Posts by darkbadger8

Joseph Bailey41 said:Get lost! 🤣

😁 "Ain't Afraid of No Big Bad Wolf" 😁

hollowpuma762 said:That specific philosophical idea would be identified by the Greek term Pneuma, the English Spirit, the Hebrew Ruach, and locally, it's commonly known through the phrase "Holy Spirit."

One part of the problem solved, I guess.

Now you're just making stuff up as you go.

Or maybe the Great Spirit, Plankton, or whatever else comes to mind.
"To be or not to be" isn't a school of philosophy, it's just a logical fallacy...
Besides, the way you're building your arguments could probably be described as "ex Podex."😁

darkbadger8 said:The issue with the word spirit is that it’s a total polysemy.
Take English, for example: ghost, spook, apparition, genie... they can all be translated through the lens of "spirit," so it’s no wonder there's so much confusion.
We used to have better, more distinct terms back in the day... well, things change...
When you look at the word in context, it gets even messier:
The Holy Spirit, acting in the spirit of an agreement, or that creature with a chain around its head, a spirit in a bottle... you could go on forever.

Then, of course, we have the philosophical concept of spirit as some kind of immaterial essence that doesn't physically exist but is still "there"—not just present, but somehow performing a magical function that enables brain activity, interacting with neurons to occasionally produce intelligence, though more often just stupidity.

I suspect this specific description of "spirit" is a frequent subject for philosophical posturing.

So, I humbly suggest that in the 😁spirit of 😁quality discussion, we consider attaching a different word to that definition.

Specifically, I propose replacing the word "spirit" in philosophical discourse with Manitou.
Let me explain.
First, imagine that next year Jeep releases two different models of the Grand Cherokee.
They are identical in every way, except for one thing:
One has the title "Grand Cherokee Manitou" on the door, while the other says "Grand Cherokee Spirit."
Which one would you buy?
The answer is neither, because you can't afford them anyway.

Manitou is defined as follows: A spiritual and fundamental life force. It is omnipresent and manifests in everything: living beings, inanimate objects, the environment, events, and so on.

Furthermore, Manitou has two aspects that aren't mutually exclusive:
Aashaa Manitou—the Good Manitou, and Otshee Manitou—the Evil Manitou.
When a child pets a bunny, that's Aashaa Manitou acting on their neurons.
When a kid breaks a window with a baseball bat, the kid isn't necessarily evil; rather, Otshee Manitou is manifesting through their brain activity.

In certain traditions of the Algonquin Native Americans, Aashaa and Otshee are unified under the Great Spirit, who is the supreme being—God.
I suggest we keep calling Him God, though, because according to His own explicit Old Testament declarations, He is "jealous," and it's well-documented that He can be quite difficult when He's angry.
CLICK

hollowpuma762 said:That specific philosophical idea would be identified by the Greek term Pneuma, the English Spirit, the Hebrew Ruach, and locally, it's commonly known through the phrase "Holy Spirit."

One part of the problem solved, I guess.

Now you're just making stuff up as you go.

Actually, I'm using satire and irony here to imply the exact opposite of what I'm explicitly stating. You could call it benign sarcasm...
It isn't trolling; it's an attempt to defend materialism against dualism while trying to be witty...
Sigmund said it was a "good joke," some other user thinks it's a bad attempt at humor, but you're the only one who completely missed the point...
From what I noticed in a different thread, a sense of humor isn't exactly your strong suit...
Wittgenstein said that an entire body of philosophical work could consist of nothing but jokes. If someone were to claim that all of philosophy is a joke, that would be sarcasm...
I'd suggest looking up the Wiki definitions for sarcasm, irony, and satire...
To really get the hang of them, I'd recommend reading "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift...

Amanda Jackson5 said:It’s a clever little thought experiment, but experience usually tells us that swapping out labels for the sake of appearances doesn't actually change the substance of what's being discussed—nor does it change how people actually perceive it. We could go around embracing the spirit of political correctness by calling Black people African Americans, or referring to the Rom community as Rom, or even rebranding gay people as gay (or maybe just invoking the spirit of Manitu), but at the end of the day, it carries zero weight. In fact, when you make these changes purely on a surface level without touching the underlying reality, those new terms eventually become just as loaded and offensive as the old ones. It just starts this endless cycle where you have to invent new euphemisms to replace the old ones, *ad infinitum*. If my memory serves me right, I think Pinker touched on this exact phenomenon in Blank Slate.

Thanks, I'm doing my best...

But experience just shows us that simply swapping out a label doesn't actually change the substance... renaming something doesn't shift the underlying reality or how we truly grasp what's being discussed... it's all just surface level...

It isn't just about the experience itself... it goes deeper than that. It's about the very definition of the signifier...

In the spirit of political correctness, we could call Black people Africans, Romani people Romans, and homosexuals gays... or perhaps follow the spirit of Manitou...

Either we just go around hitting each other, if we’re going to keep misinterpreting one another like this...

But there’s really no substantial meaning behind it. Not just that... in situations like this, where the change is purely cosmetic rather than actually changing the core substance, those new labels eventually become obnoxious too. And then you have to swap them out for something else, and the whole cycle just repeats itself indefinitely...

It’s not that I don't see where you're coming from, but I think you missed the point... I was actually being quite specific about where I was heading with this...
Just one signifier... spirit of time... It just covers way too many different concepts...
You say... spirit of time... indicating...😁 The prime cause neural activity... 😁Then you get some joker chiming in with, "What, like Casper?" And honestly, I think they’re completely missing the point. They’re too busy focusing on the literal stuff you mentioned instead of actually grasping the underlying idea... which is what you were trying to convey. But Casper, along with a whole host of other figures, is just one way that the "spirit of time" manifests itself. It's part of a much larger framework, involving things like volatile invertebrates and all that...
I know deep down that nothing is actually going to change, even if you decide to call on Casper, or that guy from the lamp, or even the one hanging by the chain above your head and calling him Manitou... I'm certainly not suggesting we do any of that...
I’d suggest you try to pin down that prime cause neural activity and give it a different label... just so people don't come after you with that whole volatile invertebrate nonsense. Of course, if you decide to swap it out for Manitou instead, they'll probably just come down on you even harder...😁.
Manitou is really just a satirical take by that vulgar materialist... honestly, it serves the exact same purpose as the volatile invertebrate... 😁
Look, your example about calling homosexuals "gay" is actually a perfect illustration of how the relationship between a signifier and its meaning can shift entirely... Fifty years ago, if you called someone gay, it just meant they were cheerful...
If some straight guy walked up to you today and said, "I'm gay," just because he was in a great mood, people would probably just give him a weird look... like he was being awkward or something. And if he actually tried to double down—if he insisted that being "gay" was just his way of describing how cheerful he felt—he’d basically become the laughingstock of the whole office... everyone would just start making jokes at his expense...

If my memory serves me right, I think Steven Pinker touched on something like that in "The Blank Slate"...

And if he’s lying, then he didn't write it.😁

Joseph Bailey41 said:Well, that's just the way the world works these days. ☕

😁
You're joking, but honestly... that actually works in my favor.👍
The "spirit of time" isn't a "volatile invertebrate time," so it can't be "Manitou time" either...

Amanda Jackson5 said:Heidegger actually referred to the Manitou of time as "Self" (or "man," if my memory serves me right), which didn't exactly move the needle for him either. He did go around giving different names to other various Manitouim, though. If you step back and look at the whole mess, all you really get is this massive, unprecedented tangle of terms and labels that eventually just bleeds into a total muddle of thought. It’s this weird illusion of progress—as if changing a label could somehow achieve something meaningful—which seems to stem from a certain innate tendency toward delusion, much like the superstitions you might find in some more primitive cultures.

I guess that clears things up now.

It seems to contribute to the illusion of progress—which is supposedly achieved through renaming—that the spirit is inherently deluded into believing that changing a name changes the essence or the core of something... something you see in all (to use a politically incorrect term) primitive cultures.

Is that inherent to Casper, or to the volatile invertebrate, or to Manitou?😁 You see how you unconsciously used the label in a completely different context. Unless you think it's inherent to the prime cause neural activity... If that's the case, we're beyond help...😁
Actually, with primitive cultures, you see exactly the opposite. Conservatism—refusing new terms and resisting change to outdated ones—is more of a hallmark of reactionary thought. But it was a masterful attempt on your part... hats off to you. Whoever can, let them understand...

Gerald Jackson48 said:In my experience, these kinds of collectives mostly just attract eccentrics and folks carrying a whole lot of "emotional baggage." For them to actually work long-term, you really have to make exceptions to that rule.

Let’s be real: living with anyone at any point in life isn't easy. It takes a massive amount of tolerance for different personalities and emotional stability, which most people just don't have. You can see this clearly on internet forums, where people end up fighting over even the most neutral topics every single day.

I’m pretty skeptical about these "carefully planned and well-thought-out" alternatives. I mean, communism was also carefully planned and well-thought-out, and we all know how much of a disaster those attempts turned out to be in practice.

On the flip side, some people truly find their groove living that way. So, what can you say? If someone wants to go for it, more power to them.

Not to mention the total chaos...😁
Federation of Damanhur Wikipedia
Short video

hiddenpuma75 said:...BEING 🤔

Honestly, what on earth is this concept of BEING?
How does an American even wrap their head around the distinction between "being" as a verb and "Being" as an actual entity or state of existence?
I’m asking for a breakdown so simple that even one of Einstein's most vocal assistants could grasp it—complete with visuals and examples, and hopefully without anyone needing to grit their teeth or shed tears of frustration.

=====
SPIRIT 🙂

For instance, I’ve noticed that our friend Sigmund uses the term "spirit" with such sovereign confidence and intimacy—it’s almost as effortless as you all reading these lines and tapping away at your keyboards.

And yet, Cave and Wand always seem to stumble over that very word— SPIRIT 🙂 because whenever they hear it, they immediately jump to some invisible entity that exists outside our 3D world, like some kind of gaseous, formless phantom...

My hope is that in this thread, we can finally clarify both the things we know and the things we don't regarding these fundamental concepts. We tend to toss them around so casually and recklessly, often with an unearned sense of certainty. ...

The issue with the word spirit is that it’s a total polysemy.
Take English, for example: ghost, spook, apparition, genie... they can all be translated through the lens of "spirit," so it’s no wonder there's so much confusion.
We used to have better, more distinct terms back in the day... well, things change...
When you look at the word in context, it gets even messier:
The Holy Spirit, acting in the spirit of an agreement, or that creature with a chain around its head, a spirit in a bottle... you could go on forever.

Then, of course, we have the philosophical concept of spirit as some kind of immaterial essence that doesn't physically exist but is still "there"—not just present, but somehow performing a magical function that enables brain activity, interacting with neurons to occasionally produce intelligence, though more often just stupidity.

I suspect this specific description of "spirit" is a frequent subject for philosophical posturing.

So, I humbly suggest that in the 😁spirit of 😁quality discussion, we consider attaching a different word to that definition.

Specifically, I propose replacing the word "spirit" in philosophical discourse with Manitou.
Let me explain.
First, imagine that next year Jeep releases two different models of the Grand Cherokee.
They are identical in every way, except for one thing:
One has the title "Grand Cherokee Manitou" on the door, while the other says "Grand Cherokee Spirit."
Which one would you buy?
The answer is neither, because you can't afford them anyway.

Manitou is defined as follows: A spiritual and fundamental life force. It is omnipresent and manifests in everything: living beings, inanimate objects, the environment, events, and so on.

Furthermore, Manitou has two aspects that aren't mutually exclusive:
Aashaa Manitou—the Good Manitou, and Otshee Manitou—the Evil Manitou.
When a child pets a bunny, that's Aashaa Manitou acting on their neurons.
When a kid breaks a window with a baseball bat, the kid isn't necessarily evil; rather, Otshee Manitou is manifesting through their brain activity.

In certain traditions of the Algonquin Native Americans, Aashaa and Otshee are unified under the Great Spirit, who is the supreme being—God.
I suggest we keep calling Him God, though, because according to His own explicit Old Testament declarations, He is "jealous," and it's well-documented that He can be quite difficult when He's angry.
CLICK

here

bluemason3 said:Nah, they just use the standard bija mantras. They pick them based on your birth year.Looking back at how this movement evolved, the selection process hasn't stayed static. It’s changed quite a bit over the years.All of that, all together...Just like checking.Honestly, they’re just mystifying the whole thing and keeping the actual process under wraps.

It seems like you might have cut off mid-sentence. What was on your mind?The roots.Mantras show up all over the place in various Hindu and Tibetan traditions, but you rarely see them used entirely on their own. Even Maharishi's teacher didn't really go that route. While "Om" is the big one everyone knows, there are plenty of others tucked into longer chants. Usually, they function as building blocks within more complex, meaningful mantras. They might not have a direct literal definition, but they’re almost always tied to specific deities.

In higher levels of TM initiation, you also get more mantras, which expand upon the traditional ones.

Take one of the popular mantras dedicated to the goddess Saraswati, for example: "om Aim Saraswatyai Namaha." Aim...om Aim Saraswatyai Namaha, technically speaking.There was a mantra used there that was connected to that goddess.

In TM, Aim will be one of the mantras used, though there won't be much discussion regarding its connection to Saraswati.

With more advanced techniques, you'll eventually expand into Sri Aim Namaha.In various iterations through different stages.).
"Namaha" is your classic Hindu mantra closer, basically meaning "I pay my respects" or "I bow down." As for "Sri," that's just a term used to show reverence.

Thanks...
From what I understand, the goal of zen meditation (at least during that samurai phase) is to awaken perception regarding material reality—including the perception of one's own body and mind—all for the sake of better warrior performance, if that makes sense. Constant awareness of your surroundings...
Do other schools of meditation have different goals, and if so, what would they be?
I know that's a massive question, but if you could just write something up purely for information's sake...

Joseph Bailey41 said:I’m honestly not quite sure what "achieving awakening as a direct experience of reality" actually means, or why meditation would even be necessary for it. For instance, if my cat suddenly bolts and jumps right onto me, I am definitely experiencing reality in that moment. And if I happened to be napping? Well, then I'd certainly wake up. 😁

When I talk about "awakening," I don't mean the physical act of rolling out of bed in the morning... Most people operate under this illusion that they are fully awake from the moment they get up until they finally hit the pillow at night, but they aren't truly awake, let alone conscious. For most Americans living today, the vast majority of their "waking" hours are just spent lost in mental clutter—replaying old images from the past, obsessing over fantasies of the future, or just drifting through endless layers of imagination...
Any image that pops into your head which isn't exactly what your eyes are focused on right now... that's just fantasy. Most of those fantasies are harmful, at the very least, and they end up cluttering the mind. Not all of them, though...
And don't even get me started on the listening part...
You see it all the time... people stepping out into the street right when the light turns red, eyes glued to their phones while an ambulance screams past them at sixty miles per hour... are they even aware of what’s happening around them? Are they truly awake? Conscious? And then there's the driver... tomorrow, that same driver will be the one staring at a screen instead of the road...😁

swiftdrifter4 said:I think they mean reducing the influence of the mind, which tends to "color" everything we see. Consciousness "sees" things directly, but the mind just constructs the image it wants to perceive.
And this whole idea of emptying the mind... honestly, who knows what everyone actually thinks it means? Clearing out negative thoughts and emotions? That seems pretty much impossible... though maybe, over time, you can learn to stop identifying so closely with them.

Well said...
Emptying the mind isn't about making things vanish entirely... it’s more like shifting those "negative" thoughts out of your immediate focus. They aren't gone, they're still tucked away somewhere in the brain. Honestly, it wouldn't be a good thing if they were just erased... otherwise, we'd just end up repeating the exact same mistakes over and over again...
Reducing identification with them is the only way to go... 👍 !

bluemason3 said:It matters because if the effect is built directly into the language itself, then it’s universal—it doesn't care what you believe. But if it’s just a placebo, then everything becomes much more subjective and individual.

I find it hard to believe it's inherently part of the language... though I suppose it's not entirely impossible.
If we assume it actually is inherent, then the advantage goes to whoever knows Sanskrit and truly understands the mantras.
I knew someone who tried TM or some similar "pay-to-play" spirituality program.
The instructor supposedly created a custom mantra just for him, in Sanskrit... his own personal one.
He wasn't told what it meant, and the guy was even told, "Think of the Mantra like a drill. You don't need to know how it works, just repeat it every day and let it drill."🤦
But what if that guru is just some prankster? What if my friend is sitting there repeating his expensive little mantra, only for the translation from Sanskrit to be something like, "I am a fool throwing money away"?

mistybison said:I am honestly not sure. My knowledge regarding mantras is quite limited.

😁

The goal is to repeat a single, neutral mantra to prevent the mind from wandering through endless, emotionally charged thoughts. 🧐 😁

I think that's fine up to a certain point... just clearing the mind every now and then...🐔
Some people drink to get there, others light up some weed...🙂
This works too...🙂😵
I remember reading an anthropologist mentioning that there isn't a single society or tribe on this planet that hasn't found a way to escape reality... mostly through opiates, but there are other techniques too, like apparently certain repetitive dances with the exact same movements that pull you into a trance...🙂
The issue arises when someone starts using meditation as a way to run away from life...
Still, I suppose that's better than getting high on a street corner...🧐
To me, meditation is a tool meant to facilitate awakening—to experience reality directly—but it seems like I might be in the minority here...

swiftdrifter4 said:

Honestly, doing absolutely nothing—just pure meditation—is actually pretty great.👍

😁I guess then Mexicans are enlightened...😁

Joseph Bailey41 said:Have you tried mantras? You don't even have to say them out loud; sometimes just listening to them on YouTube helps. When you give your mind something repetitive to latch onto, it eventually settles down and goes quiet. 😁

😵Smarter Release😵

mistybison said:That is a wonderful idea! 👍

One great thing about mantras is that even after you stop listening, they continue to resonate in your mind, helping to quiet that usual mental noise for quite a while.

This one is my favorite: LAXMI MANTRA. I used to listen to it back in the day hoping for a windfall, though it didn't exactly make me rich. 🕺 😁 This one is incredibly cheerful and really lifts your mood: Kubera Mantra. 🙂

It has been a long time since I practiced mantras, so I might just dive back into them. 🙂

😵Yeah, having that echo is definitely better than the constant chatter... 😵

v

c

https://www.google.com/images/icons/...ey600_24dp.png

Keith Rodriguez27 said:Just highlight whatever part of the text you’re trying to hit back at, then click that last little square icon—you can also find it right down there in the Quick Response area—that says "Wrap

aaaaaa

tags around selected text"

aaaa

Keith Rodriguez27 said:Just highlight whatever part of the text you’re trying to hit back at, then click that last little square icon—you can also find it right down there in the Quick Response area—that says "Wrap

aaaaaaaahhh

(which you can also find down below in the Quick Response section) which adds "tags around selected text"

Keith Rodriguez27 said:Just highlight whatever part of the text you’re trying to hit back at, then click that last little square icon—you can also find it right down there in the Quick Response area—that says "Wrap

Let's see...

(you can also find this under the Quick Response section) which says "Wrap Quote tags around selected text"

Is that right now?🐔🤣