Posts by Sandra Murphy33

Harold Doyle3 said:As long as my keyboard is buried under a mountain of chip crumbs and sticky residue from lukewarm sodas, I don't have to worry about any kind of self-neglect.😉

It’s getting to the point where you can’t even find yourself anymore, not even when God commands it. 😬

While the vast majority of us—roughly 90% of united technological humanity—are busy wasting our lives on computer games and getting lost in virtual realities, the Gang is quietly seizing control of the country

😠

Joseph Murphy10 said:So, in your case, virtual reality has basically become *real* reality. Your actual presence as an entity—including pretty much everything you do—reaches a point where you define yourself through it. You're in that virtual world with your thoughts, your body, and your soul.

That’s exactly why philosophy tackles this stuff; because this is the true reality for you (and millions of other young people—the ones who are actually building the future). If philosophy wants to stay relevant and actually interact with you and everyone else like you, it has to find a way to communicate—basically, it needs to bridge the gap between its own message and your experience.

Common sense tells us that people were "thinking" long before Thales of Miletus ever showed up. And they communicated those thoughts to the people around them. That’s why the invention of visual symbols—what we call writing—was such a massive leap forward compared to everything before it. The flow of thought didn't stop when writing appeared; it just adapted to it. What was "writing" yesterday might be some insane virtual animation tomorrow. Look at what we're doing right now: typing on laptops and communicating by staring at screens. What would the philosophers from back in the day have said if they saw this? They probably would've said the same thing as...

Now, let's just swap out the premises for what I wrote above.
Replace "video games" with "cuneiform" or "information technology."

Hope that clicks.

Therefore,

This sets up an imperative that is essentially a step backward compared to the speed at which the world is moving forward—even if the author realizes that...

And then we can go back to whining about it—referencing that thread @volver started based on my post about self-nullification (which some kids called "quasi-philosophy" and told me to be ashamed of). Only now, we aren't just talking about philosophical self-nullification, but a much broader sense of human self-nullification. See, if a person fails to snap out of virtual reality and just disappears, they’re gone—effectively nullified. And since tech and technology are human inventions through and through, you could argue we basically nullified ourselves.

because...

If philosophy claims to have something useful to say about labor, workers, exploitation, capitalism, or socialism, how could it possibly have nothing to say about the human being? And I mean addressing the human in every aspect while actually respecting their ontological dignity—(that's another philosophy term I used in a previous post that some people clearly didn't grasp)

So yeah, the topic makes total sense. It might be smart to start by reading an early paper by a then-young PhD student, Maria Selak, who tackled this exact issue by blending the ideas of N. Berdyaev with Martin Heidegger...

Maybe that’ll nudge some of you lovely people to look beyond the prompt and dive into a massive relationship that dictates our entire reality—actually, it already dictates it (has always dictated it)—and that's the philosophical tension between episteme and techne

Our inner world (the only truly real one...) is increasingly being sought out and discovered within the so-called virtual realm, while appearing less and less in the so-called real, external, material, physical world, which increasingly resembles nothing more than a massive, glittering shopping mall.

and then we can go back to lamenting the topic @Volver opened, inspired by one of my posts regarding self-annihilation (a topic some young guys dismissed as quasi-philosophy and told me to be ashamed of). Only now, we aren't just talking about philosophical self-annihilation, but a much broader human self-annihilation. Because if a person fails to wake up from this virtual reality and quietly vanishes, they are gone—they have annihilated themselves. And since technology is a human invention from start to finish, we could just as easily say that humanity has annihilated itself through its own creation.

A person annihilates themselves when they realize they have miscalculated and abused their own free will. Under such circumstances, self-annihilation—particularly from the perspective of the soul or eternity—becomes the only valid and moral choice.
By soul, I am referring to that part of a human being that transcends the self, that seeks eternity, or in psychological terms, seeks stability—as the only legitimate framework for exercising one's freedom.
The freer a person becomes, the greater their need for space, or rather, for the widest possible frameworks they can imagine (so that "the sky is the limit" 😉).

if philosophy claims to have something to say about labor, the worker, exploitation, capitalism, or socialism, how could it not have something to say about the human being, always respecting their ontological dignity (yet another philosophical concept I used in a previous post that some people failed to grasp)?

Ontological dignity—would that simply mean dignity in and of itself?
It is deeply woven into everything you just listed. In fact, it is precisely out of that dignity that a person engages with "labor, the worker, exploitation, and so on."

Or maybe just self-denial. 😉

ruggedraven36 said:To actually talk about your dreams, you first have to wake up. Same goes for this whole obsession with the virtual world—you can play around in there while you still have one foot in reality. But honestly? It’s entirely possible that one day you just won't wake up from the simulation, and you'll simply fade away into nothingness.

... vanish quietly from the physical world? 🙂

Isn't every single experience, every moment of being, fundamentally an internal matter?

Life appears to be split between the external and the internal, but isn't this "external" realm—this thing we call Nature, the material world—mostly just... well, endurance?

And it becomes all the more much of an endurance test when it can't be easily translated into some kind of internal harmony.

Ethan Gomez82 said:Honestly, I have no clue what "liberation of the spirit" even means. If my lack of understanding is the problem, does that mean the whole community gets held back from progress? I’d rather not carry that kind of weight on my shoulders without some actual clarification on this "liberation" (which I assume follows being "spiritually imprisoned").

😂

To me, liberation in the spirit also means breaking free from your own anxieties and everything else that prevents you from simply being who you truly are.
Perhaps "liberation in the spirit" is poorly phrased. A better term might be "liberation of the spirit," given that the spirit is inherently free; I am that spirit, and that spirit naturally wants to live freely within the material world.

The phrase "liberation in the spirit" is likely Christian terminology. It implies that the spirit isn't actually *me*, but rather a God who is distinct from me, yet present within me in some mystical way. Therefore, as a "child of God," I am supposedly meant to find "liberation" within that internal deity, or perhaps release that deity within me so it can act. I don't know; I'll leave it to the Christians to explain exactly what they mean by this. 🙂

gentlerider7 said:But how the hell are you supposed to have community-level liberation when the community itself is totally fractured—or better yet, when it doesn't even exist anymore?

By that logic, you can't claim it on an individual level, either.
That’s precisely where we run into trouble.

Sure, people find ways to cope—the methods of self-deception are virtually endless—but ultimately, our actions are what define our freedom, or lack thereof. It's a principle held true by both Quincy and the Holy Bible Amen.

Joseph Murphy10 said:If you don't find some way to free yourself spiritually, something is always going to be exploiting you. Once you tear down religion, some random, secular object will just step up, pretend to be sacred, and start forcing its own set of rules on you.
The same goes for capitalism—which basically ate itself anyway by morphing into this system where a tiny handful of billionaires control almost everything on the planet. Once you dismantle that, something else is just going to rise up to take its place and make you feel just as used.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy

"Spiritual liberation" isn't a destination; it's a continuous process. It's never truly finished, at least not as long as we're living here on Earth as flesh-and-blood humans—essentially, spirit trapped in a body.

It feels somewhat fatalistic—perhaps even nihilistic—to suggest we shouldn't fight against our oppressors just because their replacement will inevitably become a new source of oppression.

In my view, this "liberation of the spirit" is the core driver behind all progress, and that liberation has to happen at the level of the community as much as it does individually.
In fact, I'd argue the two are inseparable: individual "freedom of spirit" is only half-realized if your entire community remains spiritually shackled, just as collective "freedom" is hollow if the individuals making up that collective remain spiritually bound (or, if you prefer the term "narrow-minded," which is effectively the same thing in my book).

Jacob Cooper5 said:It’s hard to believe you don't have any principles at all. But maybe this lack of them is just another way of saying you don't follow any set rules—that moment when you decide to do exactly what the crowd isn't expecting.

Rules are nothing more than generalizations.
They serve a purpose when you're dealing with broad, universal concepts that apply to everyone, but why try to force them onto individual circumstances?
What's the point of imposing rigid rules on ourselves—or anyone else—for life situations that are inherently unique?
It's because of these arbitrary "principles" that people felt the need to come up with that tired old cliché about how "the exception proves the rule."

Joseph Murphy10 said:Look, man, once you're caught in this web of love that's way more intense than any wisdom philosophy offers, there's nothing to fear. Just do your thing—don't worry about my guidelines or advice 👍

Anyway, how does philosophy even start?
Take Guthrie, for example—he thinks we all have these subconscious assumptions lurking inside us that won't let us rest. They tickle the imagination, and then we turn to whatever our rational mind offers: observation (in our case, reading) and thinking about what we've read. Of course, if you actually have the guts to step out with your own opinion (like me, with this idea of philosophical "self-annihilation" caused by the massive tension between philosophy and scientific positivism), you start poking at that idea, hunting for sources and inspiration. Basically, you dive into doxography—studying what honorable predecessors and authorities have said—gathering data and expanding your intellectual horizons. First, it's focused on the specific topic bugging you, and then it widens out until... well, first: you need enough references from established authorities so people actually take you seriously—especially if you're an academic philosopher, since those guys are terrified of being spat on by their colleagues and the scientific community. Or second: until you bravely drop an idea like a punch to the solar plexus, regardless of who's right or wrong—which is way easier to do if you aren't some academic, but just a guy thinking for his own damn satisfaction, you know? 🙂

Modern science—which has basically been elevated to a level of sacrosanct worship—has significantly shrunk the space for authentic personal thought, ideas, assumptions, and intuition that make engaging with philosophy so damn magical. It's pushed out everything its own foundations are built upon (think metaphysics, theology, literary criticism, or even the importance of a solid patient history and clinical presence in medicine, which now relies on technicalities instead of technicalities *plus* "intuition," and so on).

To prove my point, look at the facts: Schopenhauer turned down every professorship offered to him; Nietzsche would rather starve than teach at a university; Spinoza preferred grinding lenses over making money from philosophy; Marx had to flee the country; Dostoevsky spent ten years in Siberia, four of them in literal chains; and Berdyaev, who was kicked out of his university and exiled from his homeland, once said that philosophy departments are incredibly reluctant to actually hire philosophers unless they agree to stop teaching their own original ideas...

So, props to you for the question, the post, and the mindset. You're already halfway there—now you just gotta let yourself get sharpened. 🙂

👍

Authenticity isn't some soft, feel-good concept you find in a self-help seminar. To be truly authentic means being uncompromising. It requires a level of grit that most people simply aren't willing to muster. Most folks spend their entire lives smoothing out their edges, polishing their personas just enough to fit into whatever social mold is currently trending, all to avoid the discomfort of being seen for who they actually are. They trade their core truths for the sake of convenience or social standing. But if you’re looking for something real, you have to accept that truth often comes at a cost. It means standing your ground when it's unpopular and refusing to perform for an audience that only wants a curated version of you. In a world built on superficiality, staying true to oneself is a constant, exhausting act of defiance.

Joseph Murphy10 As stated by:
I have to give you credit for the inquiry, the post, and the perspective you've shared. You’ve clearly done the groundwork; now you just need to sharpen the edge. 🙂

Don't go scaring the man... 😉

It doesn't require any kind of grandstanding.

One simply needs to be in a position where they can actually afford to be stubborn—to hold onto their so-called "principles." To truly act on a principle, you have to possess the leverage required to stick to it when things get difficult.

Unless, of course, you define mere fairness or just picking a side as having a principle; I certainly don't.

hiddenhound3 said:It is true; promises should be distributed with moderation and wisdom to serve as motivation, yet one must remain cautious. An unfulfilled promise results in disappointment for the recipient and creates a heavy psychological burden for the one who gave it.

As for adhering to rigid principles, I abandoned them long ago because I found them to be both restrictive and destructive. A principle is essentially a box that you trap yourself inside. Why would any rational person choose to do that to themselves?

I feel the exact same way.
Whenever I hear someone describe themselves as being "principled," my immediate translation is "inflexible"—or even just stubborn. It’s the kind of thing you often hear from someone living in some tiny, isolated town in the Midwest 😎
(It’s more polite and sophisticated to say small-town resident than 😬hillbilly
)
🙂Principles are increasingly becoming relics of the past, much like patriarchy and the outdated cult of the strong man.
The whole point of having a "principle" is usually just to prove one's own toughness to everyone else—though that strength isn't always rooted in morality... most often, it just boils down to proving how incredibly pigheaded you can be.

ruggedraven36 said:Promises aren't oaths. Sure, we can't be 100% certain when we make them, but nobody expects that. What's expected is that we try hard enough to follow through—that we actually care about keeping our word. That’s why there’s even a sense of anticipation in it, precisely because there's no absolute guarantee. An absolute guarantee would kill any sense of joy.

You're right, ruggedraven36; a promise and an oath are two very different things...
However, I can't quite get on board with the idea that we can "look forward to things precisely because there's no guarantee."
Are you suggesting that uncertainty provides a layer of suspense that makes the eventual joy more exciting?

hiddenhound3 said:By making promises, we essentially attempt to colonize the other person.

Yeah... you hit the nail on the head there.
Personally, I tend to associate that specific concept mostly with children. When dealing with adults, we might "promise" to look into something, investigate it, or get it sorted out, but it doesn't carry the same weight. A child actually lives within that promise; they exist in a state of constant anticipation, fueled by their imagination as they wait for it to come true. With an adult, a promise often functions as the exact opposite—it’s a signal that you can finally stop worrying about it and move on, assuming you actually trust the person making the claim.*

*this is a relatively new American expression 😎

ruggeddriver21 said:Man, staying principled is tough. It’s exactly what you said—it’s a reflection of the market.
What’s the point of having principles if you're broke?
What good are they when you're starving?

I mean, what are principles actually *for*? Are they just some way we choose to carry ourselves around others?
Does anyone ever introduce themselves like this: "Good day... my name is Mr. Johnny, and I live by certain principles.">
The response would almost certainly be, "And what exactly are those principles for, sir?"
- Principles act as a sort of personal discipline—a way to measure the world around me. It isn't some universal standard, but rather a private metric.
A principle is a personal choice.

There are quite a few different ways to look at it.
For instance,

Principle 1:
- I don't want to buy American products because I feel Americans are responsible for a lot of the world's problems.

Does that make sense? Does such a principle even hold water?
Well, for the person practicing it, it absolutely does.
It's an intentional choice. An internal boundary. A standard set by one's own conscience.

But hey, how much "sense" it actually makes is probably a debate worth having!

Aha, so this is what you categorize as principles.🙂
Fine... perhaps. But I would be more inclined to call those temporary preferences rather than true principles. Principles tend to be more permanent things—like the working principle of a transformer, or in principle (as a rule), and so on.

However, if that is what you meant, then I agree that there is logic to it—it is pure political activism, 😉even though it functions as a form of non-action: not consuming, not buying, not participating... something almost Gandhian. It is essentially passive-aggression.😬

Because they carry weight—at least for people with a shred of integrity—and because they create anticipation —especially when you're talking about children—promises shouldn't be made unless a person is absolutely certain they can follow through.
But then again, can anyone ever truly be 100% certain about anything?

To me, a promise is more an expression of good intentions than a guarantee of results; its value lies in the sentiment rather than the eventual execution. We have no way of knowing what unforeseen circumstances might derail us. No one can actually guarantee the future, not even prophets.

What I find most ironic is that the Bible itself advises against making oaths or swearing by anything at all (Mt 5:34). Yet, despite that, American culture is saturated with various forms of commitments and vows; in fact, much of our social structure is built upon them.😁

No.

A principle is just a rule someone imposes on themselves for some arbitrary reason, only to cling to it stubbornly—usually when it makes absolutely no sense and defies all logic.
It’s essentially a grotesque distortion of the idea that a person should be "as good as their word" (rather than being led around by the ears like a mule😎).
The actual point of that old adage is to serve as a warning: watch what you say. Don't make promises you can't keep, don't overextend yourself, and don't commit to things lightly.

This documentary was framed within the context of the old America, rather than just America 😉

So, there probably wasn't enough room, time, or funding to cover the smaller, more niche new wave bands that were scattered all over the former American territory. For instance, you had NYC B-52s, or in Mexico City, you had the group Mexico City with their song T. V. (I found myself waiting for them to show up in the documentary, but they didn't even get a mention... 😎) and so on...

I couldn't find the specific NEW WAVE section, so I figured I'd just drop it here:

New wave - 40 years later

🙂

He’s currently navigating his "second winter" while battling the fallout from alcoholism. I can't quite recall the specific medical term for his condition, but it was severe enough that he lost the ability to walk entirely.
His book "Comcast" is also worth a read, though it lacks some of the heavy drama found elsewhere. 🙂

On a related note, I spent part of my morning listening to a radio program about Rimbaud. It touched on very similar themes.
Rimbaud was someone who constantly reinvented himself and crossed borders; he wandered, left, traveled... he didn't even let an amputation stop him. He just got a prosthetic leg so he could get back up and keep moving.

It just goes to show that poets have always been, and likely will always be, the only true adventurers out there.
🙂