Posts by steelridge58

wiredbear2 said:

It feels like we’ve finally come full circle, doesn't it... back to where everything started, yet somehow feeling entirely different because of everything we've navigated along the way... As expressed by:
That’s exactly right. But what I find truly fascinating is that point Dragan made regarding the old personality essentially dissolving away, while the new version hasn't quite stepped into its own yet... which explains that strange, unsettled state of being caught somewhere in the middle... No more... i Not quite yet...... which you described so perfectly as that lingering state of pure uncertainty—that restless, uncomfortable feeling of just waiting for something to happen while everything remains completely undefined...

I find myself grappling with that exact same question. It feels like we’re talking about a very specific kind of being "nowhere." How does one even begin to identify that state? I have this nagging suspicion that any one of us could be drifting through that void right now without even realizing it... It seems to me that you can only truly recognize it in hindsight—only once the fog lifts, once you experience that sudden realization of change, and once all the pieces of your life finally start to click back into place. Only then can you look back and say, "Oh, so that's where I was." I suppose what I'm trying to convey is that we can all find ourselves wandering through that dark night of the soul entirely unconsciously...

I suppose there’s no sense in dwelling on what’s already passed, though I find myself constantly looking back at how things used to be... It feels as if we are always searching for a way to return to that sense of clarity we once had, before everything became so complicated and fragmented... hiddenhound3 says:
Personally, I remember that period as a time when I wore black every single day, almost as if I were mourning someone incredibly close to me... yet at the same time, I didn't even know who or what I was grieving, feeling this profound sense of loss for someone I hadn't even truly known...

I can't help but wonder... do you think I could actually pull off wearing all black? Because, if I'm being honest, nearly everything in my wardrobe is that color anyway... 😬

I suppose there is a certain weight to the idea of returning, isn't there... that quiet, heavy pull toward somewhere you once called home, even if that "home" feels like a different world entirely now... It makes me wonder if we ever truly leave anything behind, or if we are just carrying the ghosts of our former selves into every new chapter we attempt to write... As expressed by:
Everything I have... And then she just leaned in and gave me a hug... With this almost irrational, desperate desire to ensure that nothing ever escapes my embrace, I was offering the very best of myself toward creating a sanctuary—a singular, sacred space where no human hand could ever reach...

🙂

As for what comes next in terms of prizes... Afterward.... 🙂

There are simply some things that transcend the reach of human hands... those moments where our own strength and skill just fall short of what’s required... But then again, one might encounter an entirely "new" personality—one that is truly just being born, perhaps even feeling more divine than human in its essence... A true metanoia... 🙂

It’s just not quite the same thing, because even though most of my clothes happen to be black too, that isn't what I mean. 🙂 In this case, it was more about an outward sign of accepting a reality filled with loss—it was a way to embrace that grief, having a specific meaning and importance that felt deeply personal to me.
Then again, it doesn't even have to be what people usually call a "dark night of the soul"... if anything, I’d say the soul didn't experience day or night back then, but just a single, indefinite color, sort of like the grayness of rain... on a gloomy afternoon in late December.

wiredbear2 said:The term 'Dark Night of the Soul' is often used to describe those profound struggles that arise during one's spiritual journey. It originates from Christian rhetoric, and honestly, the name itself provides such a vivid, hauntingly beautiful description of the experience...
The concept was originally coined by Saint John of the Cross in his famous work of the same name.
For a believer or someone following a specific religious path, this manifests as a period where their entire faith is called into question—a time when doubt begins to seep into everything they once held sacred. It’s a deep suspicion of oneself, and even a suspicion of God. Those once-solid foundations start to crack and crumble. Suddenly, there is no more joy or enthusiasm found in performing religious rituals... Instead, there is this overwhelming fear of the void, a terror of losing one's footing and stability, leaving the soul feeling as though it is wandering aimlessly through total darkness. Almost every great saint mentioned in history has faced this exact kind of doubt, this very darkness. And yet, it is only by pushing through it that they ultimately reach true enlightenment.

Since every single one of us is on our own unique life journey, it doesn't really matter whether you identify as a religious person or if you simply follow a secular path of personal growth. These hardships are universal, and experiencing them is perfectly normal. Usually, after a period of wonderful spiritual insights or breakthroughs, a series of trials follows, making the path feel incredibly grueling. That initial spark of excitement just evaporates. You find yourself suddenly alone, unaccustomed to the isolation, and suffering begins to take hold. It is "alone" in the sense that any guidance feels insufficient, and every pillar of support seems to fall short...
Perhaps all of this sounds a bit too mystical, but at its core, it really boils down to a confrontation with one's own self—occurring during a certain phase of life or within a specific situation that demands everything of you, testing you on so many different levels...

I suppose the purpose of starting this thread is for us to share some of our own less-than-pleasant experiences, whether they are things we have already moved past or challenges we are currently navigating...

Exactly. But what I find so fascinating is what casualtiger2 described—that sense of an old personality dissolving away before a new one has actually stepped up to take its place, which leads to that strange limbo where you're no longer but not quite yet... a state you described perfectly as being undefined and just waiting; that deep discomfort of living in uncertainty.

Personally, I remember that experience as a period where I wore black every single day, almost as if I were mourning someone incredibly close to me, even though I didn't truly know who or what I was grieving.

Everything I embraced afterward with this desperate, almost frantic need to hold it tight so nothing could slip away, was actually offering itself up to a space that human hands simply can't reach.

🙂

casualtiger2 said:Yes, casualtiger2, please do elaborate 🙂. I have some familiarity with the concept of the "Dark Night of the Soul," but I don't quite see how it relates specifically to that energetic shift...

Nov 24, 2008 - This is such a fascinating subject that it really deserves its own dedicated thread...

Yes, casualtiger2, please do elaborate 🙂. I have some familiarity with the concept of the "Dark Night of the Soul," but I don't quite see how it relates specifically to that energetic shift...

Nov 24, 2008 - This is such a fascinating subject that it really deserves its own dedicated thread...
Unfortunately, I can't speak from personal experience—every Crisis I've dealt with so far has been pretty surface-level.
The Dark Night of the Soul is likely just another version of that—a crisis occurring when you shift from one level of consciousness to the next.
In Christian terms, Saint John of the Cross describes it as Dark Night of the Soul.

You can find similar ideas in this book, where the author references Assagioli—he was basically the pioneer of transpersonal psychology and focused heavily on spiritual crises and stages of development.

And here’s a more modern, and honestly quite authentic, description of the process (it's all in German, unfortunately, and my translation skills are non-existent).

It’s essentially that moment where Jesus cries out during a crisis, "My God, why have you forsaken me?" The old personality has dissolved, but God hasn't taken His place in the soul yet—so the person is left "alone" in the "darkness." Probably a pretty brutal experience.
1. initiation—moving from the root to the sacrum
2. from the sacrum to the navel
3. from the navel to the solar plexus
4. from the solar plexus to the throat (which would correspond to the crucifixion)
Each of these transitions brings its own share of crises, pain, and joy.
At the heart level, we're still working on personal achievement, which tends to be pretty unstable.
Throat energies align with devotion to the divine—that feeling of being moved, awestruck, or stunned by the mystery of life; that's what we feel right in that center.
Unfortunately, I can't speak from personal experience—every Crisis I've dealt with so far has been pretty surface-level.
The Dark Night of the Soul is likely just another version of that—a crisis occurring when you shift from one level of consciousness to the next.
In Christian terms, Saint John of the Cross describes it as Dark Night of the Soul.

You can find similar ideas in this book, where the author references Assagioli—he was basically the pioneer of transpersonal psychology and focused heavily on spiritual crises and stages of development.

And here’s a more modern, and honestly quite authentic, description of the process (it's all in German, unfortunately, and my translation skills are non-existent).

It’s essentially that moment where Jesus cries out during a crisis, "My God, why have you forsaken me?" The old personality has dissolved, but God hasn't taken His place in the soul yet—so the person is left "alone" in the "darkness." Probably a pretty brutal experience.
1. initiation—moving from the root to the sacrum
2. from the sacrum to the navel
3. from the navel to the solar plexus
4. from the solar plexus to the throat (which would correspond to the crucifixion)
Each of these transitions brings its own share of crises, pain, and joy.
At the heart level, we're still working on personal achievement, which tends to be pretty unstable.
Throat energies align with devotion to the divine—that feeling of being moved, awestruck, or stunned by the mystery of life; that's what we feel right in that center.
It’s that suspended state of being... stuck between "no longer" and "not yet."

Kenneth Peterson5 said:Look, steelridge58,

How many times in a single day have you gone from being absolutely pissed at me to apologizing and thanking me? It's getting ridiculous.

And as for "obstructing" any PDFs or whatever—just ban me already if it's such a big deal. Problem solved. Simple as that. 🙏

(Yeah, I'll get right on thinking about you... 😁)

What on earth are you even talking about right now? You're taking one little oversight of mine where I missed your PM and had to apologize, and now you're actually trying to weaponize that as some sort of grand argument against me, which, I have to admit, feels pretty low. But hey, if you really want to dig up every single thing we've ever exchanged just to throw it back in my face as payback, then go right ahead—though it makes me wonder just how many other people out there are being just as easily manipulated by you as I was.

The issue here is actually you. You’re the one out there slandering people, throwing insults around, and constantly obstructing everything the Philosophy Forum moderator tries to do just to push some niche agendas that probably only exist in your own head. Honestly, you really ought to take a moment to sit back and reflect on that. Just think about yourself for once.

Benjamin Long said:How can we say the content wasn't the problem if:

Wasn't it precisely because of the content that the suggestion arose?
And if no agreement was ever reached on the proposal, why was that specific decision made? Why wasn't everything just left as it was? Why did a mere "suggestion" turn into a final decision? If it truly was just a suggestion and it wasn't accepted, then nothing should have changed! Or am I perhaps fundamentally misunderstanding the definition of the word "suggestion"?

The fact that a proposal was made is simply part of everyone's legitimate right to express an opinion, offer criticism, or suggest something new.
The subject matter itself wasn't the issue; rather, the reason the thread stayed put is that there was an open possibility for it to remain within the philosophy section during those discussions.
As for why there was no formal agreement, it’s because there wasn't even a conversation happening that could have led us to one.
When you ask why this specific decision was reached instead of leaving things as they were, you're really asking about the missed opportunity for a different outcome—one that might have aligned more with what the author actually wanted—but that chance was lost because of a total breakdown in communication, which is honestly the only bridge we have to resolve or avoid any kind of dispute.
In the end, the decision was left to us, and it is what it is. Besides, there really wasn't a need for representatives here, since anyone can always just speak for themselves.

Benjamin Long said:Now, casualtiger2, there is absolutely no need to get worked up! I am actually posting here under my lesser-known handle just to see how you would judge the situation without such biases.
It is just as much of a prejudice to lump me in with that "trio" who think they are simply "the wrong people in the wrong place."

@steelridge58, I truly appreciate your hard work and everything you have written, but your response still fails to provide a clear answer to a very straightforward question. This is particularly true because, as you claim, the group intended to address the matter through "suggestions rather than a decision"—yet a decision was clearly made! If a decision is reached without the consent of the authors, then we aren't talking about a suggestion anymore; we are talking about a decision whose reasoning remains entirely opaque. Why specifically were certain segments of that controversial thread deemed problematic? Simply stating that the moderators didn't act "unilaterally or arbitrarily" doesn't actually explain anything regarding the specific content that caused the dispute.
So, I ask you: what exactly was so contentious about that thread that it made it suitable for Spirituality, yet unfit for Philosophy?

The issue was strictly centered around suggestions; the reality is that those suggestions were handled exactly the way I described above. As for the idea that a decision was reached without the authors' consent, well, that's simply because we couldn't reach a consensus on a single one of those proposals. Regarding the part where you quoted me in your last post while asking about moving the thread, I think that actually answers your question about what the problem was quite clearly.
The content itself wasn't the issue; rather, the discussion led to a suggestion that the thread would better suit Spirituality or magic and mysticism (which was just a suggestion, mind you), but once it came time to actually pick one of those paths, there just wasn't any willingness to even have that conversation.

Benjamin Long said:Precisely!
And if that isn't the case, then we must ask ourselves this:

...so why on earth is Alim's topic posted under Spirituality instead of Philosophy?

I actually anticipated this question coming up, so I’ll try to give an answer here, and hopefully, it’ll be a satisfying one for everyone else who's wondering about the same thing.
It honestly felt like there just wasn't any willingness on Ali's part to actually communicate, because... well, it seemed to me like he wanted to punish us for even touching upon his topic in the first place, especially since we dared to offer some suggestions—which were really just suggestions—leaving it up to him to weigh in and decide how he wanted things handled. He didn't want to talk, and I interpret his silence as a choice, which should also serve as a little lesson (I think I know what you meant by teaching responsibility, Ali...) ...regarding responsibility, though it simultaneously meant that the responsibility for how the "Healthy Living" thread turned out rested squarely on Ali himself, simply because he refused to clarify what he actually wanted. He completely ignored me, likely proportional to the amount of responsibility he thought I held—which I felt myself, given that I stepped in at all—while he actually insulted the other moderator.

So, if we assume that we had every right to engage with the subject of that thread, just like any other thread in Philosophy, offering suggestions rather than making demands—options which Ali could have chosen to keep the thread in Philosophy, whether unmoderated or moderated according to his preference—then let's also assume that this question—“why was Ali's thread moved to Spirituality instead of Philosophy?”—isn't just some arbitrary, unilateral decision made by the moderators.

The poll exists because it ignores everything I just laid out above, and to the public, it just creates this impression that the moderators are being arbitrary and intolerant.
Personally, I feel a bit bad for getting tangled up in this whole mess, but by pure coincidence—I did, or perhaps things on that thread just reached a breaking point that raised these questions while also offering a chance for a compromise that wouldn't hurt the original author or those of us who wanted it to stay in Philosophy.
For my part, I supported the suggestion to move the shaman's threads over to spirituality once Ali failed to respond, which would have allowed for a different outcome altogether.

Benjamin Long said:Precisely!
And if that isn't the case, then we must ask ourselves this:

...so why on earth is Alim's topic posted under Spirituality instead of Philosophy?

I hope the reasoning is a bit clearer now.

Benjamin Long said:steelridge58, I am afraid there has been a misunder ndstanding between us.
I am not shifting the focus from spirituality to philosophy; rather, I am highlighting the issue regarding the Philosophy PDF. It has become significantly more prominent than the connection to spirituality—which I actually view as a positive development, since it has amplified the symptoms pointing toward the flaw in the Philosophy PDF. However, you seem to be diverting attention away from that specific issue! Does this mean you haven't noticed the problem, are you choosing to ignore it, are you simply avoiding the hassle of dealing with it, or perhaps I am the one who is mistaken?

I definitely see the issue with the philosophy side of things, mainly because it's become the primary area where I find myself getting tangled up in all the back-and-forth bickering and mediated arguments.
I’ve been watching the pulse of these philosophy threads as someone deeply embedded in them, and I've noticed a real shift in how people approach certain topics; they’ve increasingly turned into battlegrounds for petty disputes rather than meaningful discussion, which has created a massive hurdle for genuine communication and basic tolerance. It really comes down to whether people are willing to be a little harder on themselves and actually embrace open dialogue—something that, quite frankly, would make communicating with the moderators a whole lot easier if everyone just showed a little more openness or a willingness to actually talk things through.
At the end of the day, you just can't have healthy communication unless every single person involved is genuinely committed to sitting down and trying to resolve an issue in a way that actually works for everyone.

Benjamin Long said:@ steelridge58, you claim that philosophy wasn't an issue—or rather, that philosophy itself didn't face any issues—but I simply cannot agree! I firmly believe that philosophy faced, and continues to face, the exact problem I outlined in my previous post. Let me reiterate: the core issue with this philosophy is its overly aestheticized and formalistic approach to thought (which, quite frankly, is why the Alim was moved).
The whole point of philosophical thought isn't to be pleasant, beautiful, symmetrical, harmonious, or "cute." Such notions were surpassed and dismantled long ago by various avant-garde and neo-avant-garde movements, yet it seems they still linger around here.
That is precisely why I think it is a wonderful thing that spirituality (whatever its nature may be) has been relocated right there. If it is even remotely possible, it might just shatter that forced, old-fashioned, primitive, and overly polished concept currently present in philosophy.

Benjamin Long, I am talking about something very specific here: the actual reasons why we shifted spirituality over to philosophy. It wasn't that philosophy itself was broken or causing some crisis that forced this move; if anything, it was the exact opposite. The thinking back then was that moving things would solve the issues facing spirituality. You seem to be taking that core issue and trying to pin it on philosophy instead. But I have to say, it feels a little unfair to introduce philosophy's supposed problems now as if they were the driving force behind the decision, especially since nobody was even considering them at the moment the choice regarding spirituality was actually made.
Looking back later and judging whether the whole thing worked out by looking at the success of one group or the other is just retroactive analysis from where we stand today, but my point is simply that there was no debate about a "philosophy problem" happening at the time. If there had been, then we could actually discuss the necessity of transferring everything to philosophy (exactly like you're suggesting right now) and weigh whether that move was a success or a failure.
If that had been the case, I would have reacted quite differently to the idea that it was a "good move," assuming the goal was to fix philosophy. But it wasn't. Philosophy and that specific group weren't even part of the conversation because there was absolutely no reason to bring them up.
To me, ignoring what philosophy needed back then can't really be justified just by calling it a "smart move for spirituality." By bringing up philosophical problems now—problems that this move might conveniently help solve—you're basically creating justifications after the fact that simply weren't guiding the decision when it happened.

Benjamin Long said:Though it pains me to admit it, I find myself in general agreement with Donna and Enchantress this time around. ☕
Furthermore, I believe it would be highly beneficial for Philosophy if Spirituality were integrated into its ranks. Such a move would effectively break the monotony of those limited, overly simplistic approaches—specifically those leaning too heavily on aesthetic "sublime" concepts—and disrupt the current clan-like mentalities.

@ volver, who exactly do you consider to be the "landlord" over at Philosophy?

I was actually using a metaphor there (referring to the philosophy subforum being the home base). My point was really just that when everyone was scrambling to find the perfect setup for spirituality, nobody stopped to ask—wait, is this actually good for the philosophy side of things? It felt like such a one-sided approach, and honestly, saying it was a smart move kind of ignores the philosophy aspect entirely. I was just sharing my own take in response—as someone who hangs out in the philosophy section (well, as much as I do since joining this forum)—who doesn't see it as a great move. Of course, people are going to disagree, and this is just how I see it.
In this comment, Benjamin Long, you’re presenting your opinion on why this was beneficial for philosophy, but back then—and even now—that wasn't really the issue at hand. No one was looking for a solution for philosophy because philosophy wasn't the problem; spirituality was. To claim now that it was a good move for spirituality still leaves philosophy out of the equation, just like before, because that wasn't the question being asked—spirituality wasn't moved over to philosophy just to save philosophy, but to address spirituality. Later on, we can all debate how it impacted the philosophy section, where you share your vision, others share theirs, and I share mine.
I don't consider myself a "landlord" in any legal sense, if that's what you were getting at with your question or Donna Corleone's remark; I was just referring to the space itself—the philosophy subforum—which was basically an afterthought in this whole spirituality saga; I mean, nobody was even talking about philosophy during that whole ordeal.

mistybison said:How did they catch you? 😁

I am curious to hear from both the veteran forum "wolves and foxes" (who might use this place as a way to recapture their youth 😉) and those who have just recently joined the community.

It seems to me that the opinions of new members (if such people even exist, given how often old, once-active members return under a new handle) are more important than the views of those of us who have been here for years. Four years ago, I would have thought this sub-forum was excellent; there were periods when I found it quite poor, but now I think it is relatively okay. I believe there is something here for new users to enjoy, including topics worth remembering and reading.

- what do you think of the forum over the last few weeks/months?

Solid.

- what do you particularly like?

Lately, the discussions have become more serious, and I believe moving 'spirituality' to 'philosophy' was a wise decision.

- what irritates you?

The tendency for 'spirituality' to turn into a testing ground for debating the justification of drug use to achieve certain spiritual insights.

- how could the forum be improved (if necessary at all), or what is missing
(to make you happy while reading or writing on the forum 🙂)

If the combatants fighting 'for and against' narcotics moved to a more appropriate sub-forum or limited themselves to a single thread, then spirituality topics would dominate the sub-forum index again. When I have the time, I try to make my modest contribution by occasionally bumping an old thread on a different subject. I hope others will follow my lead, and that those with more time and inspiration will start opening interesting new topics that better suit this sub-forum. 🙂

But the real question is whether that move actually benefited philosophy itself? That’s the absurd part of this whole situation—it’s like someone deciding to move into an apartment without ever asking the landlord if they even wanted a new tenant in the first place.
Even now, when people say it was a good move for spirituality, they aren't really stopping to consider if it was good for philosophy; and frankly, that exact attitude—just ignoring what philosophy actually needs or wants—is precisely what caused spirituality to drift into the philosophy section in the first place.

steelskipper4 said:Well, I have to say, you weren't exactly crystal clear there. 😛

Perhaps we could attempt to rephrase the core of your argument as follows:

1. Which holds more intrinsic value: reaching enlightenment strictly through raw, lived experience, or via pure, unadulterated theoretical contemplation?

2. Is it more worthwhile to encounter an individual who has already ascended to a specific high level of intellect, or someone who hasn't reached that peak yet but possesses the latent potential to eventually climb it?

If one were to peer a bit deeper into the mechanics of this, the true deciding factor becomes the structural integrity of a person's being, because that internal architecture is inextricably linked to both their experiences and their accumulated knowledge; essentially, the depth of one's capacity to actually GRASP what they have learned through education or felt through life depends entirely on how well-formed their inner self truly is.

That brings us to the inevitable question: what, precisely, constitutes the "structural integrity of one's being"? 😬

I honestly think we build ourselves up through understanding, and that understanding is essentially the true value of everything we know.

The thing is, though, a person's character can go one of two ways: they can become trapped within what they already know, effectively closing themselves off to new insights, or they can develop a character that stays open and free, without feeling this constant need to constantly prove themselves to others.

To back that up, I came across this little quote by Deepak Chopra that really hit home for me:

Intelligence is like water—it has to flow to stay pure...

Arthur Anderson49 said:But look, nature isn't some social convention! It isn't just our little interpretation of things. It simply *exists*. Period.

So what exactly counts as an objective "tool" or object then?

There’s no such thing as an objective mental tool—that’s the whole point! Everything we dream up is subjective; it's all just a type of convention. That’s exactly why we have to pause every once in a while and perform a massive reality check on our own mental frameworks. We can't let our ability to construct these ideas carry us too far off the deep end, right?

That’s why comparing our ideas back to nature is so vital. Think about it: in the wild, there is no concept of good or evil. There aren't any human rights out there in the woods. There is no such thing as justice in the natural world. Those are all purely human mental constructs. They are conventions. And we really need to handle them with care, otherwise, we might fall into the trap of thinking they are concrete realities that will still be there the moment we turn our backs on them.

But honestly, I think it comes down to the fact that humans are creators; we are constantly building ourselves and our own little realities within the vast, indifferent landscape of the natural world we inhabit.

The core struggle of being human—and if I can borrow a thought from Reddit here—is really this fundamental split in our existence; it's that sense of duality, the alienation, the suffering, that terrifying fear of true freedom, the deep longing to be whole, and that strange capacity we have to both destroy through hate and build through love...

When you look at ourselves in relation to nature, we are the only beings who actually feel this drive, this absolute necessity, to find a way to bridge that gap and overcome this internal divide; we're basically asking, how are we supposed to actually live?

In that sense, I truly believe religion serves as a way for us to organize ourselves, perhaps providing a smoother or more complete path for people to resolve and move past this uniquely human dilemma.

I'll just touch on a few more layers of what the word religion actually means—it stems from the Latin *religare*, meaning to bind or tie together, and also relates to Greek terms for devotion to rituals or adherence to rules, where the initial need for social integration was clearly the spark for organized religion, as John Zerzan points out.

ironmarlin1 said:That strikes me as a rather naive way of looking at things—this whole idea of correspondence with reality and those other traditionalist doctrines.

There is no such thing as an objective mental tool. That’s precisely the point. Everything the human mind conceives is inherently subjective; it’s just a collection of conventions. Which is why it becomes vital to periodically test the structural integrity of our mental frameworks—to perform a sort of "reality check"—ensuring our knack for constructing narratives doesn't carry us too far away from the ground.

What kind of "reality check" are we talking about here? Do you honestly believe that when a physicist conducts research, they aren't working under a set of assumptions, attempting to pierce through to some pure reality, whatever that might be?

That is exactly why comparisons to nature are necessary. For instance, nature knows nothing of good or evil. There are no human rights in the wild. There is no concept of justice out there. Those are entirely human mental constructs. Mere conventions. And we have to handle them with extreme caution, lest we fall into the delusion that they possess an inherent existence that remains even when we turn our backs on them.

Once again, I find myself wondering if a "comparison to nature" can even exist. Any comparison of that sort is inevitably colored by values, and if those values are, as you claim, merely conventions, then the very version of nature you are observing is itself just another convention.

Nature doesn't need us to function, but we certainly need it. When you step back and look at the world through that lens, you realize that humans are essentially the only creatures "condemned to be free," forced by necessity to constantly invent and define the world we live in.

Olivia Evans8 said:In any philosophical debate, you can totally see where someone is standing. It’s super obvious because they lay out their views, break them down, defend them, and then go all in attacking the other side. At the end of the day, solid argumentation is everything... it's not about just going on a solo monologue.

But honestly, is our logic actually strong enough to override those gut feelings we attach to certain ideas? Take the whole free will versus determinism thing, for example. No matter how deep we dive into the tiny details or try to dissect the issue, there’s always someone in the debate (on both sides!) who just *feels* like they’re right and everyone else is dead wrong. We spend all our energy trying to tear down someone else's point before we even think about questioning our own.

So, my take—which is super rough, by the way—is that this is just how everyone works. You can't really peel away that inner "I am right" feeling, even when it's buried under massive layers of rationalization and heavy-duty arguments.

What do you guys think about us being slaves to that little hit of dopamine we get from just being right?

What we're talking about here is the ego's desire to be right, which, if you think about it, is qualitatively different from the actual feeling of truth—truth is something much quieter, more subtle, and it doesn't feel the need to compete, prove itself, or win an argument...

It strikes me that in your opening post, regarding the question of whether we are doomed to feel truth rather than conclude it, you might be conflating the sense of truth with the mere fear of being wrong, which aren't quite the same thing...
The feeling of truth accompanies a conclusion like a key fits a lock (they just click together to open the door), whereas that desperate urge to be right—where the primary goal is just to show others they're wrong—works differently... it’s more like stubbornly trying to shove a key you think is better into a lock that someone else is already using.

analogsurfer15 said:Exactly. Without reciprocity, you don't actually have a giver—you just have someone making an offer. There’s no receiver until they actually step up and take what's being offered.

A mugger isn't a "giver," and someone forcing something on you—like dumping trash in your yard—isn't a giver either. And if you actually pick up that trash? You aren't a receiver... you're just a fool.🙂

Little Bud starts out as an offerer, then becomes a giver once people show up to take, and eventually becomes a receiver once those takers start giving back. So, are we offering to give, or are we offering (and giving) just so we can receive?

Can you even truly be a giver without also being a receiver? Or do people who are *only* givers and *only* receivers actually exist in the real world? I'm thinking about it, really thinking... but I can't quite wrap my head around a real example...🙂

There’s also that old expression—offered as if it were accepted. 🙂

It’s that awkward moment when you try to give someone something, but they aren't interested, so you just sort of shrug and say, "well, consider it offered as received." 🙂 It’s this strange little middle ground between the giver and the receiver where the hand-off didn't quite land, 🙂 since nobody actually took anything, yet there wasn't a hard rejection either that would leave the giver feeling stung or insulted. It's honestly just a polite way to save face! It lets everyone maintain their freedom to give or refuse while still treating the gesture like a completed gift that did its job. 🙂
And sometimes, the person being offered something will use it too, saying "offered as received" to signal that, for all intents and purposes, they've accepted it. 🙂
It's basically just a verbal handshake to smooth things over.

*Thanks for bringing me into the conversation—consider me both offered and accepted.

hiddenpuma75 said:But look, we shouldn't focus on who originally kicked off the internet or what their motives were; instead, we need to look at how the net actually EVOLVED
That’s exactly my point. Look at what it is in the USA today!
(It’s pretty obvious that "the Net has a Budweiser nature" 🙂—meaning the web essentially "evolved on its own" and escaped the grasp of those initial, short-sighted ideas.)

The Internet functions as an "entity" that possesses all the hallmarks of a SELF-ORGANIZING SYSTEM where order exists without the need for control, authority, or centralization.

We see harmony emerging naturally, without the massive overreach and coercion we often see when the government apparatus is abused.
In reality, nobody truly owns the internet, and no single entity can simply switch it off. 🙂
(Anarchism is fundamentally right about this, and it deeply challenges our assumptions regarding ownership. As the internet proves, mutual cooperation
and generosity can thrive perfectly fine without any notion of "ownership," specific owners, or a thousand different laws.)

(And honestly, that is one of the grand, bold, and clearly achievable ideals of anarchism. 🙂

I just can't help but look at who kicked this all off and why. 🙂 That said, I wouldn't dream of making any definitive claims about something I don't feel I understand deeply enough to speak on with total certainty.
That comparison you made about the Net having a Budweiser nature is probably the kind of thing that would get you smacked with a bamboo stick... 🙂 though I can't say for sure.
As for this idea of a self-organizing system where order exists without control—something we might actually want to apply to how we run society—it makes me think a bit about anarchy, because from my perspective, if we're talking about a self-organizing system like that... it would require every single individual to possess the same level of critical thinking and competence, so if everyone actually had that, we wouldn't even need any form of control.

So, about anarchy:
Every mystic is essentially a vessel for anarchy.
An "anarchist" is really just an observer who sees things for what they truly are, rather than how tradition dictates they should be seen.
They actually take the time to think about it.

Zachary Patel6 said:"Killing" is such a relative term. In my view, sometimes a sharp, cutting word does more damage than an actual murder. I say "sometimes," because nobody truly knows what's going on in a person's soul—except God.

The distinction lies in the fact that words have this incredible power to wound; sometimes they cut much deeper and more painfully than any literal blade ever could—metaphorically speaking, of course—whereas physical murder, as a direct action, doesn't carry that same kind of subjective weight when we start talking about how one "kills" through a look, a comment, a judgment, or a specific decision.

Zachary Patel6 said:😕You’re misinterpreting me—completely. I said only God knows what goes on in a killer's psyche or how much darkness is actually in there. It isn't our job to play judge (and by that, I don't mean killers shouldn't be thrown in prison), but as for the true depth of evil within them? Only God knows.

I totally get what you're getting at when you mention that nobody can truly grasp why someone does what they do, or understand the internal world a person carries with them—a world that's often a complete mystery even to the person living it—let alone expect some stranger to understand it all. Whether you're a believer or just using the term as a way to express the idea, it's clear you're attributing that ultimate insight to God as the only one capable of knowing the truth, and I agree that we shouldn't presume to judge the core of who someone is, though that certainly doesn't mean there aren't legal consequences for those actions.

swiftcobra15 said:At its core, the internet was built for military "necessity," and even today, it primarily serves the military and intelligence agencies as a way to establish total oversight over every single citizen.😉

The fact that we’re all having fun and picking up bits of knowledge is just the bait used to catch the fish. I remember reading about how Napoleon once noted that while bayonets can accomplish a lot, you certainly can't sit on them.
Those in power figured that out a long time ago; they've switched to much softer methods of subjugation. To me, the internet stands as the most perfect tool for mass control ever devised.

It’s nice to be an optimist, but honestly, I find it too exhausting to maintain.😁

I always honestly assumed the whole point of the Internet was just to link up universities, thinking that was the core philosophy and the original reason it even existed, so I decided to do a little digging into the history... (Parsifal wrote about the history here too, but he didn't touch on what actually motivated the creation of the Internet or what its true initial purpose was, which is exactly what you pointed out, steelridge58).
DARPA was established back in 1958 right after the space race kicked off between the USSR and the USA following the launch of Sputnik 1, and one of the very first projects that agency tackled was finding a way to link radar systems all across the USA. Once they pulled that off, they realized just how massive the potential was for connecting computers, so eventually, a small office within the agency managed to link two universities together into a network in 1969, calling it ARPANET, which served as the precursor to the modern www.. web, and so on...

So, it really doesn't hold up to say that the Internet is inherently an anarchic idea in its essence and spirit (like Parsifal suggested in his first post... or if we look at the roots of anarchist thought—if those roots lie in an idea of power where the consequences wouldn't be felt by the person holding, or trying to grab, that power... which seems pretty obvious when you look at the actual origins and the driving motivations that allowed the Internet to develop in the first place).

Of course, I can't quite bridge that gap with us—the everyday users dealing with all the perks and headaches 🙂 regarding connectivity, communication, and access to information and such—but when we step back and look at the very beginning of its development, we see that the fundamental concept of networking was really about control and the power that comes from it. (?)

Executioner, 👍
I am honestly just floored by this music and the video!
(thanks so much for sharing this 🙂).
Officer, 🙂 thanks. And a huge thanks to Sitnozub too (I didn't go out of my way to thank everyone individually since I figured we had already wrapped up the discussion 🙂 so I thought I'd just bundle it all together... 🙂).

boldsailor32, 🙂 I’m pretty sure I’ve come across some mention somewhere before about those little sprites people always associate with you. 🙂

p.s. context is everything here. 😉