nobody else; Bruce Springsteen is a perfect case study—though before I dive in, I should clarify that there is a vital distinction between ideology and being an outsider. To have an ideology, you need at least two people: the originator and the follower who adheres to that vision. Being an outsider, however, doesn't require anyone to be standing by your side for that label to stick. Of course, an ideology can itself be an outsider movement—a rebel among ideologies—but that’s a different conversation entirely.
Johnny was a rebel against the establishment. Rockers, by their very nature, emerged as rebels against prevailing musical trends and the systemic machinery that supports them (by listening to, supporting, and essentially paying for that very machine)... with the added layer that Johnny was playing during the era of Punk, which functions as a political and ideological stance rooted in anarchism. That was the era of the American "New Wave," a time when rockers from across the US used their music to mock committee-driven politics, the established system, and its core values—acting as a specific branch within the broader world of modern punk anarchism. Johnny was the cherry on top of the New Wave sundae—the avant-garde, its most valuable export. In that sense, he wasn't really an outsider; he was politically lucid and possessed the sheer power to steer a massive fanbase in whatever direction he chose. Up until a certain point, he was an ideological anarchist simply by exposing the dirty underside of the ruling status quo. But the seed of true outsiderhood lies in his refusal to accept the "offer." That seed remains visible even today—he lives a settled life, married (which some would say is "bad" for the rebellious image) in the Netherlands, detached from the musical trajectory he once mapped out—making him an outcast even in relation to his own art. He remains passive in the public eye, having rejected overtures from political leaders, and shows zero interest in the old political landscape from which he originally emerged as a rebel. He is an outsider by choice, and no one can truly follow him in that because he refuses to communicate his stance to anyone—and I am merely speculating here, as I believe since he left, he has given only one contentious interview... Springsteen is an outsider both by his own volition and by the very effect of his actions.
Jesus is an outsider by choice, but not by the effect of his actions; he is an anarchist, a pure ideological anarchist. His anarchism conquered the world, becoming the dominant religious ideological branch, and as such—having become ideologically bloated—it eventually became a target for new ideological anarchisms, such as the Lutheran one...
alim; That’s correct—for someone to be a voluntary outsider, they need a "river of life"—a prevailing current to step away from. It is only by having this mainstream existence flowing steadily that an outsider can cultivate their own stance; it’s a kind of political cohabitation. If this main current didn't flow undisturbed, the outsider wouldn't be able to enjoy their own freedom. However, being an outsider doesn't necessarily have to be a willful decision to step outside the stream; it can also be the result of being ideologically rejected or ostracized. In those cases, it becomes an unwanted, hated mark—a shackle placed upon someone who is actually struggling just to find a place within the current.
Similarly, that kind of freedom requires a sacrifice—usually, one gives up what is essential to the mainstream while retaining what is unimportant to them; it is precisely in this difference in perceived importance that the essence of being an outsider reveals itself...
I’m not quite buying it—anarchism is a formal ideology, anarchy is just a concept, and an anarchist is someone who actually adheres to the doctrine... the person you're describing sounds more like a mere outsider. An outsider stands against ideologies themselves—essentially, one individual positioned entirely against the group...
redtinker36 said:.. a thing, regardless of who you ask, is primarily a thing.. .. and the fundamental issue with any such thing is its continuity..
.. this world—to anyone, really—is a collection of moving parts.. a world of phenomena in flux.. a realm of material earth governed by gods.. .. the entirety of philosophy—from the ancient Greeks onward—is essentially an inquiry into the constant.. the relationship between the heavens and the earth.. .. at this level, reason and experience aren't much more than noise.. it’s the classic debate: idea versus matter.. is everything just the rising of the soil, or the falling of the sky? Plato and Aristotle pretty much exhausted the topic there..
.. we live in a world of things.. a world of bounded objects with edges and limits.. it is a world where things coexist within time and space.. .. yet, what people actually seek is the infinite.. they wonder if there is a reality where things have no boundaries, no edges..
.. philosophy serves as the first stage of grasping this world from a human perspective.. the second stage is magic.. .. philosophy has its own birth, lifespan, and eventual death.. born in Greece, it probably ought to die by now.. .. all the vital questions were already posed back then—and not a single decent answer has been found since, nor has one been found today..
.. the continuity of a phenomenon—that might be one way to perceive what exists, and by whom.. .. or the continuity of an object itself..
.. objects are composed of atoms; the only constant within them is motion.. an object in one moment is entirely different from the next..
.. first.. one could attempt to take the state of those atoms as the "thing in itself"—a frozen snapshot of reality at a single point in time.. but that image isn't reality.. it would be non-existent, impossible.. because reality cannot exist in a frozen state..
.. second.. even that isn't enough.. the very building blocks of that reality change from one moment to the next.. Zeno pointed this out long ago—he was likely just messing with people, but if he was, he hit the nail on the head.. he spoke the truth..
.. the kid says something exists simply because it can.. which is, naturally, wrong.. but being wrong is useful.. .. because one should instead argue that something exists because it *must*.. .. the kid claims tomorrow's rain is nothingness.. the kid is a genius—wrong again, but you just have to flip the perspective.. .. tomorrow's rain already exists today..
.. to him, rain is just something falling right now.. but that’s only because of how he views it.. to him, the rain over the next town is also nothing, just like the rain over his own house that he slept through..
.. rain isn't just a droplet of water hitting the kid in the head.. .. rain is the entire universe conspiring to create the laws and conditions necessary to bring that droplet to the kid's head..
.. and there it is.. that is where philosophy dies..
.. all that's left are stories about love, brotherhood, unity, and the interconnectedness of all things.. those are tales from another world.. bringing those stories into our neighborhood is just nonsense.. and frankly, it stinks.. .. those stories are the most potent weapons of the reactionary..
But philosophy itself? Psychology acts as the foundation for both philosophy and magic; whether the era of philosophy concludes with that final, lingering question—or if it never truly began because we still lack real answers to the very first ones—is a matter that psychology alone can address...
William Gonzalez3 said:Honestly, you all are such little fighters. If the US military were made up of people like you, toppling the global order and establishing a new one would probably be nothing more than a joke.
That being said, I suspect this discussion on anarchism shouldn't get too... well, anarchic—we really ought to steer back toward the actual subject at hand. In my view, everyone seems to be approaching this from the wrong angle. Essentially, you are searching for viable, practical economic models—and every other kind of framework, for that matter. However, you seem to be overlooking the fact that anarchy is, by its very nature, a utopian concept. Therefore, any economic model intended to govern within it shouldn't be anything less than utopian—which is to say, impossible. The possible simply cannot function within the impossible. So, perhaps we should pivot toward looking at more idealistic solutions. For instance, let's consider how an anarchist society might actually operate, and what specific preconditions would need to be met for it to even work. In an anarchist system, society would have to act in direct opposition to how things work today regarding those who cause harm to the community. Instead of rewarding or celebrating them—instead of feeling that envy or thinking, "Look at him, he really made it, if only I could do the same"—everyone should simply turn their backs on them. Workers would need to refuse to work for unscrupulous employers; families would need to distance themselves from members who choose paths of vice, malice, or general debauchery. To take a local example, an organized anarchy on a forum like this would be entirely feasible if the members of every sub-forum just ignored those who stir up trouble, commit wrongs, or spread toxic thoughts and bad vibes. In that scenario, moderators wouldn't even be necessary. Broadly speaking, if we functioned that way, neither institutions nor authorities would be needed, and the world certainly wouldn't descend into chaos.
But that’s really just isolation—essentially locking away anyone who doesn't fit the mold—whereas true anarchy represents the absolute peak of individual liberty...(an organized anarchy😍)
Anarchy isn't merely about a lack of order within social structures—it’s more deeply about rejecting any system, rule, or model that attempts to exert authority over the individual. A social economic model, on the other hand, represents a structured framework—a specific method for distributing limited societal resources.
So—what purpose does an economic model serve to an anarchist? Is it meant to preserve the status quo, or perhaps just to maintain the "governance" of anarchy itself?😁
"Emil Cioran passed away half a century after Auschwitz—and just ten days shy of Srebrenica. But he understood perfectly well that every instance of 'Nevermore' outside of Poe's works is little more than a hollow farce. You can see it in his bitter syllogisms: An atrocity doesn't ring out all at once for every nation... which explains why history feels so relentlessly repetitive. Or consider how Clausewitz's book about war sat right there on the nightstands of both Lenin and Hitler—and yet we still find ourselves wondering why this century seems so doomed. It’s the kind of thought that lingers... Personally, I find myself wary of any politician who fails to show at least some sign of corruption. Because once the dregs of society are crowned with myth, you should prepare for a massacre—or worse, the birth of a new religion."
Zachary Turner6 said:😂😂 We might as well just close this thread now; it’s impossible to top this level of absurdity. Truly legendary...
"Just speak normally so the rest of the world can actually follow you"—that should be the golden rule for any philosopher. But alas...
It is truly questionable—irrational, even—how often these pseudo-intellectuals rely on convoluted phrasing and dense semantic gymnastics to compensate for a glaring lack of actual substance or expertise. Instead of sticking to the topic using everyday language and, heaven forbid, coherent logic to get to the heart of the matter, they hide behind jargon. They try to "illustrate" or "exemplify" their points through sheer linguistic complexity just to seem credible. Ugh, I'm exhausted just typing this. It's funny, though.🙂
Then again, if you don't speak in meta-language, people just dismiss you as some amateur philosopher—though, really, what defines a "professional" philosopher? Does anyone actually get a paycheck for philosophizing? Or an amateur literary theorist? 😢
Is it better to be a smart, constructive hillbilly than an eloquent, highly educated idiot?😕🤷
Dammit, you missed my point entirely; once again, I find myself turning to LaoTse: When a high-level sage hears of the Tao, they rush to align themselves with it.
When a mid-level sage hears of the Tao, they are caught halfway between belief and doubt.
And when a low-level sage hears of the Tao, they simply burst out laughing.
If they hadn't laughed, they wouldn't truly understand the Tao at all.
Benjamin Long said:🙏 🙏 🙏 Isn't it interesting how Stalin used to tell everyone who disagreed with him that *they* were the ones with the problem, right before they were sent against the wall? Boom, boom, boom! 😁 Still, can we really deny his philosophical depth? We certainly couldn't, especially since we might not even exist without it! ☕
Benjamin Long said:Doesn't this just reinforce everything I have already stated several times? It brings us right back to square one, and we could just spin in circles until the end of time! But honestly, I simply don't have the energy for that, as I have much more productive things to attend to:
May you all enjoy the cuteness and harmony! Warmest regards and pleasantsounds.
We really need to make this personal, Benjamin Long from Denver... the issue isn't the "approach" itself, but rather the person doing the approaching. In other words, it isn't that the "Philosophy" subforum has an inherent problem; rather, in this specific instance, we are looking at your own expectations of what Philosophy should be... which means the problem lies with your expectations—that is, you.
casualtiger2 said:Beautifully put, though there is one catch. Pretty much everyone agrees that the spirit is something the rational mind just can't grasp—something that transcends thought. It’s that thing we sense in certain people, or feel within ourselves as a profound state of peace, stillness, love, unity, clarity, awareness, fulfillment, and high energy... basically, something untranslatable. That’s why so many mystics ended up writing in paradoxes—using the language of lovers, metaphors, and analogies.
The bottom line is that words and thoughts fall short when trying to describe spirituality (let alone live it). And on a forum, we really only have those tools (besides emojis). So what are we left with? Should we try writing like mystics? Or just shut up?
@ My take on those questions. Let's try, as best we can, to use our intellect—through our thoughts and words—to reflect the highest parts of ourselves: good will, intention, a pure heart, and clarity... Because in the spirituality I’m (trying to) follow, there isn't a single level where spirituality doesn't show up—even though most people usually only focus on the "highest" tier. So, let's see if we can figure out together how to let the spirit shine through most brilliantly at the level of thought.
Words give rise to the "ineffable"—because the "ineffable" isn't tucked away inside the words themselves; rather, it exists within us as we decode those words, translating their literal meaning into an experience that remains unreachable and inexplicable... (It's the exact same thing with music—we can identify a minor chord or a major key, we recognize a specific interval or a bass clef, but that doesn't explain what the music actually *does* to us. It's the same with any form of art...)
Which means, if this forum is a medium that gets "filled" with words—and not just words, since we have multimedia options at our disposal—then those words ought to evoke the "ineffable." Together, they should produce the spirit of the forum (much like how words produce the spirit of a book). Consequently, the spirit of a forum can be full, or it can be empty—truly hollow. It becomes hollow when more is being taken from it than is being invested into it...
Whether we write in the language of mystics or simply fall silent—those are questions of what feels natural to us, of how we are inherently wired to communicate... In any case, it is sincerity that makes communication possible.
casualtiger2 said:Hey everyone, It’s been a minute since I’ve been active here—and now, out of nowhere, I’ve been tapped as a moderator. So, I’m asking you all to jump into this poll so I can get a decent pulse on where we actually stand right now. I want to hear from the old guard—the "seasoned veterans" who probably use this place as their digital fountain of youth 😉—as well as the newcomers who just joined the party. The site changes every single day, obviously, and I know "quality" is a pretty hard thing to pin down—especially on a Spirituality Forum—but I think it’s worth taking a snapshot of where we are in this little corner of the internet.
So, here are some prompts to get us started (feel free to throw in your own thoughts too): - What do you think of the forum over the last few weeks or months? - What are you actually enjoying? - What’s getting on your nerves? - How could we make this better (if it even needs it)? Basically, what’s missing? (Just trying to make sure everyone stays happy while reading or posting. 🙂)
Look, I know everyone’s going to have subjective takes—some might even be total opposites—so please, let’s avoid any heated arguments over whose opinion is "right." A cool, civil dialogue is always welcome, though.
Since I’ve posted quite a bit myself, here’s my quick, telegraphic take on how things feel to me.
I’ve only really been active here for about two years—even though I registered ages ago for one specific post, then basically went ghost. For a while, this felt like a great spot, both for the community and the topics. But lately, it feels like things have slipped a bit. Part of that was the chaos regarding where we'd host the site, part was the struggle to find permanent moderators—even though, honestly, every mod I've worked with so far has done a killer job—and part was losing some core members who really made this place what it was. It led to this weird illusion that there's some massive drama happening in real life outside of these threads. 😁 Plus, at one point, it felt like a bunch of argumentative personalities were starting to take over.
That said, over the last week or two, it feels like the spiral is finally turning back upward—both in terms of how people talk and the actual content being shared. I’d love to do whatever I can in my capacity to keep that momentum going.
I’ll be opening a dedicated thread soon specifically for moderation and direct communication.
If a forum dedicated to spirituality wants to be truly high-quality, it needs to be filled with spirit—it’s like any vessel, really; if it's full of spirit, people can draw from it, and that act of drawing is itself an act of renewal and further giving. Honestly, there isn't any other recipe...
It is quite curious, isn't it? How every living thing—and I am thinking specifically of a leaf here, though we might as well apply this to a human being—is so distinct while still in that *tabula rasa* stage... that state of being new, or young...
And yet, as time passes, things shift... even while remaining fundamentally unique. A tear in a leaf, a scar on a thigh, those things that didn't quite kill you but merely... changed you. All while Time itself remains entirely unchanged.😉
The essence doesn't change; I suspect that is part of its very definition, wouldn't you agree? And yet, essence takes on different forms, simply so that in "new" eras, it remains just as capable of carrying that essence forward.
👍👍👍 regarding this sentence.
(And what about the associations we make? Why do viruses fight against vaccine immunity? Has no one told them they’re supposed to die off?) 😁
Mark Torres14 said:Jonathan Brooks8 hit the nail on the head, and I’m with him on this. But let's face it: once you start talking about a single "photon" in physics, you're stepping way beyond our basic understanding of what matter actually is. At those microscopic scales, all the traits we associate with "oneness" or the "uniqueness" of matter—things like time, solidity, mass—just vanish. We still don't even have a consensus on what a photon really is—is it a point, a string, a wave, or a field? Regardless, the fact remains that in our math, it behaves as a singular, identical thing. Plus, bringing "non-locality" into the philosophical mix basically wipes out the distinction between the one and the many. Everything is tied to everything else at the same time. So, what are we looking at? Is it a single entity manifesting itself in a bunch of different ways, or is it a collection of "ones" existing simultaneously with one another? Naturally, that leaves us with the massive question: why the hell is the World so incredibly complex and diverse?
One could argue that we are dealing with a single entity that divides itself into a multitude—a plurality that, despite its internal differences, retains that singular essence from which it originates and which constitutes the whole... Therefore, because the diverse emerges from the identical, that diversity necessarily carries the seed of the original within itself.
This multiplication of the same occurs through DIVISION—through splitting. Take biological cells, for instance; they multiply by dividing, where one becomes two. Or consider the branches of an oak tree growing out of a limb as a form of division and expansion. Even a child is essentially a division of their parents.
Thus, if two distinct individuals emerge from a single source, those two remain, fundamentally, just a separated "one."
Or perhaps—I am merely a fragmented collection of my ancestors' traits; while we are all part of that lineage, it is the unique way those traits are partitioned that creates the distinction between us—that specific combination of divisions is what sets us apart from everyone else.
rustymaker5 said:If we just assume for a second that everything is actually born from this one single, absolute energy, then all these different shapes it takes—this whole materialization process—is really just creating these little illusions of similarity and difference...
...with the caveat that we can—and perhaps even ought to—view this perceived distinction as an undeniable reality... take, for instance, two individuals who combine to form a third; they are fundamentally the same essence, yet it was precisely their inherent difference that allowed that creation to happen—the distinctness of a man and a woman producing a child as a unique expression of that same oneness. The illusion isn't merely an illusion; it is simultaneously a state of being different.
Harold Adams5 said:That’s a great example! 🙂 We could apply that logic to pretty much anything, including simple misunderstanding.
Since ancient times, humans have been tripping over the same philosophical hurdles because we keep jumping into the "wrong picture" or the "wrong box." 😁
And it's the wrong picture and the wrong box because of that fundamental lack of alignment.
The thinking mind—that restless part of us constantly asking "who am I?"—is fundamentally flawed from the jump. It starts with a distorted self-image, so its entire mission becomes an attempt to find itself within various external frameworks. It tries to grasp its own identity through these perceived wholes, hoping that by understanding how it relates to them, it might finally realize who it truly is—and how much it actually differs from its own preconceived notions.
I'm glad I managed to hit on a relevant example here; perhaps it serves as a small sign—or even a confirmation—that we are all drawing from the very same box...😁
Let’s take a box of jigsaw puzzles. Every single puzzle is distinct from the next—yet they share certain commonalities, which is precisely the point of the game; if they weren't similar in some fundamental way, the act of assembly would lose its inherent charm. The pieces themselves are all unique—none are identical—but once they are slotted together, they coalesce into a single, unified image. So, we have one whole entity composed of numerous parts that constitute that whole; these parts are diverse—meaning no single piece is an exact replica of another—yet they remain similar enough to function within the set.
Now, let us introduce a second box of puzzles—one depicting an entirely different scene, perhaps utilizing a different format, a different painting technique, or a completely different color palette. If we compare the puzzles in this second box to those in the first, we encounter a secondary layer of divergence—a doubling of variety, if you will. First, the puzzles in the second box are different from one another; second, they are fundamentally different from the first set—not that a single piece from the second could ever fit into the image of the first—and this distinction is of an entirely different quality than the internal differences found within the first box alone.
When performing this comparison, since the first group of puzzles is tethered to that initial whole (the image), they maintain their own internal consistency—they represent a collective "sameness" when contrasted against the puzzles in the second box, just as the second box possesses its own internal "sameness" relative to its own pieces.
Now, consider a box of marbles. Not one marble in that container is identical to another; they are merely similar. If we were to compare a single marble to a single jigsaw puzzle, the disparity in quality begins to stack up exponentially... it isn't just that they differ in shape, but in purpose—they belong to two entirely different realms of play. However, if we were to compare one puzzle from the first box, one puzzle from the second box, and one single marble, we find ourselves with "puzzles" on one side and a "marble" on the other—thus, the puzzles are "the same" in relation to each other, but "different" in relation to the marble.
We could push this even further—comparing everything we’ve discussed so far (the puzzles and the marbles) to a bowl of beef stew... and suddenly we have "toys" (as a category of sameness) versus "food" (as a category of difference), because we are comparing two completely unrelated wholes. ...
Therefore, it seems evident—at least according to my own observation of this obvious truth—that the whole (or the various wholes) acts as the metric that defines the relationships of similarity, difference, equality, and "sameness." A single object of observation will always possess simultaneous qualities of similarity, difference, and equality, provided it is viewed as an element within different wholes.
Furthermore, within any single creative whole, nothing is truly identical; everything is distinct from everything else. In that same vein, one could argue that within this World (if we treat the World as a single, unified whole), everything is distinct from everything else.
The story regarding the Happy Buddha—which is known internationally as the Happy Buddha—is quite endearing to me, and I find myself happily retelling it just as I first heard it. Essentially, when a Buddhist monk arrived in China (originating from India, one can tell by his elongated earlobes), he lived much like any other beggar, subsisting on what he could gather through alms. Yet, in the process of giving, he offered the very spiritual nourishment that those who "consumed" it so desperately craved... He was widely recognized for his cheerfulness—his sunny disposition—and his stout physique, which stood in stark contrast to the typical Buddhist mendicants, who were often gaunt, somber, and rather "lifeless."
It was precisely that difference in weight compared to the other beggars that reflected his capacity for giving; people would feed him just enough to match what they received in return (an unlikely feat, considering how hungry and impoverished most people were), and his size was a direct testament to both his intake and his output... furthermore, his buoyancy of spirit remains one of his most profound gifts.
Consequently, he has been immortalized as one of the iconic images of the Buddha—the Happy Buddha of China.👍 (Is the image gone? I can't seem to see it anymore)
Jerry Green59 said:.. I wouldn't go that far.. .. it’s just one of those old Alim's tropes.. .. he used to repeat it constantly because it works.. and, well.. because it's his signature style..
.. but.. if it’s gaining traction—if people are actually quoting him or paraphrasing his points for competitive strategy.. then that’s a win.. .. there’s nothing wrong with good advice becoming mainstream.. (.. though, let's be honest.. it's a problem if it becomes popular without anyone actually grasping the substance behind it..)
This is a narrow-minded way of looking at things... thoughts don't just arrive by accident—they come because there is a mechanism to summon them. That’s why none of this is some clumsy improvisation, nor is it strictly yours or mine; metaphors aren't some new invention, either... and as for saying something has been happening "for years"... well, that’s a relatively recent concept...