Posts by swiftcobra15

Michelle Sanders72 said:Quincy:

swiftcobra15 I guess I should probably mention what Edward Flores4 was saying about this... maybe? It’s kind of hard to wrap my head around, honestly, but if you look at it from a certain angle, I suppose there's a bit of sense to it, even if it feels a little bit out there. Not that I'm saying anyone is right or wrong, per se, but it’s just one of those things that makes you sit back and wonder, I guess. I mean, I’ve been sitting here wondering about this for a while now, like, does language actually come before culture, or is it more like they just kind of spark into existence at the exact same time? It’s one of those deep rabbit holes you fall down when you can't sleep, I guess. Maybe language is the foundation that lets us build a culture in the first place, or maybe culture is what drives us to invent new ways to talk, so it’s all just this big, messy loop. I don't know, it feels like trying to figure out if the chicken or the egg came first, only much more complicated because everything is so intertwined. It's probably both, honestly, just two sides of the same coin spinning around forever.

First off, I should probably clarify things right out of the gate so nobody gets the wrong idea—when I’m rambling on about stuff like culture or language, I’m really just talking about how we communicate as beings capable of abstract thought, I guess. It's more about that mental leap than anything else, maybe.

I mean, I guess it’s kind of hard to even wrap my head around the idea of culture existing without a language, or honestly, trying to imagine a language that isn't totally shaped by its own culture... it just feels like one of those things where you can't really separate them, you know? Like, they're just so deeply tangled up together that trying to pull them apart seems almost impossible, I suppose.
Like I was saying before, those two concepts are just so tangled up together that it’s kind of impossible to even look at them as separate things, I guess.

I guess I was just sitting here thinking about how everything kind of boils down to a function, you know? Like, if you look at any given process or even just a random interaction, there’s always some underlying purpose or role being played, though I suppose it’s easy to get lost in the weeds and forget that part sometimes. It’s funny how we overcomplicate things when really, most stuff is just performing its specific task and moving on, which is probably why I spend so much time overanalyzing things that don't even matter, I guess. Anyway, just a stray thought floating around my head while I was staring at my coffee this morning. I mean, at the end of the day, language and culture are really just two sides of the same coin when it comes to how we actually connect and vibe with each other in a group. I guess it’s almost obvious why individuals bother forming societies in the first place—it’s basically baked into our DNA—but we could probably get lost in that rabbit hole for hours if we really wanted to. Anyway, my point is that wherever you find a community, you're inevitably going to find a culture, and where there's a culture, there's always a language tied to it. You can't really have one without the other; language doesn't just float around in a vacuum without some cultural context, and honestly, trying to imagine a culture existing without its own unique way of speaking seems pretty much impossible to me.
I mean, when I say... I guess I was just thinking about language today... you know, how much it shapes everything we do and say. It’s kind of wild when you really sit down and ponder it, though maybe I’m just overthinking things again. Language is such a massive, messy thing, isn't it? It’s basically the fabric of how we connect with everyone else here in the States. I mean, it's more than just words on a page or sounds coming out of our mouths; it's like this whole invisible framework that dictates how we see the world around us. Sometimes I feel like we get so caught up in the rules of grammar or trying to sound smart that we forget it's supposed to be a tool for actually being understood. It's all a bit fluid, I suppose. Anyway, just some random thoughts rattling around my brain while I was staring at my coffee this morning.I mean, it’s not just about the words we say, you know? It’s way deeper than that. There’s the whole non-verbal side of things—the gestures, the little movements, all those symbols and other ways we shoot off signals without even trying. We're constantly sending out these messages, both on purpose and, I guess, kind of subconsciously too. So, like... I guess I’m just sitting here thinking about how much we rely on language, you know? It's kind of wild when you really stop to look at it, like, how everything we say or write basically shapes our whole reality, which is probably a bit deep for a random thought, but still. Maybe it's just me being weirdly philosophical today, but there's something about the way we communicate that feels so heavy yet so effortless at the same time. Anyway, just some random musings I had floating around my head while I was staring at my coffee this morning. I mean, I guess the whole point of talking to other people is just... connection, right? Like, what else is there? It's really just about reaching out and actually communicating with everyone else out there. Maybe it's more complicated than that, but honestly, I figure at the end of the day, it's all just about that exchange between individuals.
I mean, I guess culture carries a whole lot more weight than just the surface stuff, you know? It’s got these much more complicated, kind of abstract layers to it that go way beyond the obvious things we see every day... maybe it's just me, but it feels like there's always some deeper subtext running underneath everything. I guess I’m just sitting here thinking about how much the language changes depending on who you're talking to, you know? It's kind of funny how we all use different slang or weird ways of phrasing things without even realizing it, though maybe that's just me overthinking it. It’s like, one minute you're talking normally and the next you've drifted into some specific dialect or a bunch of local idioms that wouldn't make sense to anyone else in the States. I don't know, maybe it's just the way people express themselves differently in every corner of the country, but it's pretty interesting if you actually stop to look at it.I guess it's kind of like how some things decide what actually counts as acceptable and what doesn't, though maybe that’s just a simple way of looking at it... because, honestly, there's probably this much deeper, more abstract layer to it all that people who actually live and breathe the culture just sort of intuitively pick up on and understand without having to say anything, I suppose.

I mean, I guess if you really sit down and think about it, there was probably some kind of edge to having spoken language over just, you know, all that non-verbal stuff back when humans were first figuring things out and actually needed to develop it. It’s like, maybe having actual words gave us a bit of a leg up in those early stages compared to just pointing or making noises, though I don't know, it’s hard to say for sure without being there, obviously.
I mean, I guess it really just comes down to how much capacity someone has for abstract thought and, you know, general intellectual horsepower. It feels like once we hit that evolutionary sweet spot where the prerequisite for a whole new way of communicating was finally met, the whole thing just sort of naturally unfolded into the shape it takes today. Maybe.

I probably wouldn't have phrased the question quite like that, if I'm being honest. Maybe it was just me, but I guess there's a better way to go about it.
I mean, I guess you could say that visual language speaks in a totally different way than actual words do, if that makes sense. It’s not really about one being better or more important than the other, I suppose. It just feels like they both serve their own purposes—like, one might be way more effective for a certain kind of abstract communication, while the other handles a completely different vibe entirely.
I guess it really just boils down to whatever the market demands at the time, you know? Like, the dominant language is probably just going to be whichever one happens to be most useful for whatever people are actually doing. It’s all about necessity, I suppose. I mean, I guess it’s just a bit more useful, if that makes sense... maybe? Not that I'm trying to say it's a total game-changer or anything, but it definitely seems to get the job done better than the other option. It's just one of those things that feels a little more practical, I suppose. I guess you could say it’s all happening within a certain timeframe, if that makes any sense... maybe? It’s just one of those things where everything sort of settles into place during a specific window of time, I suppose.

Michelle Sanders72 said:See what I mean?

I try to say something without getting all sidetracked, and they just jump right on it, I guess. 🙂

If you look closely, I wasn't even talking about specific people, just individuals in a general sense.

I mean, obviously, being part of a society is baked into the whole definition of being human. So, by extension, that includes culture and language too, I suppose. 🙂

And honestly, how people drift apart or come back together doesn't really change the core point. Even pulling away from others is sort of its own way of being connected to the group, which we've already touched on in this thread anyway. 🙂

But, uh, that's not really what today's episode is about... Today's big topic is actually....

why malizia is feeling so depressed

Look, malizia, why wouldn't you just walk away from culture? Because that would be way too much to give up, I think. A person's life is basically just a long string of choices where you sacrifice a little piece of yourself to get something else in return. Life is mostly just compromise. You can't have light without shadow, and you can't have any kind of gain without making a sacrifice. You can't even have happiness without those low moods creeping in sometimes. 🙂

Michelle Sanders72 said:Quincy:

swiftcobra15 I guess I should probably mention what Edward Flores4 was saying about this... maybe? It’s kind of hard to wrap my head around, honestly, but if you look at it from a certain angle, I suppose there's a bit of sense to it, even if it feels a little bit out there. Not that I'm saying anyone is right or wrong, per se, but it’s just one of those things that makes you sit back and wonder, I guess. I mean, I’ve been sitting here wondering about this for a while now, like, does language actually come before culture, or is it more like they just kind of spark into existence at the exact same time? It’s one of those deep rabbit holes you fall down when you can't sleep, I guess. Maybe language is the foundation that lets us build a culture in the first place, or maybe culture is what drives us to invent new ways to talk, so it’s all just this big, messy loop. I don't know, it feels like trying to figure out if the chicken or the egg came first, only much more complicated because everything is so intertwined. It's probably both, honestly, just two sides of the same coin spinning around forever.

First off, I should probably clarify things right out of the gate so nobody gets the wrong idea—when I’m rambling on about stuff like culture or language, I’m really just talking about how we communicate as beings capable of abstract thought, I guess. It's more about that mental leap than anything else, maybe.

I mean, I guess it’s kind of hard to even wrap my head around the idea of culture existing without a language, or honestly, trying to imagine a language that isn't totally shaped by its own culture... it just feels like one of those things where you can't really separate them, you know? Like, they're just so deeply tangled up together that trying to pull them apart seems almost impossible, I suppose.
Like I was saying before, those two concepts are just so tangled up together that it’s kind of impossible to even look at them as separate things, I guess.

I guess I was just sitting here thinking about how everything kind of boils down to a function, you know? Like, if you look at any given process or even just a random interaction, there’s always some underlying purpose or role being played, though I suppose it’s easy to get lost in the weeds and forget that part sometimes. It’s funny how we overcomplicate things when really, most stuff is just performing its specific task and moving on, which is probably why I spend so much time overanalyzing things that don't even matter, I guess. Anyway, just a stray thought floating around my head while I was staring at my coffee this morning. I mean, at the end of the day, language and culture are really just two sides of the same coin when it comes to how we actually connect and vibe with each other in a group. I guess it’s almost obvious why individuals bother forming societies in the first place—it’s basically baked into our DNA—but we could probably get lost in that rabbit hole for hours if we really wanted to. Anyway, my point is that wherever you find a community, you're inevitably going to find a culture, and where there's a culture, there's always a language tied to it. You can't really have one without the other; language doesn't just float around in a vacuum without some cultural context, and honestly, trying to imagine a culture existing without its own unique way of speaking seems pretty much impossible to me.
I mean, when I say... I guess I was just thinking about language today... you know, how much it shapes everything we do and say. It’s kind of wild when you really sit down and ponder it, though maybe I’m just overthinking things again. Language is such a massive, messy thing, isn't it? It’s basically the fabric of how we connect with everyone else here in the States. I mean, it's more than just words on a page or sounds coming out of our mouths; it's like this whole invisible framework that dictates how we see the world around us. Sometimes I feel like we get so caught up in the rules of grammar or trying to sound smart that we forget it's supposed to be a tool for actually being understood. It's all a bit fluid, I suppose. Anyway, just some random thoughts rattling around my brain while I was staring at my coffee this morning.I mean, it’s not just about the words we say, you know? It’s way deeper than that. There’s the whole non-verbal side of things—the gestures, the little movements, all those symbols and other ways we shoot off signals without even trying. We're constantly sending out these messages, both on purpose and, I guess, kind of subconsciously too. So, like... I guess I’m just sitting here thinking about how much we rely on language, you know? It's kind of wild when you really stop to look at it, like, how everything we say or write basically shapes our whole reality, which is probably a bit deep for a random thought, but still. Maybe it's just me being weirdly philosophical today, but there's something about the way we communicate that feels so heavy yet so effortless at the same time. Anyway, just some random musings I had floating around my head while I was staring at my coffee this morning. I mean, I guess the whole point of talking to other people is just... connection, right? Like, what else is there? It's really just about reaching out and actually communicating with everyone else out there. Maybe it's more complicated than that, but honestly, I figure at the end of the day, it's all just about that exchange between individuals.
I mean, I guess culture carries a whole lot more weight than just the surface stuff, you know? It’s got these much more complicated, kind of abstract layers to it that go way beyond the obvious things we see every day... maybe it's just me, but it feels like there's always some deeper subtext running underneath everything. I guess I’m just sitting here thinking about how much the language changes depending on who you're talking to, you know? It's kind of funny how we all use different slang or weird ways of phrasing things without even realizing it, though maybe that's just me overthinking it. It’s like, one minute you're talking normally and the next you've drifted into some specific dialect or a bunch of local idioms that wouldn't make sense to anyone else in the States. I don't know, maybe it's just the way people express themselves differently in every corner of the country, but it's pretty interesting if you actually stop to look at it.I guess it's kind of like how some things decide what actually counts as acceptable and what doesn't, though maybe that’s just a simple way of looking at it... because, honestly, there's probably this much deeper, more abstract layer to it all that people who actually live and breathe the culture just sort of intuitively pick up on and understand without having to say anything, I suppose.

I mean, I guess if you really sit down and think about it, there was probably some kind of edge to having spoken language over just, you know, all that non-verbal stuff back when humans were first figuring things out and actually needed to develop it. It’s like, maybe having actual words gave us a bit of a leg up in those early stages compared to just pointing or making noises, though I don't know, it’s hard to say for sure without being there, obviously.
I mean, I guess it really just comes down to how much capacity someone has for abstract thought and, you know, general intellectual horsepower. It feels like once we hit that evolutionary sweet spot where the prerequisite for a whole new way of communicating was finally met, the whole thing just sort of naturally unfolded into the shape it takes today. Maybe.

I probably wouldn't have phrased the question quite like that, if I'm being honest. Maybe it was just me, but I guess there's a better way to go about it.
I mean, I guess you could say that visual language speaks in a totally different way than actual words do, if that makes sense. It’s not really about one being better or more important than the other, I suppose. It just feels like they both serve their own purposes—like, one might be way more effective for a certain kind of abstract communication, while the other handles a completely different vibe entirely.
I guess it really just boils down to whatever the market demands at the time, you know? Like, the dominant language is probably just going to be whichever one happens to be most useful for whatever people are actually doing. It’s all about necessity, I suppose. I mean, I guess it’s just a bit more useful, if that makes sense... maybe? Not that I'm trying to say it's a total game-changer or anything, but it definitely seems to get the job done better than the other option. It's just one of those things that feels a little more practical, I suppose. I guess you could say it’s all happening within a certain timeframe, if that makes any sense... maybe? It’s just one of those things where everything sort of settles into place during a specific window of time, I suppose.

loneorca34 said:Look, before you jump in with more questions, can I just ask a favor? Take a second to really chew on them first. Like, actually build out an argument before hitting send. Tell me how you even arrived at these specific points—maybe if we lay it all out, we can actually reach some real conclusions together. I mean, what’s actually bugging you about language and culture? And why did you pivot toward the visual side of things? Why do you feel like the visual element is purely denotative? (I'm guessing that's what you meant by setting the visual against the verbal?)

loneorca34 said:^^ People who are "deaf" to the noise—you know, the ones who actually listen—they get it. They realize that every single culture, whether it’s the mainstream stuff everyone follows, some local niche thing, or just general societal vibes, all flows from the exact same linguistic foundation. It's all connected. So, when they're talking about "mainstream" versus "subaltern" or whatever, they aren't sweating the details because they know it's just two sides of the same coin. There's no need to point fingers or label which specific flavor of culture is on stage at any given moment... anyway, that's my two cents on the "deaf" ones. 😁

James Lee77 said:Yeah, okay, you're switching between talking about "our culture" and just culture in general. I guess it's like saying just because the air in New York City is trashed, it doesn't mean breathing isn't a good thing. Just because I agree with you about "our culture" doesn't mean I think humans can totally dodge culture altogether.

So, if we're talking about culture as a whole, I'd argue that when people live together, they inevitably build one. Still, I think an individual can hit these moments where all those cultural definitions just... crack. And through those cracks, you get a glimpse of a reality that hasn't been symbolized yet—something that isn't part of the "culture" script. You could call those moments silence, especially if you view culture and symbolism as being tied to language.

If someone keeps talking to others after having one of those flashes, they're jumping right back into the cultural machine. But maybe they can take that glimpse of something beyond culture—that moment of pure insight—and use it to affect things in a totally different way. That's what I'd call creativity.

Think of it like Plato's allegory: only the person who actually left the cave (culture) and saw reality for what it is can make the cave better when they return. They bring back signs pointing outward. (Though, I guess it's probably inevitable that people will just mistake the signpost for the destination—kind of like staring at your finger instead of the Moon it's pointing toward.)

Honestly, our culture gave up on pointing to anything besides itself a long time ago. It doesn't even believe there's anything left outside the bubble to point to. 🤷

Keith Lee2 said:Am I totally off base if I say this:

but from a practical standpoint—say:

conformism is just how Homo Sapiens functions.
we basically can't exist without conformism.

(and even here in the online world of conformism)

frozenotter232 said:I'm sticking to my answer. Take it or leave it. 😉

It isn't the only way. That's why I used the word 'neutralizing.'
As for this "narrow-mindedness" and turning enemies into friends—I'm not so sure. Look at a real ideological conflict: liberals versus fascists.

Liberals stand for things like human dignity, untouchable individual rights, checks and balances on government power, the freedom to seek truth, and free speech. Fascists, on the other hand, don't just hold different views; they champion values that are the direct opposite of liberal ones. These are two political worldviews that are fundamentally incompatible. It’s not just theoretical; it plays out practically because their visions for how a society should function are mutually exclusive. There's no room for both. If they exist in the same country, one side inevitably ends up operating outside the law.

So, can you imagine liberals and fascists becoming friends? Could a liberal turn a fascist into a buddy, or vice versa? Maybe, if one of them converts first. But that's not what we're talking about. The question is whether they can be friends while remaining true to themselves. In my view, that's impossible.

Reading your posts, I've gathered that you belong to the 'anti-fascist camp.' Would you ever actually be friends with a fascist?

(Fine, I went off-topic, but that's on you. 😛)

frozenotter232 said:Removing a brutal dictator is fine in theory, BUT...

it turns out everything in Iraq went downhill fast after the coalition intervention. So, looking at the fallout, they didn't do any good.
And they didn't do good based on their methods or goals either. Their approach was hypocritical and deceptive, while their actual objectives were purely self-serving. 😁

Is it "good" to destroy an enemy?

I'd say it's a necessity rather than a "good" thing. An enemy denies your very existence and your core values at the most fundamental level. What else can you do besides try to crush them or at least neutralize the threat?🤷

Besides, the war in Iraq wasn't about a real enemy. It was a manufactured conflict used to justify seizing a region that was strategically and economically vital.

I have more thoughts on the concept of enmity, but I'll stop there before I go too far off-topic.

Bureaucrat. As I mentioned earlier...
I wouldn't go so far as to say it’s actually good; I think "necessary" is a much more accurate way to put it.

He represents a repressive regime that was ultimately toppled by another one using military force.
Now, more people are dying in Iraq than ever during the Saddam era,
and there's no end in sight to this cycle of bloodshed.

The Iraqi people have lost so much, while Americans just walked away with cheap oil...

fadedbison17 said:Look, try seeing if you can wrap your head around objectivity like this:

The fact is, we exist just like everything else out there—we have our own objective traits (like, the simplest example being—everyone dies eventually, and nobody can fly just by flapping their arms).

Claiming you can't be objective just because you're human would imply you belong to some weird meta-reality that’s disconnected from the actual world. But humans are part of the world. Our senses are objective and specific, so I don't see why that should stop us from being objective...

Maybe we don't know as much about a person as we do about, say, a Ford Mustang, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to learn.

From an epistemological standpoint, a human being isn't truly part of the world.
The individual (acting as the subject) perceives and constructs their own reality;
therefore, the world exists within them, rather than them existing within the world.

Of course it exists (just like numbers do) for us humans.
It might exist for some other (intelligent) beings out there, but we have no way of knowing that.

I. Kant essentially took Protagoras's premise and formalized it:

We can only perceive things through our own unique human lens.

In doing so, he philosophically dismantled any possibility of true objectivism,
yet so many people still "philosophize" as if Kant never even existed.

Numbers are certainly more "objective" than simple digits, but both are human constructs.

As social creatures, humans reach a consensus over generations
regarding what we call "reality"—what is actually just intersubjectivity.
Calling that objectivity is simply a mistake.
A better term would be impartiality.

ironmarlin1 said:Which leads us down a rabbit hole: does the equator actually exist in any meaningful sense if there isn't a subject there to witness it?

I’ll leave you all to it for now. It’s a full moon night here in San Diego, and I’m off to go live my life.😁

I might just show up there tomorrow myself (finally 🙏).

Jonathan Brooks8 said:

The Happy Buddha is only as plump and jolly as his...

He is cheerful only because he takes on
the worries, anxieties, and suffering of others.

I’ve always felt that most modern translations
of the Bible are a bit of a sham, but this specific commandment really hits a nerve.
"Thou shalt not kill" sounds incredibly noble on paper, yet the actual intent behind it feels entirely different.
Even when people try to interpret it more specifically as "do not commit murder," you still don't see many Christians actually living by it.