Indeed, it is. Honest self examination is difficult. Why are we so insecure that we need validation? Who will perform the validation? The MOG? If we go outside of ourselves to validate ourselves, when does it end? When the guru says so? And who will validate the guru?
I don't know the answers, but I find the contemplation of these questions can teach us more than any self-proclaimed teacher.
It certainly wasn't practiced in TWI when I was involved (more than three and a half decades ago). Yes, it's hard work. M. Scott Peck first introduced it to me when I read his book, The Road Less Traveled.
You have asked questions and provided zero of your own viewpoints. I assumed it was your journalism stuff.
I have mentioned major issues of the day. Part of the question is why these topics getted dodged so quickly, particularly by the older generations.
1) Asking questions is inherently the opposite of providing my own viewpoints.
2) "I assumed it was your journalism stuff" Okay, you acknowledged making assumptions. That may explain why what you wrote makes sense to you and nobody else.
3) You "mentioned major issues of the day?" Again, YOU may know what you mean, but I can't read your mind and haven't guessed (i.e. made assumptions about what you mean). That is WHY I ask questions.
4) When you don't correct your typos (i.e. getted) readers have to guess what you really mean. I'd rather not do that.
It certainly wasn't practiced in TWI when I was involved (more than three and a half decades ago). Yes, it's hard work. M. Scott Peck first introduced it to me when I read his book, The Road Less Traveled.
You ask very good questions.
It's probably time for me to read Peck again. It must be. I first read that book twenty-four years ago. It was part of a massive revolution in my life at that time. The best years of my life followed.
"Life is difficult." Isn't that the opening sentence of The Road Less Traveled?
I'm not convinced that the desire to belong to anything is biological or natural or inherent. When I say belong I mean cling, clutch, bond, co-dependently in order to feel secure, to feel pleasure. Why are we not fulfilled? What is not fulfilled? The identity I've constructed for myself?
I know (no believing required) that in my happiest, most powerful, effective and free days, I belonged to nothing and everything at the same time. I felt zero compulsion to accept or reject admission into any group. Yet, my life was full of loving, friendly people, and scoundrels, too! And I neither wanted nor needed anything at all. Not even red drapes. I'm embarrassed to even attempt to articulate this because words are insufficient. (The words are NOT the Word... for those who have ears of that type.)
At some point we become conditioned, indoctrinated, taught that we are missing something, that we have a void only a lover or money or drugs or dogmatic doctrine can fill. Us vs. them is a condition subtlety cultivated, not a natural state, definitely not an enlightened state, nor a primordial state.
That which is eternal belongs to no group. I'm trying to remember how I glimpsed this - how I found out. And I assure you, that's all it is. A glimpse. I cannot give it to you because I don't have it. It is nothing to be possessed.
I felt zero compulsion to accept or reject admission into any group. Yet, my life was full of loving, friendly people, and scoundrels, too!
Isn't that an informal form of belonging? We don't necessarily have to have membership in any particular club or church.
Currently, I identify as an introvert. I am content with my own company... most of the time. But if I didn't have friends and family who I could love and be loved by, I would not feel like I had anyone with whom "to belong."
I'm not convinced that the desire to belong to anything is biological or natural or inherent. When I say belong I mean cling, clutch, bond, co-dependently in order to feel secure, to feel pleasure. Why are we not fulfilled? What is not fulfilled? The identity I've constructed for myself?
Maybe belonging to the human race: friends, family AND scoundrels.
That's why I defined my use of belonging for this context. The culty cult ethical cult thread.
But If one's relationship is based on Truth/Love, to whom does one belong? Who is the possessor? Who is the possessed? In my experience true relationship in Love is not a function of desire for pleasure, nor of possession, nor of co-dependence. Sure, we feel good when we are loved by our friends and family. But is this a fulfillment of desire? Or is it something greater and true, defying description, beyond Koine Greek.
I've been reading these threads for a couple years. There are many very bright, courageous, thoughtful, strong voices here. Everyone here got caught. I got caught, too. (A few are still caught.) Real suffering and destruction ensued, as did triumphant redemption. Inquiry into motivations and endeavoring to examine the self can be liberating.
Perhaps I'm hyper vigilant in guarding against repeating the suffering caused by joining a cult, ethical or culty. What's the difference?
1) Asking questions is inherently the opposite of providing my own viewpoints.
2) "I assumed it was your journalism stuff" Okay, you acknowledged making assumptions. That may explain why what you wrote makes sense to you and nobody else.
3) You "mentioned major issues of the day?" Again, YOU may know what you mean, but I can't read your mind and haven't guessed (i.e. made assumptions about what you mean). That is WHY I ask questions.
4) When you don't correct your typos (i.e. getted) readers have to guess what you really mean. I'd rather not do that.
I was speaking in terms of red pill and the growing mgtow movements. Easily googled. Whether or not you agree with them they do affect the culture as they grow.
People are responding to issues by separating, not coming together.
I was speaking in terms of red pill and the growing mgtow movements. Easily googled. Whether or not you agree with them they do affect the culture as they grow.
People are responding to issues by separating, not coming together.
The point being, as humans with modern technology, we don't need each other. It appears to be exactly the same as what feminism does.
How does modern technology, which pushes people away from each other, impact the emotional health of individuals and society? What measures of well-being that can be assessed?
How does modern technology, which pushes people away from each other, impact the emotional health of individuals and society? What measures of well-being that can be assessed?
I don't know if "well-being" is strictly defined term.
Modern technology reduces the need for manual labor. Where a person once was, a machine is. That's been the trend for a long time.
What do people need that machines can't do? Or is not being developed?
The cult leader filled a void yes? Replace that need with a machine.
I don't know if "well-being" is strictly defined term.
Whether you want to answer or not, wellbeing IS a defined term.
Well-Being Measurement
The World Health Organization’s definition of health clearly underscores the importance of well-being: “Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” Well-being is a broad construct that encompasses multiple dimensions, which can essentially be divided into two large domains: objective and subjective well-being. As a result, various scales and indices have been developed to measure both domains. For a non-exhaustive list of relevant articles on well-being, clickhere.
Review of 99 self-report measures for assessing well-being in adults: Exploring dimensions of well-being and developments over time. Linton, M. J., Dieppe, P., & Medina-Lara, A. (2016).BMJ Open, 6(7), e010641.
We saw this during the height of the pandemic with megachurches. Maybe not completely replaced but certainly modified in their approach.
If the purpose of religion was meant to develop the psyche, much as parents in a family unit, but for a larger cohesive society. Not so much the case today. Family, religion, and other institutions are being dissolved in favor of an individual, atomized society. Each individual is more concerned with themselves than others. Artificial Intellignece would have an easier role in developing the psyche of the bulk of the population. Right now you have large numbers of people simply not developing in the traditional sense. Just at home, online. A non-human entity could file the void.
If the purpose of religion was meant to develop the psyche, much as parents in a family unit, but for a larger cohesive society. Not so much the case today. Family, religion, and other institutions are being dissolved in favor of an individual, atomized society. Each individual is more concerned with themselves than others. Artificial Intelligence would have an easier role in developing the psyche of the bulk of the population. Right now you have large numbers of people simply not developing in the traditional sense. Just at home, online. A non-human entity could file the void.
"If the purpose of..." Now you're introducing a new premise?
If you'd like to, please let us know how you propose to change human nature and social needs.
If AI is inevitable, if society is being atomized, as an observable phenomenon, AI would be smart enough to adapt to whatever reality it deems necessary. If human nature has always been the same and always will be, AI has an easy task. If human nature changes over time, there's no reason to think AI can't stay ahead of it.
We moved from hunter gatherers, to agriculture to cities. Where does the psyche belong? It is moving to the internet. We are pushing away from each other.
Are you stating that human nature has always been the same for or that it changes rapidly?
No, neither. I stated no such thing. Are you doing the TWIish tactic of answering a question with a question for the purpose of evasiveness rather than clarifying? or...
"If human nature changes over time, there's no reason to think AI can't stay ahead of it."
That's an interesting thought experiment. Do you know of any AI research suggesting AI would change the social needs of humanity?
Further, the Big Think topic seems to me to be: we know cults exist and are bad, but can the badness be mitigated into something more benign. Further, we also know the importance to humans of BELONGING socially. Can groups which provide a sense of belonging yet do so without most of the adverse characteristics we have come to associate with cults?
What do people need that machines can't do? Or is not being developed?
Just because I can have a meal prepared by a manufacturing company and shipped to me, doesn’t mean I don’t need to break bread with people at times. The frozen parcel does not eliminate the need to be around others at times.
People can elect to live in a house by themselves and be a hermit, but most folks choose to live near others, and visit with them.
Further, the Big Think topic seems to me to be: we know cults exist and are bad, but can the badness be mitigated into something more benign. Further, we also know the importance to humans of BELONGING socially. Can groups which provide a sense of belonging yet do so without most of the adverse characteristics we have come to associate with cults?
I had to take course on "Belonging" when I was a teacher. You might look into this thing called the internet. And how it rewires the brain etc. Etc. Etc.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
31
8
35
8
Popular Days
Apr 17
23
Apr 13
19
Apr 14
13
Apr 16
11
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 31 posts
waysider 8 posts
Bolshevik 35 posts
Nathan_Jr 8 posts
Popular Days
Apr 17 2022
23 posts
Apr 13 2022
19 posts
Apr 14 2022
13 posts
Apr 16 2022
11 posts
Popular Posts
Nathan_Jr
I guess I missed this before I posted. Why do we feel a need to belong to anything, any group, at all? Maybe the answer is in the question. Can we look honestly at ourselves to find out?
waysider
It's difficult. That's why we seek the approval of others who can offer us a sense of validation.
Posted Images
Rocky
It certainly wasn't practiced in TWI when I was involved (more than three and a half decades ago). Yes, it's hard work. M. Scott Peck first introduced it to me when I read his book, The Road Less Traveled.
You ask very good questions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
1) Asking questions is inherently the opposite of providing my own viewpoints.
2) "I assumed it was your journalism stuff" Okay, you acknowledged making assumptions. That may explain why what you wrote makes sense to you and nobody else.
3) You "mentioned major issues of the day?" Again, YOU may know what you mean, but I can't read your mind and haven't guessed (i.e. made assumptions about what you mean). That is WHY I ask questions.
4) When you don't correct your typos (i.e. getted) readers have to guess what you really mean. I'd rather not do that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
It's probably time for me to read Peck again. It must be. I first read that book twenty-four years ago. It was part of a massive revolution in my life at that time. The best years of my life followed.
"Life is difficult." Isn't that the opening sentence of The Road Less Traveled?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Yes, it certainly is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Rocky, mention of that book is reminding me...
I'm not convinced that the desire to belong to anything is biological or natural or inherent. When I say belong I mean cling, clutch, bond, co-dependently in order to feel secure, to feel pleasure. Why are we not fulfilled? What is not fulfilled? The identity I've constructed for myself?
I know (no believing required) that in my happiest, most powerful, effective and free days, I belonged to nothing and everything at the same time. I felt zero compulsion to accept or reject admission into any group. Yet, my life was full of loving, friendly people, and scoundrels, too! And I neither wanted nor needed anything at all. Not even red drapes. I'm embarrassed to even attempt to articulate this because words are insufficient. (The words are NOT the Word... for those who have ears of that type.)
At some point we become conditioned, indoctrinated, taught that we are missing something, that we have a void only a lover or money or drugs or dogmatic doctrine can fill. Us vs. them is a condition subtlety cultivated, not a natural state, definitely not an enlightened state, nor a primordial state.
That which is eternal belongs to no group. I'm trying to remember how I glimpsed this - how I found out. And I assure you, that's all it is. A glimpse. I cannot give it to you because I don't have it. It is nothing to be possessed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Isn't that an informal form of belonging? We don't necessarily have to have membership in any particular club or church.
Currently, I identify as an introvert. I am content with my own company... most of the time. But if I didn't have friends and family who I could love and be loved by, I would not feel like I had anyone with whom "to belong."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I
Maybe belonging to the human race: friends, family AND scoundrels.
That's why I defined my use of belonging for this context. The culty cult ethical cult thread.
But If one's relationship is based on Truth/Love, to whom does one belong? Who is the possessor? Who is the possessed? In my experience true relationship in Love is not a function of desire for pleasure, nor of possession, nor of co-dependence. Sure, we feel good when we are loved by our friends and family. But is this a fulfillment of desire? Or is it something greater and true, defying description, beyond Koine Greek.
I've been reading these threads for a couple years. There are many very bright, courageous, thoughtful, strong voices here. Everyone here got caught. I got caught, too. (A few are still caught.) Real suffering and destruction ensued, as did triumphant redemption. Inquiry into motivations and endeavoring to examine the self can be liberating.
Perhaps I'm hyper vigilant in guarding against repeating the suffering caused by joining a cult, ethical or culty. What's the difference?
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I was speaking in terms of red pill and the growing mgtow movements. Easily googled. Whether or not you agree with them they do affect the culture as they grow.
People are responding to issues by separating, not coming together.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
For the uninitiated:
MGTOW
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
The point being, as humans with modern technology, we don't need each other. It appears to be exactly the same as what feminism does.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Covid is another example, helped push the trend of separation. Businesses, like food delivery or work at home set ups, spring up. We pushing away.
Cults could only form via the internet, you could say.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
How does modern technology, which pushes people away from each other, impact the emotional health of individuals and society? What measures of well-being that can be assessed?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I don't know if "well-being" is strictly defined term.
Modern technology reduces the need for manual labor. Where a person once was, a machine is. That's been the trend for a long time.
What do people need that machines can't do? Or is not being developed?
The cult leader filled a void yes? Replace that need with a machine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
We saw this during the height of the pandemic with megachurches. Maybe not completely replaced but certainly modified in their approach.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Whether you want to answer or not, wellbeing IS a defined term.
Well-Being Measurement
The World Health Organization’s definition of health clearly underscores the importance of well-being: “Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” Well-being is a broad construct that encompasses multiple dimensions, which can essentially be divided into two large domains: objective and subjective well-being. As a result, various scales and indices have been developed to measure both domains. For a non-exhaustive list of relevant articles on well-being, click here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4947747/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
If the purpose of religion was meant to develop the psyche, much as parents in a family unit, but for a larger cohesive society. Not so much the case today. Family, religion, and other institutions are being dissolved in favor of an individual, atomized society. Each individual is more concerned with themselves than others. Artificial Intellignece would have an easier role in developing the psyche of the bulk of the population. Right now you have large numbers of people simply not developing in the traditional sense. Just at home, online. A non-human entity could file the void.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
"If the purpose of..." Now you're introducing a new premise?
Edited by RockyIf you'd like to, please let us know how you propose to change human nature and social needs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Was I feeling the force or forcing the feel by adding a new premise to the jargon? Sounds dirty.
I don't know, but we'll know it when we find it.
That's ethical cults, right?
Are you stating that human nature has always been the same for or that it changes rapidly?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Also, I don't know what I would propose.
If AI is inevitable, if society is being atomized, as an observable phenomenon, AI would be smart enough to adapt to whatever reality it deems necessary. If human nature has always been the same and always will be, AI has an easy task. If human nature changes over time, there's no reason to think AI can't stay ahead of it.
We moved from hunter gatherers, to agriculture to cities. Where does the psyche belong? It is moving to the internet. We are pushing away from each other.
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
No, neither. I stated no such thing. Are you doing the TWIish tactic of answering a question with a question for the purpose of evasiveness rather than clarifying? or...
Edited by Rocky"If human nature changes over time, there's no reason to think AI can't stay ahead of it."
That's an interesting thought experiment. Do you know of any AI research suggesting AI would change the social needs of humanity?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
From page 2 of this thread:
Further, the Big Think topic seems to me to be: we know cults exist and are bad, but can the badness be mitigated into something more benign. Further, we also know the importance to humans of BELONGING socially. Can groups which provide a sense of belonging yet do so without most of the adverse characteristics we have come to associate with cults?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stayed Too Long
Just because I can have a meal prepared by a manufacturing company and shipped to me, doesn’t mean I don’t need to break bread with people at times. The frozen parcel does not eliminate the need to be around others at times.
People can elect to live in a house by themselves and be a hermit, but most folks choose to live near others, and visit with them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I had to take course on "Belonging" when I was a teacher. You might look into this thing called the internet. And how it rewires the brain etc. Etc. Etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.