So, I was sitting there after lunch today, letting my mind wander through a rather curious thought: why does it always seem easier to be the one initiating action rather than the one receiving it? It’s a phenomenon that goes far beyond physical intimacy; it’s deeply rooted in our psychological makeup. If I were to imagine myself navigating the world from a masculine perspective, honestly, taking charge and being the active force with one, two, or even ten people wouldn't feel like much of a struggle at all. However, looking at this through a feminine lens changes the equation entirely. When you are the one penetrating, you are essentially asserting your integrity; when you are the one being penetrated, that sense of self-integrity feels like it retreats. This is where those classic archetypes of male "dominance" and female "submissiveness" seemingly originate. For instance, if someone wanders into my personal space—say, coming within half a meter of me—my instinctual reaction is often to push back with both hands. People usually look for an explanation because they can't quite wrap their heads around why I reacted that way (essentially, my "penetrating" stance). It got me reflecting on my own behavior and thinking about the times I have been the one in the active role—and just how many different ways people have tried to defend themselves against that. Still, these convex and concave dynamics in life and behavior are inevitable; ultimately, they play a role in the very mechanics of reproduction. But as society evolves, we are seeing more fluid identities, which will likely lead to a generation of "moral relativists" regarding these convex-concave mental statuses. To get straight to the point: could you envision yourselves as the opposite gender, and if so, how would you describe that experience?
(A quick note to the feminists and the chauvinists out there: please leave the moralizing at the door. We're keeping the ethics strictly to the philosophy section below.) 🙂
enky mentioned over at the moderation corner that she’s actually interested in coming back to the community. Since her departure wasn't due to any actual rule violations or "sins"—she really just chose to step away on her own terms—I honestly believe we should welcome her back and lift the restriction. I’ve set up a poll here as well, as I'd love to get a sense of how everyone else feels about this decision.
redtinker36 said:.. hatred is really just a symptom of feeling powerless .. a way of coping with a reality you can't stand .. and the end goal isn't even to hurt someone or kill them .. it’s just this desperate wish that they simply didn't exist .. (.. it's how those extremists in Nazi Germany operated .. they viewed people as vermin .. convinced themselves the world would be better off without them .. .. honestly, I think even your parents saw Jewish people through that same lens — as nothing more than usurers .. as beings existing on the fringes of humanity .. .. just silent, cold luxury, like an Audi A8 cruising by ..)
Are you talking about turning a blind eye? Because that’s exactly my point when I say that actual killing can't happen while someone remains fully conscious of their actions. Hatred is a different beast entirely; you need that person to actually be alive in order to hate them, and you hold onto that hate because you need it to define who "you" are. What does a person become once they let go of hatred? Vain? You only feel vanity when you think someone else is taking something that belongs to "you." But in reality, what's "yours" is just as much "theirs."
I believe murders generally fall into two categories: those committed in a moment of passion or those planned in advance. Personally, I find it hard to believe that pure hatred is the primary driver behind a killing. If you truly despise someone, why bother taking their life when you could simply silence them through other means? Hatred usually manifests as a sadistic impulse, which suggests that someone fueled by deep resentment might instead opt for a slow, methodical destruction over the course of twenty or thirty years. Both crimes of passion and premeditated murders seem to occur during a state of diminished consciousness. In the first instance, the mind is essentially clouded; in the second, the perpetrator has completely dehumanized their victim, viewing them as an object rather than a human being. This explains why those who kill in the heat of the moment—including combat situations or instances of self-defense—often suffer from PTSD once they regain full clarity. Conversely, those who commit premeditated acts often fall under the umbrella of psychopathic disorders and frequently feel absolutely no remorse whatsoever. My view is that a person operating with full consciousness and recognizing the humanity of another cannot bring themselves to kill. Even if it were someone like Hitler, they should face legal justice, even if that means the electric chair. It’s a fascinating psychological threshold; much like a blind spot in one's vision, there is a certain "scent" to a murder that occurs when that fundamental connection to another person is severed.
It’s been quite a while since I last checked in on this PDF, but I was randomly drawn back by this thread because I saw (or perhaps I just imagined) that Lozac has been permanently banned. Look, if you want to ban someone, fine, but a permanent ban for a top-tier satirist like him is, in my humble opinion, nothing short of a complete failure to grasp his unique style of expression. Seriously, is there anyone on this forum who has actually read Lozac without realizing he’s joking? Does anyone truly fail to see that what he does is high-level satire? I honestly believe this is going way too far.
hiddenpuma75 said:Your entire post is packed with valuable insights. (Relativism is essentially death, which is quite a powerful point, for example.)
But that one specific sentence I pulled out feels like a shaky premise to me from which all sorts of illogical conclusions sprout. It’s pretty obvious that relativism didn't "expose" old standards as primitive, nor did it move past them. (It might have done that for some things, but certainly not for the classics😉.) Instead, it just leveled the playing field, turning everyone into spiritual proletarians.
However, a classic remains a classic, no matter what.😉 An elite is an elite. And a genius is a genius. --
The real question is: how do we actually overcome that kind of death—that relativism? How do we outsmart it? What’s the move here—hey, you younger guys? ===
I’d like to boldly offer a solution.🙂
Cowardice asks: "Is it safe?" Pragmatism asks: "Is it reasonable?" Vanity asks: "Is it popular?" Politics asks: "Is it useful?" Science asks: "Is it measurable?" A philosopher asks—and keeps asking and asking and asking *ad infinitum*. While the "enlightened relativist," that master slacker, doesn't even bother asking; they just shrug and say everything is the same, so nothing matters.
Only conscience asks: "Is it right?"🙂
There comes a moment when a person has to make a move that isn't certain, isn't reasonable, isn't popular, isn't useful, isn't measurable, isn't philosophical, and isn't relativistic... and yet, you have to make it because it is
RIGHT.😉
A classic is simply a class. And a genius is a genius, regardless of their class.
Cowardice asks—Is it safe? Expediency asks—Is it reasonable? Vanity asks—Is it popular? Politics asks—Is it useful? Science asks—Is it measurable? A philosopher asks—and asks, and asks, and asks *ad infinitum* The "enlightened relativist," a lazy master, doesn't even ask; they just declare that everything is equal, so everything is irrelevant.
Only conscience asks—Is it right?🙂
There comes a moment when a person must make a move that isn't safe, nor reasonable, nor popular, nor useful, nor measurable, nor philosophical, nor relativizing... and yet, they must pull the trigger because it is
RIGHT. 😉
True, but they don't know if it's right (otherwise, there would be no risk involved).
I wish you were either hot or cold! But because you are lukewarm, I will spit you out of my mouth.
It is the freedom of nonsense, or perhaps just senseless freedom. It is the freedom to merely *exist*, rather than to truly *be*. Freedom should exist so that one can become something, not to renounce being altogether (which is just death). That is why in the EU, they talk about a "pluralism of differences" instead of true "equality," but in the end, everything just collapses back into relativism and uniformity. It’s like how every year a budget is drawn up, which is then distributed based on set criteria, aiming to improve—relatively speaking—the welfare in areas lagging behind the average. Of course, there is plenty of corruption involved, and for the "presidents" of that Union, they choose these faceless bureaucrats whose job is basically to pacify "the wolves in sheep's clothing"—those powerful lobbies and elites who rule from the shadows.
Maybe the only way to fight relativism is through integrity. Integrity is a value of a higher order than totalitarian relativism, which can perhaps serve as its foundation or background. So, I guess it means not giving up on your own choice—not because you are totally indoctrinated or primitive, but simply because it is yours, and yours alone.
We are looking at a system built upon indeterminacy, which is effectively the death of any true definition. Even when such a system grants freedom to specific groups to express their identity, they often do so in a purely combinatorial way, trading one thing for another.
However, integrity existed long before relativism did. It underwent its own emancipation, which ironically caused it to become relative, and now it needs to reclaim its character. I don't mean this in terms of "-isms" (like individualism or pluralism), nor do I mean returning to the old way of defining things through a mere accumulation of meaning. Rather, I mean a subject that has been "enriched" by the experience of both cumulative and relative truths; a subject that is actually capable of embracing relativism if they truly choose to.
In the past, cumulative integrity was bolstered by capital, creating a sort of "surplus" (including a surplus of meaning). Similarly, our current version of relative integrity is tied to neoliberal capitalism, which has led to its own kind of "slippery," fictitious value.
Relativism has essentially become the new face of totalitarianism because reality itself has morphed into a simulation. We’ve reached a point where the sign has lost its "true" (or even its "primary") connection to actual existence. Instead, signs just shuffle around combinatorically—moving through simulations and symbols in a relativistic loop—without any obligation to represent a tangible truth. You can't fight this brand of relativism with freedom, because this entire mess actually grew out of the concept of freedom itself. You can't combat it by clinging to old standards either, since relativism has already branded those criteria as primitive. In fact, you can't even kill relativism with death, because relativism is effectively death in its own right: it levels all values and brings every function to a standstill. Ultimately, the only way to push back is by forging entirely new values—though one has to wonder, what truly constitutes a value once relativism has labeled them all as obsolete? These new values would have to exist on a higher plane than this totalitarian relativism.
redtinker36 said:.. don't bother asking the neighbors .. look .. why would anyone talk about what you already know ..
.. ask me instead .. look .. I know stories you haven't even dreamed of .. .. those tales about lions and ants? those are the ones you know .. you call that the struggle for survival .. .. the theory behind it is evolution .. some guy named Darwin laid it all out ..
.. there were people who saw it differently .. .. they’d say that evolution isn't really a theory .. it's just an ideology .. a twisted, satanic one at that .. .. to put it simply .. .. this idea you have—that society can't function unless we're constantly hunting and killing one another—well, not everyone thought that way .. just think about Jesus .. .. do you honestly believe someone always needs to watch over you to stop you from tearing your neighbor apart .. like lions tearing into smaller prey?
.. if a person is nothing more than that .. then frankly, I have no interest in them .. .. what actually interests me is what emerges after you're gone ..
.. see .. I know stories that explain the freedom of the HIV virus .. the "freedom" of Jewish people in concentration camps .. and the freedom Hitler had while he destroyed them .. .. and I'm not talking about the freedom of good versus evil .. or love versus hate .. this isn't about human morality or the mercy of gods .. it's more like the freedom of rain .. which simply falls .. whenever the conditions are right and nothing stands in its way ..
.. but humans are different .. humans alone are something .. a Russian once said, and it carries a hell of a weight ..
What about Jesus Christ fishing? Do you have any idea how long it takes for a fish to die once it's pulled onto dry land? Have you ever prepared a fish? Has one ever come out of the grocery bag still alive? You can only imagine the suffering... It would be much kinder to just give it a quick tap on the head to end it instantly rather than catching it and leaving it to gasp in the air. Those poor little things, eyes staring, flopping around. What kind of person could do that? Or is that man also just submerged in (evolutionary) reality?
Yesterday I killed a spider and thought: 'My God, did I really need to do that?' Usually, I don't kill them; I just gently catch them on a piece of paper and move them outside the window so they can live. But yesterday, before I could even process it, it was already under my flip-flop. How? Why? Then I replayed the moment in my mind and realized its shape and color reminded me so much of a Black Widow that my instinct just kicked in—that raw survival drive. Though, looking back realistically, there wasn't any real danger since Black Widows aren't common around here this time of year; you wouldn't see them for another seven or eight months.
I don't know stories that explain the freedom of viruses, Jews, or Hitler, but I certainly understand the freedom of viruses, Jews, and Hitler. Just like I understand yours, honey. 🙂
redtinker36 said:.. forget it .. anarchy is all there is left .. nobody knows anything .. except me .. .. well, since I do know ..
.. a neighborhood is an organism .. like a living creature .. and a person is a cell .. they make up that organism .. countless little cells ..
.. a person can't imagine that the organism would ever turn against its own cells .. .. but .. damn it .. it can happen .. a diseased cell appears that needs to be kicked out .. and it’s only logical for the organism to turn against those specific cells .. that's how it protects itself .. and you .. you are the healthy cells ..
.. cancer happens .. that’s our next example .. .. and when those cells start spreading .. like how some local mayor expands urban sprawl after buying up land from farmers for pennies .. .. cancer .. once it spreads .. it loses perspective .. it can't see .. the big picture .. and so it happens .. it crushes other cells and starts tightening the organism's chest .. making it hard to breathe ..
.. so .. where the hell is the anarchy in all this? .. in this mess .. where are we even headed ..
.. at one point .. a cell realizes .. the beast is screwed .. that the politicians are just cartoon characters .. and that isn't even anarchy yet .. .. at a second point .. a cell thinks .. what if we .. formed a united front .. against the prison .. against all those psychological and physical elements .. that block .. hinder .. and disrupt .. the normal flow of things .. and shouts .. tighten your belts .. and then the cell settles down .. it feels it has done enough .. for the good of the beast .. and a bright future for us all .. through its prophetic uprising .. and that still isn't anarchy .. .. at a third point a cell realizes .. the beast is doomed and impossible to defend .. that the other cells .. are cancer-prone .. but there are so many of them .. that fighting becomes .. nearly impossible .. and that’s when the first sparks of anarchy begin to flash .. .. only in the fourth stage do the true anarchists emerge .. people who realize the beast is lost .. who know the other cells are garbage .. and these people give up .. they say .. go to hell, both you and your politics .. they abandon .. all efforts .. all intentions .. they stop trying to scatter their will .. like a pack of rats .. all over the neighborhood .. they walk away .. and those are the anarchists .. the real ones .. just giving examples here .. Happy Easter .. .. these anarchists .. try to gather .. at the top of their own heads .. so they can move .. from there .. into the heavens .. damn it .. that is anarchy ..
Why do you exclude the rest of the living world when you talk about "neighborhoods"? Take viruses, for example. A virus can only survive by inhabiting another living organism—take HIV, for instance; it either dies off or finds a host to settle in and persist. How exactly are you going to explain anarchy and freedom to something like that? Or look at ants. They have their own little "civilizations." How many anthills have you stepped on without even noticing? To them, are you a "healthy cell" or a "cancerous cell"? God knows, maybe..? Or perhaps some kind of chaotic force?
Humans have killed over a million chimpanzees. Chimpanzees have killed significantly fewer humans, mainly because they don't have access to firearms.
During the Middle Ages, the Black Death wiped out a third of the population.
Lions eat zebras. Bears eat both plants and animals. Sea lions eat almost anything—some even go after boots. Spotted sharks cruise near the coast and prey on people. The entire living world consumes itself; both the biological and the non-biological realms are part of this cycle.
What does the "neighborhood" have to say about all that? How do we find freedom in that reality? 🙄
What is a string of words, really, if we aren't communicating telepathically? If we actually could, I would be able to transmit that abstract sense of freedom directly to you—that feeling which, once it's shaped into language, somehow loses its essence. As it stands, you’re just looking at and commenting on the words themselves rather than the underlying thought. When you say, "the fact that you want something proves you don't have it," you're missing the point. You can desire something from a place of true freedom, or you can desire it from a place of lack. You simply cannot reach freedom through desire, because freedom isn't something external to you.
However, that very desire itself seems to act like a pose, as if reaching freedom is somehow undesirable. It’s almost as if someone would rather remain unfree and spend their time complaining just to have something to rail against; perhaps that is where your version of freedom lies. But if that is the case, you must be certain that you are complaining out of a sense of liberty, rather than out of a sense of deficiency. If you do that, you will find you already possess it.🤣
Of course, unfreedom is something that is often imposed upon us. It's a bit like my father; he had surgery a few months ago, and even though his health issues have largely resolved, he still acts as if they are there. He refuses to let go of the struggle. After all, why bother walking properly when you can just limp along? 🙂
redtinker36 said:.. forget it .. you're just making it about him ..
What you’re actually after is freedom ... your own freedom. That means having the agency to do whatever makes you happy. ... So, what actually makes you happy? ... Well, that’s really the whole point of anarchy.
.. he needs it ..
"give me a crust of bread, a yard of sky, and a hat full of dreams..."
.. and I guess that’s less .. than that freedom of yours .. less .. forget it .. in the sense that it's harder to take from him .. yet easier to achieve ..
.. and why on earth does it matter if everyone else needs it too .. .. damn it .. that's anarchy .. .. once you're able to have .. your own desires ..
.. forget it .. this habit of setting things up .. as being "for" or "against" .. it's a smart way to start ..
.. when you see this .. for .. when you realize what you actually need .. .. you'll try to ruin a perfectly good discussion .. by deciding .. well, damn it, you already have .. .. you'll choose a piece of heaven .. choosing sex over war .. choosing love .. and freedom .. .. and I'll be left holding the bag .. because my love for a good argument will be completely destroyed ..
.. for those who stick around .. the question remains .. and it will always be .. what the hell do you actually want ..
.. and then we'll remember God ..
.. tell me, Lord, for heaven's sake .. .. how much will my life be worth at my final judgment .. .. when I die, coming to you free .. .. am I dying .. God .. in vain ..
.. that's how Bob Dylan sang it .. that kid from the Midwest .. a legend .. .. beautiful song .. pure anarchy ..
If we define anarchy as simply doing whatever makes us happy—even if those actions infringe upon someone else's right to choose—then we hit a wall. If your version of happiness requires you to cross a line where you resort to violence, then you aren't actually free. Because as long as something dictates your actions in that way, you lack true liberty. In fact, as long as you crave freedom, you are essentially living out your own lack of it; the very act of desiring freedom proves you don't fully possess it yet.
Anarchy isn't freedom, and neither is democracy. Neither system provides true freedom through mere choice or personal desire.
And what's left once it vanishes? But wait—that's impossible, right? The only thing that could actually happen is sliding back to that "old" state from before...
I mean—if an enlightened being's willpower is that intense, why aren't we seeing "miracles"? You know, guys who just conjure material objects out of thin air through pure thought. 😁 Or maybe my logic is just totally off base here... hmm. 🙄 But even the universe has its own "laws"—meaning the physical world has rules, which means Reality itself has rules... So, let me get this straight. YOU—burdened by the weight of "consciousness" and this whole shell of a life—decide you're gonna snap Reality? Heh. 😁
But there is no existence outside of REALITY... and if there's no existence, then there isn't even an enlightened man. There is no existence outside of consciousness... hmm... WHO IS LEFT once Reality disappears?
Hmm, do you have any memory of the void, Ljusturo?
steeleagle13 said:What kind of "plot" are we even talking about when you realize it's IMPOSSIBLE to exist outside of physical life? There’s nobody in the void to actually experience anything... so the ONLY existence that exists is the very one those Tibetan Book of the Dead types are trying to ESCAPE.
You've experienced that void yourself, haven't you? Do you have memories of it? (And I'm not just asking rhetorically)
Let’s start by asking ourselves what tolerance actually means. Does it mean we truly understand and accept what we are tolerating in any given instance? Or does it sometimes just mean, "I don't really want to dig into this," while clinging to the image of being a tolerant, liberal person who isn't bothered by anything? It feels like some people permit everything not because they grasp the nuances, but simply because they want to maintain distance from certain people or social phenomena. They basically say, "Look, I get where they're coming from, but please, just take your hand off my shoulder so I can move on." In eras that allow for it, tolerance even becomes a status symbol or a marketable commodity—which explains the growing dissonance we see today. If I am truly going to reflect on something, I need to put myself in a position where I confront the things that actually bother me and ask why they cause discomfort. But nowadays, the concept of tolerance is being used as a tool for brainwashing. A mind that is convinced of its own tolerance often fails to think critically about the specific issue at hand; it remains "tolerant" by default, granting permission for everything, which ultimately turns that person into the perfect, unquestioning consumer.
I think you’re missing my point; I’m not talking about a process of creation, but rather one of absolute indivisibility. Then you go on to claim that nothing could have been created because it didn't exist prior to its inception—that there is no "before." Don't you see the paradox there? If there truly is no "before," then there can be no "outside," which means there is no such thing as being "separate from" anything else.
"God" himself—it really makes you wonder who actually brought the concept of a "creator God" into existence in the first place, doesn't it? Or is it simply impossible for anyone to truly "create" anything, given the logical loop where you'd always need someone to create the creator, leading us down an infinite regression?
Michelle Cook83 said:Have you seen a neurologist yet?
No, I haven't. However, the specialists at the Mayo Clinic told me that my nerves are actually perfectly fine. They explained that there was some partial stiffness in one of my vocal cords. Because of that, my voice sounds completely normal most of the time, though it does get hoarse occasionally. This inconsistency actually proves that the recurrent nerve isn't damaged; if it were, my voice would sound consistently raspy all the time rather than fluctuating like this.
Dennis Davis10 said:I’d suggest checking with an ENT specialist instead; I certainly don't have the medical expertise to give you a solid answer on this one. 😉