Posts by Sandra Murphy33

Sigmund and John
(an experience)

I’ve been thinking about how much our perception of "vacation" has shifted lately. It used to be about disconnecting entirely, but now it feels like we just move our stress from an office chair to a beach towel. We spend half the time worrying about whether we’re actually relaxing enough to justify the cost. It’s a strange sort of modern exhaustion. You fly halfway across the country, sit in a hotel room that looks exactly like the one you left, and spend your time scrolling through feeds of people who are doing the exact same thing. There’s a performative element to it all now—if you didn't document the sunset, did you even experience it? It’s exhausting to think about, let alone execute. I find myself increasingly skeptical of the whole industry. The more they sell us on "escapism," the more I feel like I'm just paying for a different scenery for my own restlessness. As I see it:
Look, Štima, that was just how things were back when I was younger. 😁

You’ve finally become that benevolent version of Pickwick, all rosy-cheeked and soft around the edges. 😁

Orah Asks:
I was right in the middle of a deep dive with Jednostavka and Sigmund when leteći decided to crash the party.

🤣

Joseph Bailey41, you’re basically this guy to me 😍
(well, this little character)

Amanda Jackson5 said:Here we have Sisyphus going back and forth with someone right up until the moment he gets banned. As for me, I’m just the guy with the mustache. And looks like there are a few other familiar faces floating around here too.

😂

👍

Joseph Bailey41 said:Modičin’s first day on the job.

That is exactly how I picture her! It’s like a sort of gentle, beautiful strictness—a pure dialectical paradox.
😁 (I haven't actually seen the movie, so I'm basing this strictly on this clip)😬

PS. Joseph Bailey41, is the game designed so we have to use YouTube links, or is there another way to do this?
🙂

We’re really just looking at two sides of the same coin here. 😁
They aren't even that far apart when you consider how they eventually converge at their extremes.
Ultimately, claiming that Jesus dictated a text versus claiming no one did results in the same logical conclusion. If we all agree that a figure from antiquity can't physically dictate words to people living today, then where does that leave us?

However, if we argue that any form of inspiration is divine, we’re simply nudging ourselves a bit closer to the actual truth. What we're really establishing is this:
1. It wasn't dictated by an external entity (we can subjectively speculate about such a being, but we can't present it as a factual author).
2. It isn't merely a byproduct of biological metabolism or a random surge of electrons in the brain. 😎
3. That the so-called divine resides within the human experience itself.

I’m going to dive back into studying A Course in Miracles, so let's pick this up later 😁

It’s actually pretty fascinating how the text was "dictated" through pure atheists; and to make things even more interesting, they were all at odds with one another...

I wouldn't bother, because that would require you to produce a three-page manifesto just to satisfy what 😉
expects from you.

In that case, every kid on the playground is suddenly a certified genius.

In his slim volume, *The Uselessness of Usefulness*, the philosopher and literary critic Nuccio Ordine makes a compelling argument: wisdom, much like true knowledge, possesses no inherent practical utility. Because it cannot be easily commodified, he suggests that we must actively shield our culture from the corrosive influence of money and the relentless pursuit of profit.

In his *Metaphysics*, Aristotle explored the fundamental value of knowledge, emphasizing that at its highest level, true understanding isn't just about information—it’s something much deeper. "Productive." It seems like people have just... lost their way. Or maybe they’ve finally realized that the frantic pursuit of constant productivity is nothing more than a hollow exercise. We spend our lives chasing these tiny, incremental wins, convinced that if we just keep moving, we’ll eventually arrive somewhere meaningful. But looking at the state of things, it feels more like we're just running on a treadmill that someone forgot to plug in. There’s this pervasive idea that being busy is synonymous with being important, but most of what we call "progress" is just noise. It's exhausting, really, watching everyone scramble to prove their worth through sheer volume of activity, when all they're doing is burning out for the sake of nothing.It all starts with that sense of genuine wonder—that feeling when you stumble upon something truly bizarre or inexplicable. It’s from those moments of pure curiosity that the pursuit of wisdom actually begins. People tend to think we seek knowledge because it serves some practical purpose or yields a tangible profit, but that’s not it at all. We dive into philosophy to escape the weight of ignorance, not because we're looking for some sort of functional advantage. It’s about understanding, not utility.:
It is self-evident that we don't pursue wisdom to satisfy some secondary need or practical demand. We seek it for the same reason we define a free person as someone who exists for their own sake rather than as a means to an end. In much the same way, we pursue wisdom as the only true freedom among the sciences; it is the only discipline that exists entirely for its own sake.

It is precisely within that freedom of philosophical inquiry—that refusal to become a slave to mere utility—where the foundation is laid. Divinity. The concept of human species is often treated as a settled matter of biological classification, yet when you peel back the layers, it becomes an exercise in navigating messy, overlapping definitions. We like to think of ourselves in neat, distinct categories, but nature rarely respects the boundaries we draw in our textbooks. It’s a constant tension between the rigid structures of taxonomy and the fluid reality of evolution. Whether we are discussing the physical divergence of different populations or the deeper, philosophical distinctions in how we perceive existence, the "species" label is frequently more of a convenient shorthand than a precise truth. It’s an attempt to impose order on a chaotic process that doesn't care about our need for organization.
(It might actually be fair to suggest that attaining true wisdom lies entirely beyond the reach of human capability.)"

(*Italic* These are excerpts from Aristotle's "Metaphysics."

Harold Doyle3 said:A wise man is simply someone who can tell the difference between what actually matters and the trivial nonsense that clutters our lives.

The great thinkers of antiquity might have lacked our modern data points, but they understood the essentials. They focused on what was vital. That’s why we still call them wise.

Nowadays, we just call that "prioritization." 😉

Joseph Murphy10 said:Man, stop—you’re giving me way too much credit. I definitely don't deserve all that. 😲

Hell yeah, they are. 🙂
And what about the ones who just won't... ?

Man, this is going to suck—I’m actually gonna have to sit down, read this crap, and try to reconstruct the headspace I was in when I wrote it. Back then, I was deep in the weeds with Dostoevsky and Berdyayev. You know how it is—those guys hit you right in the soul, and once that happens, it shows up on the page immediately.

Been gone for a minute—mostly because I’ve been stuck in my own head, overanalyzing my own thoughts. Honestly, that kind of deep diving needs some damn silence to actually work.

I was basically just thinking out loud here—didn't really have it all figured out yet. My take on the whole concept of "self-annihilation" came out pretty clunky, I know. Even if I feel like my core point isn't wrong, it definitely needs some work. I need to clean it up, sharpen the edges, and actually make sense of the thought so it’s clear to everyone else.

That’s actually something I totally overlooked, and honestly, it’s huge. It’s basically what keeps philosophy alive, breathing, and relevant. As long as there are humans, there’s going to be thinking—people produce thoughts, period. So, as long as there's thought, there's philosophy. Self-annihilation isn't happening anytime soon.😁

Though... yeah, extreme specialization definitely brings its own set of headaches...

Personally, I don't think you can skip Gadamer. He’s the gateway to Derrida, who—despite being under fire for deconstruction since the eighties—is pretty much unavoidable in modern discourse.

That’s the catch with my "path"—if I just focus on him, I struggle to keep up with the cutting-edge stuff. I end up constantly playing catch-up with everything happening right now.

You can't ignore the latest works dealing with this whole "new normal" and the Great Reset nonsense; you have to engage with it. At the core of the word "normal" is the concept of a norm. A norm is a rule. Basically, we're seeing new rules being shoved down our throats that will permanently reshape the world we live in. We need to watch this closely, interpret it, and maybe even contribute something if possible...
If I sniff anything out, I'll let you know. 👍

I’ve just "caught the scent" of a text that fits this exact description. 😉

"Ultimately, the problems we face cannot be solved at the same level at which they were created.
The current problems of the world are bigger and more complex than the institutions established to deal with them. Meaningful change requires a true transformation that shifts the levels of understanding and opens the realms of possibility.
Yet, there is a poverty of imagination when it comes to facing the size and depth of the problems we all face.
In mistaking appearances for the real thing, people wind up with the appearance of strength, the appearance of leadership and the appearance of meaning while suffering a loss of all that is truly meaningful in the end. Genuine change, whether it be in the hearts of people or in the culture at large, is more difficult than changing the appearance of things and therefore can be a more rare occurrence. In hard times, inner changes must precede changes to outer circumstances".
- Michael Meade [From “Awakening of Souls”]

English:
"Ultimately, the problems we face cannot be solved at the same level at which they were created. The current problems of the world are bigger and more complex than the institutions established to deal with them.
Meaningful change requires a true transformation that establishes new levels of understanding and opens entirely new possibilities.
And yet, we are witnessing a lack of imagination when it comes to grappling with the sheer scale and depth of the challenges before us. By failing to distinguish between appearance and reality, people mistake the appearance of strength, the appearance of leadership, and the appearance of meaning for the real thing, while actually suffering the loss of what is truly meaningful.
Genuine change, whether it be in the hearts of people or in the culture at large, is far more difficult than merely altering appearances, which makes it much rarer.
In challenging times, inner change must precede any change in external circumstances."
M. Meade, "Awakening of Souls"

Do you honestly think we should be looking at that possibility as something that actually makes sense... ? 🤔

I find it highly suspicious that they’re teaching this at the Faculty of Arts; it immediately makes me wonder if there's some underlying agenda at play. It feels like a calculated attempt to predict a future where we're reduced to cannibalism, serving as one last bit of "civilized" preparation for when things finally fall apart. 😲

Well, it’s a common enough occurrence, isn't it? It stands to reason that a student might eventually surpass their mentor. 😉

Personally, I find Rupert much more tolerable.... Francis is constantly making little jabs, and I just can't bring myself to take him seriously with that ridiculous accent of his, sounding like he stepped straight out of an old Allo allo sketch. 😬

Are you suggesting that having principles is just a fancy word for pettiness? 😁

Precisely.
However, if one stopped taking themselves so seriously and treated it more like a bit of lighthearted mockery—which is honestly the highest honor any principle deserves—then it could actually be entertaining. For instance, I might declare that based on principle I simply refuse to engage in conversation with anyone who isn't a Marxist. I’d implement a rule where I "just have nothing to talk about" with non-Marxists (or whatever category happens to be the polar opposite of what a person values) 🙂
That would be an entirely subjective stance, certainly (given that I truly would have "nothing to say" to them), but that is precisely the point of this whole debate regarding principles. People often resort to those tired, universally accepted moral platitudes just to try and validate their principles objectively, attempting to give them weight so they appear to be some sort of objective truth rather than just the arbitrary criteria of one or two individuals. But ultimately, it's all just mental gymnastics.

Under my set of principles, I’d also include an Open Day (on 😬Sundays)) where I would intentionally converse with non-Marxists, just to see what kind of nonsense we can say to one another. 🤣

ruggedraven36 said:Sandra Murphy33, you nailed this analysis.

It’s a bit grim, honestly, but I appreciate the insight 🙂

steelridge58 As I’ve observed before, the reality of the situation is far more complex than most people care to admit. It isn't just about surface-level observations; it's about understanding the underlying mechanics at play here. When you look closely at how these systems actually function, the cracks start to show. Most people prefer the comfort of a simple narrative, but if you want to get anywhere meaningful, you have to deal with the messy, unvarnished truth. It’s a wearying process, certainly, but ignoring the structural flaws won't make them disappear.
I stumbled upon an interesting point while reading recently, specifically regarding how certain digital environments align with philosophical theory. Technically speaking, every virtual world serves as a silent materialization of what we would recognize as an idealistic perspective—or, if you want to get extreme, a radical version of idealism itself.
Subjective idealism is a concept that often gets tossed around in academic circles, usually accompanied by a sense of intellectual pretension. At its core, the argument is straightforward, if somewhat unsettling: the idea that reality, as we know it, is fundamentally dependent on the mind. In this view, there is no "objective" world existing independently of perception. Objects don't just sit there in space waiting to be noticed; they exist only insofar as they are being perceived. It’s a perspective that strips away the comfort of a solid, external universe. If you follow this logic to its conclusion, the physical world becomes little more than a collection of mental impressions. It suggests that what we call "matter" is actually just a byproduct of sensory experience. While it sounds like something pulled straight from a fever dream, it presents a rigorous challenge to how we define existence itself. Of course, most people find this impossible to swallow. We have an innate intuition that the chair beneath us or the skyscraper in downtown Chicago remains exactly where it is, whether we are looking at it or not. To deny that objective stability feels like walking on thin air. Yet, when you dig into the mechanics of perception, the distinction between the thing itself and our internal representation of that thing starts to blur. It forces you to confront the possibility that our entire grasp of reality is nothing more than a highly organized hallucination..

Subjective idealism is essentially just one specific branch of idealism—though "immaterialism" might actually be a more accurate way to describe it. It’s the school of thought most famously associated with George Berkeley. The core argument here is that material objects don't truly exist in any physical sense; instead, there is only the mind and its various mental contents.

Well, I feel compelled to weigh in here, though I’ll be approaching this from a non-dualistic perspective. 🙂
According to this doctrine, both the body—as physical matter—and the mind are created entities. In this view, the mind itself possesses a sort of "material" quality; it isn't the final, ultimate reality. That distinction belongs solely to consciousness.
The mind would essentially be identical to the body—or rather, the body and matter itself would simply be the mind as perceived by someone else.
Furthermore, one has to consider whether our mental content is largely just a reflection of the external material world—specifically when dealing with what is often termed the "lower mind," or that purely instrumental level of reason.

I’d like to build on this by posing a series of questions that remain largely unanswered—issues that I’ve encountered while digging through several academic papers and studies relevant to this discussion.

Are our physical and virtual identities truly distinct entities, or are they merely different manifestations of what we define as being?
Is humanity’s future inherently destined to be a binary struggle between fiction and reality? It’s a question that feels increasingly heavy as we drift further from a shared sense of truth. We seem to be approaching a crossroads where we are forced to choose between a tangible, perhaps unpalatable, reality and a curated, manufactured fiction that offers more comfort but less substance. If we look at the trajectory of modern discourse, the line isn't just blurring; it's being intentionally dismantled. We live in an era where digital constructs—simulated experiences, algorithmic echo chambers, and hyper-real personas—often carry more weight than the physical world they inhabit. This creates a predictable tension. On one side, you have the raw, often chaotic facts of existence. On the other, you have the polished, digestible narratives designed to satisfy our psychological cravings for order and validation. The dilemma is whether we can actually sustain a society if we lose the ability to distinguish between the two. A civilization built on fiction is a house of cards; it looks impressive until the wind shifts. However, a life lived purely within the constraints of cold, hard reality can feel hollow without the capacity for imagination and myth-making. The real danger isn't necessarily the presence of fiction, but the total surrender to it. Once we decide that a convenient lie is more useful than a difficult truth, the concept of "reality" becomes obsolete. At that point, we aren't choosing between two paths anymore; we are simply choosing which illusion we want to inhabit while the actual foundation of our world erodes beneath us. Whether this dichotomy is an unavoidable evolution of the human condition or a trap we are actively building for ourselves remains to be seen.
Can high-level virtual reality technology serve as the definitive answer to the crisis of humanism? As S. Gualeni argues, we shouldn't just view virtual worlds as mere escapism; rather, they need to be understood, studied, and utilized as the very framework within which a new kind of humanism has already begun to take shape.
Which identity carries any actual weight? Is it the one rooted in physicality—grounded in our biology, our reason, and the tangible reality of "becoming"? Or is it the one built on virtuality, the endless cycle of fictionalization, and the quiet drift into pure simulation? 😉 Is there some kind of shortage?
What exactly constitutes what makes someone "real"—and why we so frequently wrap that word, "real," in quotation marks? I’m talking about the concept of a true identity.
Is it his physical presence—that tangible, heavy sense of reality—or is it rather that intricate, internal web of sensations, perceptions, and fleeting thoughts?

Well, that's certainly one way to start a conversation. Not much to go on there, is there? If you're looking for a deep dive or a reasoned debate, you might want to provide a bit more substance first. I'll be here when you've actually got something worth discussing. 😁
Only one word comes to mind when I think about this "new humanism."
The pacification of instinct. ....
To be clear, I’m not just talking about gaming here; I’m referring to any kind of digital interaction, period.
Is pacification inherently synonymous with "numbing," or is it strictly a positive process? I find myself wondering if this phenomenon carries an unavoidable negative undertone.
It all hinges on how much the external material world undergoes this same "pacification" alongside us. The real question is whether this process is sweeping through the entirety of the living natural world at once.

Let’s run a thought experiment: what happens to the physical world if we all just retreat further into our screens, essentially becoming prisoners within our own four walls? We saw those clips during the initial lockdowns—wildlife wandering freely through empty streets and crossing highways without a care in the world. But you have to wonder how much of that was just a curated simulation. Most people lack basic digital literacy, and since programmers often carry their own ideological biases or agendas, they can easily feed us any distorted version of reality on a screen.

Forgive me if I’m overanalyzing this, but if the entire "normal" world shifts into a virtual one—if we just bury ourselves behind monitors and never look up—will access to the physical world be reserved solely for the military and the police? 🙄
The military and law enforcement were originally established to protect the citizenry; that hasn't been their function for a very long time.
The media was also meant to keep the public informed; instead, they spend more time spreading disinformation than actually providing facts.
So, we have three core pillars of the System that were theoretically designed to serve the people, yet they have all pivoted to serve the elites. We are essentially feeding the very mechanisms used against us. Where exactly does that trajectory end?
(Side note: I’ve started watching The Handmaid's Tale .... 😢 )

Here’s more. 🙂
For those who can't be bothered to go straight to the source and instead prefer to sip from a glass bottle—specifically a glass one. 😎 )

The concept of "Ashes of Love" isn't just some poetic metaphor; it’s a blunt description of how most people experience the end of an intense emotional attachment. We tend to romanticize the fallout, treating the wreckage of a relationship like a sacred relic, when in reality, it’s often just a messy, hollowed-out version of what used to be there. When we talk about non-duality in this context, we aren't talking about some airy-fairy escape from reality. We are talking about the recognition that the "self" we built around another person—that ego-driven idea that "I am because you are"—is ultimately a construct. When that connection breaks, the collapse feels total because our identity was tethered to the other person. We feel like we are dying, but what is actually dying is a specific, limited way of perceiving ourselves. There is a certain exhaustion that comes with realizing this. It’s a wearying cycle: building up these elaborate structures of love and identity, only to watch them burn down. But if you look closely at the ashes, you realize the fire didn't create the emptiness; it just cleared away the illusions. The void left behind isn't a hole to be filled; it's the space where the illusion used to live. Most people spend their lives trying to prevent the fire. They cling to the structure, terrified of the inevitable burnout. But there’s a quiet, cynical sort of freedom in accepting that everything eventually turns to ash. Once you stop trying to preserve the embers, you stop being a slave to the flame. It’s not about finding peace through happiness; it’s about finding a steady, unshakeable neutrality in the face of constant dissolution.
You can find plenty of that stuff on YouTube if you know where to look.

The digital landscape is increasingly cluttered with superficial content, yet platforms like this one attempt to carve out a space for genuine spiritual inquiry. It’s an interesting corner of the internet, though one has to approach it with a certain level of skepticism regarding how much actual substance is being offered versus mere philosophical window dressing. The site functions as a repository for teachings that lean heavily into non-duality and Advaita Vedanta—concepts that have been around much longer than the fiber-optic cables carrying them. For those looking to dive into deep, contemplative studies, it provides a structured way to consume video content and written reflections. However, if you aren't prepared to sit with some pretty heavy, abstract ideas, you might find the experience more taxing than transformative. It isn't just about passive consumption, either. There's an underlying push toward a specific kind of awareness that requires a decent amount of mental discipline. In a culture obsessed with quick fixes and "life hacks," this is a stark departure. It doesn't promise happiness through external acquisition; instead, it suggests that the search itself is often the obstacle. It’s a measured, somewhat clinical approach to what most people consider "spirituality," which I suppose is its primary strength. It avoids the usual saccharine, overly emotional tropes you see on mainstream social media. Whether this serves as a legitimate gateway to deeper understanding or just another niche hub for high-minded abstraction depends entirely on the user's capacity for rigorous thought. It certainly doesn't cater to the casual browser looking for easy answers.
You can find the exact same thing on YouTube.

David Robinson26 said:Everything carries some level of risk if you look closely enough, including medication—even when you follow the prescribed dosage to the letter. It is particularly dangerous when things like gaming or pharmaceutical drugs are misused or taken outside of their intended guidelines.

First, there is this immediate value judgment passed without any supporting argument, as if such a conclusion were somehow self-evident; and then, quite abruptly, comes the assertion that the matter doesn't even qualify as philosophy.
I find this approach to be a bit of an oversimplification, and I’m not just talking about video games. It seems like everything is being judged on a whim lately. For instance, Joe was recently under fire for his tastes, which I found quite interesting to observe. There simply aren't enough substantive arguments being presented here; instead, we see an overwhelming amount of reflexive likes and dislikes without any real depth behind them.

I wouldn't go so far as to say I am strictly a fan of video games; rather, I find myself drawn to almost any form of gaming. I will admit that my preferences fluctuate—some titles resonate more deeply than others—but the desire to play remains constant. When I approach a new experience, my methodology is quite deliberate: I first seek out what a game does exceptionally well before even considering its flaws. In my view, most critiques eventually boil down to the concept of "dosage." One should never overindulge; instead, one must discern the specific equilibrium that allows an individual game to shine. Ultimately, I don't believe there is such a thing as a fundamentally bad game. Rather, the deficiency usually lies with the players—those who either lack the maturity to appreciate a nuanced design or have simply outgrown the mechanics being presented to them.

Arguments are really nothing more than a highly articulated version of (dis)like; they are simply the rationalization of one's own taste.
Or, in the case of playing devil's advocate— it's just a game 😉for "the other side."

The founder of Summerhill actually argued that
"all the evil in this world stems from the fact that we didn't play enough when we were children." 🙂

Childhood play is fundamental to psychophysical development. Playing outdoors and engaging in sports builds muscle, refines motor skills, and sharpens reflexes. Team sports, specifically, drive socialization—teaching us solidarity, how to cooperate toward a shared goal, and how to cultivate true sportsmanship, which helps us process defeat without feeling inadequate or worthless.
None of this carries weight if a person exists solely within their own head.
When someone lives entirely behind a screen, they are merely playing at being part of a community or interacting with nature. They are simulating real-world experiences they vaguely remember from a time when they still engaged with the world using their physical bodies—bodies that are now, quite steadily, fading away...

In short, video games are the perfect medium for the third age!
😬
We should probably pass laws to restrict them for children and the working population, while mandating them as essential equipment for nursing homes and households where people are over 50.