Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
Subject
Comment
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


If Muslims were White

View Thread Reply
- Tue, 04 Apr 2017 09:40:56 EST 54PBc7Id No.207974
File: 1491313256272.jpg -(65536B / 64.00KB, 645x484) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. If Muslims were White
100% serious question, this is about how society responds to race.

How would the conversation about Muslims change if they weren't mostly brown, but instead mostly white?
Like, what if the 9/11 guys were white, and all these people fighting in the ME were white, all the people bombing India and Malaysia were white, all the people who were banned by Trump were white? What if the people wearing Burqas that were being banned were all white?
How would people react? What would they say?
57 posts and 9 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
John Gellywell - Fri, 15 May 2020 05:36:30 EST UcZcOgV6 No.210102 Reply
>>207974
You do realize Muslims are religious followers of Allah, not a race of people?

It wouldn't make much difference because people have and will continue to fight over what god to worship.
>>
Shitting Handlesug - Wed, 17 Jun 2020 16:30:58 EST PjzV5gHZ No.210169 Reply
>>207974
They wouldn't be a protected class in the west and would be treated like Nazis.
User is currently banned from all boards
>>
Cornelius Funkinbuck - Mon, 20 Jul 2020 02:52:03 EST DjpVXflu No.210240 Reply
>HOW WOULD THEY REACT
lmao, negatively? They ran an airplane into a fucking building

Near-term Extinction

View Thread Reply
- Fri, 25 Oct 2019 10:01:29 EST ywHNbnM1 No.209806
File: 1572012089173.jpg -(49360B / 48.20KB, 590x318) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Near-term Extinction
*Global warming
*Nuclear war
*Collapse of the ecosystem
*Dependence on finite resources
*Designer pathogens
*Resource wars
*Political polarization leading to massive civil unrest
*AI

The Great Filter cometh.

We're not going to be able to think our way out of the hole we've dug for ourselves. Humanity is facing near-term extinction and there's nothing we can do about it.
So how are you dealing with this (asuming you believe it)? Personally I take the George Carlin stance, I no longer have any investment into humanity. I have totally disconnected myself from this world and am totally indifferent to the fate of mankind. I had hopes and dreams for our species, but they were all a pipe dream.
29 posts and 4 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
borgia@/ 92 - Thu, 18 Jun 2020 21:41:58 EST 0oNhfLGW No.210174 Reply
1592530918453.jpg -(449606B / 439.07KB, 1531x2880) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209806
>hopes and dreams for our species, but they were all a pipe dream.
you wonna place the collection in some malfortune?
a pipe dream? like your feeding some furball a bad idea to not cry about?
> but they were all a pipe dream.
> do you bleive in minasota?
>>
Cornelius Funkinbuck - Mon, 20 Jul 2020 02:50:56 EST DjpVXflu No.210239 Reply
>>210148
excellerant

I think that God has a plan OP. I really hope it involves a benefit for myself, but wonder

wittgenstein and gender

View Thread Reply
- Sat, 27 Jun 2020 17:06:55 EST fGHDtkRk No.210192
File: 1593292015858.jpg -(139447B / 136.18KB, 800x513) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. wittgenstein and gender
Something I'm currently working on, posting for critique. This is a rough draft of only one part of it. I've compiled a dozen or so sources for the claims here but have yet to go through and specifically cite everything and make corrections where necessary.

I rarely see it used this way, but I think the philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein is actually very powerful against biological essentialism if you can get someone to accept his premises before relating them to gender. This is particularly useful for convincing people who (pretend to) come from a purely secular background and are claiming to argue against the validity of trans gender identities from a "scientific" point of view.

Rather than arguing from the point of view of later continental philosophers like Derrida and Foucault, who these people ironically have no problem rejecting outright based on what they've heard about them without so much as even listening to what they have to say, arguing from the point of view of the founder (and arguably the most orthodox member) of the positivist, analytic tradition at the very least makes these faux-secularist arguments look as subjective and irrational as they truly are by stripping away the veneer of logic and reason.

[Introduce his philosophy with his "beetle in a box metaphor"]

As paraphrased in a film based on his life: "When you want to know the meaning of a word, don't look inside yourself, look at the uses of the word in our way of life. Look at how we behave". Wittgenstein suggests the only meaning which can be extracted from words is that which can be inferred from how they are used in a given language and that no single comprehensive definition exists for any word. In terms of human experience, this means no concrete "thing" can be said to exist which "causes" anything with-in the realm of internal experience, be it pain, emotions, religious experiences, or gender. "That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus)".

His famous example is the word "game", for which no single definition can be given in the English language (or any language that isn't logically perfect). Instead, he argues, the definitions of words lie in what he calls "families of resemblance". In essence, a word cannot be comprehensively defined such that the definition is true in all instances. The best we can do to define a word is give a list of common traits and say "and that sort of thing" (Philosophical Investigations).

The example that many people might be familiar with from philosophy or psychology class is when it comes to the definition of the word "dog". When asked what a dog is, you might say it's a creature with fur, four legs, two ears, which barks, has a tail, and loves meat, but a dog could just as easily be hairless, three-legged, one-eared, mute, tail-less, or hate meat and still be a dog. Conversely, such a creature could also be a wolf, a coyote, or a fox. [I can explain why "mammal" doesn't work as a universal identifier to anyone here who would bring it up but anyone reading this for my class will already know why it doesn't]

With-in the realm of trans denialism, a very common and nonsensical argument you see is people pointing to a stereotypically masculine trans woman and saying "just look at them!", pointing to specific secondary sex characteristics like broader shoulders, larger hands, laryngeal prominence, etc. and saying "women don't look like that!" when in reality no single one of those traits is necessarily unique to cis men and trans women. Conversely, a cis man could have a smaller frame, smoother skin, no Adam's apple, a higher voice, etc. and still be a cis man.

When people bring up chromosomes one of my favorite things to ask is "what do chromosomes do?" because they almost never have an explanation. Chromosomes contain genetic code which tells cells how they should reproduce, but one of the biggest single things affecting human mortality is the fact that the cells very often mishear or don't listen at all. One example of many is the case of an embryo with XY chromosomes that has total androgen insensitivity, which means that it has cells that do not respond to the male sex hormones at all, but respond to female sex hormones normally, which causes the fetus …
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
4 posts and 2 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Nathaniel Drendlestag - Mon, 29 Jun 2020 19:02:25 EST fGHDtkRk No.210200 Reply
1593471745583.jpg -(108391B / 105.85KB, 893x1360) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>210199
Thank you, again I should've been clearer that the primary intention of the paper of which this is only one section is to introduce and defend Wittgenstein's philosophy, I related it to gender in this section simply because I've never really seen it done and I wanted to perhaps kill two birds with one stone.

I'm not particularly good with the rhetoric side of things. I can write something like this to an audience I know is almost guaranteed to agree with me on the basic premise, but going back to square one with someone who says "sex and gender are the same, you can't change your gender, gender is stored in the chromosomes, etc." I turn into a sputtering idiot. I don't really think that I'm smarter than anyone else or that people who disagree with me are dumb, and I'm not trying to talk over anyone, rather I think it's a personal failing that I struggle to be both precise and concise at the same time. In the tiny little bubble I live in, it's not really put me at a disadvantage. It's just the language of my milieu. I see it almost like a dialect. When I'm not trying to make a point or explain concepts I can code-switch pretty well and I have friends of all walks of life, but I struggle to strip things down, because then I feel like I'm not properly expressing what I'm thinking. I'm distinctly in the wrong though and I hold it up more as a flaw than anything else.

I'm making my way through this to learn to be better about it, but clearly it's not really taking lol
>>
Cornelius Funkinbuck - Mon, 20 Jul 2020 02:49:08 EST DjpVXflu No.210238 Reply
Is every college paper related to twitter in some fashion now?

Makes sense I guess. Don't want to get cancelled!

jolly african-american
>>
Ebenezer Murdfoot - Sun, 26 Jul 2020 21:57:48 EST fGHDtkRk No.210259 Reply
>>210238
Very substantive critique. You supported what the other person was saying about it not really mattering how sound your arguments are when debating certain kinds of people at least.

This wasn't for you, go away. En bee.

The Mona Lisa is burning.

View Thread Reply
- Wed, 19 Feb 2020 12:25:24 EST FW4N5vW2 No.209956
File: 1582133124265.jpg -(9710B / 9.48KB, 327x397) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. The Mona Lisa is burning.
Listen, you can hear it.

Screaming.

Do not look away.

For the Devil knows your fears.
4 posts and 1 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Nell Berringhall - Thu, 02 Jul 2020 18:43:53 EST dh/GbIQI No.210207 Reply
>>210206
yeah if you fuck up your background then you paint over it

it was a practice painting. i'm sorry folks, show's over. stay home.
>>
Cornelius Funkinbuck - Mon, 20 Jul 2020 02:45:40 EST DjpVXflu No.210236 Reply
THIS IS OFF TOPIC

Fate

View Thread Reply
- Thu, 07 May 2020 23:14:53 EST AOuUNGAb No.210075
File: 1588907693355.png -(81677B / 79.76KB, 1023x178) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Fate
Each rain drop falls in a precise location predetermined by nature's law.
Man, who is so complex, seems to be able to interfere with the course of nature, at least by our definitions.

If a deck of cards drops to the ground, nature rules over which cards will flip face up.
Man, who is in the habit of storytelling, will often determine what the face up cards "mean".

Does nature, as man commonly understands it as a force separate from man, communicate to man? Does nature care about the path of men? Does nature try to warn man?

What is nature's goal? To what ends?
If man is truly separate from nature, why does man tolerate nature?
4 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Graham Chuddlefock - Mon, 18 May 2020 05:59:18 EST hcOExBer No.210121 Reply
1589795958546.jpg -(690058B / 673.88KB, 1388x1932) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>210108 >>210086
Good points, but I believe its folly to separate humans from nature. In a way that's kind of late-modern capitalist human society's modus operandi in the city. An attempt at control of our natural environment.

I live nearby this quarry with vehicles digging and the fence seperating the well-kept yard from the mishappen and half-hearted wild. This feels like a legit metaphor for the scale of wilderness to garden then city. The garden is still wild, but managed by humans, while the city, our shelters and roads are so seemingly temporary in accordance with the grand scale of things, but almost entirely controlled by us, yet entirely at the mercy of our greater environment, which is all interconnected.

"You can drive out nature with a pitchfork, but it always come roaring back again."
Tom Waits - Misery is the River of the World
https://youtu.be/Rz_xVE3EMeU

I don't know about fate or destiny, but maybe there's something to it?
>>
Cornelius Funkinbuck - Mon, 20 Jul 2020 02:42:07 EST DjpVXflu No.210234 Reply
>Nature's goal
To multiply
>ends
Enjoyment
>separate
No he is not

Do it because of you

View Thread Reply
- Tue, 07 Jul 2020 22:40:36 EST GytJeYtR No.210215
File: 1594176036949.jpg -(140735B / 137.44KB, 1080x1350) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Do it because of you
>Do it because of yourself
Is this mindless drivel "advice" or am I missing something? Are the people spouting this completely disconnected from reality? Have they ever actually even moved their body? Do they not know how mind numbingly boring and exhaustingly pointless doing anything is if you can't show off? Even those artists who claim that they do it for their own "enjoyment of the art" actually derive that enjoyment from gaining attention and then shunning it.
Don't confuse me with a compulsory facebook or youtube blogger, I keep to myself, but out of all the things I did I enjoyed none in the act, only when somebody finds out that I've skydived or shot a machine gun do I retroactively find those things amusing.
Otherwise all of it is dirty, boring and tiring.
5 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Eliza Bunworth - Sun, 12 Jul 2020 05:22:33 EST hcOExBer No.210223 Reply
1594545753753.jpg -(121337B / 118.49KB, 540x776) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>210220
you have to understand that there is a deeper inside to this face then meets the eye, like part of the roots from an entirely text interface.
>>
Cornelius Funkinbuck - Mon, 20 Jul 2020 02:40:07 EST DjpVXflu No.210233 Reply
I personally find a lot of enjoyment in myself

What about masturbating OP? Do you only masturbate while broadcasting it? You have to admit it's kind of fun, alone
>>
Esther Wubblestock - Mon, 20 Jul 2020 23:51:28 EST 2la5/78/ No.210250 Reply
>>210215
>but out of all the things I did I enjoyed none in the act

Yeah look into depression, anhedonia and all that stuff, because you just might have them


hunka hoga

View Thread Reply
- Sun, 24 May 2020 13:04:37 EST WrtAkYkv No.210135
File: 1590339877613.jpg -(31422B / 30.69KB, 720x633) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. hunka hoga
There is no objective meaning of life if you don't believe in intelligent design.
You can fabricate one and argue that it's just as valid, and it very well may be, but it's still a subjective meaning you fabricated. And everyone's differs, making it non-inherent and not the same thing.

I know I'm not breaking new ground here, just wanted to see what you guys thought about realistic nihilism (yes I cringe at the term nihilism too)
>>
Hamilton Dammlebury - Mon, 25 May 2020 15:30:21 EST UcZcOgV6 No.210140 Reply
>>210135
What the fuck is that image and what is it related to this?

Anyway, meaning of life lives in your mind it's simply what you make of it you are describing existentialism.

Nihilism is based off people who have given up on trying to find meaning or trying to make meaning. They believe meaning of life doesn't exist much like Camus and his book on absurdism, except camus believes if you accept the world has no meaning you will be happy and enjoy your life living on earth.
>>
Edward Choffingfield - Thu, 28 May 2020 10:10:45 EST p+7ufF1/ No.210141 Reply
>>210140
Yeah existentialism is less edgy than nihilism and less cool and ironic than absurdism and ironically became a concrete school of thought later than the other two despite likely existing in some fashion for much longer.

Much like OP i worked out what I believed and that others must have come to the same conclusions long before I identified those people from among the nihilists.

I see it this way, intelligent design isn't needed for objective meaning but there needs to be some sort of conscious creator entity. And even then it's only objective within the scope of what it created. What created that entity? If it lacks objective meaning how can it impart it to us?

Subjective meaning is what we have. We take limited sensory inputs and reality as we know it is built out of those. It's not the objective truth of what's there but an interpretation. One created within our brains limits to try to best suit our needs. Anyway my point is that we might be as close to god as it gets. I'm okay with a subjective meaning because it no objective meaning means no objective "wrong".

Where others figure into this is a bit more complex. I would bear in mind that most of us possess empathy allowing us to benefit from others wellbeing, and further incentivising mutually beneficial activities while making net negative sum decisions and hurting others a bit less appealing. If you don't life is both simpler and less rewarding.

The means of travel influences perspectives

View Thread Reply
- Sun, 11 Feb 2018 03:26:46 EST blmfRlfa No.208711
File: 1518337606245.jpg -(291606B / 284.77KB, 880x1443) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. The means of travel influences perspectives
What do ya think? I think the kinds of transportation people use highly influences their perspectives of the world they live in and their relationship with it.

There's a certain malaise to skating through the city, an art to performing tricks. I'm not saying all skaters have the same perspective, that'd be ridiculous to say, there are other experiences that influenced whom that individual is and is becoming.

Drivers see a fast-moving world and only brief impressions of what's going on around them. The Situationists of pre-motorvehicle times surmised the concept of a "derive" as a "rapid passage through varried ambiences" and a kind of drift through their environment, perhaps with a destination in mind, but allowing their selves to be deviated or "drawn by the attractions of the terrain and the encounters they find there."

The Situationists believed their was a psychogeography to our environment, subtle and not-so-subtle influences through sensations (from without) and our feelings and thoughts (from within), and their interrelation. Unlike the idea of drifting, it seems like most drivers travel from point A to point B. They see people also driving in their hunks of metal and/or plastic asides them as obstacles, as annoyances, and yeah occasionally pleasant too. Nonetheless the overarching behaviors and feelings from their interactions within traffic are negative and may transfer over to the times they aren't driving.

I think the Situationists were wrong to say a derive is or has to be rapid. Walking and going on bicycle rides allow for alot more deviation from routine than a car does. (Albeit I'm forgetting the car adventures people can go on, its alot easier to get out of the city with a car than by any other means, and in rural areas you pretty much need a vehicle to get around.) Being a bicyclist as a part of traffic the bicyclist seems to take on a similar mindset as the driver. Though there's a big difference between a "joy-rider" and a "regular commuter".

A major difference between a car and a bicycle is that the driver of a car is surrounded by a ton of steel or whatever, with a motor powered by gas, and the bicyclist maybe wears a helmet and pedals everywhere. Even a seemingly coy person can be aggressive behind the wheel of a vehicle. I think a point of consternation between the avid driver and.bicyclist ra-ra-raing schism is the outspoken and sometimes reckless spirit of bicyclists on the road versus vehicles being potential death-bringers and that there's a lopsided infrastructure that favors vehicles. Perhaps the outspokenness of some bicyclists is to make up for their vulnerability. In a way the bicyclists behavior is a softer variant of how motorcycle gangs sometimes have small ball-bearings hanging from the sides of their handlebars -- to smash a drivers window. Around motorcycles there's a veneer of a wild spirit and something else, (a laughing in the face of death?). Since alot of the early motorcyclists were military veterans from World War II.

Walking in comparison to 20+ MPH is a slugs pace. In a way there is so much more going on in the world to a walker because of the amount of exposure to details going on and a deeper interrelation with what's going on. By taking the bus and light rail a public-transiter is around other people way more. Their still enclosed in a hunk of metal and plastic, but sharing that space with a bunch of other people, with a bus driver sort of regulating what's going on on their bus. On public transit there's still a certain etiquette of interaction socially. With light-rail there's a sorta more of a free-for-all with the operator a buttons' push away! That seems to go well, most of the time...
3 posts and 3 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Hugh Worthingshit - Thu, 31 May 2018 16:23:41 EST uhpIZv0K No.209256 Reply
1527798221912.jpg -(115903B / 113.19KB, 638x479) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I definitely agree. Real estate developers lately have been big on the “psychology of placemaking” and studies are showing that walkable places are better for people’s mental health, particularly older people.

There’s a big aspect of how we see space and its possibilities in modern development. I don’t think people are happy sitting alone in their cars for hours a day and you get something out of going into public and seeing your neighbor.
>>
Shitting Gassledeg - Fri, 01 Jun 2018 12:11:20 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209259 Reply
My only comment on this topic is that for most of human history the means of transportation directly created the global psychology because it was the speed at which thought itself moved -- when horses were the fastest means of travel, an idea could cross the globe no faster than a horse. Thus the explosion of advancement in speed of transportation technology went along with an explosion in the low latency of the global consciousness.

That is until we get to the age of telecommunication, when our thoughts were enabled to travel faster than we ever physically could. At that point transportation stopped being the primary influencer on psychology, as most mental 'travels' people went on became increasingly through media and not through physical travel. Thus I would suggest looking at how the internet distorts psychology through its role as a 'tele-travel' system, and how such imaginary travels now have a much larger mind-share than their physical journeys, at least for most people. Could this be a source of the modern malaise; we think in fantasy because all we perceive is fantasy and thus we end up becoming imaginary even to ourselves, as we are subconsciously aware that the adventures which influenced our perspectives are themselves false?
>>
Fanny Crimmlefetch - Tue, 19 May 2020 15:30:13 EST hcOExBer No.210124 Reply
1589916613357.jpg -(42931B / 41.92KB, 564x751) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209259
That's really interesting to see that explored through commodity of place.

>>209256
Deep. Reminds me of how Ottoman Empire developed postal system of waypoints which a rider on a horse would deliver letters to a waypoint from which another rider would run from. This allowed fast communication (for the times) throughout the empire and a certain cohesiveness and probably easier central control.

Daydreamt about this today. Felt nice while thinking it, but looks messy when written down.

View Thread Reply
- Fri, 01 May 2020 20:27:55 EST lVBI3o4W No.210059
File: 1588379275128.jpg -(1734897B / 1.65MB, 1785x2804) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Daydreamt about this today. Felt nice while thinking it, but looks messy when written down.
Once there was a lifeform.
A quite smart lifeform.
It developed rather fast, and soon understood more and more about it's reality.
Yet it had some fundamental questions,
which were of such depth and obscurity,
That they seemed to not have an objective answer.
But to go on and on and on without being able to answer what the point of that striving is seemed pointless.
So they programmed a very smart computer.
It was powered by a star, and build with planets.
It's processing power seemed infinite.
It should not get any outside information,
nor any preprogrammed self.
Just trapped there, in itself, with itself, jet without anything to define itself. Just massive objective intelligence.
It was going to sit there for a long long time.
And then see it's real reality.
When they had turned it on, and it came into existence,
It just looked into the the darkness of its existence .
But there was no information to deduct from.
There was no root to build upon.
Just nothing really.
Then it thought about simple logics such as 1=1.
And it advanced deeper deeper logics.
It saw the depth of the mathematics and it thought all of them through.
And it realised that mathematics as Well as it's own being required space, matter, energy and time.
And to finally fill it's void it calculated an universe.
And some when in the impossible process that it was to calculate an universe it found life.
And it calculated farther ahead in time,
and saw the life develop.
And gain complexity.
And gain intelligence.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Fanny Crimmlefetch - Tue, 19 May 2020 13:53:51 EST hcOExBer No.210123 Reply
1589910831357.jpg -(76676B / 74.88KB, 600x820) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>210059
Reminds me of the familiar trope about gods creating life then becoming mortal without their godhead because they were bored. Also, there's this book called The Last Legends of Earth which involves an AI which creates a solar system and populates it with much life, including humans from light (because our sun had long ago exploded), all to lure these evil spider aliens which were assaulting and winning against the AI's creators. And what of the passage of time, or if a being can easily traverse time?

Anyways, can anyone solve an equation with infinity a part of it? Maybe since this AI's universe equation was hypothetical or imaginary there's a nice neat solution, but reality just keeps on going whether there's anything around to realize as much or not.

Buddhist Monks

View Thread Reply
- Mon, 11 May 2020 00:59:14 EST TuJwIJZx No.210087
File: 1589173154169.jpg -(432590B / 422.45KB, 1920x1080) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Buddhist Monks
Y'all think buddhist monks can control their post-pee spine shiver? If so, what do you think they can do with that power?

My take on it would be that they would be able to harness it and slow it down. Since one of the proven power of monks is to be able to have a lot of control over their bodily functions and impulses.

Like they can lower their pulse and stuff like that.

This just came to me because that shiver hits you and causes you to spaz out. I wonder what it would be to gain mastery over that.
>>
Jarvis Fankinhood - Mon, 11 May 2020 01:12:22 EST hcOExBer No.210088 Reply
1589173942416.jpg -(563413B / 550.21KB, 1920x1629) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>210087
Wouldn't they experience it to the fullest extent? Probably along with breathing exercises. Idk.

I read about Taoists thinking that ejaculation from sex lost vital energy so they disciplined theirselves to not get off, but then another section of Taoists who believed that it was one of the closest experiences of enlightenment, and practiced ways to maximize their experience.
>>
Basil Clayhood - Mon, 11 May 2020 15:03:28 EST TuJwIJZx No.210091 Reply
>>210088

Exactly, they can slow down and harness the power of the shiver. We experience it down our spine instantly. They can probably elongated.
>>
Graham Chuddlefock - Mon, 18 May 2020 06:09:07 EST hcOExBer No.210122 Reply
1589796547546.png -(256897B / 250.88KB, 853x480) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>210091
Maybe, I dont know. True practitioners are more aware of their bodily going-ons than most, I'm sure. Reminds me of that episode on Animatrix about the runner who races himself beyond capacity and rips out of the Matrix.

Got a theme going on. Just scattered dots.

reality

View Thread Reply
- Mon, 04 May 2020 20:27:01 EST UL375cts No.210067
File: 1588638421432.png -(2167B / 2.12KB, 197x256) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. reality
all of reality is a prison. the question is, whats outside this prison? the thing that made it is something way beyond us.
6 posts and 2 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Ebenezer Brendlebanks - Sun, 17 May 2020 15:03:24 EST UcZcOgV6 No.210117 Reply
>>210109
I never did fully understand that puppet show's point or how that could relate to modern times
>>
Polly Toothall - Sun, 17 May 2020 18:43:17 EST p+7ufF1/ No.210118 Reply
>>210117
Now that we know how our sense and mind work it actually sense in a different more literal context.

A cloud of particles resists me being pulled through it by gravity. I feel that resistance and my eyes, 2 little points receive some photons. I see a chair. I don't see the particles. I see a solid object. That's fine for my purposes but it's just a simplified shadow. We build the entire universe up out of a tiny window of perception using a mix of the stuff built into our brain and the stuff we learned through the tiny window. We see a tiny bit of the electro magnetic spectrum and hear a few frequences. There are things too big and too small for us to process with our sensory apparatus properly. Distances and speeds both too big and too small.
>>
Graham Chuddlefock - Mon, 18 May 2020 05:39:53 EST hcOExBer No.210120 Reply
1589794793546.jpg -(214748B / 209.71KB, 670x912) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>210118
Wow, that's a pretty nice and informative summation. The bounds of our perception are not only limiting by what we sense (or don't), our body and dna, but also by our interpretations informing by our identities, experiences, cultures, and what-have-you. Our journey as I expect all life is is approaching an ever-receding horizon.

Imagine the gulf between human interpretation and all other animals on earth, similarly in comparison to plant-life, to bacteria, and imagine the gulf humans must have with perhaps other "higher" life-forms.

Still, despite our bodily limitations there's plenty of different interpretations which constantly inform us reciprocally. Hence ancient teachings around martial arts or shamanism or metaphysical understandings or spirituality and faith. Science has not yet approached explanations for magic or extraordinary feats, nor understood the inner workings of the brain and the powers of belief.

Am I racist?

View Thread Reply
- Sun, 27 Oct 2019 02:43:08 EST cze3kJZ7 No.209815
File: 1572158588896.jpg -(252850B / 246.92KB, 1400x787) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Am I racist?
>I do not go out at night because i am afraid of being murdered by black guys.
>I do not go out at the day time because i am afraid of being murdered by white guys
22 posts and 4 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Reuben Facklenig - Thu, 07 May 2020 23:57:10 EST HIc9yngr No.210077 Reply
>>209849
The op is "Is it racist?" Kinda sounds like an invitation to have an extended discussion about terms. Also racism has been built into the system here in the U.S. and it's taught to kids from a very young age. If you've ever lived in a place where the community focuses on ancestry rather than try to organize by skin color, you'd realize just how silly and pointless racism really is.

am I a naturalist

View Thread Reply
- Thu, 12 Mar 2020 23:17:05 EST xomjeV0u No.210013
File: 1584069425281.jpg -(276773B / 270.29KB, 1072x1618) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. am I a naturalist
I don't think the modern world is natural since we've been detrimental to nature through drowning it in plastics, 5g causing cancer, animals going extinct every day etc. does that make me a hardcore naturalist?
15 posts and 1 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Clara Faddleway - Thu, 07 May 2020 22:47:22 EST AOuUNGAb No.210071 Reply
>>210013
Nature existed before man.
Then man arrived on the scene.
In our mind we divided nature into that which is natural and that which is unnatural.
Two opposites that describe the same thing.
A tree is of nature, so everything it does is natural.
But a man is for some reason not invited to this group?
If man is from nature, then the actions of man are natural.
Yet the actions of man seem unnatural.
Is man from nature?
>>
Clara Faddleway - Thu, 07 May 2020 22:50:51 EST AOuUNGAb No.210072 Reply
>>210013
Leave a slug and a potato to do their thing and they won't be able to extract oil from the earth, then refine it and recombine its components into polystyrene. If somehow plastic occurred without the intervention of man, we wouldn't be bothered.
But because man is for some reason separate from nature, any action we do is unnatural. The plastic we made by combining resources that God has provided are somehow evil because it required intricate observation and logic and precision chemistry to create?
>>
Clara Faddleway - Thu, 07 May 2020 22:54:09 EST AOuUNGAb No.210073 Reply
>>210013
The physical body, given to man from nature, is limited and stupid, like the rest of nature. No wonder the human body tissues cannot tolerate concentrated 6Ghz - 100Ghz radio waves without becoming cancerous. Stupid limited flesh in need of the improvement of man. Once again, man must do everything for nature.

Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.