The entire premise rests on some romanticized projection of a child's psyche—a notion that simply doesn't hold water in the real world.
Childhood is essentially a phase defined by confusion and vulnerability... a time when the mind fixates on trivial nonsense and fears things out of pure instinct, rarely grasping the actual situation at hand or even functioning within any realistic framework beyond basic physiological needs—all due to a literal lack of neurological development, experience, and an understanding of context.
Now, this doesn't mean the same logic doesn't apply to adolescents or adults—it usually does, often even more so—but at least there is some semblance of life experience and a somewhat developed relationship with oneself and the environment. There's a baseline understanding of concepts like frustration or suffering, of one's own desires versus those of others, and a minimal level of self-awareness and tolerance for daily bullshit... plus the actual skill required to deal with it all. With children, for the most part, they don't even possess that foundation.
Then there’s that rather grim little tale about how Kubrick systematically manipulated Duvall just to ensure he looked authentically unhinged during those pivotal scenes in The Shining...
analoghawk13 said:Pasolini was murdered by some young, degenerate punk...
Maybe my information is flawed—but from what I recall seeing in a documentary once—it seems Pasolini was actually targeted by several pretty rough thugs, some of whom were likely armed, who eventually finished him off by running him over with a car... though they found blood from other people on his body as well, so I suspect their little encounter didn't go quite as smoothly as they planned...
Do you actually have an idea of how one achieves this? A specific method, perhaps? A technique? For instance, how does a person fight against procrastination—or how did those "successful" types you mentioned manage it? Or better yet, did they even face such struggles in the first place?
From what I gather, Maslow was attempting to develop what he called "positive psychology"—an effort to distinguish his work from the rest of psychology and psychiatry. His angle was that instead of obsessing over people's problems and searching for ways to fix them—since those are pathologies, which are inherently "negative"—he looked at individuals who described themselves as "self-actualized." He essentially used their lives as a blueprint to conclude what a self-actualized person should look like... as if we're all meant to just copy them.
Naturally, as a humanist—and likely an individualist, given the trends of his generation—Maslow assumes that everyone is fundamentally capable of reaching this state. In reality, the examples he used to build his hypothesis were simply people lucky enough to be born with certain predispositions, and then even luckier that their environment nurtured them into disciplined, capable adults—whether through intervention or despite it. It seems the only thing they failed to achieve was having a massive amount of offspring... so that there might be more of these "actualized" types out there.
Conditioning is a cage. No one achieves more than what is "written" for them; perhaps things can shift through heavy conditioning, or some sort of reconditioning... If we were actually discussing how to deal with this conditioning—how to recondition oneself—then the conversation might actually hold water. As it stands, this is just another carrot dangled on a stick... just another way for your own mind to troll you.
Besides, doesn't everything constantly actualize itself? Is there ever truly an instance where something exists but remains "unactualized"?
Ultimately, the whole thing boils down to little more than saying, "this tree has grown to its maximum height."
placidwolf27 said:How does one actually "know what they want out of life"? Is it a matter of constructing elaborate plans—identifying with some specific archetype, projecting oneself into a hypothetical scenario, or perhaps adhering to a rigid set of values you're desperately trying to manifest? Or maybe it’s just a reaction to a current, undesirable reality that you're clawing your way out of... or perhaps an emotional fixation on a single, specific outcome? I suppose my question is really about the underlying logic—what criteria do we even use when choosing "Option B" over "Option A"... why do we crave one thing over another, or how does the process of developing a concrete desire even begin?
God, I feel like I’ve just thrown three years of my life down the drain... effectively, I haven't moved an inch from where I started. It’s honestly jarring—it turns out I’m just spinning in smaller and smaller circles, like some kind of mentally unstable hamster on a wheel...
Poison ivy—nature’s own little way of reminding us that we aren't nearly as in control of our environment as we like to pretend... It’s one of those things you can’t ever truly prepare for, no matter how many books you read or how many "expert" warnings you heed. You think you know the look, you think you’ve spotted the leaves, and then—just like that—your skin is an absolute disaster area... It isn't just a simple itch, either. It's that deep, relentless, maddening irritation that seems to settle right under the surface, making you question your own sanity while you're staring at a patch of red, blistering skin in the bathroom mirror. One minute you're enjoying a quiet afternoon in the backyard, maybe doing some light weeding or just walking near the treeline, and the next, you're paying the price for a moment of misplaced confidence... The irony of it all is almost poetic, in a dark sort of way. We spend so much time trying to curate these perfect, manicured American landscapes—everything clipped, everything in its place—yet this persistent, creeping nuisance thrives in the cracks of our carefully managed worlds. It doesn't care about your property lines or your landscaping plans... it just exists, waiting for a single moment of carelessness to strike. A constant, subtle reminder that the wild is always just waiting to reclaim its territory... if only it takes a single scratch. As I was saying... Just because it’s fun...
It feels less like a conversation and more like you're shouting into a void—talking to a damn bot...
Look, you’re clearly just talking to a bot out of pure boredom... but even then...
I find myself wondering... if you attempt to engage with someone who lacks the fundamental capacity for rational discourse—specifically, someone unable to distance themselves from their own biases or the recycled, half-automatic scripts they parrot based on mere emotional conditioning—then what are you actually doing? If a person cannot even step back to observe the conversation itself, let alone recognize their own role within it, the distinction between them and a machine begins to evaporate... At that point, there is no meaningful way to discern whether you are speaking to a relatively self-aware human being or simply a disorganized mass of biological tissue and hardware mimicking intelligence. It becomes an exercise in futility...
So, looking at this whole situation... the most optimistic takeaway is that someone is simply trolling—just playing games for the sake of it. Because if that isn't the case, things start to feel almost eerie...
Honestly, this probably applies to about 80% of all online communication anyway... if you look at the big picture.
That’s exactly why one ought to appreciate a bit of high-quality trolling when it presents itself—but unfortunately, that seems to be entirely lacking around here lately...
But seriously—why bother engaging with someone who contributes absolutely nothing of substance to the discussion? It’s quite obvious they are either just a troll or simply incapable of any rational discourse...
Jeremy Roberts said:I suppose I could argue that the planet just doesn't like us—that everything living on it is basically out to get us—and honestly, looking at things today, I might be right.😁 One thing really bugged me, though. In a survival kit from a thousand years in the future, a kid would probably just end up with two knives and a "good luck" note.😕 Where are the lasers? The pulse weapons? Anything high-tech at all?🙂
Honestly, if we haven't managed to engineer pocket-sized demi-gods capable of basically granting any whim by a thousand years from now... then we have failed on a much more fundamental level...
Jeffrey Wood said:A thousand or maybe two years—that’s how long humanity is gone from Earth in this movie—is just far too short a window for any kind of drastic physical evolution in the flora and fauna...
It’s an impossibly brief timeframe for those kinds of radical shifts—that’s the whole issue here. They should have at least used a symbolic figure, like 40,000 years, or perhaps suggested some sort of runaway biotechnology or rapid biochemical reactions to justify it... but as it stands, this whole thing feels like a planet of The flora & fauna ala M. Night Shyamalan, which simply makes no sense at all...
Imagination isn't just some flight of fancy—it’s fundamentally real, and honestly, we ought to treat it with that level of gravity if we want to understand its true weight
The crux of the matter is this: an idea hasn't been externalized yet, but—especially when driven by intention, whether you realize it or not—there is an inherent urge to push it out into the world, to make it manifest. That’s the core engine behind everything humans have ever done; it’s the very bedrock of creativity. Whatever takes root inside us simply demands to be let out
Now, granted, imagination differs from logical planning because it’s spontaneous and often irrational—though, of course, one can attempt to harness it using reason and discipline. If someone's imagination is running wild without a decent level of conscious self-control, they can find themselves in some pretty godawful situations. Beyond that, these mental wanderings act as a process through which we refine our internal goals and intentions; it’s a force that can mobilize a person, steer them in various directions, or even condition their behavior in ways they might not even perceive
That is why I believe one must keep a watchful eye on their own imagination. It should be viewed as a tool for development and self-insight, yes, but also as a potent source of massive screw-ups. One has to be mindful of what, how, and when the imagination wanders—its intensity, its duration, its direction, and whether it's being constructive or destructive
Ultimately, all of this applies just as much—if not more—to thought itself, and to every single internal moment of consciousness we experience
Giving up is a dangerous game because it eventually becomes a habit.
That’s why, as a rule, I don't set any goals I can actually identify with—I checked out of everything a long time ago. The only things left are vague, broad life objectives that are too poorly defined to even allow for a concrete sense of failure or giving up...
I honestly can't explain why it's always been this easy for me. Even back when I was a kid, I was always the fragile type—especially mentally—yet I watched plenty of others facing far worse circumstances than mine still find the will to struggle or push through...
I wonder, when it comes to setting targets and maintaining the grit required to reach them—aside from just building better habits—is it necessary to incorporate traits from other people? In the sense of identifying with a role model or someone similar to oneself?
I just don't understand why there is zero internal motivation to even establish a goal, let alone achieve one. It’s incredibly depressing... it’s just one more thing that makes me feel incomplete, immature, stunted, and so on...
It feels as though I am perceiving or understanding something fundamentally wrong...
neonorca4 said:Like I said before, to actually get this movie, you need a certain level of general culture—a sense of curiosity, a leaning toward a philosophical worldview, and the ability to contemplate life through various cultural interpretations of the afterlife, the connection between dreams and the subconscious... things that veer into psychiatry, neurology, or even the philosophical disciplines dealing with the very meaning of existence. I could even go as far as to say the film has a specific target audience and isn't meant for everyone. Especially not for those who only experience it as a fireworks display of rainbow colors and a cheap romance story.
Do you honestly believe that because the film is a postmodern mishmash—a bit of everything thrown together, a slice of psychoanalysis here, a touch of psychodrama there, some archetypes, a dash of fine art, just bits and pieces until it feels like an emotional stage play where the female audience sighs collectively and says, "Oh, that was lovely, we all cried"—that one needs a degree in psychiatry, neurology, and philosophy just to appreciate it?
Look, just say you liked the movie. Defend the pacing, the character development, the direction, or something tangible... but don't tell me it's about "general culture" or whatever else. Please... let's not act like we're on some pretentious high-brow academic forum in New York... if we were, people would just say you're trolling.
neonorca4 said:There’s no point in complaining if you don't get what the story is actually talking about because your general cultural knowledge is thin and you aren't particularly curious enough to let those different philosophical layers or life perspectives pull you in. Naturally, the subject matter dictates the style.
What kind of "aspects" or "philosophies" are we even talking about here?
The film feels kitschy at times—both stylistically and visually—while the plot remains shallow and unchallenging. Everything is entirely predictable... it all boils down to these forced emotional transitions where the protagonist suddenly realizes everything is fine, resolving unresolved tensions with deceased loved ones as if you were watching some dramatized allegory of family systems therapy. All the little bits of drama and conflict are just window dressing to make that final emotional beat hit harder...
So, what is the actual point of the movie? That love always wins?
The movie would have made significantly more sense if it had been set entirely within his psyche—maybe somewhere like a surrealist version of Chicago or something similar—but that would have required a complete overhaul of both the plot and the characters
As it stands, this whole subplot involving a psychedelic afterlife feels incredibly forced... it all just boils down to cheap sentimentality, leaving the entire thing without any real point at all
Melissa Sanchez8 said:Desire is basically an impulse. I don't really see it as being rational or irrational. That's why you don't need to "talk" to that part of yourself, nor is it even possible, just to figure out what you want. You want something, and it just happens... naturally.
The thing you "want"—your raw desires—and the thing you think you "should be"—your logic or values—can definitely butt heads. It happens all the time. But one doesn't cancel out the other, and it isn't "wrong" just because they're at odds. What kind of practical situation are we talking about here?
I'm talking about the various flavors of procrastination—and the inevitable mental blocks and complications that come riding right along with them...
Lisa Hernandez3 said:I suppose people might determine this through some sort of internal value system—what do you think? It’s possible that certain ideas never even cross a person's mind because they represent too much of a challenge to their core values or principles; if that's the case, it makes sense why someone might hesitate, or why their "will might be flipped or neutralized." It isn't just about how the will functions, but rather the actual content of those desires and everything they correlate with. Maybe Maslow's theory regarding the hierarchy of needs could serve as a decent starting point to help clarify terms like need, desire, will, motivation, and the values attached to them.
Sure, people will try to dictate their own wants based on a set of values, but that’s not quite the same thing...
If a desire is irrational—if it stems from something fundamentally illogical—then how can a person even maintain a conscious grasp on what they truly want or don't want? And I don't mean something basic, like being hungry and wanting food...
Maybe I'm being a bit emotionally stunted here, but I honestly don't see how one can know what they want if they lack the capacity to communicate with the deeper parts of the psyche where those desires are actually born or manifested...
And what happens when there's a direct collision between what a person "wants" and what they feel they "ought to be"? How does that conflict get resolved? Especially when it involves something purely practical—something where nobody is even bothering to ask for your input...
Maslow isn't helping much here; I've never really understood his work beyond the fact that he spent his life spinning colorful theories about how "normal" people function...
Honestly, this topic doesn't even belong on this subforum—the moderators moved it here themselves, which makes zero sense—so feel free to just lock it down whenever you want...
What is "will" exactly—where does it originate, and what can truly be said about its nature?
Lately, if I allow for a few rare exceptions, I’ve been experiencing something quite peculiar... for the first time in my life, I am actually becoming aware of when I want or don't want something. It is a rather fascinating experience, if a bit unsettling...
To be perfectly honest, I still haven't found a way to know these things with any degree of absolute certainty. Instead, it feels more like a logical conclusion simply forces itself upon me—that I don't want a specific thing—and I have merely decided to consciously accept that conclusion as my own...
But this leads me to wonder... can I use that same logic to determine what I *do* want? How does a person actually discern their true desires or aversions in the first place? Is it possible to somehow invert or neutralize this sense of will, and can one exert any influence over it at all—one way or another?
Walter Brooks3 said:What does it actually feel like to be an eccentric? What does it truly mean to have some backbone? What is it like to be an outsider, someone who just refuses to fit into the cookie-cutter stereotypes? And what defines a total weirdo?!
Honestly, I think everyone should experience it at least once. That feeling of standing out, pushing back against the grain, or sparking a little rebellion within yourself—even if it’s just a tiny spark. But to actually live your whole life that way? 🙄
Where does that leave your social life? Where is the sense of community??? And where on earth would you even find a place for yourself...
Every single individual possesses their own unique personality and character...
Depending entirely on how that character was forged—whether through experience or circumstance—certain people will navigate life's various pressures more smoothly than others, while some simply struggle...
Ultimately, depending on who you are, being labeled a "weirdo" could mean total failure, or it could be your greatest competitive advantage—perhaps even both at once... these are all such broad, sweeping terms that don't carry much weight on their own without context...