Posts by Jerry Green59

Even in our wildest dreams, "communism" (or what we often call socialism here) was really just capitalism in disguise—with the government acting as the sole proprietor.

"In essence Marx believed to solve the problem of capitalism by replacing the many private entrepreneurs with only a single entrepreneur, namely the state. Marx's main error was that he actually didn't want to change capitalism, but just to hand it over to the state. Over the last 70 years, we've basically just been dealing with two sides of the same coin: private capitalism and state-run capitalism."

My favorite, Edward Flores4.

.. so, which holds more weight..?
.. honestly ..
.. the value of what we’re collectively calling .. existing knowledge .. is undeniable .. because back then .. well .. you just know ..

.. but the value of learning lies in what you mentioned at the start .. in experience ..
.. because .. you haven't just acquired information .. you've actually become someone new ..

.. let me offer .. a slightly more vivid illustration ..

.. a sea turtle hatches from its egg .. scrambles out of a hole in the sand .. and bolts toward the ocean ..
.. essentially .. it emerges .. and already knows how to move .. immediately ..

.. a calf or a lamb needs a little more .. just a tiny bit .. enough to shake off the shock of entering the big wide world .. to get on all fours and nurse ..

.. the turtle and the calf don't need to learn how to walk ..
.. for them, the knowledge of movement is already .. existing ..

.. but .. what about humans..?
.. humans need time .. they .. have to learn to walk ..
.. it takes time ..
.. but .. damn it .. through that learning, one develops .. motor skill development during that phase is tied directly to psychological growth ..
(.. learning to walk would be even more significant .. even more deeply tied to the development of the psyche .. will .. and personality .. if a human were learning to walk while temporarily paralyzed ..)

.. once you learn to walk, you stop thinking about walking ..
.. it becomes like .. breathing .. or blinking ..
.. it feels natural, as if it’s always been there ..
(.. and it is .. knowledge is never something that is forced .. or something you have to strain to achieve ..)

.. there is a unique value in that process of learning to walk while paralyzed .. because the learned skill becomes conscious .. the entire journey toward achieving it is brought into awareness ..
(.. well .. it can be made conscious without that, but for the paralyzed, there is no progress without bringing it into consciousness .. so it serves as a good example ..)

.. and that allows for a conscious transfer of knowledge to other areas ..

.. such as how attitudes develop .. or how opinions and perspectives shift ..
.. much like the act of walking itself .. Alimi wrote about this, though a few thinkers before him likely arrived at the same realization spontaneously ..

Honestly, Olivia Evans8, I don't think you actually care about existing intelligence at all.
Well, honestly... if she doesn't exist, she’s clearly not worth your time.

Based on the opening post—where the core question centers on whether we should value what we’ve already learned versus what we're currently acquiring—that's how I'd frame it.
... aside from what one actually learns through experience and their own innate intelligence ...
Because... let’s be honest, it should go without saying that being intelligent and actually possessing knowledge are two entirely different things.

I’m starting to worry you picked a pretty poor example for your opening post. Honestly, things might have been much clearer if you had just left it out entirely.

So... anyway...
...this would actually serve as a pretty good example:

I’m honestly not quite sure what you were aiming for when you posed that question.
... just so I could. I knew it. I feel compelled to ask for some clarification here. I think I need a bit more context before I can truly wrap my head around this.
I’m operating under the assumption that part of the question is already quite clear.
But let's be clear: an assumption is never a substitute for actual knowledge. You should always verify your premises before you start building an argument on them.
So then I find myself asking... is that really how it works? Was that actually what you were getting at?
... or ... let me walk you through this using this specific example. Does that rule actually apply here, or am I just overthinking it? If my interpretation of what you meant is correct, then it really ought to hold water. (...for instance...)

If you actually give a damn about having a conversation and reaching any kind of mutual understanding, you’ll find yourself responding.
That’s my plan, anyway... I’ll try to work through it via conversation... assuming there’s actually someone on the other end willing to listen. I’m getting closer to finally figuring this all out. What exactly are you basing that on?

So... through our conversation, I suppose I’ll be learning all about you.
Even if you decide to stay silent, I’ll still walk away having learned something about you—perhaps even more than intended. Though, I certainly won't be uncovering whatever specific train of thought led you to post this topic in the first place.

Another option would be if I actually possessed the gift of telepathy—or perhaps something even more useful. I mean, imagine if I could just accurately know, or truly feel, exactly what you’re feeling right now.
If I actually possessed that kind of intuition, I’d have the answers ready without needing to ask a single question.

If I were to step into this conversation, I’d want to start from a place of actual clarity—specifically, knowing exactly what you intended to convey when you originally opened this thread.

It’s a bit like that—through the actual grind of learning, you gradually find yourself inching closer to true understanding.
Once you actually reach a certain level of mastery, there isn't really anything left to "learn" in the traditional sense. You aren't studying anymore; you're just existing within that knowledge.

So, what actually holds value?
Good grief...
The value of what we’re collectively calling "existing knowledge" here is beyond question. Because, honestly... damn it... at that point, you actually know what you're doing.

The true value of learning really comes back to what you said at the very beginning—it’s all about the experience.
Because... you didn't just learn something new. You actually became a different person entirely.

So, here’s my take: the most valuable path forward would be through direct experience—learning in the broadest sense of the word. It’s about moving toward a state of actualized knowledge, the kind that eventually makes assumptions entirely unnecessary.

To give you a concrete example of what I was getting at, it would look like this...
It’s a rare thing, isn't it? To encounter someone where you aren't just talking to hear yourselves speak, but actually communicating with the genuine intent to be understood—and more importantly, the willingness to truly listen so they can understand you. It’s like two open books, laid out on the table, with nothing left to hide.
Eventually, you reach that point where you just know. It’s more than a hunch; you can actually feel it in your gut. You just know.

So, what’s your take on this?
Does this have anything to do with what you were planning to talk about?

Why exactly?

Charles Ramirez59 said:The database took a hit. Apparently, we don't have the option to delete our own profiles here.😁

And if they ask for help, can they?

Keith Lee2 said:@Sanjo
Just wanted to say—you can never be too careful.
You never really know who’s being genuine and who’s just messing with you.

There's this old fable about a sparrow, a cow, and a cat—pretty vivid stuff.
It goes like this:

Poor little sparrow freezes on a branch and drops like a stone.
A cow wanders by and... well, leaves a mess right on him.
The sparrow thaws out.
He starts getting all worked up.
The cat hears him.
She digs him out of the mess and eats him up.

But honestly, there are some real life lessons in there.
1. Just because someone screws you over doesn't mean they meant any harm.
2. Just because someone pulls you out of a hole doesn't mean they've got your back.
3. If you're already stuck in the mud, sometimes it's best to just stay quiet.

So, my takeaway? Even if Jerry Green59 leaves me in a mess, it doesn't mean she's out to get me.
Same goes for when you tell someone to "cut the crap"—it isn't always an insult.

You rascal—you're good, man, really good.
Thanks for the reminder.

And regarding the point of your previous post:

aaaaah, soooo ...

The professor's name is Professor Miller, the building is the Liberal Arts college, and the lectures used to be held over on Oak Street.

(You missed the entrance; the pub is actually located in the Liberal Arts building)

@nina333: Who exactly is defending free speech here? Did someone actually advocate for getting rid of free expression?

No, you definitely aren't going to make a masterpiece out of this.

The warning is pretty straightforward: don't take advice at face value—especially when it's based on a single data point or some incredibly thin information.

Jeremy Palmer said:I guess you'll be an expert one day too...👎That’s a pretty brutal way to start a post. Honestly, I don't get why you're being so rude to this girl; she clearly knows what she's talking about.

I didn't realize anyone here was posting as some kind of authority figure. It seems pretty delusional to think that someone coming to this forum with a problem believes they're going to find a panel of world-class experts. I have no idea why you assumed people here are presenting themselves as professionals.

From where I'm sitting, I just see real, sensitive people sharing their views, their unique perspectives, and their own personal experiences regarding certain issues.

You're underselling both the people asking for help—by assuming they're too clueless to realize there aren't pros behind these posts—and those responding, by acting like everyone here is just some internet doctor trying to play physician.

It's because she made it perfectly clear that she doesn't want me sugarcoating anything, which is exactly why I respond the way I do. 😛

@Sandra Parker3, thanks—you just saved me a significant amount of typing. 😁

One more thing:
I get it. A lot of these questions are born out of pure boredom, and some "problems" shouldn't be taken literally or even seriously.

But,
if one person asks a serious question about a serious issue,
and then proceeds to follow one piece of "expert" advice (which was clearly given just to satisfy the ego of the person giving it),
then that one person is one too many.

Kenneth Peterson5 said:What you’re saying is technically spot on, but honestly, it’s also incredibly confusing.
Let me try to break this down.
If I’ve got issues I want to vent about here—looking to grab some pointers from people who actually know their stuff or have been through the same ringer—how am I supposed to know what anyone’s profession is or why it even matters?
Because based on what you just typed, there’s basically zero point in coming to this forum to talk about anything with anyone.
Like, looking at your intro post, someone could easily assume you’re "the expert" or whatever—the one authority we should all listen to. But how am I meant to verify that? What if I mess up big time because I decided to follow *only* your advice? What if you're out here claiming to be some high-level "college professor" when you're really not?

Bottom line: I don't really get the point of this thread, or why you feel such a massive need to kick it off in the first place.

First off, there are plenty of ways to tell when someone definitely ISN'T a professional.
(For instance—a licensed psychologist isn't going to be handing out clinical diagnoses on an internet forum;

a legitimate psychologist won't offer a definitive solution based on a single data point or one vague post with zero context;

you should probably try to figure that part out for yourself.)

Kenneth Peterson5 said:What you’re saying is technically spot on, but honestly, it’s also incredibly confusing.
Let me try to break this down.
If I’ve got issues I want to vent about here—looking to grab some pointers from people who actually know their stuff or have been through the same ringer—how am I supposed to know what anyone’s profession is or why it even matters?
Because based on what you just typed, there’s basically zero point in coming to this forum to talk about anything with anyone.
Like, looking at your intro post, someone could easily assume you’re "the expert" or whatever—the one authority we should all listen to. But how am I meant to verify that? What if I mess up big time because I decided to follow *only* your advice? What if you're out here claiming to be some high-level "college professor" when you're really not?

Bottom line: I don't really get the point of this thread, or why you feel such a massive need to kick it off in the first place.

Talking makes sense.
The "Caution" note is simply a warning against accepting advice that is being presented as "expert" when it isn't.

Kenneth Peterson5 said:What you’re saying is technically spot on, but honestly, it’s also incredibly confusing.
Let me try to break this down.
If I’ve got issues I want to vent about here—looking to grab some pointers from people who actually know their stuff or have been through the same ringer—how am I supposed to know what anyone’s profession is or why it even matters?
Because based on what you just typed, there’s basically zero point in coming to this forum to talk about anything with anyone.
Like, looking at your intro post, someone could easily assume you’re "the expert" or whatever—the one authority we should all listen to. But how am I meant to verify that? What if I mess up big time because I decided to follow *only* your advice? What if you're out here claiming to be some high-level "college professor" when you're really not?

Bottom line: I don't really get the point of this thread, or why you feel such a massive need to kick it off in the first place.

Yes, you could certainly make a mistake if you followed my advice to avoid seeking professional help through anonymous people on the internet.
That would be incredibly poor, dirty, malicious, and unprofessional advice based on questionable logic.
Please don't take it to heart. You'll be better off without it.

Kenneth Peterson5 said:What you’re saying is technically spot on, but honestly, it’s also incredibly confusing.
Let me try to break this down.
If I’ve got issues I want to vent about here—looking to grab some pointers from people who actually know their stuff or have been through the same ringer—how am I supposed to know what anyone’s profession is or why it even matters?
Because based on what you just typed, there’s basically zero point in coming to this forum to talk about anything with anyone.
Like, looking at your intro post, someone could easily assume you’re "the expert" or whatever—the one authority we should all listen to. But how am I meant to verify that? What if I mess up big time because I decided to follow *only* your advice? What if you're out here claiming to be some high-level "college professor" when you're really not?

Bottom line: I don't really get the point of this thread, or why you feel such a massive need to kick it off in the first place.

In conclusion, the fact that you constantly (and selectively) wrap up comments with these little summaries annoys me just as much as the following: 🤷 a smiley face.

Where does this obsession with second-guessing everyone else's motives come from?

Kenneth Peterson5, give me a break.

(And by "give me a break," I mean I see you lurking on every single thread, demanding justifications and deep dives into everyone's motives.)

I rarely find myself browsing this specific forum.

I get it—sometimes people are dealing with real issues but feel too uneasy about seeing a doctor, so they take the path of least resistance by trying to DIY their problems online.

My goal with this topic is actually quite well-intentioned: I want to advise people that seeking help from verified professionals is much smarter than relying on internet advice. In my experience scrolling through here, I've run into plenty of cases where users offer suggestions that aren't just uneducated, but are downright catastrophic—the kind of bad advice that turns a minor issue into a total disaster.

Do you honestly think it’s unnecessary to warn forum users when someone starts "prescribing" medications or treatment plans?

If so, I suppose your stance is that anyone naive enough to follow amateur medical advice should simply be left to deal with the consequences of their own ignorance.

During my very first psychopathology lecture—held over at the university clinic—some guy walked into the classroom, looking incredibly serious. He gave us a quick nod, introduced himself as our professor, and... well, he got straight to work.

He talked about illnesses.
About disorders.
And various diagnoses.

The man was throwing around heavy terminology like he was getting paid by the syllable, just rattling off terms while we all sat there staring at each other, desperately trying to scribble everything down.

Then he moved on to case studies and patients, though it was impossible to ignore the palpable sense of contempt in his voice whenever he mentioned them.

Suddenly, a woman walked in accompanied by two nurses.
She greeted the class, acknowledged the "professor," and took her seat at the head of the room while the nurses escorted our "colleague" out. She then turned to us and asked one question.

"Which one of you actually believed he was a professor?"

Every single one of us raised our hands.

Unbelievable.

Kenneth Peterson5—whenever someone on a forum starts handing out clinical diagnoses or life advice based on thin evidence like "I didn't grow up with my father"—just know you're likely dealing with a "professor."

Being able to toss around technical jargon certainly suggests a person is familiar with the subject matter.

But it doesn't tell you if they're familiar with it as an expert, or simply as a patient.

So, please, be skeptical when accepting "professional" advice from internet forums.

That’s all.

Sean Cruz As specified by:
Pantheism. It’s one of those heavy concepts that people love to toss around at cocktail parties when they want to sound profound without actually having to commit to a specific doctrine. At its core, it's the idea that the universe and God aren't two separate things, but rather one and the same—that the divine is woven into every atom, every leaf, and every overpriced latte we consume. It’s a tidy little way to feel connected to the cosmos without the baggage of organized religion, though I suspect some might find it a bit too convenient. Still, there is a certain quiet logic to it. If everything is part of the divine, then even my questionable decision-making is technically part of a grand, cosmic design. That’s a comforting thought, isn't it? It doesn't align with any of the monotheistic religions, to be honest. That’s essentially just spiritual atheism.

Could you clarify? I'm not quite following.

Sean Cruz As I was saying:
@ David: I just caught your comment. If you find yourself revisiting this thread, would you mind answering a few questions for me?

The moderators have sent David some rather subtle hints that he isn't exactly welcome in this discussion.

rustymaker5 said:You know, looking at it that way now, I think you might actually be right!
When I give, I am also receiving, regardless of whether the values balance out perfectly... maybe that's exactly why we get this illusion of opposition in the first place...🤔

I suppose if we had to find an opposite for giving, it would be imposing, and for receiving, it would be seizing. But that's only because we feel the need to categorize everything... in the end, it's pretty hard to view the whole world through the lens of a single coin... 🤷

It seems someone failed to read the introductory 😁

Quote:

Coastline says: On this forum, we are constantly witnessing the rise of these generous donors—self-proclaimed prophets and "sages"—who unselfishly offer their "Truths" to everyone interested (and even more to those who couldn't care less 😁). They seem genuinely wounded when we ungrateful types refuse to accept them. So, I’ll wrap this up by paraphrasing that famous old saying. God, deliver me from the GIVERS, and I will defend myself against those who seek.

.. I honestly find myself getting along better with this fake clone..
.. He’s actually one of my favorite people to debate on here.. mostly because.. he isn't some imitation.. he’s just being sincere.. damn it..
.. It feels like he has a more solid foundation.. as if he’s actually standing on some sort of.. well..
.. He doesn't flip-flop on his persona.. he holds his ground.. and treats everyone exactly the same..

.. Honestly.. nothing truly sincere can be a mere clone of someone else.. especially not when they're playing it safe..
.. Are you quite certain you aren't the clone.. and he's the original..?

.. Should I get off the topic..?.. Fine then..

mistyfox812 said:I don't really follow Alima, but I have read Weizsecker—I actually picked up that metaphor from him (and honestly, it's at least fifty years old by now). Who he originally lifted it from? No clue. 🤷

Anyway...

🤷

.. stolen .. certainly .. and presented as one's own ..

.. perhaps .. that guy .. W .. plucked it out of thin air .. much like the ideas we claim as .. our own ..
(.. "own" is really just a feeling .. when you latch onto a source of ideas ..)

.. I’d bet anything that Alima .. W .. never actually read him ..
.. and that the metaphor just arrived on its own ..
.. it happens sometimes, where different people tap into the exact same thing .. the same sensation ..
.. but .. those who connect directly to the source .. they actually understand the weight of what they've gathered ..

.. but .. for the one who lacks that connection ..
.. they have to latch onto others .. copying .. quoting ..

.. what you wrote .. it’s no different than if I showed up to a poetry contest and submitted this:

one bites the other's
hand or foot
or whatever
clenches it in their teeth
runs as fast as they can
to bury it in the earth

others scatter in all directions
sniffing and searching, sniffing and searching
digging up the whole ground

if they find it, happy days
their hand or their foot or
whatever
it’s their turn to bite

the game continues vividly
as long as there are hands
as long as there are feet
as long as there is anything at all

.. and then .. someone comes along and says .. well .. you didn't come up with that yourself ..
.. and I say .. why are you complaining? I picked it up from some fellow named Vasko .. or Pope ..
.. and as for who they picked it up from .. I haven't a clue ..

.. I wouldn't go that far..
.. it’s just one of those old Alim's tropes..
.. he used to repeat it constantly because it works.. and, well.. because it's his signature style..

.. but.. if it’s gaining traction—if people are actually quoting him or paraphrasing his points for competitive strategy.. then that’s a win..
.. there’s nothing wrong with good advice becoming mainstream..
(.. though, let's be honest.. it's a problem if it becomes popular without anyone actually grasping the substance behind it..)

.. well .. yeah ..
.. though he did go over it several times .. there were some shorter versions too ..

Timothy Kern11 said:I’m voting for @nobody and nothing because of those truths that are indisputable yet limiting. ( bolded text ).
Sure, you can sprint sometimes, spending more time with both feet off the ground. But even then, you can't run without hitting the pavement every once in a while.

.. and honestly, that bolded part is my favorite thing here .. out of everything written .. mostly because he lifted it word-for-word from Alim ..
(.. though he managed to mess up pretty much everything else .. that one quote is his only saving grace .. you know .. that classic, overused metaphor of Alim's .. isn't it ..
.. just brilliant .. right ..?)