Posts by Joseph Bailey41

darkbadger8 said:Thanks, I'm doing my best...

But experience just shows us that simply swapping out a label doesn't actually change the substance... renaming something doesn't shift the underlying reality or how we truly grasp what's being discussed... it's all just surface level...

It isn't just about the experience itself... it goes deeper than that. It's about the very definition of the signifier...

In the spirit of political correctness, we could call Black people Africans, Romani people Romans, and homosexuals gays... or perhaps follow the spirit of Manitou...

Either we just go around hitting each other, if we’re going to keep misinterpreting one another like this...

But there’s really no substantial meaning behind it. Not just that... in situations like this, where the change is purely cosmetic rather than actually changing the core substance, those new labels eventually become obnoxious too. And then you have to swap them out for something else, and the whole cycle just repeats itself indefinitely...

It’s not that I don't see where you're coming from, but I think you missed the point... I was actually being quite specific about where I was heading with this...
Just one signifier... spirit of time... It just covers way too many different concepts...
You say... spirit of time... indicating...😁 The prime cause neural activity... 😁Then you get some joker chiming in with, "What, like Casper?" And honestly, I think they’re completely missing the point. They’re too busy focusing on the literal stuff you mentioned instead of actually grasping the underlying idea... which is what you were trying to convey. But Casper, along with a whole host of other figures, is just one way that the "spirit of time" manifests itself. It's part of a much larger framework, involving things like volatile invertebrates and all that...
I know deep down that nothing is actually going to change, even if you decide to call on Casper, or that guy from the lamp, or even the one hanging by the chain above your head and calling him Manitou... I'm certainly not suggesting we do any of that...
I’d suggest you try to pin down that prime cause neural activity and give it a different label... just so people don't come after you with that whole volatile invertebrate nonsense. Of course, if you decide to swap it out for Manitou instead, they'll probably just come down on you even harder...😁.
Manitou is really just a satirical take by that vulgar materialist... honestly, it serves the exact same purpose as the volatile invertebrate... 😁
Look, your example about calling homosexuals "gay" is actually a perfect illustration of how the relationship between a signifier and its meaning can shift entirely... Fifty years ago, if you called someone gay, it just meant they were cheerful...
If some straight guy walked up to you today and said, "I'm gay," just because he was in a great mood, people would probably just give him a weird look... like he was being awkward or something. And if he actually tried to double down—if he insisted that being "gay" was just his way of describing how cheerful he felt—he’d basically become the laughingstock of the whole office... everyone would just start making jokes at his expense...

If my memory serves me right, I think Steven Pinker touched on something like that in "The Blank Slate"...

And if he’s lying, then he didn't write it.😁

😁
You're joking, but honestly... that actually works in my favor.👍
The "spirit of time" isn't a "volatile invertebrate time," so it can't be "Manitou time" either...

I guess that clears things up now.

It seems to contribute to the illusion of progress—which is supposedly achieved through renaming—that the spirit is inherently deluded into believing that changing a name changes the essence or the core of something... something you see in all (to use a politically incorrect term) primitive cultures.

Is that inherent to Casper, or to the volatile invertebrate, or to Manitou?😁 You see how you unconsciously used the label in a completely different context. Unless you think it's inherent to the prime cause neural activity... If that's the case, we're beyond help...😁
Actually, with primitive cultures, you see exactly the opposite. Conservatism—refusing new terms and resisting change to outdated ones—is more of a hallmark of reactionary thought. But it was a masterful attempt on your part... hats off to you. Whoever can, let them understand...

Get lost! 🤣

Sam Martinez9 said:I agree.

Though I would argue we need to include the social landscape in that definition of "environment." Capitalism, unfortunately, is designed to foster conflict—whether it's the cutthroat competition in the market or the internal power struggles within a corporation—and it's incredibly hard to resist that pull.

I’ve actually had the chance to observe the *evolution* of one young woman who, over the course of a decade, transformed from a genuinely kind person into a total predator who crushes anyone in her path. She works in an environment like that, at a major firm like State Farm, where everything is measured by metrics and compensation is tied strictly to performance. And in that world, you can only succeed if you step on whoever is beneath you to get ahead. It's chilling.

And that was exactly the kind of "civilization" I was talking about. One of the biggest drivers for forming a community like that, and keeping it going, is the desire to "escape" from a social reality that, at its worst, devolves into people fighting over trivial status symbols. But the real kicker is that you can't run away from yourself. If you're naturally combative, or if life has just hardened you into being that way, you're going to bring that baggage right into the new community, which eventually poisons the internal dynamic. Maybe stricter vetting of new members could help, but it's incredibly difficult to tell at first glance who's actually a misfit because they operate on a "pre-conventional" (basically sociopathic) level, versus someone who has reached a "post-conventional" stage and is just completely fed up with the rat race.

Sam Martinez9 said:I agree.

Though I would argue we need to include the social landscape in that definition of "environment." Capitalism, unfortunately, is designed to foster conflict—whether it's the cutthroat competition in the market or the internal power struggles within a corporation—and it's incredibly hard to resist that pull.

I’ve actually had the chance to observe the *evolution* of one young woman who, over the course of a decade, transformed from a genuinely kind person into a total predator who crushes anyone in her path. She works in an environment like that, at a major firm like State Farm, where everything is measured by metrics and compensation is tied strictly to performance. And in that world, you can only succeed if you step on whoever is beneath you to get ahead. It's chilling.

You never truly know... maybe she’s just quietly undermining the whole system from the inside. 😬

Sam Martinez9 said:On one hand, I see your point—cooperation and competition are often tightly intertwined, essentially packaged together. However, there is also a form of cooperation that doesn't stem from underlying conflict, though that largely depends on how rational the community is.

If a small community faces a challenge, it can be resolved through common sense, without any friction, posturing, tug-of-war, or fighting... they simply choose the solution that serves the collective good best.

In my line of work, everyone has their niche, and there’s no need to fight for someone else's territory. My company holds its own space in the American market, and I actually collaborate with colleagues who run firms in the same industry. Competition is literally right at my doorstep, yet I’ve maintained excellent working relationships with them for decades. They have their client base, and I have mine... neither side has any interest in poaching from the other.

That’s just one part of it. The second factor is the environment the community lives in. If things are tough—whether due to nature or just the way society is perceived—that pressure tends to pull people together and encourage them to work as one. But once you cross that line where the surroundings stop being just "difficult" and start feeling genuinely threatening... that's when things get messy. You see social breakdowns, or the group shifts back toward more "traditional" ways of organizing themselves to survive.

Gerald Jackson48 said:This could be the kicker. Some data suggests it sits right around 10 percent.

That's pretty much it. Even blood relatives fight when they're stuck together, so you can imagine what happens with strangers. You see this play out on screen all the time in reality shows like Big Brother, farma, or whatever other junk is on TV. Conflict is constant, and it happens fast.

Sure, those shows pick colorful characters because viewers would get bored without the drama, but it still says something about the general state of the human psyche.

Group therapy attempts like that are great in theory, but old habits die hard, and people rarely change who they really are.

When building these kinds of communities, we should probably apply a lean model—basically, just copy whatever works. I can't quite wrap my head around how to reformat those two triads I remember from hanging out with the startup crowd (hipster, hacker, hustler and timing, focus system)), but there might be value in viewing these communities as 'consumable goods.' Think of them as something not necessarily intended to last forever:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Autonomous_Zone

Oh, and it definitely needs a user-friendly 'don't make me think' interface. Something like Damanhur. 🤣

Lisa Jackson7 said:Can you elaborate on this "internal pandemonium"?

I met a guy who spent some time at Blatuša; he brought it up in passing, and I tried to dig a little deeper, but he wasn't really feeling it—I got the vibe he wasn't exactly happy there.

True, maybe it's just "growing pains." Eco-villages usually get mentioned in a pretty positive light over in Europe.

It’s like that old saying goes: "Hell is other people." When you pack a bunch of different personalities into one house—unless they’re actual blood relatives—they eventually start getting on each other's nerves and digging up all sorts of subconscious baggage. It was especially messy with my group back then, since we were all unconventional twenty-somethings. Everyone would bring friends over for a night or two, someone would bring certain substances into the house, or someone would show up under the influence because, well, it was a "free zone." That casual "hey" quickly turned into "sweetie, what did you take?" 🙄 (Just a bit of context—this was the late nineties, so you could find just about anything on the streets back then.)

The older, more serious crowd I met didn't talk much about why everything was falling apart, but it was obvious they were driving each other crazy and simply couldn't live under the same roof anymore. One guy, who was pretty high-profile (a culture creator, social entrepreneur, life coach, and generalist), kept insisting that the group dynamic was failing because two other people I knew—a married couple—stuck too close together. To me, that sounded like total nonsense. All those communication techniques used to force group bonding, or the constant insistence on reaching a consensus for completely trivial decisions... honestly, the whole thing felt exhausting and forced. I think I would have been screaming and running for the exit after just two days. It had a bit of a cult-like vibe, even if there wasn't a real spiritual connection between them, at least from what I could tell.

In my opinion, these utopian circles often suffer from too many ego battles, power struggles over status, petty fights over government grants, and a sort of rigid, dogmatic mentality. It's all quite far from being a utopia.

Amanda Jackson5 said:It’s a clever little thought experiment, but experience usually tells us that swapping out labels for the sake of appearances doesn't actually change the substance of what's being discussed—nor does it change how people actually perceive it. We could go around embracing the spirit of political correctness by calling Black people African Americans, or referring to the Rom community as Rom, or even rebranding gay people as gay (or maybe just invoking the spirit of Manitu), but at the end of the day, it carries zero weight. In fact, when you make these changes purely on a surface level without touching the underlying reality, those new terms eventually become just as loaded and offensive as the old ones. It just starts this endless cycle where you have to invent new euphemisms to replace the old ones, *ad infinitum*. If my memory serves me right, I think Pinker touched on this exact phenomenon in Blank Slate.

Well, that's just the way the world works these days. ☕

Amanda Jackson5 said:I was just scrolling through the BBC the other day when I stumbled upon this pretty fascinating piece about one of those "intentional communities":
https://www.bbc.com/news/in-pictures-45046023

This could honestly work as an eco-village. It’s got real potential. The foundation is already there—or at least, it used to be. 🤔 Regarding the "Blatuša" project, the feedback from those who actually lived through it is pretty split. For some, it was an absolutely life-changing experience, but others felt like the whole thing eventually devolved into something resembling a cult, mostly because the founder's ego just started to overshadow everything else. That said, maybe we're just looking at the growing pains of the first generation? The core concept itself still has real potential, even if you tried to implement it in the middle of nowhere in the rural US.

Gerald Jackson48 said:In my experience, these kinds of collectives mostly just attract eccentrics and folks carrying a whole lot of "emotional baggage." For them to actually work long-term, you really have to make exceptions to that rule.

Let’s be real: living with anyone at any point in life isn't easy. It takes a massive amount of tolerance for different personalities and emotional stability, which most people just don't have. You can see this clearly on internet forums, where people end up fighting over even the most neutral topics every single day.

I’m pretty skeptical about these "carefully planned and well-thought-out" alternatives. I mean, communism was also carefully planned and well-thought-out, and we all know how much of a disaster those attempts turned out to be in practice.

On the flip side, some people truly find their groove living that way. So, what can you say? If someone wants to go for it, more power to them.

True, especially when you talk about communal living. In the US, the only media-exposed experiment of that sort I remember was "gold coin." Out of the ten people living in that rented house, I only met three of them after the "experiment" ended, and yeah, they were pretty quirky. But there’s another factor at play here—this way of life doesn't just attract those types of people; after a while, all that internal pandemonium that was suppressed by social norms starts bubbling to the surface. That might be useful in a therapeutic setting, but in everyday practice, it's just chaos. 😁

I know from firsthand experience. I wouldn't do it again.

darkbadger8 said:Thanks...
From what I understand, the goal of zen meditation (at least during that samurai phase) is to awaken perception regarding material reality—including the perception of one's own body and mind—all for the sake of better warrior performance, if that makes sense. Constant awareness of your surroundings...
Do other schools of meditation have different goals, and if so, what would they be?
I know that's a massive question, but if you could just write something up purely for information's sake...

And then there are the ones designed to make you better at falling in love. 😒

Isn't it just a mess over at Microsoft?

swiftdrifter4 Asks:
I think what they’re getting at is reducing the influence of the mind—that part of us that constantly "colors" our perception of reality. Consciousness itself sees things directly, but the mind just steps in to construct the specific image it wants to see.
This whole idea of "emptying the mind" is honestly pretty tough. It’s hard to truly know what everyone else is thinking, isn't it? And when it comes to actually purging all those negative thoughts and emotions... I don't think that's really doable. But, I do believe that over time, it is possible to learn how to stop identifying so closely with them.

It’s actually kind of wild, but it worked. Even those moments where I’m not even trying—just sitting there when meditation has become too much of a chore—and successfully flushing out all that negativity. Getting to this point wasn't easy, though; it took about three or four years of mixing different techniques from spirituality, psychology, and alternative wellness, along with a whole lot of studying. Now, whenever I feel those old, dark thoughts starting to spiral, I just tell myself, "Joseph Bailey41, this is exactly how you used to think five years ago. Remember how that felt? You aren't that person anymore." Sometimes, a shorter version like "get lost" works just as well. 🤣

darkbadger8 said:I find it hard to believe it's inherently part of the language... though I suppose it's not entirely impossible.
If we assume it actually is inherent, then the advantage goes to whoever knows Sanskrit and truly understands the mantras.
I knew someone who tried TM or some similar "pay-to-play" spirituality program.
The instructor supposedly created a custom mantra just for him, in Sanskrit... his own personal one.
He wasn't told what it meant, and the guy was even told, "Think of the Mantra like a drill. You don't need to know how it works, just repeat it every day and let it drill."🤦
But what if that guru is just some prankster? What if my friend is sitting there repeating his expensive little mantra, only for the translation from Sanskrit to be something like, "I am a fool throwing money away"?

It would just mean he’s finally coming into a more direct contact with reality. 😬

darkbadger8 Asks:
When I talk about "awakening," I’m definitely not talking about just rolling out of bed in the morning. Most people assume they are fully awake from the moment they get up until they finally hit the hay at night, but that isn't really the case. They aren't truly awake, and they certainly aren't conscious. For most Americans living today, the vast majority of their "awake" hours are spent lost in a mental loop—constantly reliving images from the past or spinning fantasies about the future. It's mostly just pure imagination.
Any image in your mind that isn't exactly what your eyes are looking at right now is just a fantasy. Most of those fantasies are, at the very least, harmful—they basically just clutter up your mind. Not all of them, though.
And don't even get me started on the listening part.
You see it all the time—people stepping out into traffic when the light is still red, or staring at their phones while an ambulance screams past them at sixty miles per hour. It makes you wonder: are they even aware of what's happening around them? Are they actually awake, or just drifting through life on autopilot? And let’s be honest, that driver who's rushing right now? They’ll be the one glued to their screen tomorrow.😁

Whenever I run into those obnoxious types—you know, the ones riding bikes with headphones blasting—I can’t help but smile. I’ll give them a friendly wave to get their attention, beckon them over, and then hit them with a quick question: "Do you guys believe there's anything after this life?" If they keep acting that reckless, they’re going to get a very sudden opportunity to find out for themselves. Usually, that's enough to snap them back to reality. 😈

When it comes to those little fantasies, memories, or just sitting there contemplating the core essence of life and all that other deep stuff... honestly, I feel better for having them. And look, I need something to identify with. It’s not like I can really afford to be absolutely nobody, but I can certainly step into someone else's shoes once in a while. Just to get a little break. 😁

darkbadger8 said:I think that's fine up to a certain point... just clearing the mind every now and then...🐔
Some people drink to get there, others light up some weed...🙂
This works too...🙂😵
I remember reading an anthropologist mentioning that there isn't a single society or tribe on this planet that hasn't found a way to escape reality... mostly through opiates, but there are other techniques too, like apparently certain repetitive dances with the exact same movements that pull you into a trance...🙂
The issue arises when someone starts using meditation as a way to run away from life...
Still, I suppose that's better than getting high on a street corner...🧐
To me, meditation is a tool meant to facilitate awakening—to experience reality directly—but it seems like I might be in the minority here...

I’m honestly not quite sure what "achieving awakening as a direct experience of reality" actually means, or why meditation would even be necessary for it. For instance, if my cat suddenly bolts and jumps right onto me, I am definitely experiencing reality in that moment. And if I happened to be napping? Well, then I'd certainly wake up. 😁

swiftdrifter4 said:But are Hindu mantras actually "more powerful" than ones you just pick out yourself?

It really comes down to whether you understand why you're chanting a specific one. Most of them are directed toward certain 'deities,' which are essentially symbolic representations of particular states of consciousness or even specific energies. For instance, Lakshmi is portrayed as this incredibly generous woman who has so much she just loves sharing it with everyone; Sarasvati is that cultured, brilliant girl; and Ganesha is like that stubborn elephant who can smash through any obstacle in his path... and so on. Once you repeat a mantra a certain number of times (the tradition is usually 108), you gradually settle into that desired state of mind. I remember reading a story on a blog about a woman going through a really messy divorce. She chanted to Ganesha relentlessly—even during arguments with her ex—and she finally managed to pull herself out of that mess. (I mean, she probably would have made it regardless, but the mantra likely helped ease the mental toll.)

As for Lakshmi and getting rich—the mantra just helps you develop a more grounded relationship with money, which might lead to prosperity, but it's not a guarantee. There are some pretty funny stories about her, though. My favorite is about a man who spent ten years or more devotedly praying to her, but nothing happened. He was still broke. So, he decided to become a monk, thinking that at least then he’d have housing and food covered, fewer worries, and could focus entirely on chanting and pleasing the goddess, since he realized he actually enjoyed the work. After a while, Lakshmi supposedly appeared to him (at least according to the legend). She said, "Here I am. I'll give you as much money as you want because you've earned it." The man was confused: "But I'm a monk now; I'm not even supposed to touch money." The goddess just smiled and said, "Fine. Do you want wisdom instead? Here it is. Enjoy it and share it with others." And so, the monk became a highly respected sage. 🙂

darkbadger8 said:😵Smarter Release😵

Yeah, that’s exactly the logic behind it. 🤣

Think about it this way: imagine you're running a company and you have this absolute superstar on your team. They're brilliant, they work harder than anyone else—everything is perfect until you realize they're starting to fray at the edges. Suddenly, during a slow afternoon, they're obsessively rearranging paperclips on their desk, and then they end up getting into a massive argument with the janitor just because a single clip was moved an inch to the left. So, you try to be a decent boss and say, "Hey, take some vacation time or a sick day, you're clearly burnt out." But they just start breaking down, insisting they can't leave because their job is their entire identity and they literally can't function without being busy. 😁

silverwolf98 said:Maybe there’s actually something to Freudianism after all?! Are you kidding me?

Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar. ☕

silverwolf98 said:What exactly is it that "stops and settles"?

Typo there. They should have written "gives up."😬

Robert Ruiz2 said:I’ve been drawn to meditation for over a decade now.
But honestly, I’m just too restless and fidgety to actually stick with it or see any results.

No matter how many times I try, or how many minutes I spend sitting there attempting to "meditate," it never sticks.

I’ve tried focusing my breathing. I’ve tried using background music. I’ve tried heading out into nature or even just doing it in the shower.
Zero luck.

The first few minutes go fine, and then the chaos starts:
- this position is super uncomfortable
- did the kids finish their dinner?
- what am I making for dinner tomorrow?
- is the water getting cold?
- is there something Flying in the room?
- I really should have said no (to that thing that happened 15 years ago)
- how am I ever going to lose weight
- I really need to shave my legs
And just like that, I give up. 🕺

Do you guys Practice meditation?
Any tips on how to finally shut my brain up???? 🙂
Thanks.

Have you tried mantras? You don't even have to say them out loud; sometimes just listening to them on YouTube helps. When you give your mind something repetitive to latch onto, it eventually settles down and goes quiet. 😁

Rebecca Carter8 said:Yesterday, I reached a significant realization regarding male-female dynamics.
Broadly speaking, I find myself moving away from my initial stance:
The foundation of attraction isn't found in women objectifying men, but rather in a man's ability to clearly articulate his sexual intent toward a woman. This shouldn't be about emotional longing, but strictly sexual desire. Emotional need is always a flawed motivator in a relationship because it stems from the emotional baggage a man carries—baggage he ought to resolve himself rather than seeking solace or a therapist in a woman.
Women are not objects obligated to accept every sexual overture a man makes. Consequently, rejection is perfectly normal, and a man should never take it personally. To do so merely proves he is still lugging around that same emotional baggage, which will inevitably hinder him whenever he attempts to establish a genuine connection with a woman.

I have to say, I haven't seen anyone on this forum make such massive strides in such a short amount of time. Major props to you. 👍

Or just call upon the devil. He’s always there to lend a hand. 🥳

velvettiger35 said:Some people are just talented at picking a killer neckline and working an exit... ☕

Well, there are certain careers where those skills are practically a job requirement. ☕