Posts by Joseph Bailey41

By some strange stroke of luck, someone posted a photo on Facebook titled "indifference west." I won't post it here, though, because it’s honestly pretty unsettling. It’s a far cry from the calm beauty of Bruegel's landscape. But the core theme is identical—people just going about their daily business, completely tuning out the desperate attempts of people trying to cross the Mediterranean Sea.

From a bird's-eye view, it really doesn't matter whether we choose to sink into a sweet sense of indifference or lash out with bitter indignation... neither reaction actually changes the way the world turns... from ancient Crete to the modern migrant crisis. If we ever want to try and change the status quo—and please forgive me if I'm overstepping by suggesting what *should* be done—we'd probably need to tap into a different emotion entirely, something else from the palette we have available to us today.

frozengardener7 said:Camus argues that absurdity can ambush you on any street corner you turn.

Building on that, he suggests there are moments when one must simply surrender to the cold indifference of the world, all while forging purpose within the depths of one's own pulsing existence. As long as the journey continues—and it lasts a lifetime—we will find meaning. Or, to use the Camusian vernacular: Let us imagine Sisyphus happy.

Now, I am curious: how many of you have actually encountered this indifference? Or do you prefer to envision the universe as some higher consciousness that keeps a ledger not just of life's meaning, but of consciousness itself on this tiny third rock from the sun?

I could never quite wrap my head around Camus. The world isn't a person, so it doesn't make much sense to assign it human traits or reactions. It can't truly be "cold" or "indifferent." If we perceive it that way, it's either a flaw in our perception or just poetic license. When we read or listen to poetry, those kinds of images don't bother us; in fact, they meet our expectations and can even be quite enjoyable. In this specific case... I’d go as far as to say it feels a bit like mental masturbation—which might be sweet for the one doing it, but most people watching from the outside will remain completely indifferent.

Paul Rogers94 said:That isn't an answer; it's a manifesto. Try explaining yourself a bit—what exactly is Kundalini, what is the Holy Spirit, and where is your evidence that they aren't identical? Catholics can be so incredibly arrogant... they just declare things "good" or "bad," "this" or "that," depending entirely on whatever serves their current agenda. They'll call something virtuous one minute and then denounce it as evil the next if it suits them. In their minds, God is always on their side, so everything they decree is treated as if Jesus Christ Himself personally handed down the command.
You're clearly just some die-hard follower of those old-school fundamentalists...

It's pretty straightforward, really. Kundalini rises up, while the Holy Spirit descends.

(Source: Structuralism for Dummies.)

I’m jumping on board with the request to remove hiddenpuma75 from Philosophy.
He's just become nesnosan.

Alexander Thompson said:The part that really gets me is when people say, "It's actually good that it's down, so nobody can find what I wrote."

Then why on earth are you even posting? 🤷

What, so they don't grow webbed fingers or something? 🤔

Alexander Thompson said:I can't even find my own posts anymore🙏

That’s the worst part for me, too. I honestly feel lost here. Maybe it’s finally time for me to step away from the forum for a while. Just wake me up when Google is back online. ☕

How much longer can we take this?

I honestly think we’re overcomplicating this whole thing. I know everyone is eager to jump in and start debating the finer points, but if we take a step back, the core issue isn't nearly as complicated as it looks on the surface. It feels like we're getting bogged down in the weeds before we've even established the basics. I might be wrong here—and I'm certainly not an expert—but it seems like we should probably focus on the most obvious solutions first instead of trying to tackle every single edge case right out of the gate. I tend to overthink things myself, so I get the urge to dive deep, but let's try to stay grounded. Does anyone else feel like we're spinning our wheels a little bit?

I honestly feel like I’m just shouting into the void here. It feels like everyone is so caught up in their own little bubbles that they can't see what's right in front of them. We talk about progress and change all the time, but when it comes down to actually doing the work, people seem more interested in maintaining the status quo than anything else. It’s a bit frustrating, if I’m being honest. I know I’m probably overthinking this, and maybe I am just being overly cynical, but it feels like we're spinning our wheels. I'd love to hear if anyone else feels this same sense of stagnation, or if it's just me being a bit too much of a pessimist today.

casualtiger2 said:You can't escape a diversity of thought. It's human nature—people are obsessed with their favorite tool, the intellect, and being naturally ego-driven, they insist their view of the world is the only correct one.
From a spiritual angle, the answer is simple: more love, and moving your sense of identity away from just your emotions and thoughts.

But practically speaking, the real issue is how we solve this at a societal level—politically.
That would mean giving (almost) every viewpoint and worldview a seat at the table in shaping society. Of course, that leads to an endless series of compromises where no single group gets everything they want
(not even the wealthiest among us), but everyone walks away with something—kind of like how direct democracy works.

One mistake we make, both individually and as a nation, is treating tolerance as an absolute principle. Just like freedom doesn't mean you can do whatever you want, tolerance shouldn't be a free pass for intolerant views, beliefs, or actions.

Philosophy loves to ask, "What would a perfect society look like?"
The answer is easy: just find enough perfect people—free, tolerant, smart, and kind-hearted... 😍

I’d actually take a completely different approach here. To me, a perfect society isn't one that happens to contain great people; it’s a society dedicated to helping people *become* those individuals. None of us were born this way. For example, if my five-year-old neighbor comes over and starts showing off her collection of toy chickens, ducks, or even her little plastic tractor, I find it adorable because it’s just a normal stage of growing up. But if a fifty-year-old started acting like that, I’d be seriously concerned about their mental state. I love seeing a twelve-year-old beam with pride over a good grade or a soccer goal, but when adults get that wrapped up in their own egos, it feels a bit off. I also remember watching this one TV show where high schoolers had these intense, passionate debates about everything under the sun, and it felt so much more meaningful than the modern trend of people spending money to watch two old guys argue on an internet stream—or worse, seeing an adult think they've found purpose by tearing someone down on a message board.

I get it, though. Most of us have a little glitch in our programming that makes us waste precious time on these kinds of nonsense activities (which are really just various ways of feeding the ego) instead of focusing on something creative, spiritual, or educational that benefits everyone, including ourselves. We aren't perfect, and honestly, we probably never will be. We don't agree on everything, and frankly, we shouldn't. If we did, we wouldn't have the friction needed to push one another to grow, improve, or collaborate. Without that drive, there would be no reason to rely on anyone else, let alone live together in a community.

I've been wrestling with a bit of a dilemma lately, which ties back into this theme... Is it even moral to strive for transcendence when most of humanity hasn't even reached basic self-actualization yet? It’s not just about individual flaws; it’s that as a society, we seem to value all the wrong things. We fight over them as if they're finite resources—as if having more money, success, or freedom somehow means there's less left for everyone else. Is it right to rise above all that and leave everyone else behind in the dust? Or should we reach back and pull them up with us? And how do you do that without losing your own footing? 😬

casualtiger2 said:You can't escape a diversity of thought. It's human nature—people are obsessed with their favorite tool, the intellect, and being naturally ego-driven, they insist their view of the world is the only correct one.
From a spiritual angle, the answer is simple: more love, and moving your sense of identity away from just your emotions and thoughts.

But practically speaking, the real issue is how we solve this at a societal level—politically.
That would mean giving (almost) every viewpoint and worldview a seat at the table in shaping society. Of course, that leads to an endless series of compromises where no single group gets everything they want
(not even the wealthiest among us), but everyone walks away with something—kind of like how direct democracy works.

One mistake we make, both individually and as a nation, is treating tolerance as an absolute principle. Just like freedom doesn't mean you can do whatever you want, tolerance shouldn't be a free pass for intolerant views, beliefs, or actions.

Philosophy loves to ask, "What would a perfect society look like?"
The answer is easy: just find enough perfect people—free, tolerant, smart, and kind-hearted... 😍

That was exactly what I was thinking when I originally posted my question to the thread starter. 😁

Tolerance really comes from that emotional-intellectual sphere: we tolerate those we disagree with (intellectually) and those who get under our skin (emotionally). True compassion, or actually accepting someone who is vastly different from us, has to come from a different "center" altogether. Until we become aware of that and manage to make that internal shift, we just rely on tolerance as a social convention—basically, just being decent human beings.

For instance, those egoists who constantly insist they are right (they just *have* to be) are incredibly exhausting to me. Every minute spent with them, every sentence exchanged, drains me on every possible level. And yet, sometimes you just have to communicate or socialize, because humans aren't built to survive in total isolation, and it isn't always possible to be surrounded only by people who perfectly align with us. So, we practice tolerance. Or rather, I recognize that someone is an egocentrist, knowing they won't suddenly transform overnight... but I also acknowledge they have a right to their vision of the world (even if it's pretty warped), so I accept that fact and tolerate their presence. I don't attack them, I don't try to nail them down like a stake in the ground, and I don't even bother trying to "crush them with arguments." I simply tolerate them. But I don't view my tolerance as some grand spiritual virtue, because it isn't. It’s just a practical necessity to keep us from fighting each other and to stop wasting time on people we consider fools.

What truly connects to spirituality is compassion. That means understanding why someone behaves the way they do (there are many reasons for bad behavior, but they usually boil down to one thing—that person is suffering in some way) and striving to alleviate that suffering. Of course, not at our own expense, because then we haven't actually achieved anything. There are situations where you can help someone reach awareness, and there are others where the healthiest thing is to step away and offer compassion from a distance. And yes, there are times when you just need to block someone on social media. 🥱

What on earth does any of that have to do with spirituality? 🤔

Thanks to my buddy Peć for the idea for the new slogan (down in my signature). We might even consider forming a coalition. 😬

Chris Myers said:I guess I read some of it. Maybe.I guess maybe this is it? Just a single letter. Seems pointless.And he said—of course! 🙂

Great. It wouldn't be right to let breasts go neglected. 🤣

Thomas Jones92 said:You have my vote right now, 🙂
both here and at the local polls.

Thanks! 😘

The platform Možemise!

I'm not going to make any grand promises here, but I am asking for your support in the local elections. 🎉

I'm stuck in a job where I just don't feel valued. Honestly, I've had enough of the nonsense. ☕

Jacob Alvarez said:Judolinov and Rachel Richardson. It’s like putting Mirko Filipović and Nenad Blatnik in the ring together. Calling it a fair fight feels a little cruel when we all know exactly how this one ends.

Exactly. If the boss really wants to turn Judolinov into a sideshow, he should just bring in some random amateurs or low-level nobodies instead. 🙄

Scott Long71 said:I agree with what was said above, though if it’s a completely civilized discussion, there's really no need to single it out.

Do you think Judolin's text, which was cited in the first post, could actually work in this discussion? My take is that we can keep it. He's still being more polite than the Saunders quote we used. 😁

That makes sense. I don't recall Judolin ever bringing up Houellebecq's mother.

Henry Garcia13 said:I don't think you're seeing it quite right. Virtual reality is actually becoming our reality. This matters way more than protesting in a town square, because this digital space is essentially becoming the new public square. It's going to be the primary reality for most people. And for those who roll their eyes, they'll just claim "real life" still exists. Honestly, maybe I'll finally give virtual sex a shot too—if it really lives up to all the hype everyone keeps talking about...🙂

All I can say is, good luck to you. 😁

Henry Garcia13 said:Good grief, is this really what you were all fighting for?🙂

Of course we did. We fought because we didn't have anything better to do. Seriously. 😁

Any person with half a brain doesn't actually care about a Forum, or the virtual world in general.