106 posts shown.
coastalwalker said:That’s just eclecticism.
ironfox9 said:Not a single one....
.....so it's just not possible
electricrider16 said:The term is totally misused here. It's so incredibly broad that you could practically invent millions of "-isms," even though the questions being asked and the positions taken are radically different from one another. We've reached this point of massive inflation where people act like holding any single opinion automatically qualifies you as having an ideology—even when there isn't a coherent, systematically linked web of beliefs involved. That's the most common way people misunderstand what an ideology actually is.
What you're really asking is whether there are people out there who don't think at all.
electricrider16 said:I'm not so sure it's quite that black and white.
What you've described—this idea of people "changing their minds every week regarding any given stance"—which you've expanded into this notion of people intentionally avoiding any commitment to a worldview...
Again, neither of those categories applies to me, at least not when I'm in the middle of the debate. My stance on faith and those "ultimate" questions that religion and philosophy obsess over is essentially twofold: a) they are pseudo-problems—convoluted riddles that simply cannot be solved—and b) they are utterly irrelevant to my actual life. It isn't that I am actively dodging a commitment to a worldview; rather, I find these views fundamentally insufficient—in fact, completely inadequate for my own needs and my desire to understand myself and the world I inhabit.
Furthermore, there is a significant issue with grouping someone with my perspective into the same bucket as people who swap "-isms" like they're changing socks. You see, atheism cannot be meaningfully converted into an affirmative stance. It isn't that I maintain a specific "position" of non-belief—it's simply that I don't believe. Period. It isn't an affirmation of any particular thesis; it is merely the absence of belief. If the question is "do you believe?", the answer is no. If the question is "do you assert that gods do not exist?", I do not make such an assertion—though I will add the caveat that proving the existence of transcendence is impossible (hence why agnostic atheism is the only coherent form of atheism when you actually look at the definitions of the terms involved).
The chasm between this and religious convictions that carry that "-ism" suffix is massive and unbridgeable. That is precisely why I am asking for a clearer definition of what we are discussing here and what, if anything, is truly common to all these "-isms."
electricrider16 said:Well, that certainly isn't me.
When it comes to my lack of affiliation with religious or philosophical "-isms," I view it this way:
a) Religion and faith—I am an atheist. I don't subscribe to anything that could reasonably be labeled as "transcendent." However, my particular brand of atheism isn't some aggressive, affirmative creed; it's simply a void where belief used to be, nothing more. I don't hold strong positions on the cosmological origins of the universe—noting, of course, that Big Bang theory is fundamentally different when you account for Planck's epoch—nor do I harbor any other particularly relevant stances on those matters.
b) Philosophy—for the most part, I find the whole field to be little more than selling smoke. There is, I suppose, a useful distinction between traditional philosophy (which acts as the primary playground for mass "-isms") and, arguably, analytical philosophy (which focuses strictly on conceptual and logical-grammatical problems). Though, even there, the line gets blurry, and I probably ought to break down various "-isms" individually if I want to be precise enough to prove my point.
EDIT: As I mentioned, I do cling to certain "-isms" in other arenas.
But, upon further reflection, perhaps we should first establish a clear definition of what constitutes an "-ism"—in other words, what qualifies as one and what doesn't—since I don't consider atheism (to be perfectly accurate, agnostic atheism) to be functionally equivalent to something like Protestantism in this context. It seems we are lacking clarity on that front.
Sandra Wilson68 said:Gerald Hill:
Quincy:Yeah. I'm out here promoting this. I’m pushing for a Science of Consciousness that actually makes sense—something grounded in logic and real-world experience, specifically the Science of Self-Preservation. I'm out here promoting the Truth, not some fake, manufactured nonsense.
You promoting something? I get it. No point in me wasting my time reading any further.
Look, I don't care if you're refusing to read it. You aren't the first person to pull that move, and you won't be the last. There are endless little cults and ideologies out there, each with their own fanboys ready to fight tooth and nail to protect them. They’re terrified of any Truth that might threaten their precious little worldview. Honestly, these people would spill blood just to cover up the facts, all to make sure their lie keeps breathing—because without that lie, they wouldn't even exist.
frozenmaker74 said:Quincy:The second those words left your mouth, you basically handed over your entire manifesto on a silver platter. 😉 I mean, look, if you want to call me an individualist, go right ahead—I’m not exactly going to jump up and protest. Honestly, I’ve always been a bit of a lone wolf anyway, mostly because I can't stand following the crowd when they're all heading toward a cliff, though sometimes I wonder if I'm just being stubborn for the sake of being stubborn. It's fine by me, really.
Gerald Hill I can't even begin to explain why I'm sitting here typing this out, but here we go. So, according to what steelorca12 was saying...
Honestly, you’re looking at a guy who will dodge any question that forces him to actually commit to a side, rather than just sitting there and swallowing some half-baked ideology whole. It's almost impressive how he manages to sidestep the hard stuff while pretending he's being reasonable. It’s really nothing more than just satisfying some basic biological urges, honestly—it’s just that whole human physiological thing, and that's the end of it.I mean, honestly, maybe there’s a way to just sidestep all this whole "identity" nonsense and just decide that you don't actually belong anywhere at all. It sounds a little lonely when you say it out loud, I guess, but there's a certain kind of freedom in just being a nomad in your own mind, right? Just drifting through without needing a label or a specific patch of dirt to call home.
I mean, honestly, when you really sit down and think about it, everyone fits somewhere on the spectrum. It’s inevitable. You start with the basics—like what you’re actually putting in your stomach every day—and then you drift through everything from religious leanings all the way up to how you feel about politics, whether you've gone out of your way to make a big public announcement about it or if you're just quietly holding those views to yourself. Everyone's got a niche, one way or another.
By the way... Look, you’ve already got an organism, which by default means you’ve also got everything that comes after it—you can't really have one without the other, right? It’s just how the whole thing works. 🙂
steelorca12 said:Short answer—no.
Even animals seem to follow certain patterns, even if they aren't doing it consciously—like altruism, for instance.
Some concepts are just defined in a way where you can't really avoid having a stance—take atheism, theism, or agnosticism.
If we didn't belong to any movement or idea at all, we'd basically be down to the level of a single-celled organism.
frozenmaker74 said:Look, honestly, it doesn't matter what kind of label someone tries to slap on themselves; what actually defines you as a member of some specific "school of thought" is what you actually *do*—that's the part you just can't dodge. 😉
People who call themselves humanists or altruists or whatever... well, they'll probably never actually claim those titles for themselves, anyway.
Sandra Wilson68 said:DAVMLA:What kind of "ism" describes someone who doesn't have a backbone and just respects everyone?
That IZAM is called IDIOTISM or STUPIDITY. Every single one of these modern "isms" is nothing but a load of garbage and lies. They don't help humanity; they just cause massive damage. And anyone who actually respects this nonsense is an IDIOT and a FOOL themselves, because sooner or later, one of those stupid ideologies is going to come back and bite them right in the ass.
Sandra Wilson68 said:Google:To start with, any philosophical take on the nature and ontology of consciousness ends in "-ism"—that's why we call them physicalism, idealism, or dualism.
Wrong!
Open my book and look at the subheadings: "neuroscience," "The Science of Self-Preservation," "ethics," "theology," and "Eternal Truth."
So, in this case, we’re talking about SCIENCE, not some random "-ism." When we're dealing with TRUTH—specifically the Truth regarding consciousness and the drive for self-preservation that can be empirically verified, logically explained, and actually understood—it isn't an "-ism," it's SCIENCE. And when something is science—an absolute Truth that anyone in America or anywhere else can verify and grasp—it shouldn't be used to split people into groups based on whether they accept it or reject it. You can't build organized political ideologies, religions, class systems, or national institutions around it, complete with leaders at the helm.
On the flip side, "-isms" are always just made-up, half-baked truths or outright lies. They can't be empirically or scientifically proven. Instead, you just have one set of unprovable lies pitted against another similar set of illogical nonsense. Then people act like they're at a flea market, picking "this one" or "that one," using those choices to divide themselves, build their little institutions and temples, choose their leaders, and compete over whose belief system looks prettier. That competition breeds hatred, which inevitably leads to intolerance, conflict, violence, wars, genocides, collapsing economies, poverty, and misery.
So, what's the actual point of the "LAW OF EXISTENCE," or the "SCIENCE OF SELF-PRESERVATION" I'm putting forward?
The whole purpose is to use it to tear down every single "-ism" in existence. It provides answers to all the fundamental existential questions that modern science, philosophy, and every major religion in the world have failed to answer to this day. These are answers that are empirically—meaning scientifically—verifiable and completely logical. The end result should be the dismantling and fading away of all those global ideological, political, national, religious, and class divisions and institutions. We're talking about a unified world, both socially and economically, and lasting peace on Earth. Because when something is SCIENCE, there's no "I want this" or "I don't want that" guesswork involved. You accept it without question. There’s no dodging it or trying to wiggle out of it unless you're a complete idiot or totally insane.
Lawrence Bailey77 said:Regarding the idiots 🙄 trailer Quote
No single "ideology" truly defines a person 😉... a person defines the ideology... again, I want to emphasize that I believe I understand the conflict, or perhaps the motivation behind searching for answers, but at a primal level, a person is simply what they desire... pure will. If someone chooses to limit themselves through ism and refuse the freedom that comes with being a true human being—and I might even go so far as to say absolute freedom—they would dare to err, to face limitations, and yet simultaneously strive to liberate themselves from everything that previously held them back. It's a process... development... learning... progress... learning from mistakes 👍 the reward being experience 👋
Society, however, models us through either affection or force from the moment we are born, depending on the culture and the era and things of that nature. It isn't particularly easy to become a person, let alone remain one for anyone else. Not to mention that it's an individual struggle every single time, and ultimately, a person defines themselves if they are indeed a person. If they are something else entirely, then there are plenty of excuses for those types 😬
Larry Moore83 said:Do you really think it's all about identification?! 😁
It’s inherently tied to identity—take someone like Larry Moore83, for instance. You can't really function without some form of identification; it’s just how things work. A person can certainly define themselves through their career, I suppose, provided they stay within the established norms and boundaries. Otherwise, you end up with those professionally distorted types—people who seem to be musicians by calling rather than by actual profession. You know, the pop stars, the actors, and so on... 🤣
One simply needs to remain rational, and that should be enough. 🙂
Larry Moore83 said:There exists just enough ism that doesn't truly belong to any single individual—it just sort of drifts there, doesn't it? 🙂
Lawrence Bailey77 said:I suppose I should address the comments made by Lawrence Bailey77. It seems there is a certain tendency here to overlook the broader implications of these developments, though perhaps that is simply the nature of modern discourse. One might argue that we are seeing a pattern emerge, one that feels increasingly predictable, if somewhat exhausting. I suspect, if I am being honest, that most people are looking for quick fixes where none exist, which is a rather wearying cycle to witness. Perhaps it is my own cynicism speaking, but I find myself questioning whether anyone is truly paying attention to the underlying mechanics of the situation. It is all quite complicated, I guess, and certainly more nuanced than the superficial takes currently circulating. kaže:
I suppose one might wonder what category of individual falls under the heading of someone who lacks a definitive stance and chooses instead to respect everyone’s opinion unconditionally. It is an interesting question, though perhaps a bit nebulous. I suspect such a person might be labeled a "people pleaser," if we are being blunt about it, or perhaps just someone characterized by a certain intellectual passivity. One could argue that there is a certain virtue in being diplomatic—a quality that is increasingly rare in our rather polarized American landscape—but there is a fine line between being civil and simply being hollow. If a person refuses to take a side on even the most fundamental matters, are they truly respecting others, or are they merely avoiding the discomfort of having a backbone? I don't know. Maybe they are just tired. I think, perhaps, they are just weary of the constant friction that defines modern life. It is a heavy burden, trying to hold a conviction when the world seems determined to tear everything apart. One might call them a centrist, or a fence-sitter, or perhaps just someone who has realized that, in the end, most arguments are just noise. I guess it depends on whether you view their neutrality as a sign of wisdom or a symptom of apathy.
I suppose one could argue that nothing quite like it exists. It seems to me, though I could be mistaken, that we haven't truly encountered its equal before. Perhaps it’s just my own weary cynicism talking, but I find myself doubting if such a thing actually exists in our current reality.I suppose I should address this, though I suspect my input may be largely superfluous given the current state of affairs. It seems we are once again circling the drain of indecision. I guess there isn’t much else to say, really. One could argue that staying silent is its own form of commentary, but perhaps that's just my own weary cynicism talking. Maybe.There was no necessity for it, nor does such an action hold any actual merit. I suppose the fundamental issue is that the very essence of any modification—any attempt at division, restriction, or establishing a sense of belonging—inherently creates an exclusionary boundary. By defining who belongs, you automatically dictate who does not, which, in my estimation, effectively stifles the possibility of genuine discourse. It seems somewhat futile, if you ask me. 🙂
I suppose one could argue that when a man is truly free—and I mean possessing that genuine sense of agency we all claim to value—he acts out of his own volition. If he chooses to show respect, it isn't because some external force or heavy-handed regulation is leaning on him. There is no real necessity for coercion when a person’s actions are driven by their own internal compass. It seems to me, though perhaps I am being overly idealistic, that true integrity only exists when there is no compulsion involved. Without that element of choice, respect is just another form of compliance, which, in my estimation, is a rather hollow substitute for actual character. I suppose I should offer an apology. My mistake, truly. 🙂 I suppose I should address this matter, though I find myself questioning whether it warrants such scrutiny in the first place. It seems we have arrived at a point where certain observations must be made, even if they feel somewhat redundant. Perhaps it is simply the nature of these discussions—a constant circling of the same drain, one might say. I suspect there is more to uncover, but I am hesitant to jump to conclusions without further deliberation. Maybe it’s just my own cynicism talking, but I often wonder if we are merely rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Regardless, let us proceed with caution. I suppose there isn't much to say about this, though I feel compelled to offer a few observations, if only to fill the silence. It seems we are left with very little substance to work with here. One might argue that without a clear subject, any commentary becomes somewhat aimless—though, then again, perhaps that is simply the nature of most modern discourse. I suspect we are all just drifting through these digital spaces, searching for something meaningful that rarely arrives. Perhaps I am being too cynical. Maybe. Regardless, I shall remain here, observing the void. I suppose one could classify that particular case under the category of an individual. Perhaps. It seems to me that such a distinction might be warranted, though I hesitate to be too definitive about it.I suppose I should probably clarify my position on this matter, though I suspect it might be somewhat futile given the current state of discourse. It seems we have reached a point of absolute parity, or perhaps just a tedious stalemate. One could argue that everything is essentially equal at this stage, though I find myself questioning whether such equality is actually a desirable outcome or merely a symptom of general stagnation. Perhaps. I guess it doesn't much matter in the grand scheme of things. Well, I find myself returning to my previous point: this whole situation implies a certain level of allegiance that, if you ask me, he really ought to be rejecting altogether. It seems to me that he should refrain from attaching himself to any particular faction or group whatsoever. In my view, he should serve as his own sole standard of measurement, rather than identifying with some sort of artificial construct or collective entity. Perhaps I am being overly cautious, but I suppose one could argue that true independence means refusing to be defined by such labels. I suppose I should address this matter, though I suspect my input might be somewhat redundant at this stage. It seems we are circling back to the same fundamental issues again, which is, frankly, exhausting. One would think that after all the discussions we've had regarding these systemic inefficiencies, we might have arrived at some semblance of clarity, but perhaps I am being overly optimistic. I guess it’s just the nature of things here in America—constant motion without much actual progress. Maybe we are simply destined to tread this same ground indefinitely. 🙂
I suppose I should begin. It seems there is a certain expectation for me to contribute something of substance here, though I find myself questioning whether any meaningful discourse can truly flourish in such an environment. Perhaps I am being overly pessimistic, but experience suggests that most discussions eventually devolve into mere noise. Regardless, I shall attempt to participate. I suppose I should clarify my position on this matter, though I suspect it may be somewhat futile. I don’t consider myself to belong to any particular group, nor do I feel any sense of affiliation with any specific movement or faction. To be perfectly clear, I am not seeking membership, nor do I wish to be categorized or pigeonholed by anyone. If someone feels an absolute necessity to label me or associate me with a certain cause, they are, of course, free to do as they please—I can hardly stop them—but I want it understood that I am making a deliberate and firm distinction. I simply have no interest in being part of the collective. 😉
What I mean is, take something like Dada, for instance. I suppose it’s just one example, though it’s probably a rather illustrative one if you think about it long enough. Maybe.I suppose I should mention that I am back. It feels like quite some time has passed, though whether that is due to the actual passage of days or merely my own perception of them is something I cannot say for certain. I shall attempt to contribute more regularly, provided the circumstances allow for it. God forbid I should ever find myself associated with a group like that.It appears there might have been an error or some missing context in your message. If you were attempting to provide a specific text for me to rework, please send it over. I am ready to apply the necessary transformations once I have the source material. 👍
I suppose I should probably address the matter of regional affiliation within this forum, though I find the very concept somewhat nebulous. It seems there is a certain expectation for users to identify where they are based, perhaps to foster some sense of community or local relevance. In my experience, such categorizations often feel a bit arbitrary—one can be sitting in a coffee shop in Seattle one moment and then virtually present in a suburb of Chicago the next. I guess what I am trying to say is that while people might want to sort themselves into specific geographic subgroups, I have always found that digital spaces tend to defy those traditional boundaries. Maybe it’s useful for some to know who their neighbors are, but personally, I find the constant need to label oneself by location to be a trifle tedious. It feels like an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy applied to what should be a simple exchange of ideas. Not that I am against it, per se; I just wonder if we aren't all just drifting through the same vast American landscape regardless of our zip codes.It seems there might have been a misunderstanding or perhaps an incomplete thought in your previous message. I am not entirely certain what you intended to convey with that specific term, though I suppose one could speculate on its meaning within this context. Perhaps it was a typo, or maybe a fragment of a larger point you were attempting to make? Either way, if you were looking for a particular insight or trying to initiate a discussion, I would suggest being a bit more explicit. I find that clarity, while often elusive in these digital spaces, usually serves us better in the long run. I guess we can just move forward, provided the intent becomes clear. It is becoming rather tiresome, I must say. One reaches a certain point where the constant need for restraint feels less like discipline and more like a slow erosion of one's very existence. I suppose, if I am being honest with myself, I have no desire to spend my remaining years constantly holding back. It’s an exhausting way to live, isn't it? Perhaps there is a merit to indulgence that we all tend to ignore in favor of being sensible, though I suspect most would disagree. Regardless, the weight of these limitations is starting to feel quite heavy. It seems we have reached an exception. I suppose one could argue that such deviations are inevitable, though they rarely occur when things are functioning according to plan. Perhaps it is simply a matter of unforeseen variables disrupting the expected order. It is hard to say, really. 🙂
I suppose I might have misapplied a term there... my apologies if I've used a concept incorrectly. One can never be entirely certain of these technical nuances, I guess. ☕
Perhaps one could simply conjure up a few stubborn types in the room, if that were even possible. I suppose it’s a rather futile thought, really. I suppose there isn't much left to say on the matter. It seems we have reached a bit of a standstill, though I can't say I'm particularly surprised by that. One would think progress would be more consistent, but perhaps my expectations are simply too high for the current climate. It’s all rather predictable, really. 😒 I suppose one could argue that there is a certain necessity to emphasize the human element in these discussions. It seems, though I might be mistaken, that we often lose sight of the individual amidst all the data and systemic noise. Perhaps if we focused more on the person behind the screen—or the soul behind the statistics—we wouldn't find ourselves in such a predictable state of disillusionment. It’s a bit of a weary thought, really, but I suspect that without that core emphasis, everything else just feels rather hollow.I suppose I should probably address this, though I’m not entirely certain if it’s worth the breath. It feels somewhat futile to dwell on it, I guess. Perhaps there's a point to be made, but I find myself questioning whether any real clarity can be gained from such matters. One could argue it's necessary, but then again, maybe it's just noise. It’s hard to say for sure. But that only applies within the confines of the room, I suppose. 😉
silvergardener152 said:You could call it sort of "soft Buddhism." Or, if we’re being more precise, perhaps it’s better described as "lost in the Mojave-ism,"
or maybe even "stranded on a Pacific island-ism." 🤣
Or perhaps just plain old "never returning to civilization-ism." 🤣
Frank Thomas92 said:It seems like every single person who expresses an opinion is immediately shoved into some narrow little "-ism."
And then you’ve got the people who don't have a stance at all, who just drift along without any convictions whatsoever.
I mean, honestly, we finally have enough labels to cover the entire planet like cheap wallpaper.😁
Larry Moore83 said:Have you tried looking in a mirror lately?