Is it possible to not belong to any subculture?

Gerald Hill said:My point isn't about that specific type of identity; I am speaking about the act of identifying oneself through a label after a certain experience. For instance, saying "I am a fascist, an idealist, a surrealist, a Marxist, or a liberal," rather than simply stating, "I am a human being, and that is that." It is irrational to reduce oneself to such labels. While human reason is certainly important and we must strive to be rational, we must also acknowledge that the human mind is not omnipotent.

I know you’re keeping quiet—and honestly, sometimes that's where the real truth stays hidden, tucked away beneath the surface like a secret waiting for the right moment to surface... isn't it? 😁...which is exactly why I’m bringing this specific example up in the first place.
Is there really any other way to look at it? I’ve been sitting here thinking about this for a while—and I know, I tend to wander when I get onto these philosophical paths—but isn't it true that there simply isn't any identity more identical to who we are than our own identity itself? It sounds like a bit of a tautology, doesn't it? A circular thought, perhaps—but then again, isn't that just how existence works? We try to layer ourselves with titles, roles, or even the clothes we wear, yet all those things are just... well, they're just noise. In the end, you can't escape the core of what you are. There isn't some secondary, "truer" version of us waiting around somewhere else—there is only the self. 😁

Don't go confusing professionalism—and all that baggage that comes along with it—with actual competence. It’s a fine line, isn't it? One could easily get lost in the shuffle of looking the part... or acting the part... while missing the point entirely.I am terribly sorry—please forgive me.It really comes down to nationality—and by extension, that sense of national identity—which inevitably shapes how we see things. Is it possible that our very background dictates our perspective before we even realize it? It’s a complex thought, isn't it? One cannot simply separate who they are from where they come from, especially when those cultural roots run so deep into one's core...I’m sorry—did I miss something? My apologies if I stepped in mid-conversation without realizing it....and so forth—plus the TSL stuff.
You really are... I suppose we're talking about the characters—the people involved in this whole situation. It makes you wonder, doesn't it? Who are they really, behind the personas they project to the world? It’s easy to get caught up in the labels, but when you actually start peeling back the layers... well, that's where things get interesting. They’re all just out there making things up—you know, this whole "I did this" and "I did that" routine... they're honestly just tripping. 😉

Google:

To start with, any philosophical take on the nature and ontology of consciousness ends in "-ism"—that's why we call them physicalism, idealism, or dualism.

Wrong!

Open my book and look at the subheadings: "neuroscience," "The Science of Self-Preservation," "ethics," "theology," and "Eternal Truth."

So, in this case, we’re talking about SCIENCE, not some random "-ism." When we're dealing with TRUTH—specifically the Truth regarding consciousness and the drive for self-preservation that can be empirically verified, logically explained, and actually understood—it isn't an "-ism," it's SCIENCE. And when something is science—an absolute Truth that anyone in America or anywhere else can verify and grasp—it shouldn't be used to split people into groups based on whether they accept it or reject it. You can't build organized political ideologies, religions, class systems, or national institutions around it, complete with leaders at the helm.

On the flip side, "-isms" are always just made-up, half-baked truths or outright lies. They can't be empirically or scientifically proven. Instead, you just have one set of unprovable lies pitted against another similar set of illogical nonsense. Then people act like they're at a flea market, picking "this one" or "that one," using those choices to divide themselves, build their little institutions and temples, choose their leaders, and compete over whose belief system looks prettier. That competition breeds hatred, which inevitably leads to intolerance, conflict, violence, wars, genocides, collapsing economies, poverty, and misery.

So, what's the actual point of the "LAW OF EXISTENCE," or the "SCIENCE OF SELF-PRESERVATION" I'm putting forward?

The whole purpose is to use it to tear down every single "-ism" in existence. It provides answers to all the fundamental existential questions that modern science, philosophy, and every major religion in the world have failed to answer to this day. These are answers that are empirically—meaning scientifically—verifiable and completely logical. The end result should be the dismantling and fading away of all those global ideological, political, national, religious, and class divisions and institutions. We're talking about a unified world, both socially and economically, and lasting peace on Earth. Because when something is SCIENCE, there's no "I want this" or "I don't want that" guesswork involved. You accept it without question. There’s no dodging it or trying to wiggle out of it unless you're a complete idiot or totally insane.

DAVMLA:

What kind of "ism" describes someone who doesn't have a backbone and just respects everyone?

That IZAM is called IDIOTISM or STUPIDITY. Every single one of these modern "isms" is nothing but a load of garbage and lies. They don't help humanity; they just cause massive damage. And anyone who actually respects this nonsense is an IDIOT and a FOOL themselves, because sooner or later, one of those stupid ideologies is going to come back and bite them right in the ass.

Sandra Wilson68 said:Google:

To start with, any philosophical take on the nature and ontology of consciousness ends in "-ism"—that's why we call them physicalism, idealism, or dualism.

Wrong!

Open my book and look at the subheadings: "neuroscience," "The Science of Self-Preservation," "ethics," "theology," and "Eternal Truth."

So, in this case, we’re talking about SCIENCE, not some random "-ism." When we're dealing with TRUTH—specifically the Truth regarding consciousness and the drive for self-preservation that can be empirically verified, logically explained, and actually understood—it isn't an "-ism," it's SCIENCE. And when something is science—an absolute Truth that anyone in America or anywhere else can verify and grasp—it shouldn't be used to split people into groups based on whether they accept it or reject it. You can't build organized political ideologies, religions, class systems, or national institutions around it, complete with leaders at the helm.

On the flip side, "-isms" are always just made-up, half-baked truths or outright lies. They can't be empirically or scientifically proven. Instead, you just have one set of unprovable lies pitted against another similar set of illogical nonsense. Then people act like they're at a flea market, picking "this one" or "that one," using those choices to divide themselves, build their little institutions and temples, choose their leaders, and compete over whose belief system looks prettier. That competition breeds hatred, which inevitably leads to intolerance, conflict, violence, wars, genocides, collapsing economies, poverty, and misery.

So, what's the actual point of the "LAW OF EXISTENCE," or the "SCIENCE OF SELF-PRESERVATION" I'm putting forward?

The whole purpose is to use it to tear down every single "-ism" in existence. It provides answers to all the fundamental existential questions that modern science, philosophy, and every major religion in the world have failed to answer to this day. These are answers that are empirically—meaning scientifically—verifiable and completely logical. The end result should be the dismantling and fading away of all those global ideological, political, national, religious, and class divisions and institutions. We're talking about a unified world, both socially and economically, and lasting peace on Earth. Because when something is SCIENCE, there's no "I want this" or "I don't want that" guesswork involved. You accept it without question. There’s no dodging it or trying to wiggle out of it unless you're a complete idiot or totally insane.

Absolute truths do not exist; nothing has been proven as a definitive, final truth. I stopped reading there. As the gentleman explained, if you promote something as "the truth," you belong to a specific ideology. If someone asks if you believe in God and you say no, that is atheism—which is also an ideology.

Sandra Wilson68 said:DAVMLA:

What kind of "ism" describes someone who doesn't have a backbone and just respects everyone?

That IZAM is called IDIOTISM or STUPIDITY. Every single one of these modern "isms" is nothing but a load of garbage and lies. They don't help humanity; they just cause massive damage. And anyone who actually respects this nonsense is an IDIOT and a FOOL themselves, because sooner or later, one of those stupid ideologies is going to come back and bite them right in the ass.

I wouldn't call it foolishness. It is quite the opposite; by choosing not to engage in conflict, he is showing respect for another person's perspective. To refuse that respect would imply that he is forced to accept their views as his own, which isn't the case.

Lisa Jackson7 said:I think you're taking the whole "label" thing way too broad—like you're grouping every single social clique together.
As Aristotle put it, man is a "political animal," so anyone who is completely detached from that is either a god or a beast.
And as for not having an opinion... I already told you, we don't all need to have a take on everything.

That’s actually a pretty bad way to translate an Aristotelian claim.

The right way to put it is:

.. man is a zoon politikon, a social being ..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_(Aristotle)

Gerald Hill said:I realize there might be very few people here who feel this way, if any at all, but is it truly possible to belong to no school of thought whatsoever? I am talking about a person who holds no specific philosophical, religious, or political dogma—someone who simply respects everyone else's worldview while recognizing that adhering to any particular ideology offers no practical benefit to their daily life. Is it actually feasible to remain entirely indifferent to deep philosophical, political, or scientific inquiries and view them as irrelevant to one's existence? Are there any individuals among us who live this way?

Look, honestly, it doesn't matter what kind of label someone tries to slap on themselves; what actually defines you as a member of some specific "school of thought" is what you actually *do*—that's the part you just can't dodge. 😉
People who call themselves humanists or altruists or whatever... well, they'll probably never actually claim those titles for themselves, anyway.

frozenmaker74 said:Look, honestly, it doesn't matter what kind of label someone tries to slap on themselves; what actually defines you as a member of some specific "school of thought" is what you actually *do*—that's the part you just can't dodge. 😉
People who call themselves humanists or altruists or whatever... well, they'll probably never actually claim those titles for themselves, anyway.

I would argue that a person who ignores any question that might force them to adopt an ideology, choosing instead to merely satisfy basic physiological needs, might actually succeed in remaining unaligned. It may indeed be possible to exist without belonging to any particular movement at all.

DAVMLA:

There’s no such thing as 100% truth. Nothing is ever proven as an absolute, definitive fact.

The consciousness studies—or the Science of Self-Preservation—that I push is 100% Truth. It's definitive and eternal. Every single point can be proven through experience and explained with pure logic. It just makes sense.

That's where I stopped reading. If you claim to promote something as "truth," you're just joining an ideology. That's how it works. If someone asks if you believe in God and you say no, that's atheism. It's just another ideology.

And I already pointed out that anything qualifying as science—meaning stuff that's empirically verifiable, logically sound, and actually makes sense—can't be labeled an ideology.

It’s not being a fool. He respects the opinion because he doesn't want to start a fight. Not respecting it would mean accepting something else instead.

We live in a world ruled by a mess of different ideologies rather than science. It's just a pile of unproven assumptions, theories, and beliefs. All the chaos and conflict we see globally? That's the direct result. In a world like this, nobody escapes the fallout of those conflicts, regardless of which "ism" they belong to. Once we finally get actual answers to the big existential questions based on science, and once everyone understands that science, all these ideologies and global conflicts will vanish. We already have that science right now. It's consciousness studies—specifically, the Science of Self-Preservation. Consciousness, or the instinct for self-preservation, is the only natural force in existence. Everything in the universe exists and operates according to its laws. Only someone who fully grasps this Science, and chooses to live by these universal laws of Self-Preservation in how they treat other people and nature, can truly claim they don't belong to any ideology.

Short answer—no.
Even animals seem to follow certain patterns, even if they aren't doing it consciously—like altruism, for instance.
Some concepts are just defined in a way where you can't really avoid having a stance—take atheism, theism, or agnosticism.
If we didn't belong to any movement or idea at all, we'd basically be down to the level of a single-celled organism.

steelorca12 said:Short answer—no.
Even animals seem to follow certain patterns, even if they aren't doing it consciously—like altruism, for instance.
Some concepts are just defined in a way where you can't really avoid having a stance—take atheism, theism, or agnosticism.
If we didn't belong to any movement or idea at all, we'd basically be down to the level of a single-celled organism.

It is possible to bypass it. For example, someone might simply ignore a question that demands they adopt a specific ideology, claiming they have no desire to take a stand or promote anything. One could argue that apatheism is somewhat of a hipster invention. However, someone who truly belonged to no category would say they aren't even interested in whether people believe or not; they simply have no relationship with the matter at all. An agnostic isn't just someone acting like a scale who is "unsure."

Quincy:

Gerald Hill I can't even begin to explain why I'm sitting here typing this out, but here we go. So, according to what steelorca12 was saying... Honestly, you’re looking at a guy who will dodge any question that forces him to actually commit to a side, rather than just sitting there and swallowing some half-baked ideology whole. It's almost impressive how he manages to sidestep the hard stuff while pretending he's being reasonable. It’s really nothing more than just satisfying some basic biological urges, honestly—it’s just that whole human physiological thing, and that's the end of it.I mean, honestly, maybe there’s a way to just sidestep all this whole "identity" nonsense and just decide that you don't actually belong anywhere at all. It sounds a little lonely when you say it out loud, I guess, but there's a certain kind of freedom in just being a nomad in your own mind, right? Just drifting through without needing a label or a specific patch of dirt to call home.

The second those words left your mouth, you basically handed over your entire manifesto on a silver platter. 😉 I mean, look, if you want to call me an individualist, go right ahead—I’m not exactly going to jump up and protest. Honestly, I’ve always been a bit of a lone wolf anyway, mostly because I can't stand following the crowd when they're all heading toward a cliff, though sometimes I wonder if I'm just being stubborn for the sake of being stubborn. It's fine by me, really.
I mean, honestly, when you really sit down and think about it, everyone fits somewhere on the spectrum. It’s inevitable. You start with the basics—like what you’re actually putting in your stomach every day—and then you drift through everything from religious leanings all the way up to how you feel about politics, whether you've gone out of your way to make a big public announcement about it or if you're just quietly holding those views to yourself. Everyone's got a niche, one way or another.

By the way... Look, you’ve already got an organism, which by default means you’ve also got everything that comes after it—you can't really have one without the other, right? It’s just how the whole thing works. 🙂

Gerald Hill said:It is possible to bypass it. For example, someone might simply ignore a question that demands they adopt a specific ideology, claiming they have no desire to take a stand or promote anything. One could argue that apatheism is somewhat of a hipster invention. However, someone who truly belonged to no category would say they aren't even interested in whether people believe or not; they simply have no relationship with the matter at all. An agnostic isn't just someone acting like a scale who is "unsure."

But honestly, it's all in the past—whether you dodge the question or not, people act like you "have" to pick a side.
Besides, why even bother avoiding these labels when they're really just linguistic quirks? If you follow that logic, you'd basically be an anti-ism-ist 😁

frozenmaker74 said:Quincy:

Gerald Hill I can't even begin to explain why I'm sitting here typing this out, but here we go. So, according to what steelorca12 was saying... Honestly, you’re looking at a guy who will dodge any question that forces him to actually commit to a side, rather than just sitting there and swallowing some half-baked ideology whole. It's almost impressive how he manages to sidestep the hard stuff while pretending he's being reasonable. It’s really nothing more than just satisfying some basic biological urges, honestly—it’s just that whole human physiological thing, and that's the end of it.I mean, honestly, maybe there’s a way to just sidestep all this whole "identity" nonsense and just decide that you don't actually belong anywhere at all. It sounds a little lonely when you say it out loud, I guess, but there's a certain kind of freedom in just being a nomad in your own mind, right? Just drifting through without needing a label or a specific patch of dirt to call home.

The second those words left your mouth, you basically handed over your entire manifesto on a silver platter. 😉 I mean, look, if you want to call me an individualist, go right ahead—I’m not exactly going to jump up and protest. Honestly, I’ve always been a bit of a lone wolf anyway, mostly because I can't stand following the crowd when they're all heading toward a cliff, though sometimes I wonder if I'm just being stubborn for the sake of being stubborn. It's fine by me, really.
I mean, honestly, when you really sit down and think about it, everyone fits somewhere on the spectrum. It’s inevitable. You start with the basics—like what you’re actually putting in your stomach every day—and then you drift through everything from religious leanings all the way up to how you feel about politics, whether you've gone out of your way to make a big public announcement about it or if you're just quietly holding those views to yourself. Everyone's got a niche, one way or another.

By the way... Look, you’ve already got an organism, which by default means you’ve also got everything that comes after it—you can't really have one without the other, right? It’s just how the whole thing works. 🙂

I am not quite sure what individualism has to do with this. An individualist is someone who possesses their own system of values and goals; they aren't someone who lacks values, but rather someone who simply lives by them.

Gerald Hill said:I am not quite sure what individualism has to do with this. An individualist is someone who possesses their own system of values and goals; they aren't someone who lacks values, but rather someone who simply lives by them.

Oh, they definitely do. ☕

steelorca12 said:But honestly, it's all in the past—whether you dodge the question or not, people act like you "have" to pick a side.
Besides, why even bother avoiding these labels when they're really just linguistic quirks? If you follow that logic, you'd basically be an anti-ism-ist 😁

👍 👏

Sandra Wilson68 said:DAVMLA:

Is there anyone out there who doesn't belong to any group?

Hell yeah there is! That’s me. I have zero respect for national, religious, political, or class divisions. They've been the root cause of every major war, terror attack, genocide, and bout of poverty in history. Honestly, they're just pure evil. Because of that, I built my own worldview centered on global unity—basically by stripping away all those labels people cling to. I base all of this on discovering a single, universal law governing matter, life, and nature, which I laid out in my book:

THE LAW OF EXISTENCE.
http://ul.to/50ibd5tn (US)
http://ul.to/ebhuaye7 (eng)

If my memory serves me right, dear Sandra Wilson68, you were actually a proponent of what I consider one of the most dangerous "-isms" of all when you suggested using an ant colony or a beehive as a model for human society—namely, collectivism... It's dangerous because it sacrifices individual liberty at the altar of communal ideals, forcing the person to become subservient to the group's interests.

As for the original question, though, I would argue that it’s both impossible and entirely unnecessary to strip a human being of ideology (even if we give it a fancy name ending in "-ism"). A person needs to either create or follow an idea to guide them—to provide direction—and that guidance is, inherently, a form of politics (even if it's just personal policy)... and once an idea becomes a policy, it effectively becomes an ideology.

Gerald Hill:

Quincy:

You promoting something? I get it. No point in me wasting my time reading any further.

Yeah. I'm out here promoting this. I’m pushing for a Science of Consciousness that actually makes sense—something grounded in logic and real-world experience, specifically the Science of Self-Preservation. I'm out here promoting the Truth, not some fake, manufactured nonsense.

Look, I don't care if you're refusing to read it. You aren't the first person to pull that move, and you won't be the last. There are endless little cults and ideologies out there, each with their own fanboys ready to fight tooth and nail to protect them. They’re terrified of any Truth that might threaten their precious little worldview. Honestly, these people would spill blood just to cover up the facts, all to make sure their lie keeps breathing—because without that lie, they wouldn't even exist.

PLANINAR

If my memory serves me right, dear Sandra Wilson68, you were one of the more dangerous "isms" in my book. You used an ant colony or a beehive as a model for humanity, which is just pure collectivism. It’s dangerous because it threatens individual freedom for the sake of some grand ideal or the total freedom of the collective—leaving the individual completely subservient to the group.

It is honestly wild how much ignorance regarding "collectivism" and "freedom" you just dumped in those first two sentences. Collectivism doesn't mean stripping away individual liberty; it’s actually the exact opposite. Look at the human body as the ultimate example of perfect collectivism. It’s made of billions of cells and about 42,000 different parts and organs. Compare the benefits of life that a human organism provides to those cells versus the life they would have if they were just isolated individuals—like amoebas floating in some swamp or a gutter. Then ask yourself what true freedom is for them: Is it living within a perfectly organized collective where they can maximize all their biological needs and desires? Or is it living in a swamp where they can achieve nothing as lone amoebas? Or maybe ask this: did those amoebas spend four billion years evolving, working, and learning just to build a human organism as their collective, only to lose their individuality? Or is it the reverse—that through the human organism, they reach a higher, almost divine form of freedom?

Also, just answering the thread's question here: I think it’s impossible and unnecessary to strip a person of ideology (whatever "-ism" it ends up being). Humans need to create or follow an idea to guide them. That guidance is essentially politics—even if it's just personal politics—and any idea that functions as politics is, by definition, an ideology.

Your take is a textbook example of human ignorance. Why? Because it assumes a society where everyone has the right to their own idea and their own "-ism," plus the freedom to live out that idea independently from everyone else. And what do we get from that kind of "freedom"? We get the unfree world we live in right now. We live in a world where nobody can truly live by their own ideas because they end up infringing on everyone else's. No one can realize their own vision without needing help from others, which inevitably means clashing with other people's visions and freedoms. All this leads to a fractured world split by ideologies, intolerance, hatred, exploitation, wars, terrorism, casualties, laziness, failing economies, poverty, hunger, and misery. So, with this "democratic" view of the world as a way to achieve freedom, we end up achieving the exact opposite. We limit ourselves in countless terrible ways, creating UNFREEDOM instead of liberty. No matter how you spin it, the final conclusion on the easiest way to achieve freedom is this: COLLECTIVISM. Not some random ideology, but a system based strictly on the Science of Self-Preservation. This science offers the best, most natural, and universal solution for maximizing good and avoiding evil. That solution is always a social and economic community—an organism like the human body or a beehive—built on the fair division of labor and its results. The evolution of the entire universe is moving toward this specific form of organization and freedom. Of course, that's assuming you aren't part of the foolish human society that still hasn't a clue about these universal laws of self-preservation and free living.

Sandra Wilson68 said:Gerald Hill:

Quincy:

You promoting something? I get it. No point in me wasting my time reading any further.

Yeah. I'm out here promoting this. I’m pushing for a Science of Consciousness that actually makes sense—something grounded in logic and real-world experience, specifically the Science of Self-Preservation. I'm out here promoting the Truth, not some fake, manufactured nonsense.

Look, I don't care if you're refusing to read it. You aren't the first person to pull that move, and you won't be the last. There are endless little cults and ideologies out there, each with their own fanboys ready to fight tooth and nail to protect them. They’re terrified of any Truth that might threaten their precious little worldview. Honestly, these people would spill blood just to cover up the facts, all to make sure their lie keeps breathing—because without that lie, they wouldn't even exist.

I haven't had the chance to look through the links you provided to see exactly what you're advocating for, but if you'd like, feel free to provide a brief summary. Generally speaking, I don't believe in a single universal truth. I believe another reader previously mentioned to you that your perspective aligns more with neutral monism.

Sandra Wilson68 said:PLANINAR

If my memory serves me right, dear Sandra Wilson68, you were one of the more dangerous "isms" in my book. You used an ant colony or a beehive as a model for humanity, which is just pure collectivism. It’s dangerous because it threatens individual freedom for the sake of some grand ideal or the total freedom of the collective—leaving the individual completely subservient to the group.

It is honestly wild how much ignorance regarding "collectivism" and "freedom" you just dumped in those first two sentences. Collectivism doesn't mean stripping away individual liberty; it’s actually the exact opposite. Look at the human body as the ultimate example of perfect collectivism. It’s made of billions of cells and about 42,000 different parts and organs. Compare the benefits of life that a human organism provides to those cells versus the life they would have if they were just isolated individuals—like amoebas floating in some swamp or a gutter. Then ask yourself what true freedom is for them: Is it living within a perfectly organized collective where they can maximize all their biological needs and desires? Or is it living in a swamp where they can achieve nothing as lone amoebas? Or maybe ask this: did those amoebas spend four billion years evolving, working, and learning just to build a human organism as their collective, only to lose their individuality? Or is it the reverse—that through the human organism, they reach a higher, almost divine form of freedom?

Also, just answering the thread's question here: I think it’s impossible and unnecessary to strip a person of ideology (whatever "-ism" it ends up being). Humans need to create or follow an idea to guide them. That guidance is essentially politics—even if it's just personal politics—and any idea that functions as politics is, by definition, an ideology.

Your take is a textbook example of human ignorance. Why? Because it assumes a society where everyone has the right to their own idea and their own "-ism," plus the freedom to live out that idea independently from everyone else. And what do we get from that kind of "freedom"? We get the unfree world we live in right now. We live in a world where nobody can truly live by their own ideas because they end up infringing on everyone else's. No one can realize their own vision without needing help from others, which inevitably means clashing with other people's visions and freedoms. All this leads to a fractured world split by ideologies, intolerance, hatred, exploitation, wars, terrorism, casualties, laziness, failing economies, poverty, hunger, and misery. So, with this "democratic" view of the world as a way to achieve freedom, we end up achieving the exact opposite. We limit ourselves in countless terrible ways, creating UNFREEDOM instead of liberty. No matter how you spin it, the final conclusion on the easiest way to achieve freedom is this: COLLECTIVISM. Not some random ideology, but a system based strictly on the Science of Self-Preservation. This science offers the best, most natural, and universal solution for maximizing good and avoiding evil. That solution is always a social and economic community—an organism like the human body or a beehive—built on the fair division of labor and its results. The evolution of the entire universe is moving toward this specific form of organization and freedom. Of course, that's assuming you aren't part of the foolish human society that still hasn't a clue about these universal laws of self-preservation and free living.

That’s all well and good, but my point was simply to suggest that you, too, are a representative of an "ism"—actually, more like a promoter of one—which really clashes with your claim that you don't belong to any particular school of thought.

Furthermore, since this is your concept (even if you call it "universal"), it can only function within a society of individual freedoms; in a truly collectivist setting, such a proposal would be nothing more than an outlier. For instance, a drone wouldn't even be allowed to suggest something like this...