Posts by Ethan Gomez82

bluemason3 said:Back when I was young, naive, and completely out of sync with the world, I actually thought about ditching the monastery life to run off to join some commune.

But looking back after enough time has passed—and having seen enough of what happens behind the polished PR facades—it all feels pretty "meh." There isn't some perfect escapist fix for every personal or social mess we deal with, though I suppose one lifestyle might suit certain people better than others.

Look, we aren't talking about escaping *from* society here; we’re talking about escaping *into* something else. Running away from the world is easy enough, but unless you’re a hardcore individualist, that’s rarely a viable path. Seeking refuge in some utopian community is usually just a refusal to grow up—an attempt to cling to a childhood safety net long after you should have let go. It inevitably leads to emotional and financial freeloading. And for every person looking to be carried, there’s someone else doing all the heavy lifting. Those providers eventually hit their breaking point and bail, and once they leave, the whole thing collapses because there’s no one left to pull the weight.

hiddenpuma75 said:...BEING 🤔

Honestly, what on earth is this concept of BEING?
How does an American even wrap their head around the distinction between "being" as a verb and "Being" as an actual entity or state of existence?
I’m asking for a breakdown so simple that even one of Einstein's most vocal assistants could grasp it—complete with visuals and examples, and hopefully without anyone needing to grit their teeth or shed tears of frustration.

=====
SPIRIT 🙂

For instance, I’ve noticed that our friend Sigmund uses the term "spirit" with such sovereign confidence and intimacy—it’s almost as effortless as you all reading these lines and tapping away at your keyboards.

And yet, Cave and Wand always seem to stumble over that very word— SPIRIT 🙂 because whenever they hear it, they immediately jump to some invisible entity that exists outside our 3D world, like some kind of gaseous, formless phantom...

My hope is that in this thread, we can finally clarify both the things we know and the things we don't regarding these fundamental concepts. We tend to toss them around so casually and recklessly, often with an unearned sense of certainty. ...

I can't speak for the English. For Americans, "being" is just a word that underwent a vowel shift from "a" to "i."

ruggedraven36 said:Olivia Evans8 was talking about God, not bees. It follows that if God is described as being made in our image, then humans are his most interesting creation—unless he’s got some goddess tucked away somewhere.

But sure, for some folks, the digits of Pi are more captivating than actual human beings, so I guess God might feel the same way.

Of course we're the most similar. You don't honestly think a human would invent a god that looks like a bee, do you? If a bee were the one doing the inventing, its god would probably just buzz and dance around to point out the safest meadows filled with endless nectar.

ruggedraven36 said:If that’s really the core of it, then the answer is pretty blunt. It's because people are way more interesting than the vacuum of space, quantum physics, galaxies, or even the endless digits of Pi and Graham's number.

People are only interesting to other people. Otherwise, they aren't. Even bees find flowers more compelling.

Olivia Evans8 said:Seriously though, if you find that kind of thing appealing, it honestly says a lot about you...

Obviously. People play the Powerball... 😁

Olivia Evans8 said:It’s pathetic. Honestly, it’s just sad if anyone actually thinks this is okay...

The point isn't whether it's "acceptable"—it's about making it look irresistible.

Olivia Evans8 said:And honestly, that’s exactly what pushed me away from religion in the first place. I mean, what’s even the point of getting some eternal prize for a single lifetime of work?

Like, sure, you saved a kid from starving today, but still collecting perks ten billion years down the line... I don't know, come on!

You'll never be a tycoon. 😁

Melissa Stewart6 said:A lie isn't any more useful than the truth; you just have to prove which one is actually what you're looking at.

Useful for whom? 😁

James Lee77 said:But I mean, what's even the point of talking about "objectivity" if you aren't looking at how relevant something actually is?

How do we even decide what counts as "objective"? At the end of the day, objective is basically just whatever the scientific community mostly agrees on. And scientists only agree on things they actually bother to study. Scientists study things they think are worth their time, right? So that’s the funny part about most Nobel Prize winners: it's not that their work is "objectively" wrong, it's just that it's irrelevant. Like, super unimportant. There could be huge parts of reality that we can't say anything objective about simply because nobody is researching them since they don't seem relevant. For something to become "objective," it first has to be important enough to enough people that they actually go out and study it to make it an established fact.

"Objectivity" isn't some fragile thing that gets damaged by being ignored; whether people care about it or not is entirely up to them. There is so much scientific consensus out there that most people couldn't care less about, yet they obsess over trivialities instead. At the same time, ignoring the 99.9% of the population doesn't hurt the facts at all—the interest of the remaining 0.1% is more than enough to drive research and establish what is objectively true. We are living through a massive fragmentation of interest and perceived importance that is unprecedented in human history. In the past, because information was scarce, most people focused on the same core truths. Today, in this era of information overload and total fragmentation, that shared reality has completely vanished.

ruggedraven36 said:Well, if you actually believe what you're saying isn't objectively important, then there's really no point in even commenting.

It’s objective, sure, but it doesn't matter to anyone but me (and maybe a few others). I certainly am not writing this for the sake of people who couldn't care less.

ruggedraven36 said:Sure—but I think you're blurring the line between the subject and subjectivity. Not every person out there is equally capable of figuring out what actually matters.

What does an individual's capability have to do with anything? What they deem important is important to them, period. That’s why I brought up my dog. He’s incapable of many things, yet he has his own priorities—his own version of "importance" that is entirely his own and completely authentic. No one cares about the same things, and there is no such thing as objective importance. This doesn't change the fact that, as social creatures, we can reach certain compromises or agreements regarding what we value. Ultimately, anyone can pass judgment on what is "important," but that personal verdict only applies to them, not anyone else. You can try to force your personal values onto others like trying to shove a wardrobe through a keyhole, but it never works. Usually, those attempts just leave a trail of bodies in their wake.

ruggedraven36 said:No, you're the one missing it. What even is a horse-drawn carriage in a vacuum? Nothing. An object only exists as what it is because of its utility.

That's impossible. If you strip that away, then you aren't talking about those things anymore.

Exactly. You can't decouple what's "important" from the subject itself. Without a subject to care, nothing matters at all.

ruggedraven36 said:Are traffic signs important or unimportant—or do they just exist? Is medicine important or unimportant—or does it just exist? Most things aren't just important; they wouldn't even exist if they weren't. You could practically define "unimportant" that way—it's just the stuff that *is*. How much something matters only makes sense once you actually know something about it and weigh it against everything else. If you're going to argue about what's important, you need actual arguments—otherwise, you might as well just decide importance by a show of hands.

Well, you missed the point entirely. Your own examples prove that importance is purely subjective—it only matters if it matters to SOMEONE, somewhere, at some time. Horse-drawn carriages were vital once; now, they’re practically useless to everyone. Traffic signs don't mean a thing to a hunter-gatherer, and in a while, they probably won't matter to anyone else either. Just another passing phase of history. What is the "importance" of anything if you strip away the people who rely on it? When you're starving, finding food is important. In other words, importance is just biology.

ruggedraven36 said:What does it even matter what the most important thing in quantum physics is?

I honestly don't know if you realize just how spot-on you actually are.

Whether something is vital, essential, or irrelevant... those are all subjective labels. These questions fall apart unless you consider WHO finds them important. Things don't possess inherent importance or insignificance; they simply exist. To me (and frankly, to most people), the "most important thing" has nothing to do with quantum physics, even for those who grasp the science. For some, it might matter. But I highly doubt there is one single thing that holds universal importance for everyone.

urbanwalker72 said:Quantum physics acts as a generalization of probability laws. In this sense, it functions with flawless mathematical precision.

The various "interpretations" exist because we are attempting to decipher the fundamental reality that underpins those probabilistic generalizations.

It is much like trying to investigate the underlying mechanics behind games of chance at a Las Vegas casino.

Sure, the math always holds up perfectly. These interpretations exist simply because humans have this relentless urge to wrap every event in a meaningful narrative. In this case, it seems that instinct is failing us.

Sam Martinez9 said:It isn't the sense of belonging that’s being threatened; rather, it’s our ability to choose which community we actually belong to.

Belonging is a profound feeling—an incredibly intense one. If I were to rank it, I’d place it right up there with the primal fear of death. At least, that’s my take on it.

I’ve mentioned before that it's difficult to distinguish between what is innate and what we absorb from our social environment, but if certain emotions are indeed passed down genetically, then a sense of communal belonging might very well be one of them.

To put it simply: everyone wants to belong to *their* community.

The real complication arises when we try to define exactly what constitutes "*our*" community.

With family, there is rarely any ambiguity—the people we are born to, our blood relatives, constitute our family. If we expand that logic to larger groups—a small town, a tribe, a nation, a major city... the place where we were born is ours.

Everyone else is an outsider.

However, modern transportation, instant communication, and the specialization of labor mean that human mobility is incomparably higher than it ever was in the past.

It was easy to view your family, your village, or your nation as "yours" while viewing others as "foreigners" when you never moved an inch from your hometown. You never even had the chance to see how a Chinese person or an Australian lives.

For the modern individual, identifying their true community is a struggle, especially if they find themselves at odds with the majority views of their own nation.

Take, for instance, those who fled their homes during a conflict. They were driven out of their homeland by other members of their own kind. To whom do they truly belong? Should they identify with the Germans who took them in, provided them with shelter, food, and clothing, or with the Syrians who sought to kill them? And yet, they often share far more core values with the Syrians trying to kill them than they do with the Germans who welcomed them.

Belonging isn't a one-size-fits-all concept. Nowadays, plenty of people define "community" as their inner circle of friends, acquaintances, or even business associates they deal with daily. Since so many Americans move around constantly, the traditional sense of belonging to a specific neighborhood, town, or even an ethnic group loses its grip. When you move, those ties snap. Only the family unit remains truly untouched by relocation. Of course, for those rare folks who stay put their entire lives, that doesn't quite apply, even if their neighbors are constantly coming and going.

Lisa Jackson7 said:We've been stuck in "band-aid" mode for way too long...

I think the massive screw-up is how people think... like, they assume some big authority—maybe in D.C. or some other major hub, if not the whole damn country—will just announce a new set of rules on prime-time TV one day and suddenly we have a new order.
If that actually happens—God forbid—it definitely won't be what I'm talking about.

I'm exaggerating here—not saying you think like that—just trying to say the "cure" is popping up in tons of different places... and it works locally.

Small-scale communities back in the day were organic and actually worked because they could hold their own. The main gig was growing food and maybe some basic local trades. They didn't need to trade much with anyone else; it wasn't even necessary. Today, none of that remains—small, organic communities aren't even possible anymore. Our needs are massive now, and everything is tied to intense, global exchange. Nowadays, the entire world acts like one giant, interconnected, functional community. It’s a lot to wrap your head around, but that's just the reality.

The world isn't an "organic community," not even politically... except maybe in the early stages (think international organizations). Organic communities are family, clans, tribes, small towns, neighborhoods, maybe a small startup... anything bigger than that is usually political.
We all know about globalization... but where we go from here is a toss-up. There are multiple scenarios out there, and some might even run side-by-side... one option is "commonization"—basically meeting most of your own needs right where you live using local resources. And honestly, current tech trends are actually making that happen.

Just because they were built out of necessity doesn't mean people weren't finding ways to satisfy deep needs that modern society fails to meet nearly as well.

I'm not going to sit here and tell anyone what they should want, whether they should join a community or be a "global citizen." One of the first things I ever posted here was that paper by Singelis & Gelfand & Triandis...

Horizontal & Vertical Individualism & Collectivism i dakle

Look, people aren't built the same—based on those typologies, everyone's looking for a totally different kind of "perfect" society. One person would feel suffocated in a tight-knit commune, while someone else would just wither away in a massive city like NYC, feeling completely isolated.
That’s exactly why I think arguing about one single "ideal" society for everyone is a total waste of breath.
We aren't clones. Maybe we're finally seeing a real shot at "intentional communities"... who knows.

Plus, let's be real: people pick what they can actually get their hands on. Choosing your "ideal" way of life isn't exactly like grabbing a bunch of bananas at Walmart.
We've all been conditioned by this crappy system... which basically "forces" us to see certain social structures as the only viable options.
I think you mentioned before—if I recall right—that your family was full of "individualists" where personal choice was strictly respected... so it makes total sense why you'd look at things through that lens.

To actually function, I need a massive amount of stuff that my immediate neighborhood or local government doesn't produce. I need a car, a laptop, a smartphone... and I happen to love bananas. All of that comes from somewhere, and honestly, pretending I don't care about the supply chain would be pure delusion. I can't survive without them. Plus, I have capital invested in global markets that generates my income, which makes me just as dependent on the "big picture." If I am existentially tied to what happens on this planet, then it counts as my community. The fact that I don't feel an emotional bond to the entire globe the way I do with my own family doesn't change the reality of that connection.

Lisa Jackson7 said:We've been stuck in "band-aid" mode for way too long...

I think the massive screw-up is how people think... like, they assume some big authority—maybe in D.C. or some other major hub, if not the whole damn country—will just announce a new set of rules on prime-time TV one day and suddenly we have a new order.
If that actually happens—God forbid—it definitely won't be what I'm talking about.

I'm exaggerating here—not saying you think like that—just trying to say the "cure" is popping up in tons of different places... and it works locally.

Small-scale communities back in the day were organic and actually worked because they could hold their own. The main gig was growing food and maybe some basic local trades. They didn't need to trade much with anyone else; it wasn't even necessary. Today, none of that remains—small, organic communities aren't even possible anymore. Our needs are massive now, and everything is tied to intense, global exchange. Nowadays, the entire world acts like one giant, interconnected, functional community. It’s a lot to wrap your head around, but that's just the reality.

The world isn't an "organic community," not even politically... except maybe in the early stages (think international organizations). Organic communities are family, clans, tribes, small towns, neighborhoods, maybe a small startup... anything bigger than that is usually political.
We all know about globalization... but where we go from here is a toss-up. There are multiple scenarios out there, and some might even run side-by-side... one option is "commonization"—basically meeting most of your own needs right where you live using local resources. And honestly, current tech trends are actually making that happen.

Just because they were built out of necessity doesn't mean people weren't finding ways to satisfy deep needs that modern society fails to meet nearly as well.

I'm not going to sit here and tell anyone what they should want, whether they should join a community or be a "global citizen." One of the first things I ever posted here was that paper by Singelis & Gelfand & Triandis...

Horizontal & Vertical Individualism & Collectivism i dakle

Look, people aren't built the same—based on those typologies, everyone's looking for a totally different kind of "perfect" society. One person would feel suffocated in a tight-knit commune, while someone else would just wither away in a massive city like NYC, feeling completely isolated.
That’s exactly why I think arguing about one single "ideal" society for everyone is a total waste of breath.
We aren't clones. Maybe we're finally seeing a real shot at "intentional communities"... who knows.

Plus, let's be real: people pick what they can actually get their hands on. Choosing your "ideal" way of life isn't exactly like grabbing a bunch of bananas at Walmart.
We've all been conditioned by this crappy system... which basically "forces" us to see certain social structures as the only viable options.
I think you mentioned before—if I recall right—that your family was full of "individualists" where personal choice was strictly respected... so it makes total sense why you'd look at things through that lens.

Despite how much people love to demonize modern life, the world today actually offers us far more freedom and choice than any previous era ever did—in almost every single aspect of existence. People vary, they make different choices, and honestly, that's the whole reason our society is so complex and vibrant. If anything, that diversity is only going to increase. The idea of a universal "ideal" society is nonsense if you're talking about some forced, one-size-fits-all lifestyle. But an "ideal" society for the individual would look very different. It would mean a broad social framework that grants individuals or specific groups the freedom to live "their way." We aren't actually that far from achieving that.

hiddeneagle98 said:Personally, I'm holding out hope that some kind of breakthrough in technology might eventually allow us to build new versions of relatively self-sufficient communities.

Maybe it will, but does anyone actually want that? Historically, self-sufficient communities were born out of necessity, not because they were some utopia of choice and pleasure. Modern life proves that when people have the option, they choose to live outside of tightly knit groups. Human connections tend to become temporary and superficial.

Lisa Jackson7 said:I get how things look right now... but I'm talking about the potential for things to go a different way down the road.
Apparently, some immigrant from last year's wave responded to a reporter by saying "networking doesn't build community." Basically, despite having a smartphone glued to their hand 24/7, that sense of belonging is still totally broken.
Look, we aren't all wired the same way, but for a huge chunk of people, "efficient transit and high-speed tech" is no substitute for actually feeling connected to a place... in a physical, local sense.

That doesn't mean I don't see your point, though...

The sense of community is definitely under threat, but I honestly don't see a cure for this particular ailment anytime soon.

Small communities in the past were organic and functional because they were self-sufficient. Their main business was farming and a few local trades. Trading with other towns was minimal, almost optional. Today, none of that remains, and small, organic communities just aren't possible anymore. Our needs have grown exponentially, and exchange is now global and constant. Today, the entire world functions as one massive, interdependent, organic community. It's a lot to wrap your head around, but that's just the reality.