Posts by dustyskipper3

wearyowl29 said:Now, that is a bold claim! You really have to stand your ground on that one. When we talk about "culture"—at least the version that applies to human society—😉we're talking about both spiritual and material achievements, which includes everything from fine art to high-end technology.

Sure, if a little chimp uses a stick to smash open some bananas, you could technically call that "technology" for lunch prep, but how on earth are we supposed to defend the idea of "art" in primates???? 🤷

Oh, hush now. Didn't you realize we were already discussing that horse that paints and sells its own masterpieces?😉

😍

Now, this is a rather ticklish subject to tackle, isn't it?

I suppose you could say being ticklish is just an atavism. It’s a leftover trait, much like having those tiny muscles for ear hair trimming—which most people don't even have anymore, I think. Or maybe excessive body hair. I once read about some guy who supposedly had a ten-centimeter tail that would pop up whenever he got angry. Another example of an atavistic trait might be stage fright; that primal urge to run away was probably incredibly intense for early humans, and honestly, it seems pretty hard to shake off even today. I guess modern people find being ticklish a bit irritating, perhaps because it serves as a reminder of how genetically similar we still are to cavemen. Back then, it was a way to involuntarily express positive emotions or signal that you weren't a threat and someone could approach you without fear. In a sense, it's a bit like shaking hands—you're showing you aren't hiding a knife or a club behind your back—except ticklishness is something completely outside of your control. If you want to stay composed and avoid the whole thing, I'd suggest practicing your tolerance. Maybe find someone willing to tickle you daily, and eventually, you might get used to it. I've heard it also helps if your skin isn't dry, but rather slightly moist or oiled. You could also try convincing yourself that you aren't ticklish at all and that nothing can catch you off guard. Just act totally blasé, you know? Look at the person trying to tickle you as if they've simply lost their mind and are acting on some bizarre whim; they'll probably give up before they actually succeed.

A little tickle test for you:

http://www.gotoquiz.com/women_over_2...still_ticklish

😂

Mark Torres14 said:I see it differently.
Disorder is disorder. At any given moment, we're facing a maximum level of chaos that only keeps growing. That's entropy.
No matter how hard we try, our "will" can't make things more chaotic than they already are. Chaos exists independently of us. Every single intentional move we make actually fights against entropy and creates some form of order—even when we're trying our best to cause mayhem.
Will is just the desire to break away from entropic inevitability. It’s like a leaf caught in a river in Cleveland trying to swim upstream. The river is still carrying it, but the leaf feels like it's battling the entire universe.
So, order isn't the opposite of disorder. It’s just a part of it, shaped by the most mysterious thing in our universe: life.

I mean, sure, all that makes sense. But for me, there’s something even more fundamental than will, and that would be the basic survival instinct of a living organism. That's what actually pushes back against the entropy of the universe, eventually leading to the death of the being (when it finally levels out with the universe's entropy). Will is about having choices; a being can choose a bigger or smaller risk to reach a specific goal. But a creature driven purely by survival instinct always has to pick the path that offers the highest chance of staying alive. For example, based on those old experiments with acids and bases, an amoeba probably doesn't have "will"—it mechanically has to move away from whatever threatens it, regardless of whether there's food nearby. A crab, though, maybe doesn't have to. It might try to hunt a little fish even if an octopus is lurking nearby. So, I guess will is just one step higher in the spiritual evolution of living things—a higher dimension of consciousness compared to just floating around and waiting, which is what lower organisms do. Humans, however, possess what we call "free will," which means "choosing between good and evil," but it really means a human has a will that can actually override the survival instinct. In a way, humans are rationally capable of self-destruction, whereas animals aren't (though a dog might die of heartbreak over its owner, or a bird for its mate, etc.). I think that explains my stance.

If I were to take this further, I guess you could conclude that besides physical dimensions (which are likely 4 [space-time] + 2 [multiverse] plus two more "completely outside of space and time," making eight—though some argue there are ten, check out http://blogs.sun.com/bblfish/entry/t...ons_of_reality), there are also spiritual dimensions applied to living beings. These might be 1) being/survival instinct; 2) will; 3) information/cognition; 4) movement/change/evolution; 5) creation/energy; 6) nothingness/vacuum; 7) potential; 8) consciousness. Well, maybe that sounds a bit too mystical to you, but I'm only mentioning it to show that, in my view, will ranks pretty low on the spiritual ladder.

Mark Torres14 said:Like what?

I suppose, if we just look at it simply, free will is really just the capacity to choose between various different paths. Some choices might increase entropy—you know, create more disorder—while others tend to decrease it, creating order. I guess it might be a bit much to claim that pure willpower alone can establish order, because... well, maybe you'd need some level of perception or intelligence to actually pull that off. And then again, even a computer establishes order, but it’s strictly following its programming, so it doesn't truly have any choice beyond what was coded into it by the developer.

Why couldn't there also be an inherent drive toward creating chaos? :general woo and mess:

Rebecca Morris2 said:Is it, like, totally crazy to look at life as this constant battle against fate? You know, like we're just playing out some script that's already been written? No matter how hard you grind, things don't always go your way, but there’s always that feeling like... I don't know, "if this hadn't happened, then *that* wouldn't have happened," right? So I end up spiraling into this whole apocalyptic thought process where I'm wondering what I'm even fighting for. But then again, maybe fate is just us sitting on the couch, waiting for life to happen to us? Like, just idling?
What do you guys think about all this? Do you actually feel that invisible force pulling your strings through life—guiding you toward some ultimate goal that makes zero sense while it's happening, but somehow works out in the end?!

I guess coincidence is just when something goes sideways by accident, whereas fate is the whole messy reality of it being unchangeable and eternal. To me, the first one is a win, and the second one... well, it's a loss. 😍

silentnomad23 said:Relativism has essentially become the new face of totalitarianism because reality itself has morphed into a simulation. We’ve reached a point where the sign has lost its "true" (or even its "primary") connection to actual existence. Instead, signs just shuffle around combinatorically—moving through simulations and symbols in a relativistic loop—without any obligation to represent a tangible truth. You can't fight this brand of relativism with freedom, because this entire mess actually grew out of the concept of freedom itself. You can't combat it by clinging to old standards either, since relativism has already branded those criteria as primitive. In fact, you can't even kill relativism with death, because relativism is effectively death in its own right: it levels all values and brings every function to a standstill. Ultimately, the only way to push back is by forging entirely new values—though one has to wonder, what truly constitutes a value once relativism has labeled them all as obsolete? These new values would have to exist on a higher plane than this totalitarian relativism.

That is why the Bible says:

I wish you were either hot or cold! But because you are lukewarm, I will spit you out of my mouth.

It is the freedom of nonsense, or perhaps just senseless freedom. It is the freedom to merely *exist*, rather than to truly *be*. Freedom should exist so that one can become something, not to renounce being altogether (which is just death). That is why in the EU, they talk about a "pluralism of differences" instead of true "equality," but in the end, everything just collapses back into relativism and uniformity. It’s like how every year a budget is drawn up, which is then distributed based on set criteria, aiming to improve—relatively speaking—the welfare in areas lagging behind the average. Of course, there is plenty of corruption involved, and for the "presidents" of that Union, they choose these faceless bureaucrats whose job is basically to pacify "the wolves in sheep's clothing"—those powerful lobbies and elites who rule from the shadows.

Maybe the only way to fight relativism is through integrity. Integrity is a value of a higher order than totalitarian relativism, which can perhaps serve as its foundation or background. So, I guess it means not giving up on your own choice—not because you are totally indoctrinated or primitive, but simply because it is yours, and yours alone.

Megan Nguyen22 said:I believe the fundamental flaw in modern spirituality is how people cherry-pick elements from various traditions just to suit their own whims. They craft this personalized spiritual cocktail to make it easier to keep doing exactly what they’ve always done. Essentially, they focus on treating the symptoms caused by a lack of true spirituality without ever touching the core—they never actually change who they are at the center. When life gets messy, it’s always someone else's fault; the environment is "evil" or "toxic," and they use spirituality as a convenient excuse for their own behavior. If everyone starts viewing themselves as their own god, then everyone else becomes nothing more than an object. Now, I’m not saying this applies to everyone. There are those who sincerely seek spirituality—which, to me, means striving to be better people, shedding hatred, envy, and malice... I think those souls will find fertile ground.
It honestly saddens me how everything is constantly masked in mysticism, wrapped up in being "secret" or "incomprehensible" through special techniques and methods, when true spirituality is actually about simplicity. There is no such thing as "instant spirituality." It is an exhilarating process of growth in understanding and humanity. There is no point in trying to play God; it is enough to simply strive to be a truly authentic human being. I

and I know this because I see my own hypocrisy: I can talk about spiritual matters beautifully, making everything sound wonderful, only to turn cold or irritable toward the very people who need me most. If I could just be kind to those who need it, that would be enough for me.

Those who pay back evil with good... I suppose they are my enemies; because, well, I try to follow what is good.
Psalm 38:20

False witnesses have risen up against me, accusing me of things I haven't even done.
They repaid my goodness with evil, seemingly just to bring about the ruin of my soul.
Psalm 35:11,12

Suppose King David truly aspired to be a better man. I mean, he didn't exactly want to pay evil with evil, though he certainly had to endure the things that were done to him. But even then, he never really embraced that whole "turn the other cheek" philosophy, nor did he follow that idea of hitting back harder when someone wrongs you. Not that it matters much, I guess. But my thought is, the moment he decided not to return evil in kind—rejecting that old "eye for an eye" mentality—it suggests he just bore it all in silence. It implies he was a spiritual person. Maybe.

I suppose I've been wondering lately... if someone keeps doing good for others, even when they're being paid with pure evil, does that make them a fool? Maybe. I guess it’s hard to say for sure without knowing the heart behind it. It feels like such a complicated question, really.

I suppose I should say that this whole idea of relativism doesn't actually exist in any real sense... maybe. I mean, we all face the exact same choices, regardless of whatever specific spiritual path or religious practice someone decides to follow. It feels like that to me, anyway. We can sense when someone is doing us good or if they are being evil, even if some philosopher argues that good and evil aren't even real things—you know, claiming everything is just subjective or relative. But the feeling remains, I guess.

Returning good for good... well, I suppose that isn't exactly profound wisdom. It’s just what everyone does—gangs, the mob, crooked relatives, cronies, and all those other shady characters you see in closed-off cults. It feels almost too simple, I guess. If we respond to evil with more evil, then maybe we aren't actually any different from the people causing us harm; we're just matching their level of spirituality, or lack thereof. Perhaps the real path lies elsewhere. Maybe it's about returning kindness even when faced with malice, or simply enduring the hardship and trying, quite earnestly, to become a better person through it all.

If we decide to go all in from the start—you know, by adopting this completely open, tolerant stance toward everyone—we eventually run right into that situation described in the Bible. It’s like what David was talking about regarding false witnesses and those who repay evil with good. If we take that path, they’re going to bleed us dry. I guess... maybe it's because they see our tolerance as a sign of being fools. They basically want to bait us into retaliating, forcing us to start paying evil with evil. It feels like a trap designed to pull us into a cycle of evil, or at the very least, to leave us with no choice but to just sit there and suffer through it.

I suppose someone who is trying to ascend in spirituality—trying, you know, to actually become a better person—might find themselves suddenly feeling too weak or incapable of doing any real good on their own. It’s a heavy thing. So, they might think, maybe it would be easier to do good if they joined some organized group or followed a traditional religion. But then... well, there's a catch. By joining, they end up limiting their openness to all sorts of outside influences. They basically narrow their focus to just returning kindness for kindness within that specific circle. They aren't really doing much more for the world at large, other than making their own lives feel a bit smoother and easier. And this is where it gets messy. Someone could easily end up agreeing to be a false witness against an opponent just to show love to the people who were kind to them. In those moments, I guess you could say they become exactly what people describe: a false witness, or someone who returns good for evil. Because, ultimately, the priority shifts from what is truly right to tribalism—it becomes about settling scores between clans and backing your own side, rather than focusing on what is actually good.

I suppose... if one truly follows the path of absolute Good, they are essentially always alone. They only ever have the company of that very Good they are pursuing, which requires opening oneself up as much as possible to every kind of influence. It isn't really about focusing on one's own suffering, I guess, or obsessing over the presence of evil and how toxic the world seems to be. Instead, the focus remains on the Good itself—and perhaps that is the only way to avoid falling prey to it, or being swept up by evil. If we assume—and this is just a thought—that someone like an atheist or a New Ager could experience this kind of Good, then maybe they could be just as spiritual as any traditional believer. In that case, I think we could say that their own high level of spirituality and wisdom helps them survive the onslaught of evil, much like how God helps a believer through the same struggles.

I suppose this kind of thing is especially popular in those transition economies where privatization was considered a "success," much like what we saw here in the States or over in places like Germany. That’s probably why there is such a growing fascination over there with that old Roman legal principle, *lex retro non agit*. 😁

It’s tied back to those old myths about descending into the underworld and the later Orphic legends—ideas involving the reincarnation of souls and the whole concept of metempsychosis.

I suppose that "turning back" might symbolize a psychological process of detachment, or what we call splitting (Spaltung). It's that move toward abstract thought where the subject separates itself from the object—from reality itself—which ends up being a sort of punishment, an isolation from that very reality (the object of desire). In a way, it feels like a condemnation of pure reason, whereas the Orpheus myth serves as a tribute to mystical trust. His lyre represents this ability to master the world through something beyond mere intellect, maintaining unity with everything around him and even overcoming death itself.

In patients dealing with schizophrenia, this "splitting" eventually manifests as a "bronze wall" or an "icy wall" standing between them and everyone else. Faces start looking like they were "cut out of cardboard," people look like puppets, and trees or bushes seem just like flat cardboard cutouts. Objects, sounds, and living beings all feel "sliced apart." It makes me think of Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt, I guess. It's as if people whose illness is rooted in this analytical separation of self from others eventually end up seeing everyone else as inanimate objects—just pillars of salt. You see this kind of splitting in the Rorschach test too, specifically in Card III, where one should see waiters or similar figures, but instead, the subject sees things in a fractured way—just a head, a neck, some hands—which eventually leads into what is called the "sword complex."

On the other hand, the descent—like when Orpheus goes down into Hades—belongs to a different set of symbols, more feminine ones. This stands in contrast to the schizomorphic types, who are associated with "symbols of ascent" and heroic themes. That’s why Plato accuses Orpheus of having "insufficient masculinity"; he didn't simply agree to die to be reunited with his beloved, but instead descends, "like a woman," trying to "trick the gods" to pull her back into the light. So, his loss of his beloved Eurydice is essentially the gods' revenge. It fits perfectly into the symbolism of the "cheated trickster," or the "bound binder," the "robbed thief," and so on. We see similar logic in American proverbs like "what goes around comes around" or "he who digs a pit for others falls into it himself." It really deals with the symbolism of the womb, libido, and a sort of double negation—a euphemism where the negative becomes positive. The descent becomes a path toward the Absolute, while the ascent actually destroys the Absolute. For instance, you could say Jesus' death on the cross becomes the very means to triumph over death itself and the evil that death brings.

Turning back would signify a lack of faith. It would be like someone being crucified and suddenly deciding the whole mission is pointless, choosing to save their own life instead of saving the world.

I guess our schools just don't focus enough on actually applying what you learn to real-world scenarios. It’s more about rote memorization than actual critical thinking, I suppose. You can't really foster the kind of minds needed for serious scientific advancement if they aren't taught how to think.

Another issue, maybe, is this collective delusion where we convince ourselves we're incredibly brilliant and don't actually need a robust education system. We tell ourselves that because some outlier always wins a global coding competition or makes a breakthrough in genetic sequencing, we're doing fine. But then those people come back home, and they just face constant criticism. Our school system... well, while it might not completely crush a true genius—though it certainly tries its best in that regard—it tends to stifle the average student, or even the bright ones. Instead of becoming top-tier scientists, they end up as mere assistants, professors, or high school teachers. A truly great school system, like they have in Finland, seems to work hard even with the most difficult students; that's probably why about 69% of their youth go on to university and finish. Here, I think only about 10% of people the same age reach that level. And within that group, maybe 7% are elite, whereas we might only see 2%. So, I guess we end up with 3.5 times fewer elites and seven times fewer highly educated professionals to actually drive a "knowledge economy." 😁

They have roughly 20 universities and 29 technical colleges per capita. And us? We just have Washington, D.C., Cleveland, Indianapolis, Miami, San Diego, and Key West.

http://www.transworldeducation.com/europe/nfineduc.htm

The worst part, I suppose, is that they achieved all of this in just the last twenty years or so. We could have been right there with them if we had started moving in that direction back in 1990. They basically excel at the same things we do—working with raw materials, paper, design, tech—but they also managed to incorporate a bit of California's tourism, Denmark's approach to human rights and food production, and Ireland's success in IT services and foreign investment. We didn't have to be quite so frugal like they were, because every year, tourists pour money into our coastal areas simply because the scenery is beautiful, without us having to lift a finger. But, I guess, we just lacked the will to think. 😵

It all starts with education, but instead, we have people making foolish decisions for the sake of pennies. 😍

I suppose there’s a certain hierarchy at play here. Even this forum seems to have its own specific "vibe," if you will. But it isn't quite the same as the mindset you find among the rank-and-file workers at Amtrak—most of whom probably didn't even finish middle school and might struggle with basic literacy, so they wouldn't even know how to navigate a forum like this anyway.

Amtrak basically acts as a breeding ground for a certain way of thinking. You really only need one Uncle Lou to infect the whole system; once that Amtrak-mentality reaches the top of the social pyramid, it starts shaping everything to fit its own mold. That’s why, I think, elections in a democracy actually matter. It isn't just about whether one candidate has better policies than another—since everyone ends up debating the same old issues regardless—but rather about shifting the collective mindset. In the USA, when the Obama mentality takes over from the Bush mentality, you see an immediate shift. The number of "redneck" types tends to dip while the number of "go-getters" rises, simply because the environment becomes more conducive to their growth, media outlets open up more opportunities for them, and so on.

I notice there are people here who can't stand USA Today, mostly because it's filled with writers like Jim Naylor, Jelena veljača, the FBI, and Jergović, all of whom contribute to a very particular cultural atmosphere. It makes me wonder... why hasn't anyone started a thread dedicated to the New York Post to dissect all the nonsense coming from Ivkošić, Jajčinović, and the rest of that crowd? To me, that lack of scrutiny shows just how low our collective intellectual standard really is.

I suppose... mentality is really just those internalized, informal rules for how one behaves under certain circumstances. It sort of explains why our workers abroad don't maintain the same work ethic they have here in America. Using simple common sense, I guess, they realize that working hard actually pays off over there, whereas here... well, it doesn't feel like it does. The question is valid, I think. Even if we were to introduce incentives modeled after Western standards—which is what's being announced now (though, let's be honest, it'll probably just be rigged to benefit specific special interest groups anyway)—even if it were a genuinely well-designed reform, the core issue remains: how do you actually change a mindset? People need a certain mental framework because they have to make decisions every single day, and most people just don't have the time to sit down and rationally weigh all the ramifications of those choices. So, they simplify everything through what they call "mentality," or "folk wisdom," or just little jokes and sayings like "wing it, buddy" or "it wasn't meant to be" or "whatever happens, happens." It’s a way of coping, I suppose. Because humans aren't perfectly rational actors, yet at the same time, we can't act purely on raw fear or animal instinct either. It's a strange middle ground, I guess.

Well, now, a question arises regarding why certain individuals seem to absorb a specific mindset far more readily than others. I suppose one might wonder if some people are simply more stubborn, or if they are naturally predisposed toward one temperament over another. Personally, I suspect it is the latter case. People are born with varying degrees of creativity, I think; it seems only logical that a culture of laziness—the kind that serves mediocrity while frustrating those who actually want to build and create—would be particularly grating to those with a creative nature. Of course, it would be quite difficult to blame an entire nation for perpetuating such a lackadaisical attitude. It is much easier, perhaps, to point the finger at a small group of parasites within the parallel power who seize control and promote passivity just to suit their own interests. But when you look at it from that angle, you run into certain logical difficulties, because...

You can actually find a book online by Domagoj Margetić called "Parallel Power." In it, he goes after this specific group of people—you know, those "Hennessy guys," basically just former Republican tech managers and elites. He claims they were the ones who orchestrated the entire transition and privatized all the major corporations just to cling to the same power they held back during the old regime... I guess his point is that they were just trying to "smooth over" the shift to keep control. And honestly, that would be fine if it weren't for the fact that the author seems to lie quite a bit. He throws out these random, totally unproven accusations, like claiming there’s some connection to Muslim terrorists, which feels a bit much. Plus, he completely ignores the other, much larger faction within the party. It's like the right-wing Republicans and certain other bad actors are just conveniently bypassed or given an amnesty in his narrative. He places all the blame for the messy economic transition and the corruption on that first group. It starts to feel like he’s really speaking for the crowd that lost the election against Mason back in 2000. Since those folks were focused on fighting that war in Canada, it makes sense that they'd want to link the other corrupt politicians to Muslim terrorists. I suppose their ultimate argument isn't even about being honest or anti-corruption today; maybe they just want to get back to that conflict in Canada. He also seems incredibly bothered by the fact that Vujić funded certain intellectuals and their publications. But strangely, it doesn't seem to bother him at all that someone like Miroslav Kutle caused absolute chaos across the coast, including with outlets like the Free Dalmatian. If he acknowledged that, he’d have to link himself to that first group of crooks he hates so much—the ones Feral wrote about back in 2006. Then he'd have to admit that, in reality, everyone involved was just equally crooked.

I suppose this is what I’d call a certain kind of mentality. It’s just one group of crooks and liars pointing fingers at other crooks and liars, all just to pave the way so they can lie even more and steal even more in the next phase. And then, I guess, if you actually go ahead and write it down—if you provide the evidence and suggest that everything should be turned over to the FBI or some federal agency—you end up being labeled as someone in conflict "with all of society." It's because, well, practically everyone is living off some sort of questionable income, isn't it? One has to wonder how much people actually earned through honest work versus how much was just handed to them through nepotism, political connections, or those shady loopholes in the system.

I wonder... where is the way out of this cycle? It seems like there aren't many people left who actually bother to consistently avoid lying or stealing, mostly because being an honest person comes with such a heavy price tag. And those few who do try to stay upright? They’re already just exhausted from everything they've had to sacrifice. At this point, they don't even have the energy to try and fix a culture of dishonesty that feels pretty much baked into the system anyway. I suppose the thing is, the drive fueled by pure greed is just as powerful as the drive fueled by principle—but there are far more greedy people out there than principled ones, I guess.

But, I suppose, if you truly intend to make an impact from the standpoint of independent media or the intellectual community, it would be quite desirable to avoid adopting that same old mindset—you know, by simply not lying. And it isn't even necessarily true that everyone lies just for a paycheck; some people lie out of spite or pure malice, while others... well, maybe they just grab at any chance to have their five minutes of fame when they don't actually have anything intelligent to contribute. Or perhaps they are just pathological liars, or they lie out of cowardice because they're terrified someone might push them around for knowing certain truths. Mostly, it seems people lie or blend truth with falsehood just to bend things to their own will, since, frankly, nobody really values the truth for its own sake. Truth itself is worth absolutely nothing in this world, and maybe even less than nothing, if you ask me.

Are you familiar with what mandalas actually are?
It isn't just limited to Buddhism; other belief systems touch on them too, I suppose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandala

The visualization and concretization of The mandala Concept is One of The most significant contributions of Buddhism to Transpersonal Psychology. Mandalas are seen as sacred places which, by their very presence in the world, remind a viewer of the immanence of sanctity in the universe and its potential in his or her self. In The context of The Buddhist path, the purpose of a mandala is to put an end to human suffering, to attain enlightenment, and to attain a correct view of reality. It is a means to discover divinity by the realization that divinity resides within one's own self.

Perhaps the Sirius collection could also become a sort of sacred thing, maybe... something that reminds us of how sanctity is always present in space and its potential within ourselves. But, there might come a moment where a mandala needs to be destroyed, much like a snake sheds its skin just to keep growing. Or perhaps to head in a new direction entirely. You can tell that moment has arrived when the mandala stops being an exit from suffering or a path toward enlightenment, and instead, begins to cause suffering, binding us to a cycle of illusion or samsara. Maybe the Sirius collection is one such illusion. I guess we outgrow our own works too, eventually. We aren't at that same spiritual level anymore once we've finished them. Many writers never even look back at their old stuff, and if they do, it's almost like they feel someone else wrote it. There are times when it feels necessary to burn one's own work—not literally, I mean, but internally. Once it's written, you've already let go and moved past it, moving in a new direction, kind of like... well, forgive me, but like when you relieve yourself. And then some editor comes along and packages it all up nicely so others might buy it and feed off it. Until they get bored of it too, I suppose, and just toss it all into the river.

rustymaker5 said:To me, when I talk about "true human nature," I’m referring to what the Christian faith describes when it says "God created man in His own image." Or, to put it more simply, the soul is a person's actual, fundamental nature. Based on that—on that specific energy, since the soul is essentially an energy from the Source—a human being is one and the with all other living things on Earth, with Earth itself, and even with everything existing beyond the reaches of Earth.

When reason and self-awareness align with the soul, a person achieves a sense of harmony with themselves and the entire universe, effectively fulfilling the very purpose of their existence through lived experience.
But when reason and the ego—which are just categories tied to this material reality—take precedence over a person's spiritual nature, they lose touch with that primordial spark... and they start perceiving the material world as their only reality, which is nothing more than an illusion, like shadows dancing on a wall, no matter how real those shadows might seem to them.

Yes, I suppose it seems to me that self-awareness can really only exist if it is non-material in nature, like the soul. Consciousness that isn't self-aware might dwell within the material world, but true self-awareness is realized only when it acknowledges its own non-materiality—its spirit—which allows for spiritual growth. Otherwise, it just reduces down to the intellect and the ego, both of which vanish along with the body. If one views the material world as the only reality, then self-awareness is, I guess, like a bird pecking at the very branch it is sitting on.

lonegardener said:But what exactly constitutes a "rational" action once you've identified those "laws" of nature?

I mean, what is the point of aligning our behavior with these laws? Personally, I find breaking them much more interesting. Take flight, for example—we don't have wings, so instead, we build airplanes and take to the sky. 😬

Why should a human—a free being—subjugate their reason and will to certain "laws"? That is, assuming they even have the ability to deny them in the first place. But if they can't, can we truly call them "autonomous"?

🤷 Well, yes, those are all very good questions.

I suppose, of course, I just mean that a person should be above being driven solely by blind instincts. Though, I guess that's also a possibility. Whether they choose to resist the laws of nature, respect them, or just do whatever they want with them... well, I suppose that's up to their own will. 😉

People possess reason, self-awareness, and autonomy. Since we are social creatures, we have the capacity to act morally—meaning we can choose to act against our own selfish interests for ethical reasons. This differs from animals because we have more complex cognitive functions; we can actually turn our thoughts into objects of contemplation. We can think about ourselves, which leads to self-awareness, and we can use logic and reason to grasp the laws governing the world around us. This gives us a certain level of autonomy, I suppose, since we can make decisions by aligning our actions with those rational principles.

At the same time, there is an animalistic side to us that we share with other creatures—our emotions and that primal "reptilian brain." Of course, that part often clashes with our reason and self-awareness; there is really no debate about that.

The real problem with defining "human nature" comes up in those edge cases. If the qualities mentioned above constitute human nature, then do infants and the elderly with advanced dementia also possess it? Or, if we assume infants have this nature as a potentiality, and the elderly once had it and are now losing it... what about those individuals carrying human DNA who are cognitively impaired to such an extent that they can never develop these capacities, even if they possess a tiny fraction of them? Would they then lack human nature? That logic would suggest we could treat them like animals, though most people seem to believe that even these extreme cases still possess human nature.

But if even they have human nature, why don't we grant some primates or other "lower" animals human nature, even just to a small degree?

In essence, I guess we should just say that anyone with human DNA has human nature, but that doesn't really serve as a meaningful definition of what human nature actually is.

Michael Anderson2 said:I have to weigh in here again. To be honest, I’ve noticed that same superficiality in myself, and certainly in my kids. We are being absolutely flooded by a constant stream of information and content; there just isn't any breathing room to actually engage with anything deeply. There is too much noise, and before you can even process one thing, the next thing has already hit you. You lose interest because you simply don't have the time. We aren't really living in the present anymore—we're just bouncing between past data and future plans.

My kids finish one video game and immediately jump to the next, then onto music, Skype, soccer, music videos, skateboarding, social media... they flip through a hundred channels on the TV, grab a quick pizza, and barely even take the time to eat properly.🙄

The other day, I was listening to Bach—specifically his work with organs. I accidentally put the wrong CD in, but once it started playing, I figured I might as well give it a listen. As the piece progressed, I got this sense of playfulness, almost as if Bach himself were playing with the organ pipes—up, down, shifting tones, acting almost like a child at play. It’s as if he’s playing with church organs.

It’s the behavior of a child whose father was an organist. After losing his parent at ten years old, he moved in with his older brother, Johann Christoph Bach (1671-1721), who was also an organist. Of course he’s going to play with organs—what else was there to do in a 17th-century church? He didn't have many options. And given his natural talent, it's no surprise he mastered those instruments completely.

The point of this story is: what are our children going to become? They will become whatever they spend their time playing with. In our case, it's everything and anything, done quickly and shallowly. They have no time. Are we raising a generation of superficial shells? I’d be curious to hear about the experiences in the United States, which is certainly ahead of us in these matters.

Edit:
Toccata and Fugue in D minor! 😬

It took Bach a lifetime to master those organs, but in doing so, he expressed his free will. The systems used for composition back then—polyphony, harmony, progressions, all that—they seemed to align perfectly with his own internal informational entropy as a human being. Even now, when we listen to Bach, it feels like he "pulls" us into his world. We can't always see the foundation upon which he built the music, because it contains more information than we are capable of processing through just a few octaves of a single organ.

Kids on the internet and their phones, downloading games and scrolling endlessly through Facebook... they are in the same position we are in when we listen to Bach. They are pulled into the "game" as passive players by a system whose informational entropy is far greater than their own. The difference, though, is that the information filling them up via the internet isn't the stuff Bach or Mozart would provide; it's mostly, well, junk. Pornography, lies, nonsense... that sort of thing. Here, entropy isn't achieved through quality or organized thought, but through sheer quantity of low-quality noise. But it's still enough to drown an ordinary human mind, to strip away its "free will" and sink it into the Matrix. Apparently, in the US, they try to teach kids in school how to pick out quality content—the top 10%—and distinguish it from the 90% of garbage online, but in my opinion, that's not something you can really teach. Simply put, this bombardment of information leads to a "Brave New World"—a society split into alphas, betas, gammas, deltas, and epsilons; managers, programmers, admins, consumers, and the laborers who just surf porn sites and work as cashiers at a local grocery store. 😬

Quincy:

Have you ever actually tried getting involved in politics at any level? I suppose I have, and I can tell you that people holding positions at any stage... well, they can be anything, really, but I wouldn't call them incompetent. In fact, if I’m being honest, you might even say they are exceptionally talented at the specific traits that democracy seems to favor most: sycophancy, pushing agendas, manipulation, scheming, planting seeds, misrepresentation, bribery, forming alliances with similar types only to betray them later, sucking up to power, and so on... I won't even list them all. I wouldn't go so far as to call those people imbeciles—I think there are other people I'd call that, but maybe that's a different topic. The question is, why does it seem like people with these exact traits always rise to the surface in a democracy? Is it possible we are blaming the players when the game itself is flawed? Or is this just a localized issue here in the States? Personally, I tend to think that democracy is an extremely inadequate form of governance.

It's also worth noting that maybe only about 13% of people (or perhaps even less) truly decide anything in politics. About a third are just resigned spectators, and then there's roughly half who act like sheep, being led by that 13% through various manipulations designed to toy with them and force them into submission. Democracy is a system where, in reality, about 10% of the people rule and manage things, while 50% live under the illusion that they have a say, and 40% know perfectly well they have no influence at all and just stay home. Actually, even under communism, there was only about 10% membership in the party, right? Except, I guess, those 50% didn't suffer from the illusion of choice, because, as Mark Torres14 already pointed out, in a communist system you could only choose between black bread or white bread—which most people can see is beneath their capacity for actual decision-making. But even though nowadays you have more varieties of bread, you still aren't the one deciding on that bread; you are just placed in the position of a passive consumer who can pick from a palette that someone else has already curated for you.

Does the development of a new version of Windows happen democratically, where even the most casual users are consulted? Or do Gates and his inner circle implement features based on the preferences of the massive corporations they partner with and who pay them? Even Linux and Open Source have limitations, since only those with specific technical know-how participate in its creation, which is once again just a small minority.

Otherwise, the idea that we should ask ordinary people what services they want and what they think, and then decide based on that, is probably a utopia. The "big players" simply have no need for such things. They just sweep the little people away like dust off a sideboard and move on.☕

Charles Diaz56 said:What we typically define as emotional love is essentially a sensory game—a chemical reaction involving the release of specific substances within the body. Beneath that veneer of love, there is always some underlying form of profound fear, though most people remain entirely unaware of it.
For instance, consider two individuals of different genders who fall in love. Driving this phenomenon is libido—the pursuit of a sexual object intended for reproduction. This primal urge for species survival actually stems from an inherent fear of mortality.
Furthermore, many parents stumble by viewing their children merely as extensions of their own egos, which ultimately serves to diminish the individuality of the child.

In the deepest spiritual realms, the only thing that truly exists is consciousness. It is a pure, fluid state of being. How one interprets this experience depends entirely upon the individual, as it serves as the channel through which cosmic consciousness flows. To put it another way, if you are a lover, the cosmic consciousness moves through your spiritual architecture, transforming your perception into an understanding of universal love.
To construct a "sketch" of your own individual spiritual makeup, you must descend into the deepest layers of consciousness. In those depths, you are alone. There, you encounter the realization of death and your most profound fears. You must confront these terrors directly, for they act as the primary barriers to true insight. Once you conquer that internal demon, the doors swing open. You arrive at the realization of what you truly are: a fragment of the universal cosmic consciousness. An astro sapiens... a curious cosmic traveler who, out of pure curiosity, became entangled in the web of material structure... suspended between heaven and earth...

I would suggest immersing yourself in a sensory deprivation tank.

http://minxykitten.blogspot.com/2006...tion-tank.html



Usually, people stay in them for maybe an hour or two. But, I guess, what would happen if you left someone in there for a couple of days? Would they encounter that inner demon of theirs? Naturally, they would need to bring their brain waves into a theta state, right on the edge between deep sleep (0-4 Hz) and deep meditation (4-7 Hz)—so, somewhere around 4 Hz. That seems to be the real frequency.

Charles Diaz56 said:Emotions arise through our senses—sight, touch, and so on. They are the result of chemical reactions within the body, the release of serotonin, or mental visualizations; they are a subjective experience.

When you hold an object in your hand, what truly tells you that it is real? I don't place much faith in "realistic sensations." In fact, I don't put much stock in reality itself. Nothing is ever truly "absolute."

Our senses are deceptive, just as our emotions are. For instance, when you click this link, scroll down to the image featuring the squares;

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgur...G8aD_AbvvZzqBQ

It says here—if you see eleven heads, then you're Superman. Well, I see twelve, plus a tiny thirteenth one, and maybe even a fourteenth—the head of a rider on a horse. So, what does that make me?