple. Those who say that are either too fucking dumb to grasp anything beyond the visceral, or have some other alternate agenda. Even within your own hobby, it took you literal years of exploration and delving before you've finally gotten sick of it.

In reality, you are by the purest definition of the word, extremely fucking bored.

You have to for your own sanity go out and try something new. And you absolutely MUST accomplish that which you set out to do. Because that's what's fucking killing you. You don't do anything, you don't accomplish anything, so everything sort of blends into this heavy background noise that seems to be a sort of impenetrable wall of nothing. Nothing you do has a purpose because you've accomplished nothing so you've never felt the sense of progress which comes from changing the metaphysical.

The absolute best thing for you to do would be to get out a pen and piece of paper and write down what you do all day and then write down what you want to accomplish today. Pick small tasks, like making your bed, or buying some groceries. Whatever. Write them down and then do them. This is the first and most important step.

It sounds really stupid, and I know exactly what you're going to do. But in the next few months (possibly even years) when you do finally build up the dread and desperation to actually try it, you will kick yourself in the ass for not doing it sooner. The only thing I can tell you is to do it now, which is advice I know you will completely ignore. But this is just the natural cycle of maturity and progress of the human psyche.

>>16081
>The leaky ceiling metaphor has run its course and you have only confused yourself.
I only used it as a starting point to discuss my own ideas. If it was confused, it was only because I used the earlier metaphor as an analogy to something I've thought about beforehand. In other words, it was a relation between my views and the question the person was asking; I didn't use the metaphor to underpin any of the ideas expressed afterwards. That's why it's only mentioned in one sentence.

>The search for meaning may be your source of despair, but it is not necessarily the prime mover--you try to see the reflection of yourself in other which is nothing but egotistical.
These are only assertions (the second part more pejorative), but I would be willing to say that the first half is partly true. I said in the same post that desires also play a role in the cycle of content and discontent. Even behind desire and the search for meaning are other factors, but it hardly matters as you haven't told me anything about what you believe. Whatever I say is the basis of discontent, you can respond "well that isn't it either" but I can't agree or disagree with you until you offer a view. Merely saying this or that isn't the "prime mover" tells me only what you don't believe, something which if done forever makes it easy for you to occupy a sort of ghostly incorporeality that's impossible to hit with any substantial point.

The latter half is silly. Most people see the reflection of themselves in others, otherwise there wouldn't be such a thing as "empathy" nor would there be language expressing internal emotional states. Focusing on language specifically, there is no other way to understand emotions within oneself and others except as an analogy with the self to others: we can say "your happiness is not my happiness" yet we understand happiness when we and others speak of it from the physical expressions thereof (smiling) and understanding feelings that we have such that would result in that physical expression. Thus, for someone to say they are or were happy, we understand because we have felt similarly in some way (and understand the word happiness by that analogy between our and their physical expressions), finding analogy between our emotions and the other person's emotions. If finding reflections of oneself and analogies to oneself in others is egotism, then egotism is part of the human condition, hardly restricted to me.

>you have no argument to reason this, other than the fact that you've had no luck.
No, I didn't offer an argument (nor did I say I was offering one), only an opinion based on a number of different conclusions I had reached. I typed more originally, but I didn't feel it appropriate for the given context so I deleted most of it; I originally typed more here too, but I also deleted it, thinking it would just result in a different type of ideological impasse. Perhaps I shouldn't have, but I doubt anyone would be convinced by more writing who didn't feel any connection to the ideas in the first place. Honestly, do you think you would have believed me had I typed more? Or would you have tried to contradict some part of the argument I had offered?

>Your charlatanistic air of wisdom is but a waft of miasma.
Most things we see contrary to our beliefs delivered in a way we dislike will grate at us. I (obviously) think my opinions are correct, insomuch that they can be, as every person believes his own views are right to some degree, and simple assertions otherwise won't change others' opinions (evidence and argumentation only works in the short term if the opinion is held weakly or the person holds no opinion on the subject). I would only be found convincing if the OP (or a reader) held views sympathetic to mine in the first place, regardless of evidence.

If you were intending to show that I was incorrect in my assertions, you must have deleted that part of your post because all you have are baseless assertions at odds with my position and insults. I didn't offer an argument originally but neither did you in your response. Perhaps you didn't mean to offer one either, but it's utterly ridiculous to assert a position contrary to your opponent, call him a charlatan for not offering an argument, and then not offer an argument yourself. You should have written "you're wrong, you big doo-doo head," as it conveys the same information and avoids charges of hypocrisy.

>>16084
> people see the reflection of themselves in others, otherwise there wouldn't be such a thing as "empathy"
Yes. That means only caring about myself. Don't see myself, I'm not affected, I don't care. This is ultimate embodiment of egoism, core base of any creature's existence on the planet Earth.

> for someone to say they are or were happy, we understand because we have felt similarly in some way (...), finding analogy between our emotions and the other person's emotions
Yes. That means happiness only possible between similar beings. If you're different, you are alone and others can't stir in you any emotion besides disgust. This leads to depression. The only solution is becoming like them, which is impossible because of human's capability of intellect (most people have only intelligence with intellect heavily suppressed to protect self-comfort and interests). The moment you realize who you are and who are people around you, you can't turn back, forget and pretend it never happened. This is exactly as Bible says: "You eat forbidden knowledge fruit and banished from heaven forever".

>>16084
Once again you've completely missed the point. Your folly is not that you were incorrect, but that you believe you were correct--that you have so much more life experience, and have pondered these questions with much more scrutiny, and for more time, and have amassed all the wisdom there is to be had, and therefore, now you can make the call, tell us sorry souls what is true, bevcause you have the authority to give THE answers without proof or cause. If you weren't biased from backing yourself into a corner, feeling the need to defend yourself, you'd realize how despicable you sound. You're trying to force your ego onto others: seeing others as yourself, and where they deviate, you press your dogmas, because if they make sense to you, then they should just as well be as easily accepted for anyone else, right? No. You write that argument does no good, then complain that none was offered in contradiction to yours. Yet, you offer no argument to be countered, when the burden is on you - the one who makes the claims. More evidence of your unwieldy ego is in your saying that what you believe you believe to be correct, and that everyone is no different in that regard, when in fact it is the contrary. I have made no bold claims, other then countering your dogmas by suggesting that they may be incorrect, and that I'm slightly annoyed by your faux-wisdom, but you seem more concerned in defending your image (evidenced by your post), then continuing the discussion of the thread. Why are you trying to attack me, the spooky ghost, when I am not the target--the target is some resolve to this topic at hand. Further, your parallol with empathy is false... or is emotion equivalent to reason? And what makes us bored, the discontentment you refereed to, is irrelevant, be it "purpose" or some other construct, unless you're suggesting that boredom must be excised at the source, but this could very well go back to that leaky cieling.

>I can't agree or disagree with you until you offer a view
Again, I'm not seeking reconciliation. You wrote that there is no ultimate contentment, that there is only more boredom to be found. If so, prove it. And I'm not trying to make you look bad, were both anonymous after all, but am genuinely curious in any discussion that might develop out of this topic - hence my posting. So go ahead and post your argument, I'd very much like to read it. Until then, you're nothing but a charlatan.

>>16086
>>16087
>You're trying to force your ego onto others: seeing others as yourself, and where they deviate, you press your dogmas, because if they make sense to you, then they should just as well be as easily accepted for anyone else, right?
Without the hyperbole, it's also known as expressing an opinion. Please don't over-dramatize the situation.

People are free to accept my view or not as they choose, no "press[ing] of dogmas" necessary. Do you think I have some sort of inquisitorial torture chamber I'm using to force people to accept my views? You evidently don't want to accept them and, while that doesn't bother me, you should probably state your reasons why.

As for the "they should just as well [...]" part, it doesn't touch reality at any point. I recognized people wouldn't accept my views in the same post you're responding to. Did you even read it? I mean, you must have, but it seems like you forgot something because it was too inconvenient to remember.

>Your folly is not that you were incorrect, but that you believe you were correct
If you think you're incorrect, then why are you posting at all? "I'm wrong, but this is why you're wrong from my wrong perspective": does that make any sense? I believe I'm correct insomuch as it's possible, i.e. I believe that my position has some relation to the state of things in the world. I never said that it was perfect, only that it was the best I have at the moment from the information I have. You have some dispute with my position and my conclusions; fine, but what is the dispute beyond emotional accusations of behavioral impropriety? Even if I were an egotist, saying that I'm an egotist and therefore wrong is still ad hominem. Although it may explain how I came to a position, it has nothing to do with whether my position is correct or not.

>bevcause you have the authority to give THE answers without proof or cause
I never said that. I only have as much authority as any other anonymous poster, i.e. none, nor do I claim more. I was expressing my position regarding something which the reader was free to believe or not as he chose, if he felt any sympathy with the view. I certainly can't force someone to believe everything I say, despite you seeming to think I can.

>If you weren't biased from backing yourself into a corner, feeling the need to defend yourself, you'd realize how despicable you sound.
You're being very silly again. I do feel a bit bad someone feels the need to denounce me, but I hardly feel backed into a corner since I haven't had anything to argue with but hot air. Maybe I would feel backed into a corner if you offered some sort of concrete argument against my views (which I would then be forced to respond to with an argument), but, so far, all I have received from you is "a waft of miasma," negative feelings towards me without any substance. After someone expresses an opinion you dislike, do you typically yell "you're wrong!" and tell that person to justify himself? That person wouldn't even know where to begin because he doesn't know where you're finding him to be wrong.

>You write that argument does no good, then complain that none was offered in contradiction to yours. Yet, you offer no argument to be countered, when the burden is on you - the one who makes the claims.
It doesn't do much good typically is what I wrote, but you're the one saying that I should have offered an argument. If you want to hold me to your standards, you should at least hold yourself to those standards.

And, no, I didn't offer an argument, but I do offer my views which, at the very least, can be argued against. All I know about your views is that you feel very negatively about me and my views; that doesn't really help me to know why you disagree or where the disagreement is, or even where you've found contradiction beyond accusations of "egotism" which, even if it were true, wouldn't refute my position. You can at least say you disagree with certain beliefs I hold; on the other hand, I don't even know what beliefs you hold other than "you're wrong and I don't like you," nor do I know what you're disputing specifically about my views. This leaves me swatting at flies.

>I have made no bold claims, other then countering your dogmas by suggesting that they may be incorrect
"Countering" implies you dispatched the arguments or positions with something of your own, but you yourself said here you "have made no bold claims." You're right: all you have made are statements to the contrary coupled with insults against me. I can see what you were trying to do--I've approached arguments with a similar strategy in mind--, but it's not working out very well here.

What you should have done is approached it with more questioning in order to find the hidden contradiction or lack of clarity that you believe to be at the heart of the person's views on the issue rather than start immediately with expressing your opposition and creating a pseudo-psychology for your opponent that is easy to pummel into straw. The latter usually ends up resulting in a terrible mess: "you're stupid/selfish/mean"; "no I'm not"; "yes you are"; and so on. What sort of discussion is that?

Another possibility would be responding point by point with evidence and arguments that you think would show mine to be wrong. I've started out with immediate negativity towards another's views before as well (and also without having concrete views of my own on the subject), but that doesn't mean I thought I should just express my belief they were wrong, insult them, and think I won the argument because my opponent is the devil.

>but you seem more concerned in defending your image (evidenced by your post), then continuing the discussion of the thread. Why are you trying to attack me, the spooky ghost, when I am not the target--the target is some resolve to this topic at hand
So, given the fact that you responded and you're "trying to attack me," are you also "more concerned in defending your image [...] then[sic] continuing the discussion of the thread"? After all, "I am not the target"--"the topic at hand" is what should be resolved.

Also, what image do I have to defend? I don't have a name or a tripcode. Do you think I'm defending my anonymous image? In addition, I haven't attacked you as a person; I've only said you're not offering anything but airy insubstance: expressing oneself angrily against a position is not the same as countering that position.

>Further, your parallol with empathy is false... or is emotion equivalent to reason?
I didn't imply emotion and reason were equivalent (although they're certainly related); I only argued that we see ourselves in others (and, in this case, I offered an argument by way of language as an example) and as analogues to ourselves otherwise the language of emotions wouldn't function (also, it should be self-evident that language is a system, thus it has a logic and can be reasoned through: how else would you analyze grammar or even form "correct" sentences without language having some logic?). Besides that, egotism, what you were accusing me of, is an emotional charge, not a charge of incorrect reasoning, though you accuse me of both and seem to think that egotism would nullify a position.

Also, the accusation I was responding to--"trying to see your reflection in others," which you equated to egotism--isn't describing an act of reason but one of emotion. Of course I would be speaking about emotions when the topic in question is about emotions.

>Again, I'm not seeking reconciliation.
Neither am I, but, if you're criticizing someone for not offering an argument, you should probably... offer an argument. You don't even have to offer one in favor of your views--just one with evidence contradicting my beliefs is sufficient enough for dispute; mere contradiction is not.

>You wrote that there is no ultimate contentment, that there is only more boredom to be found.
Partly true, partly false. There is no ultimate source of contentment, I do believe, but that doesn't mean I believe there is only "boredom to be found." People can find other things, other ideas, other hobbies. You can just as easily say "there is only more contentment to be found" after periods of boredom.

>If so, prove it. And I'm not trying to make you look bad, were both anonymous after all, but am genuinely curious in any discussion that might develop out of this topic - hence my posting.
There aren't any absolute proofs outside of mathematics, and the axioms that inform such proofs are beyond doubt, i.e. impossible to be proved themselves. Since you recognize that "we're both anonymous" here, what am I to make of your above remarks about me being backed into a corner and forced to defend my "image" on an anonymous board?

>So go ahead and post your argument, I'd very much like to read it. Until then, you're nothing but a charlatan.
So, you're "genuinely curious" about a discussion that might result from the topic, but you think attacking me personally will result in that discussion?

which one of you is the dude with a masters degree from the other thread? I'm gonna put my money on him.

>>16083
Not OP, but letting you know this is helping me. I'm taking babysteps, but I feel like I'm taking strides.
Thank you.

>>16092

LOL that is me. I haven't posted in this thread yet.

But on the subject, I think that things stop becoming interesting either due to the fact that your no longer in a stimulating, novel environment or simply because you have such strong depression that you simply can't enjoy anything anymore. The first case is easy to solve; just go out of your house and take walks around the countryside, or go to the library and start reading the first book that looks vaguely interesting. The second case, however, isn't very easily overcome. Depression can be morbidly comfortable in some cases; I remember when I was deeply depressed in my teens and I felt this sort of odd sense of being happy for being so sad. I don't know if it was self-pity, but it was close. Sorrow often makes you feel more alive and makes you appreciate things that you would otherwise take for granted, so it might have something to do with that.

Either way, try something different. If you hate where you are, be somewhere else, if only for a little bit. Your environment and situations sort of mold who you are.

>>16091
You are unequivocally blinded by pride. Evidenced by your post--did it really hurt so much to be called despicable, though I rued it was too conspicuous. And no, I don't consider this a victory in any shape; no, because all I wish is for you to speak to me honestly. Do you surround yourself with others that consider you wise or intelligent - I don't doubt that you are - and have little to say in response to your aphorisms, because when asked for reason, you have come up at a lose--is it lack of experience, or are you showing me the extent of your nature. Are you sincerely going to tell me that reason cannot exist outside an axiomatic system. And are you still waiting for me to step into your ring of senseless rhetoric--to pick a side, mark my ground and wear my team's jersey, so that we may begin slinging shit. I have lost interest in mere bickering. Please consider that if you can't convince others you may have too quickly convinced yourself. I have asked for reason; implicitly once, explicity second. Another splattering of pontification is unwanted. If you find yourself unable, then ignore this posting for our correspondance has depleted its utility; I hope that the reflection will be to your benefit.

It looks like we've discovered something that is still interesting: fierce drawn-out arguments on the Internet! Problem solved, let us rejoice.

>>16100
>You are unequivocally blinded by pride.
That's always the refrain, isn't it? The only problem is that it has nothing to do with whether my position is right or wrong.

>did it really hurt so much to be called despicable
Given that I'm more than a half-dozen completely different things to you, no, not at all.

>Do you surround yourself with others that consider you wise or intelligent
Yes, I surround myself with droves of people who worship the ground I walk on and salivate as they watch me post TL;DR bullshit on Tohno-chan in my spare time.

>wise or intelligent - I don't doubt that you are -
Were you born in Wonderland? Maybe a relative of Humpty Dumpty? I say that because currently you think of me as "blinded by pride," "wise," "egotistical," a "charlatan," "intelligent," someone who espouses "faux-wisdom," and "despicable." Some of these seem to be mutually exclusive (a wise man with faux-wisdom), others very awkward together (an intelligent charlatan?), but then again, what do I know? Maybe words only mean what you want them to mean wherever you live.

>and have little to say in response to your aphorisms, because when asked for reason, you have come up at a lose
They have very little to say as they don't exist.

>Are you sincerely going to tell me that reason cannot exist outside an axiomatic system
Once again, you asked for "proof" which is dependent upon axioms. Though reasoning does depend on both parties in an argument holding certain assumptions about argumentation, reasoning, and the state of things in the world, I wasn't referring to that.

>And are you still waiting for me to step into your ring of senseless rhetoric--to pick a side, mark my ground and wear my team's jersey, so that we may begin slinging shit.
I don't care what you do, but, if you want to dispute something, find a point you think is questionable and dispute that point. You can play gadfly but you should at least aim to play it competently. You're asking me to justify myself but you haven't told me what you're disputing beyond merely finding my views disputable.

>I have lost interest in mere bickering.
Does that mean you'll finally tell me what you're disputing about my position? Or is this just a way to save face while bowing out?

>Please consider that if you can't convince others you may have too quickly convinced yourself.
I come to /so/ for all my trite advice, so I'll be sure to remember.

>I have asked for reason; implicitly once, explicity second.
And I've asked what you were wanting me to reason. For perhaps the dozenth time, what exactly are you disputing about my position? Believe it or not, I understand that you don't like me much but I'm not any closer to discovering what you've found wrong about my position besides the fact it's mine.

>Another splattering of pontification is unwanted.
Are you trolling or what? Your second response to me is little else but pontificating on how I am too proud to see how wrong I am.

>If you find yourself unable, then ignore this posting for our correspondance has depleted its utility;
It never had any utility to begin with. We're posting on an anonymous imageboard for NEETs in a thread about boredom and lethargy. This conversation, arguing about how an argument should start without ever starting one about the topic at hand, is the definition of futility.

>I hope that the reflection will be to your benefit.
If by "reflection," you mean laughter, then I suppose so.

>>16102
Your words are continually of no consequence, but I'm a bit scarred by earlier when you said that you've used similar tactics in argumentation; that does bother me, that you've taken a stance simply of inquiry - what a sham.

I fear my posts have been too conversational, and there is an issue of comprehension; for that I am to blame. I'll try to outline this post with more structure.

I don't believe you are wrong. I never said you were. You may be wrong, or you may be right. But I have no reason to believe you are right for you have provided no argument. A nuetral stance is not aggressive. Earlier you refered to me as some incorporeal ghost that you can't quite place. That ghost you have mouthing what you wish I was saying, or what's easily responded to. This is by definition a strawman. Sorry, thought that was funny.

You seem to be taking in my words as a singular point, when there are multiple lines of thought to be considered that are related but independant. I never called you wise, but the very opposite. I'm having trouble seeing how you came to that interpretation, as for intelligent, there too I thought the condescending and patronizing tone was clear. Moving on- I'll outline my positions. Firstly, you backed your original thesis with feigned wisdom - this was a mistake. Chances are you mispoke; spoke loosely, and didn't consider the weight of your words, so I've asked you look back at your posts, and reconsider whether or not you believe in entirety what you've written. And I don't want your concessions, it is of course your prerogative to posit whichever pet dogmas you collect; this thread is pranked with many such cases. But that you can speak with authority, because you've lived through similar experiences, or whatever other narrative you might rationalize your preach, this, and this alone, I take issue with. There is a very large distinction between believing something is true, because you believe in yourself, and believing something is true because you believe yourself to be wise. That is the crux of the matter. Soi-disant sagism is the antithesis of wisdom. It truly denotes a shitty character, and considering what I can gather from your posts, if we were speaking on friendlier terms - understand that I don't consider us adversaries, but friends at odds with eachother because of a few misteps in conversation-, I think we might be able to agree on that note. And this is why I attacked you, I insulted you because, for that moment, you were possesed with a character deserving of insult. Second, I questioned your ego's prominence in your reasonings, or more for that matter the sole buttress; I suggested it has too much weight, and has lead you to error. My position was that your conclusion and said conviction, is not resolute of reason, but is the exclusive product of having an overbearing ego. That you believe your self wise, and as such your thoughts, and where they take you, are worthy of conviction. Had you attended your musings with direction and logic, and not capricious, flippant denouement, you may have very well arrived at another stance (though that is ostensibly an uneccesary topic for this thread). There lies my doubt. Furthermore, I have never commented on the inherent value or shortcomings of an enlarged ego; only chronicled my hypothesis to your mode of thought. Finally, I asked for reason to convince me to your view. It is an entirely innocuous request, why not conceed this much?

To be forthright, I have suggested answers to the the primordial question: how the hell do you deal with the perrenial boredom. The topic has been the subject of all my replies. I havn't been blowing hot air for fun. I don't think they were entirely nebulous, and I don't doubt that you are equipped with the adequate acumen to decipher them. But alas, they aren't answers, but at best currency for meditation. I'll delineate some points explicitly, and I look forward to your dissidence. And I did try to make these clear (blinded by pride? was this not obvious?). Consider the boredom, the true boredom described by posts of the thread, is the product of the ego at odds with selflesness; a duality of sorts. And the solution, is the absolute giving in to one side. Pure egoism, or true selflessness - via mindfulness, eHaruhieath, whatever and soforth. Well, such extremes are hardly necessary but they illustrate the point. The passive and sedantary days of a NEET, are more suited to the hermit, who isn't lead to depression or emptiness, or however else you might describe the unpleasentness, by their need for the self's aggrandizement (physical experiential, so on). The continued and prolonged interest in hobbies, is just that. Consider the artist who devotes his life to his work; its the ultimate act of the ego, making the exterior more like the interior. There are plenty of other systems to abstract this troublesome dichotomey, but I think this one is simple enough to comprehend.

>>16103
>Your words are continually of no consequence
My words are at least consistent from paragraph to paragraph.

>I fear my posts have been too conversational, and there is an issue of comprehension
Considering incomprehensibility and self-contradiction are often stumbling blocks for comprehension, I agree.

>A nuetral stance is not aggressive.
I guess in whatever bizarro world you live in, neutrality means insulting the person you're talking to and implying they're wrong.

>You may be wrong, or you may be right.
As is true of virtually any statement about the world.

>Earlier you refered to me as some incorporeal ghost that you can't quite place. That ghost you have mouthing what you wish I was saying, or what's easily responded to. This is by definition a strawman. Sorry, thought that was funny.
All I'm asking is whether you have some specific dispute or you're just pissing in the wind. If you don't have any specific dispute, then I don't care. Where have I put words in your mouth? All my quotations have come from your posts.

>I never called you wise, but the very opposite.
So when you say "I don't doubt that you are" after calling me "wise and intelligent," it means precisely the opposite. That clears things up.

>I'm having trouble seeing how you came to that interpretation, as for intelligent, there too I thought the condescending and patronizing tone was clear.
"Yeah, uh, I was only joking about that...." Maybe the joke just wasn't discernible beyond the background noise of your usual supercilious tone. Besides, why are you treating "wise and intelligent" as separate items when they were connected in context? You would think that what's true for one is true for both, yet you have trouble with how I came to "wise" but what you meant by "intelligent" is "clear"? In other words, the "wise" part of "wise and intelligent" is utterly baffling to you but the "intelligent" part of that same phrase is obvious sarcasm. I'm starting to doubt you even read your own posts.

>Firstly, you backed your original thesis with feigned wisdom - this was a mistake.
And where did I claim this "wisdom" such that I could feign it? I certainly didn't back what I said with it. I only offered an opinion, and I said as much in my first response. You seem to have a hard time understanding this.

>Chances are you mispoke; spoke loosely, and didn't consider the weight of your words,
The chances of that are actually very low.

>so I've asked you look back at your posts, and reconsider whether or not you believe in entirety what you've written.
Considering you've so badly bungled your positions, this question is probably more pertinent to you. Or maybe you're used to holding contradictory positions simultaneously.

>And I don't want your concessions,
What? I haven't conceded anything, nor have I offered to concede anything. It's almost as if you're the Black Knight of arguments: no matter what I say, no matter how many times I show you've contradicted yourself, no matter how many times I ask you a basic question and receive no answer, you still think victory is at hand.

>it is of course your prerogative to posit whichever pet dogmas you collect; this thread is pranked with many such cases.
It is, so I don't see what you're disputing anymore. If you're allowing it to me as my prerogative, and there are other such cases in the thread, mine shouldn't have risen to much notice. It seems the only reason you posted was because you imagined me to be some sort of arch-egotist.

>But that you can speak with authority, because you've lived through similar experiences, or whatever other narrative you might rationalize your preach, this, and this alone, I take issue with.
I never said I spoke with authority. As a matter of the fact I said the exact opposite earlier:
>I only have as much authority as any other anonymous poster, i.e. none, nor do I claim more.
You should really try to remember what positions I hold, even if you can't remember what positions you hold.

>There is a very large distinction between believing something is true, because you believe in yourself, and believing something is true because you believe yourself to be wise.
When did I ever say that I was wise, let alone that I was right because of it? The closest thing I said was about how we necessarily believe ourselves to be right in some sense. It was a trivial statement. You should go back and read what I said if you're having a hard time understanding this.

>That is the crux of the matter.
But it's clearly not considering I never claimed wisdom. Are you sure you aren't arguing with someone else? Maybe someone on a different website?

>Soi-disant sagism is the antithesis of wisdom.
The only problem with "soi-disant" is the "soi" part. Right now, it's more "toi-disant."

>It truly denotes a shitty character, and considering what I can gather from your posts, if we were speaking on friendlier terms - understand that I don't consider us adversaries, but friends at odds with eachother because of a few misteps in conversation-, I think we might be able to agree on that note.
I also find that there are many people who like to consider themselves friends with charlatans, people they consider despicable, and people who they think have "shitty character."

>And this is why I attacked you, I insulted you because, for that moment, you were possesed with a character deserving of insult.
Once again, I don't care about the insults in themselves, but you shouldn't expect an interesting, reasonable conversation about the main topic to result when you begin with personal attacks.

>Second, I questioned your ego's prominence in your reasonings, or more for that matter the sole buttress; I suggested it has too much weight, and has lead you to error.
You need to say what you think the "error" is in order for me to address it. Is this really so difficult to understand? Also, considering I "may be right" or "wrong" based on one of the sentences above, is that including the error or is the error added on afterwards like a tax?

And, once again, I never justified my position by way of my ego; I never justified it at all, as you seem to recognize when it's convenient. I said that in my first response, so you should already know this. I don't see why you keep bringing back a point I already addressed earlier. If you found me wrong in that first response, you never addressed how I was wrong; rather, you've just been repeating yourself like a broken record on loop.

>My position was that your conclusion and said conviction, is not resolute of reason, but is the exclusive product of having an overbearing ego.
Keep that broken record playing.

>To be forthright, I have suggested answers to the the primordial question: how the hell do you deal with the perrenial boredom.
Based on your actions in this thread, your suggestions seem to be: write poorly, argue wretchedly, and walk back your statements until you come full circle.

>The topic has been the subject of all my replies. I havn't been blowing hot air for fun. I don't think they were entirely nebulous, and I don't doubt that you are equipped with the adequate acumen to decipher them.
You have to admit, deciphering contradictions is quite a task.

>But alas, they aren't answers, but at best currency for meditation.
Yes, like a koan.

>I'll delineate some points explicitly, and I look forward to your dissidence.
Maybe you'll finally be clear on what you're saying.

>And I did try to make these clear (blinded by pride? was this not obvious?).
Do you think I somehow don't understand what you're saying? Go back and read where I mentioned "blinded by pride," if you can. It's not a problem of comprehending the phrase itself but a problem of competing, contradictory descriptors.

>Consider the boredom, the true boredom described by posts of the thread, is the product of the ego at odds with selflesness; a duality of sorts. And the solution, is the absolute giving in to one side. Pure egoism, or true selflessness - via mindfulness, eHaruhieath, whatever and soforth. Well, such extremes are hardly necessary but they illustrate the point.
Given that you're the one who asked for proper arguments on my position, it's a strange strategy to do the exact same thing you criticized someone else for.

>The passive and sedantary days of a NEET, are more suited to the hermit, who isn't lead to depression or emptiness, or however else you might describe the unpleasentness, by their need for the self's aggrandizement (physical experiential, so on). The continued and prolonged interest in hobbies, is just that. Consider the artist who devotes his life to his work; its the ultimate act of the ego, making the exterior more like the interior.
Is it "the ultimate act of the ego"? There are plenty of artists concerned with changing the world for the better; that hardly strikes me as pure ego. Others are at least concerned with representing the world as it is; that doesn't seem egotistical either as it implies desiring one's work to have some relation to the world and the people in it, not total self-involvement.

It's not that I doubt some artists are egotistical, but I don't see mere egotism as the basis for great works of art. The works must have some resonance with the audience, something that rings true about the human condition, and being blinded to all concerns but your own isn't likely to lead to such insights about people in general.

And, based on the above, why are you condemning me for egotism when you're also offering it as the ultimate solution for boredom? And are great artists also incorrect or somehow in error, given that you think dedicating oneself to art is pure ego?

>There are plenty of other systems to abstract this troublesome dichotomey, but I think this one is simple enough to comprehend.
Please post again next time you descend from the mountains of madness to grace this thread.

Also, you condemn me for being too egotistical and proud while somehow typing that last sentence with a straight face and admitting you were being "condescending" and "patronizing" near the beginning of your post. Are these qualities usually associated with selfless people? They must be in whatever alternate universe you live in.

And just like that, I'd like to kill myself once again. Maybe.

>>16104
There seems to be a schematic barrier, and unfortunately I can't break through.Let me reference your first post, or the first post I recognize as yours:

>What I'm saying is that there's no absolute source of contentment. Looking for one, you're only bound to be disappointed.

Here is where you took the stance of wisdom. I've explained how in multiple ways in the preceding posts. This is not simply stating your opinion; read your lines closely.

>Looking for one, you're only bound to be disappointed.

This is the original case of you taking on airs of wisdom. Saying that there is no absolute source of contentment is fine. Though I do think it's strange that you say this is so, when conclusion can only be made within axiomatic systems. And I did give you the chance to revoke, saying that you may have used your words whimsically, but you have made it clear that this is not the case. But I digress, the issue is when you say that it's a futile search.

Dedicating one's life to art was only one example. And I would say that all acts of an artist are impositions of their ego. But in any case, yes that was my point, that one can be deluded by their own thoughts, live chiefly through the wants of the ego, and I suggested that this is a possible solution for boredom. Consider the business man, boredom for him is the second week of vacation when he's anxious to get back to work. To be said evenly more plainly, many NEETs might not have the temperament for solitude. It could be that they either break, and thus become content with the slow lifestyle, kill themselves, or as an earlier post suggested: get a job, friends and whatever else this life entails. The sorriest souls are those failed normals that became NEETs not out of desire for the easy life but because they couldn't make it outdoors. And to clarify once again, I was denouncing your false wisdom, saying that there is no hope, only "disappointment." Again, this could very well be true, but you have yet to explain yourself; and making such conclusive claims, that there is no further benefit in searching, is harmful. I in no case condemned your ego. Your ego, may or not to your benefit; it could very well be the relief of boredom, or it may be the principle that needs to be outed. Saying that you're "blinded by pride" was to show that when reason becomes shielded behind a giant ego, being blinded in this manner can be entirely to one's benefit. Uncertainty and unknowing don't matter when you have pride. More, I can't say I'm selfless--free from ego--this has already been contradicted by the hundreds of times I've used "I" in these posts.

To clear up a few things in your preferred format:

>All my quotations have come from your posts.
>after calling me "wise and intelligent"
I called you intelligent in jest; never once wise.

>Besides, why are you treating "wise and intelligent" as separate items when they were connected in context? You would think that what's true for one is true for both, yet you have trouble with how I came to "wise" but what you meant by "intelligent" is "clear"?
Why are you still bringing up intelligence; It's played no role beyond a bout of sarcasm. Wisdom and intelligence are unrelated, or are you making a point here that they are?

>The chances of that are actually very low.
Egoism, but that's cool.

>Considering you've so badly bungled your positions, this question is probably more pertinent to you.
The positions are clear, and they've remained consistent. Saying otherwise doesn't make it so. You on the other hand have taken every opportune tangent; I couldn't have a justification for your stance, because the nature of justification is of more concern. I wouldn't mind that discussion, but it belongs in another thread.

>Or maybe you're used to holding contradictory positions simultaneously
Please don't imply that I'm a philosopher.

>And, once again, I never justified my position by way of my ego
You're confusing the two immiscible reagents. I suggested that your ego lead to your position. And I suggested that you justified your position by way of wisdom.

>Keep that broken record playing.
The last posting was a summery of my previous posts with expansion. You had trouble understanding the earlier posts, so I recapped with a new mode of presentation. Yes I'm a broken record player, and I'm contradicting myself. Good analogy.

>Given that you're the one who asked for proper arguments on my position, it's a strange strategy to do the exact same thing you criticized someone else for.
I presented a view without inflecting wisdom - it served as an example and as a departure. This was made very clear; I'm curious to see how you might challenge that.

>It's not that I doubt some artists are egotistical, but I don't see mere egotism as the basis for great works of art.
I agree here, but the quality of the art is not important for that example.

>And are great artists also incorrect or somehow in error
Not at all. I never implied this.

>Please post again next time you descend from the mountains of madness to grace this thread.
This post has been the most petty yet.

>>16107
>There seems to be a schematic barrier
I said earlier that you aren't going to be convinced by argument and neither am I. If you felt any affinity with the ideas I expressed in the first place, you wouldn't have responded to it in the way you did. The only people who could be convinced would be non-committed readers, but I doubt there's anyone left reading this dreck.

>Here is where you took the stance of wisdom. I've explained how in multiple ways in the preceding posts. This is not simply stating your opinion; read your lines closely.
It is actually. It's a summation of the previous sentences. Your impression is that I've made some sort of wisdom claim, but there isn't any explicit wisdom claim, and, no matter how many times I say there isn't even an implicit claim to wisdom, you assert it in every post like a fixed idea.

>This is the original case of you taking on airs of wisdom.
Or it's a conclusion based on the previous sentences. Whatever, who knows. I hope the person who wrote those lines comes back to explain them.

>Saying that there is no absolute source of contentment is fine. Though I do think it's strange that you say this is so, when conclusion can only be made within axiomatic systems.
I actually said proofs can only be made within axiomatic systems; I said nothing of the sort about conclusions (which is a much more general term than "proof"). I do think conclusions result from systems, although I doubt they're axiomatic systems and it's a separate issue anyway.

>I called you intelligent in jest; never once wise.
You should probably kill the elves who live in your keyboard then.

>Why are you still bringing up intelligence; It's played no role beyond a bout of sarcasm. Wisdom and intelligence are unrelated, or are you making a point here that they are?
No, I'm not, but you typed:
>Do you surround yourself with others that consider you wise or intelligent - I don't doubt that you are
Once again, I'll quote the mystery phrase:
>wise or intelligent
Even more clearly:
>wise
I've quoted and paraphrased the line a number of times. Regardless of sarcasm, the two were obviously connected in context. Why bother treating them as separate when, if the whole thing was sarcasm, the two were referred to with the same clause separated by the dash? Why find one puzzling and the other clearly sarcastic?

>Dedicating one's life to art was only one example.
But it's not a good example if it's not the "ultimate act of pure ego" as you said.

>And I would say that all acts of an artist are impositions of their ego.
I wouldn't disagree, but that's trivial. Any actions from oneself are impositions of the ego. This could just as easily be said about bricklaying or plumbing.

>But in any case, yes that was my point, that one can be deluded by their own thoughts, live chiefly through the wants of the ego, and I suggested that this is a possible solution for boredom. Consider the business man, boredom for him is the second week of vacation when he's anxious to get back to work.
Maybe he's anxious about providing for his children. Maybe he's worried about his parents' health since where he's on vacation at is far away from them and his place of work is much closer. Maybe he's worried about providing for a 3DPD/wife, or he's afraid she'll cheat on him during the vacation so wants to go back to work to eliminate that possibility. Maybe he always has to feel he's useful to others and feels impatient and frustrated without someone else needing him. There are so many different reasons someone can worry about getting back to work during a vacation under the given circumstances that it's hardly evidence for "liv[ing] chiefly through the wants of the ego," or much of anything else for that matter.

>To be said evenly more plainly, many NEETs might not have the temperament for solitude. It could be that they either break, and thus become content with the slow lifestyle, kill themselves, or as an earlier post suggested: get a job, friends and whatever else this life entails. The sorriest souls are those failed normals that became NEETs not out of desire for the easy life but because they couldn't make it outdoors.
But how would we know a NEET is a "failed normal" except after the fact? Plenty of NEETs are attracted to 3D women, at least physically; does that make them "failed normals" or just adjusting to the NEET lifestyle (accepting for a moment such a thing exists as a distinct concept)?

Also, the term NEET itself is composed of such a diverse collection of people that I wonder whether we can really say that there is some sort of resemblance in temperament among the people in this group, something beyond the mere definition (i.e. "not in employment, education, or training" which has little to do with the personal tendencies of an individual). Are we speaking of a specific type of NEET, i.e. the type that would come to this imageboard and other boards like it? Or are we speaking of the more general term?

>And to clarify once again, I was denouncing your false wisdom, saying that there is no hope, only "disappointment."
Of all things, you thought this needed clarification? In addition, I never said "there is no hope"; I just said there is no absolute source of contentment, and that looking for that absolute source will result in disappointment. You just read "there is no hope" from that.

>Again, this could very well be true, but you have yet to explain yourself; and making such conclusive claims, that there is no further benefit in searching, is harmful.
The problem is I didn't exactly claim that. Let's go back to what I said:
>What I'm saying is that there's no absolute source of contentment. Looking for one, you're only bound to be disappointed.
I said that looking for an "absolute source of contentment" is something where one is "bound to be disappointed," not just looking for contentment (although there could be something to the approach of abdicating all desires and searches for meaning; I wouldn't know). For example, someone who thinks about doing something they might enjoy (e.g. running) but feels that, if they wait, a better source of contentment, something completely fulfilling (an absolute and final source of contentment), will come along.

My position was that waiting for this final sense of contentment while denying any other you might find because you don't think it's enough is something that only sets someone up for disappointment because it tends to create a cycle that perpetuates discontent (where the person feels bad about themselves, has something that comes along and offers them contentment for a time, but the person denies that possible source of contentment because he doesn't feel it will be an absolute source). I think that the source of contentment will eventually lose its ability to give contentment, but it doesn't matter that much if you find a new source. There is also a cycle of content/discontent which was the focus of my first paragraph in that same post, but it's a different cycle; one alternates between the two states, the other just perpetuates the same state (discontent).

I didn't explain myself for the same reason I gave before: because I didn't want to and didn't think any good would come of it. I gave reasons for that in one of the earlier responses, and, in this case, I won't repeat myself.

>I in no case condemned your ego. Your ego, may or not to your benefit; it could very well be the relief of boredom, or it may be the principle that needs to be outed.
So what am I to make of this in your first response:
>you try to see the reflection of yourself in other which is nothing but egotistical
Isn't egotistical a condemnation of the ego here? Most readers would think so.

>Saying that you're "blinded by pride" was to show that when reason becomes shielded behind a giant ego, being blinded in this manner can be entirely to one's benefit. Uncertainty and unknowing don't matter when you have pride. More, I can't say I'm selfless--free from ego--this has already been contradicted by the hundreds of times I've used "I" in these posts.
What's the point of all these condemnations of my ego if you yourself are blinded by it in some sense? It's possible that I'm selfless but you're too egotistical to see it.

>I presented a view without inflecting wisdom - it served as an example and as a departure. This was made very clear; I'm curious to see how you might challenge that.
But if "you have no argument to reason this," then why should I believe those assertions in the first place? Those are your exact words, and this is what I mean by consistency. You may dislike me for some imagined implied claim to wisdom, but that was in your first reply as one of the reasons you had disliked my post. Did that change? Or were you just angry at what you imagined my tone to be?

>Egoism, but that's cool.
Someone should make this thread into a drinking game. After enough alcohol, the arguments might even begin to seem interesting if you squint a little.

>The positions are clear, and they've remained consistent.
Then answer my earlier question: is it possible I "may be right or may be wrong" or did my views "lead [me] to error?" The only thing I'm clear about here is that you think I'm definitely--or maybe just possibly--in error.

>Saying otherwise doesn't make it so.
If you had actually taken this lesson to heart, this conversation would have been over after my first response denying any claim to wisdom or attempt at justification. Instead it's just a vicious circle of assert personality flaw, deny, assert flaw again, deny, assert, deny; this can go on till doomsday and we're still stuck in exactly the situation I thought we would be in beforehand. Once again, you're creating a pseudo-psychology from impressions, i.e. what you feel to be true about the person, and all it amounts to is a very long ad hominem.

>I suggested that your ego lead to your position.
It must have been someone else who said:
>I questioned your ego's prominence in your reasonings
So my reasoning of an idea is separate from my justification of an idea? If you mean justifications only as "reasons put forward to others that advance an idea," it's still a subset of reasoning. That is, a justification would still be reasoning, just a specific form of it. According to you, my ego is prominent in my reasoning (meaning it must be used somehow in it), but it's not a justification? Either you gathered that from the same two sentences you took that impression of justification by wisdom from, or you created an imaginary person afterwards who was like this but had little connection to the text.

>The last posting was a summery of my previous posts with expansion. You had trouble understanding the earlier posts, so I recapped with a new mode of presentation.
You're saying I had trouble understanding the same thing you've repeated forty or so times, the same assertions I've quoted repeatedly and denied, and the same type of assertion I said you were repeating endlessly in the very portion you quoted. But I guess I didn't understand that time either because you've also asserted the same damn thing in your latest post.

>And I suggested that you justified your position by way of wisdom.
And no matter how many times I say I didn't claim wisdom, nor did I try to justify my position, you still keep bringing those two things up. The only evidence you have is that you felt I was making some claim to wisdom and a justification based on that claim because of your reading of the last paragraph in that first post you responded. It doesn't matter what I say in contradiction. You would think the person who wrote it knows better, but, no, I must be lying or deluding myself or controlled by aliens.

>I agree here, but the quality of the art is not important for that example.
It doesn't, but if art in general is the result of "pure ego," then so should be great art. If it's not, then that means that art wouldn't be an example of an action of pure ego, thus your example is apropos of nothing.

>Not at all. I never implied this.
So the artist who devotes himself to his work commits the "ultimate act of pure ego" is also immune to giving ego "too much weight" which would "lead them to error"? One would think that the greater the ego, the more vulnerable someone would be to error since their reason can be "shielded behind ego" according to your post.

>This post has been the most petty yet.
Taking into account you've already admitted to being condescending and patronizing, you hardly have room to complain.

>>16108
>It is actually. It's a summation of the previous sentences. Your impression is that I've made some sort of wisdom claim, but there isn't any explicit wisdom claim, and, no matter how many times I say there isn't even an implicit claim to wisdom, you assert it in every post like a fixed idea.
There most definitely is claim to wisdom, and it is in no manner a summation of the preceeding sentence when it makes an entirely different point. Both lines are too simple to even manufacture that understanding. If there is no absolute source of contementment, this doesn't conclude that the search for one will only bring you disapointment. One might die before their search ends, or search for contement out of curiousity, and with their final resoluation, that there is none, the person is left satisified. And I'm sure there are plenty of other cases that might be dreamed up. That there is no more to be said of on the topic of, is a stance of wisdom; you can justify conclusivity with reason or wisdom. You chose the latter. If you say it wasn't a case of wisdom, then I'll leave it at that - it was a flippant opinion. But will you also accept that your search for for absolute contement might not only lead to disapointemnt, and that you spoke too capricously.
On that topic, I'll ignore the back and forth of what you said, and what you said I meant. If you can ignore the back and forth of what I said, and what you say you meant.

>My position was that waiting for this final sense of contentment while denying any other you might find because you don't think it's enough is something that only sets someone up for disappointment because it tends to create a cycle that perpetuates discontent (where the person feels bad about themselves, has something that comes along and offers them contentment for a time, but the person denies that possible source of contentment because he doesn't feel it will be an absolute source). I think that the source of contentment will eventually lose its ability to give contentment, but it doesn't matter that much if you find a new source.
Thank you for this clarification, now your point has much more validity. Of course waiting for that absolute contenment makes little sense, unless it is somehow numbs one into eHaruhieath. But is contentment are you refer to the contrast of boredom; one can pass their time with something that relieves boredom, but doesn't necesarily leave them satisified. Are you saying that freedom from eternal boredom is impossible, or that eternal satisfacation is imposible. Very different points. The boredom cycle model does makes sense, and might be what some others here are experiencing. It may be true that eventually all sources will lose their appeal, but there are cases where humans are satisfied with a single or a few sources for their lifetime. Maybe for immortals, there could come a time where all interests have been exhuasted, but to the individual, for whom time starts and ends with their birth and death, perrenial freedom from boredom is a possibility. If relief of boredom is the issue, I've suggested that the loss of self might be an absolute remedy.

>I didn't explain myself for the same reason I gave before: because I didn't want to and didn't think any good would come of it.
Then what was to be gained from your previous posts. Your explanation was what I've asked for all along.

None of your supositions for why the business man might wish to return from vacation include boredom. That was the point, that some people can live a life with little to no boredom. Further, all the cases do involve the needs of the ego; a life of anxiety is not a life of boredom. Of course boredom is an affliction shared by all of man, but I think the kind of boredom introduced by OP is more of an extreme case, that is not applicable to the smalls spurs of boredom a person might feel as an impetus towards action.

Yes, NEET is a very loose term that deserves definition. I was using NEET in the case of a reclusive NEET who spends their time in solitude. Of course a NEETgoist that parties all day is too much of a contrast to be grouped. As for failed normals, I think you've said it. A failed normal can only be identified after becoming a NEET, that is the point at which they have failed, by their own standards--the standards from before they became NEET. You see, someone who wants to be normal, and fails, is a by definition a failure: a failed normal. The exact criteria for NEEThood are so very loose that it is difficult to say that being attracted to 3Ds revokes their membership. To say it is an adjusting phase, ya that's probably right, because it is phase moving along the ego gradient.

>Isn't egotistical a condemnation of the ego here? Most readers would think so.
It was used only to qualify. Any further bias is subject to the reader.

>What's the point of all these condemnations of my ego if you yourself are blinded by it in some sense?
That is a point in itself.
It's possible that I'm selfless
No.
but you're too egotistical to see it.
Yes.

>Someone should make this thread into a drinking game. After enough alcohol, the arguments might even begin to seem interesting if you squint a little.
That sentence wasn't an argument in any shape. Your interpretations are wildly devient; at least they are valued by surprise. It was a joke, as I've been pointing out cases of your egoism, but now in the light that I've explained eogism can be positive, and as solution to the topic. Should I make a joke here about how I considered making a joke here about you being too daft to pick up on all the humor I've used. I'm not funny, but when there's an opportunity its usually worth taking.

>So my reasoning of an idea is separate from my justification of an idea?
Yes. Your ego being prominent in your reasoning, as in your ego was your reasoning. The weightings being ego 100%, reason 0%. Reason can be justification; I asserted that you chose the angle of wisdom. As I suggested, the nature of reason should be ignored for the moment.

>You're saying I had trouble understanding the same thing you've repeated forty or so times, the same assertions I've quoted repeatedly and denied, and the same type of assertion I said you were repeating endlessly in the very portion you quoted.
When your posts are a strings of quotes and your misconceptions, yes, it does look like you're having trouble understanding.

>It doesn't, but if art in general is the result of "pure ego," then so should be great art.
Of course, why wouldn't it.

>So the artist who devotes himself to his work commits the "ultimate act of pure ego" is also immune to giving ego "too much weight" which would "lead them to error"
You mean to say NOT immune. The overbearance of ego and abillity to use reason arn't mutually exclusive. One could be an egomaniac, who believes himself genius, and is decidedly settled into reason. The ego can silence the use of reason, but it is of course subject to the ego.

>One would think that the greater the ego, the more vulnerable someone would be to error since their reason can be "shielded behind ego" according to your post.
Maybe, but not necesarily. It's too big of a claim to make. Not interested in asserting probabilism here.

To neatly tie up the theory I've been positting, realize that to say art is the ultimate act of ego is incorrect. The ultimate act of ego is suicide. Thus, the final cure for boredom.

If you're bored: Kill yourself! The physical self or the sense of self.

I find things other people create to be boring, try creating something yourself, or just imagine doing it. Imagination is good enough.

the back and forth between the posters here has rendered the thread useless.

>>16157
You don't have to pay mind. We can start a conversation anew.

This will probably come across as whining but, I find I'm in a similar boat. I have no interests anymore. I haven't enjoyed anime in 2 years, I don't play video games anymore, I haven't touched a book in years. I go to work and hate every second I'm there but as soon as I get home I'm so bored that I often just go to bed after I've eaten something. The only ways I really kill free time is I'll watch a hockey game if it's on tv or I'll find a tv series to watch every once in a while. But it's like even when I do those things I don't 'enjoy' them, it's hard to explain but it's like I don't actually like them it's just better than lying in my bed so I'll choose that path instead.

I know there is a world of stuff out there for me to discover but, I have no motivation, no desire to do anything. People always say to try something new, but I wonder if they really understand what it feels like to have no interest or no drive. I kind of feel powerless like I'm stuck waiting for something to come to me without the power to actually move myself, I know what I have to do but I'm just a worthless failure so I'll never actually do it which just makes me feel even worse.

>>16157
Just like in http://tohno-chan.com/so/res/13924.html

Maybe it's even the same two people doing it. The passion with which they're doing it is commendable, though.