Posts by Sandra Murphy33

THE FREEDOM OF MODERNITY
(..which also serves as a book recommendation for 😉)

"I’ve earned enough, and I’ve saved enough. I don’t owe anyone a dime. I don't have a job unless I decide to invent one. I don't even have any major obligations hanging over my head. There are people out there who would pay handsomely to be in my shoes right now. I know they would. Of course, I wouldn't trade places with them. But to be free in the morning—to handle those early hours exactly how I see fit, to experience what I call a peaceful morning, just the way I want it—that’s like a dream to some. Or something else entirely. To stay in bed just a little longer, but for exactly as long as I choose—whether that’s ten minutes or half an hour, it doesn't matter—knowing I don't have to be anywhere, that I don't have to rush, that I can put on whatever music I feel like hearing and think about whatever is on my mind. To take care of things in the bathroom whenever the urge strikes, to eat something afterward—nothing heavy, just something I actually want and that suffices, something simple like toast and butter—and to drink my coffee and smoke a few cigarettes without anyone nagging me or waiting for me somewhere. I want to watch the snow fall while I sip coffee that I made exactly to my taste. Since I usually only have that one cup in the morning, maybe once in the afternoon, I want to make it myself and have nobody interfering. I want to smoke a couple of cigarettes with it, too, but not inside; somewhere open yet sheltered, like a porch, where it's just a little chilly, not too much, so I can watch the snow. That’s how I want another day to begin sliding into view, emerging from nothing. After that, let the day wander, let it twist, let it be calm or chaotic; it doesn't matter. Once you've had a morning like that..." (Ta-Nehisi Coates, "The Daily Winter")

Nicholas Gonzalez87 said:I just figured matter was made of atoms and that there were no people involved.

Look, people can argue about this all they want. But from what I've seen? Kant was right.

If humanity vanished, that truth wouldn't have anyone left to be true for. It's easy to imagine a scenario where, instead of us, there are aliens from a galaxy where physical bodies aren't just "dust and ashes," possessing entirely different ways of observing and reasoning. The real question is whether matter, emptiness, and atoms would still be registered as the exact same things.

From an epistemological standpoint regarding methodology—if I’m following this correctly—science relies on a single, solitary method and operates under the assumption that this one approach can encompass all the questions and answers across every meaningful facet of human existence...

By doing this, it essentially dictates what qualifies as a relevant existential question. It effectively cherry-picks only those inquiries to which its specific, self-defining method is capable of providing a valid "scientific" answer, thereby delegitimizing everything else.

Consequently, science assumes the role of a political authority. It boxes itself into narrow confines centered entirely around its own methodology, dismissing any other concerns as irrelevant or simply not serious enough to merit investigation.

It reminds me of that old fable about the fox and the sour grapes... if I recall the details correctly.

Amanda Jackson5 said:Think about it this way: anything that isn't immediate is mediated rather than transcendent. Take a concept, for instance. Or look at existence itself—being is direct, whereas an absolute idea is essentially the same thing, just viewed through a lens of mediation.

So the progression goes: first the immediate (sensory—the body?), then the mediated (thought, feeling—the mind?), and finally the transcendent (which transcends both, much like space and time)?

Gerald Jackson48 said:Look, we can call things whatever we want and compare them to anything we feel like. Even Capra does it. It’s really not up for debate.

That's just not true. I've got his Web of Life right here, plus there are plenty of different sources out there today if you actually bother to look for information on someone or something. To be honest, I don't even have a set-in-stone opinion on Capra, so he isn't exactly going to influence my view with some perfectly polished writing. My main point is that his ideas and ways of thinking often step way outside the lines of typical scientific thought. At the end of the day, it's not some rigid rulebook he's pushing; it's just a description of how things are, and Capra himself backs it up.

I wasn't even sure if he was a true mystic or just someone who got way too carried away with the whole spiritual thing. He definitely had a habit of drifting far beyond the bounds of actual science with his theories. It was wild to watch.

Awesome. I really think Capra has some killer ideas and great insights to share.

I'm a bit lost here. When you say 'dead organisms have DNA,' are you talking about inanimate objects or actual biological remains?

So, if a scientist uses their expertise to push past the established "boundaries" of their field, does that automatically mean they've stepped into mysticism?
What does that actually imply?

Don't those rigid, self-imposed limits set by the scientific community essentially turn it into a dogma?

If science operates within strict confines that cannot be breached, doesn't that make it a closed system?

If we have such a limited, closed system—one whose scope is clearly defined and intentionally excludes searching for answers to essential philosophical questions, instead choosing to trivialize them or reduce everything to mere matter—then what happens to those questions? Are they eventually erased by redefining the scope of the field, or are they simply outsourced to religion and "mysticism," effectively being declared rationally irrelevant?

bluemason3 said:Maybe that’s the best definition of a wise person: someone capable of looking beyond the immediate moment.

At that point, you’re talking about transcendence or pure guesswork. 😉

A Sage would be someone who, in most instances, "guesses" correctly—meaning they possess a predictive power reliable enough to base one's positioning upon.
If that foresight serves the entire community, then we call them a Sage.
If it serves nothing but their own interests, they aren't a Sage; they're just a trader... or perhaps an entrepreneur. 😎
That's it

Nicholas Gonzalez87 said:If I’m following this correctly, the fact that there's empty space between an atom's nucleus and its shell is a fact—but it isn't "human truth." It exists regardless of whether we're around to see it. No person, no matter how brilliant or in what era, is ever going to actually experience or directly perceive that void. All we really know is the space and time that our own subjective experience layers on top of it.

Wisdom is basically just trying to think objectively about things that are inherently subjective, like ethics or perception.

At least, that's my take. When I dive into philosophy, certain arguments just feel timeless, no matter how much time passes.

When you claim a truth is "independent of people," you’re implying it holds that same status for every other kind of being out there.
The problem is that when we debate truth, we reduce it to a mere object; it becomes nothing more than the target of our observation.
It's a bit tricky to elevate it above itself by claiming, "It is greater than me, or all of us; it doesn't depend on us."
That sounds like the biblical golden calf—a false god manufactured by human hands and capabilities, a simple object hoisted up to the level of a Super-subject.

Experience is a completely different matter altogether.

bluemason3 said:Ethics is really just a functional tool designed for practical utility—basically, making group work actually function. If ethics ends up clashing with someone's interests, then it’s not true ethics; it's just an impulsive, mindless reflex. Because of that, there's no point in treating it as a separate variable in the equation of wisdom. After all, blunt, unthinking ethics can't possibly be wise.

That’s true, but the problem is that humans aren't capable of perceiving their full spectrum of interests. We mostly just see the ones tied to our immediate physical needs today or perhaps tomorrow.
In that case, ethics becomes irrelevant; what you actually need is the skill to wage war and maintain control over your enemies.
As for some grand concept of "wisdom," let's not even bother discussing it.

Ethan Gomez82 said:It never crossed my mind to suggest that human perspective belongs to an ideal mode of existence. It belongs strictly to the human (particular) mode. Sure, it could belong to a lion's mode or a monkey's mode, but it doesn't go much further than that. Human "truth" fares no better. It’s nothing more than a little truthlet—a mere shadow of Truth that doesn't even emerge from the subject-object relationship. In fact, the very assumption of a subject-object relationship is itself untrue.

When I use the term "ideal mode," I don't mean "perfect." I simply mean abstract. 😉

gentlerider7 said:If you look at what Fromm was getting at, he'd say everyone is essentially religious; the real question is whether that drive pushes you toward authoritarianism or toward actual liberation. In his essay, "You Will Be Like God," he actually digs into the roots of radical humanism by looking straight at Jewish religion—like, how the God of the Jews can really only be defined by what He isn't. Fromm sees submitting to God in two ways: it could be that mindless authoritarian submission, or it could be a way to break free from human tyranny, kind of like that whole epic saga of the Jews escaping Egypt)

Exactly.
The first example of "submitting to God" involves believing in a deity as an external entity existing outside ourselves. This effectively displaces power from the individual to an external force, making authoritarianism not just possible, but highly probable.
That is religion in its sense of bondage (even the etymology of the word implies a certain kind of binding or connection).
The second case, which involves liberation, occurs when their belief in "external" help is actually a realization of their own true strength—strength they wouldn't have summoned without that catalyst. That is faith.
True faith relates to transcendence (which is liberation), and in that context, authoritarianism cannot exist, as authoritarianism is the defining characteristic of any religion or hierarchical relationship.

Religion itself doesn't "drive" one toward either authoritarianism or liberation; rather, those two paths depend on historical conditions and circumstances. A person doesn't achieve liberation constantly—at least not in that manner—but only under extraordinary conditions.

(On another note, isn't authority actually a good thing? The assertion of one's own authority is both necessary and desirable—so is it really authoritarianism that is considered evil and distorted? 😉 .... btw, I just picked up Fromm's "authority and family," and it looks like it'll be an interesting read! 🙂 )

ruggedraven36 said:Look, they gave him an out—letting him propose his own fine. His friends were ready to bankroll whatever amount they slapped on him, too. But instead of taking the deal, he doubled down just to spite them. He suggested a measly sum—something like twenty cents today—just to mock the whole process. Then, while he was sitting in a cell waiting for his sentence, he had a golden opportunity to bolt. Since the tradition dictated they couldn't carry out the execution until Theseus returned his ship from Crete, the door was basically left wide open for him to escape. He chose not to.
To get back to the motive: the indictment basically boiled down to this—Socrates was guilty because he didn't believe in the state's gods and was supposedly introducing new, demonic entities, all while corrupting the youth. That Socratic "daemon" is really just what we’d call a conscience today. Socrates was pushing his fellow citizens—especially the kids—to actually think for themselves, to judge right from wrong, and to question even the most basic social norms. To a society built on rigid tradition, that kind of thinking is radioactive. It introduced a principle they couldn't tolerate. In the end, Socrates was right, but the Athenians were also right in their own way. You had two fundamental principles crashing into each other head-on.

This brings to mind a certain anecdote often circulated among the religious (and I make a sharp distinction between being "religious" and being a "believer"—we are all believers in the broader sense, whereas the religious are merely adherents to those bloody Abrahamic faiths)
The story goes that a man finds himself in mortal peril and prays to God for salvation. In response, God sends people and circumstances to rescue him, but the man rejects every lifeline because he is "relying solely on God's salvation" (and, predictably, he dies).

I can't recall the exact details, but wasn't Jesus also praying to his "Father" to be spared ("take this cup away") before eventually choosing to remain silent when offered the chance to defend himself—or perhaps just "philosophizing" about the truth? 😬?

Harold Doyle3 said:The guy posed a perfectly valid question: does an "algorithm for consciousness" exist?
Where is the pseudoscience in that?
A proponent of strong UI would say yes, while a proponent of weak UI would say no.
Which one of those two is the "pseudoscientist"?

How are we supposed to prove the existence of, say, a specific subatomic particle if proving it requires a particle accelerator the size of our solar system?
Mathematical proof isn't enough; you need empirical evidence for it to be scientifically accepted.
What happens when we reach a point where we simply lack the capacity to empirically prove certain theories or hypotheses?
Does science just stop existing then?

bluemason3 said:Yeah

... and just like that, we've identified the limits of science as we currently understand it.
😉

Andrew Booth29 said:Why limit it to them? You could say the exact same thing about religious zealots or pretty much any other group out there... It seems to be a universal human trait, doesn't it?

Regarding these "ideals"—they’re actually quite a burden. The goals a person sets for themselves really ought to be measurable and attainable. Abstract, impossible objectives often serve as nothing more than an excuse for doing absolutely nothing. That said, occasionally it helps to aim for something out of reach; sometimes, you actually manage to hit the mark. 😬

Ah, goals....
How outdated... how naive... and how incredibly tedious. 🥱

I suggest starting with The Preacher.

Alexander Thompson said:The whole idea of some utopia where neurosurgeons are scrubbing toilets... well, maybe that sounds good to someone who can't see themselves rising above cleaning toilets in the real world.

So, yeah—go ahead and dream of a utopia where it’s never actually you doing the dirty work.

Who exactly is cleaning your toilet?

I’m fairly certain you’ve already ascended far beyond that level of labor with your own "talents"—at least, that's how you sound.

Amanda Flores88 said:Talking about those types of jobs. It’s way easier to dream up some utopia where those roles don't even exist than to actually give the people doing them better status. I mean, isn't the whole point of a utopia to get rid of those kinds of gaps? But can we honestly build a society where people aren't constantly trying to outdo one another? Even if you wiped those specific jobs off the map, that drive to stand out wouldn't just vanish—you'd just end up with a different hierarchy based on time, talent, or whatever else.

ruggedraven36 said:Sure, but who was even bringing up some Orwellian dystopia in the first place? That's not what we're talking about here.

You are debating people who view money and market competition as nothing more than an unavoidable necessity of nature.

Amanda Flores88 said:Some total trickster at the library. 🙂

A clean conscience can be its own worst enemy, right?

🤣

...I can't tell if you're playing the trickster or if you're actually being serious, but you hit the nail right on the head. 🙂 😎

I can't for the life of me remember where I actually put it 👎

Has anyone picked up "post-capitalism and a world without work" yet? 🙂

I spotted it at the library a couple of days ago. It’s a new arrival, and nobody had checked it out yet. I decided to reserve it for myself by tucking it away on a random shelf where it doesn't belong, just so the usual crowd browsing that section won't stumble upon it. ... psssssssst 😎

Amanda Jackson5 said:I found myself getting pretty intrigued by these over the summer, so I ended up downloading them (though I haven't actually cracked them open yet):

-Adam Rutherford: Humanimal - How Homo sapiens Became Nature

-Andrew Krepinevich: 7 Deadly Scenarios - a Military futurist Explores War in The 21 st Century

-Sean Carroll : fra eternity to here - The quest for The Ultimate theory of time

-David Abulafia : The Boundless Sea - a human history of The Oceans

-George M. Young : The Russian Cosmists - The Esoteric Futurism of Nikolai Fedorov and his Followers

-Gernot Wagner, Martin L. Weitzman: Climate Shock - The Economic Consequences of Hotter planet

-James Hamilton : Volcano - Nature and Culture

-Kate C. Langdon, Vladimir Tismaneanu: Putin ’ Totalitarian Democracy - Ideology, Myth, and Violence in The Twenty-First Century - Leonard Susskind : The Black Hole War - my Battle with Stephen Hawking to make The World Safa for Quantum Mechanics

-Leonard Susskind : The Black Hole War - my Battle with Stephen Hawking to make The World Safa for Quantum Mechanics

-Nick Bostrom: superintelligenca - Paths, Dangers, Strategies

-Philip Ball: Universe of Ston - a Biography of Chartres Cathedral

-Richard Holmes: The aga of Wonder - The Romantic Generation and The Discovery of The beauty and Terror of science

-Roy Porter : Madness - a brief history

-Thomas Piketty : capital and Ideology

Those titles you mentioned sound interesting—maybe I'll dive into them and let you know if they're worth the effort.😉

casualtiger2 said:It’s an oldie but a goodie—not too long-winded, either—for anyone looking to dive deep into Kundalini.

The Primal Power in man or The kundalini Shakti - Swami Narayananand

So, you think I'd be better off just studying Martinus on my own?
Why's that?

I honestly don't know...
At the end of the day, everyone just takes what interests them; there isn't really any other way it works.🙂