Posts by Harold Doyle3

Megan Gray32 said:From every conceivable angle, early humans possessed far more freedom than we do today. It strikes me that as our collective consciousness evolved, we actually achieved the exact opposite—the individual expanded their own autonomy by encroaching upon the liberty of others.

Furthermore, if freedom is truly regarded as a core ideal within any serious, rational intellectual circle, why on earth haven't we developed a practical system to support it? Why does everyone continue to cluster together in these suffocating, smog-filled cities—places where you can barely find enough oxygen to breathe—while mindlessly chanting about "liberty" like some sort of hollow mantra?

Real freedom was an urgent necessity back when actual slavery existed, because under those conditions, true mental development was impossible. Today, we have every opportunity to cultivate our minds, yet we still exist within a different kind of bondage—the endless grind of the 9-to-5, where our entire mental capacity is consumed by the trivial task of managing pennies.

What does "freedom" even mean to people living like that? To them, it’s nothing more than empty rhetoric and hollow ideals. They tie it to notions of rights and equality, which ultimately serve as a smokescreen for the same old story: providing the perfect cover for more organized, more efficient tyrants than ever before.

We have never been free. All we did was become conscious enough to realize it, and now we're just trying to make our servitude a little more tolerable.

Megan Gray32 said:Is it actually possible that our genes carry the lasting imprints of old traumas and deep-seated fears—residual echoes that continue to shape and dictate how we behave even today?

I certainly hope so. Because if those struggles aren't etched into our biology, then they were all just a waste of time.

ruggedraven36 said:The phrase "like a fish in water" gives me the chills. I'd never want to be part of that breed of people—the ones who just drift along perfectly in their little bubbles.

A peaceful life isn't "unnatural." What's actually unnatural are wars, exploitation, the thirst for power and wealth, manufactured needs, and the relentless stripping of the earth. Though, honestly, even calling it "unnatural" is a bit of a misnomer here—nature itself is fundamentally unnatural if there's no soul breathing through it.

That’s kind of you to say.☕

ruggedraven36 said:The phrase "like a fish in water" gives me the chills. I'd never want to be part of that breed of people—the ones who just drift along perfectly in their little bubbles.

A peaceful life isn't "unnatural." What's actually unnatural are wars, exploitation, the thirst for power and wealth, manufactured needs, and the relentless stripping of the earth. Though, honestly, even calling it "unnatural" is a bit of a misnomer here—nature itself is fundamentally unnatural if there's no soul breathing through it.

By the Holy Spirit?

ruggedraven36 said:My take? Real progress would actually start once the dust settles. All kinds of creativity would finally bloom, actual science would flourish, and technology would finally serve a peaceful life instead of just fueling more chaos. We’d live much more modestly—slower, sure—but we’d have actual free time. Nobody would be chasing power, wealth, or control anymore, and we might actually respect and protect nature instead of just gutting it for profit.

Harmony is an illusion. It’s unnatural. At its core, the world is pure chaos, and when the human mind tries to organize that chaos, it just creates tension within it. That kind of order you're talking about? It’s fragile. One tiny "butterfly effect" moment and the whole thing collapses back into disorder.
Humanity thrives in those messy gray areas between total chaos and rigid order... it's where we belong, like a fish in water.

ruggedraven36 said:Honestly? There's a much higher chance we’ll just finish ourselves off if we don't learn how to live in peace and quiet first.

But you can't have progress without a little friction... there's no dialectic in total silence.

Megan Gray32 said:There isn’t much point in overanalyzing prehistory, if you ask me. Roughly 100,000 years of our civilization—all that history—is essentially worth about as much as a passing breeze.

The era was defined by an overwhelming amount of suffering and sheer futility—enough, frankly, that a modern person living a life of peace and quiet should feel nothing but gratitude.

But then again, that assumes we actually get to live in peace and quiet. It assumes people are actually out there working the land and raising livestock.

Instead, we have these modernists—these globalists. They undergo systematic training just to master new buzzwords, learning how to bill more, how to mask their scams, and how to consolidate power. It all stems from the exact same gutter of human nature—just as someone 60,000 years ago might have killed another person just to rip off a leg and eat it like a chicken drumstick, or committed an act of sexual violence.

There are plenty of cavemen left in this world today, and they are doing just fine. As for your "quiet"—you can let it simmer on a low flame for all I care.

We can't afford to live in peace and quiet, because nature will just wipe us out. Nature is generous, sure, but she's also merciless.

Take this, for example.
Dinosaurs spent millions of years just hanging around before a meteor kicked them off the stage... we actually have a fighting chance to divert a meteor or survive whatever other freak nature tantrum comes our way.
That's the price we paid through the agony of previous generations.

Megan Gray32 said:If people were truly as they are today back then... it would mean the entire history of mankind is nothing more than endless suffering. I realize that we were dropped into this world without ever giving our consent—that where we are now, and where we have been, is purely accidental. And yet, by some strange stroke of luck, the world is beautiful. I can vividly imagine that same world as it was 100,000 years ago. The scents, the crisp air, that warmth someone once mentioned, the colors; it’s all so deeply alluring to me. So, even though we ended up here by chance, perhaps we actually wanted to be here after all.

But we weren't prepared for famine, or danger, or the biting cold—and what else? What has been holding us back from then until now? If we were to start philosophizing from prehistory, could we find some kind of cornerstone—some new maxim for living—that would still hold value in the modern day?

Or perhaps we can't, simply because we refuse to? Because we were attacked, so we struck back; because we were hungry, so we turned on one another; because, more often than not, we were driven by raw, primal passions—passions that, in some measure, still drive us today?

Furthermore, the practice of raising livestock and tilling the earth proved to be, in every sense, a lifelong way of life. So, I ask you: at what point did we, as a civilization, decide to push that aside? At what point did we shift toward an education system designed to turn young people into professional killers, soldiers, or absolute rulers? You might argue that these questions belong to other disciplines, but I am asking: how much has actually changed since prehistoric times? In the fundamental human spirit?

Look, over the last 100,000 years, we dealt with ice ages and volcanic eruptions that messed with the whole planet... Earth hasn't exactly been a non-stop fairy tale.

Eventually, one of our ancestors figured out that if you scatter seeds, you get plants you can actually eat.
It’s a decent setup; you don't have to wander aimlessly around looking for scraps when you can do things differently.
The trick is planting enough to make it worth the effort, rather than ending up with less than what you put in.
For that, you need a calendar. Someone realized the movement of the stars followed certain rules, so they linked them together—set up two stones, and once a star aligned with the peaks, you knew exactly how many days to count until it was time to plant.
Then comes the harvest... and suddenly you have goods that you can't just carry home on your back or haul around like a rancher. You need storage, and you need a fence to keep out the lazy ones, the thugs, and all sorts of lowlifes.
And that’s how civilization was born: trade, armies, dive bars, fish fries, philosophers, and the atomic bomb.
Religion came along even earlier, nagging and guilt-tripping farmers (Cain) for taking out the rancher (Abel) and for fencing off the land with barbed wire.

True courage isn't about being fearless; it's about staring down that fear and moving forward anyway.

God bless America!

Amanda Jackson5 said:Matt Damon is younger and better looking than I am.

But is he actually a decent human being?

Addx (R Penrose)

ZZ Moreira

Amanda Jackson5 said:Lennon was a total piece of work, whereas Jednostavko is actually a decent human being.

Oops...

Is this right?

Jednostavko and Amanda Jackson5?

Jednostavko

hosting photo

Volverica

And there you go, preaching prejudice....

Look, I’m 6'2", got a low forehead, and a head shaped like a Neanderthal, plus strong arms and pretty broad shoulders (think Plato 😁). You missed the mark there, and honestly, I think you’re missing the mark with the women on this site too!
The way I see them, they're gorgeous women who are actually trying to look *away* from their physical beauty by coming here to highlight what's going on inside.

Nea

Olivia Smith2 said:

Just picturing a youthful Amanda Jackson5 singing about freedom—isn't that a lovely thought? 😁
ruggedraven36 at 0:45
Sandra Murphy33 at 0:50
Joseph Bailey41 at 1:20
Walnut at 0:52
Madonna at 2:21
Aljoša at 2:37
And myself at 2:57

Picture a young Sigmund beltin' out some anthems about freedom 😁
John at 0:45
Neo at 0:50
Flying at 1:20
Harold Doyle3 at 0:52
Vegas at 2:21
AJ at 2:37
And yours truly at 2:57[/I]

😁........👍

Amanda Jackson5 said:Truth is really just a massive contradiction in disguise. You can have two different truths that hold up perfectly fine when you look at them as isolated abstractions, but once you zoom out and see the broader context, they clash head-on. It’s like how we can think about being and non-being as separate concepts in a vacuum, yet in any actual reality, they can't truly exist apart from one another; they're always tied together within the framework of existence itself.

That’s exactly my point, which is why I argued that truth can be relative—meaning it's dependent on context—or even conditional, but a fact? A fact is absolute.
For example, the fact is that the Sun moves across the sky, regardless of whether someone believes the truth or falsehood of whether the Sun orbits the Earth or the Earth rotates on its axis.

Amanda Jackson5 said:Not exactly; it's more about navigating contradictions.

What's contradictory here... two different truths?