And to add to my above post, to relate it more specifically to the original post... I think that on one hand terms like “depression” or “OCD” are relevant and specific, and possibly even helpful. But as an existential feeling... in some ways at least... depression, anxiety, OCD, and other feelings and behaviors are kind of part of the same spectrum of symptoms. One could say that it part of life or part of maturation/“growing up” to deal with such feelings. (I would not necessarily disagree with that, though I would valiantly try to avoid sounding trite, cliched, smug, or uncaring when saying it.)

However... I am not the first person to note that our society is not exactly psychologically balanced. Some have said that our current civilization is full of confusions, contradictions, inconsistencies, and downright deceptions. (And that’s putting aside the full-blown tragedies and injustices for the moment.) How is one to balance oneself when the floor that they are standing on may very well be slanted or unstable? This is not meant as an excuse or rationale for bad behavior. But it seems to be a definite part of the overall picture.

Interesting thread. It brings up one of questions that seems primal: the boundaries of the self and other. I have some observations/theories (a mixture of something mostly borrowed, something new) about the general idea. (Hope this is somewhat in the vicinity of the topic, and clearly worded although it is an abstract area.)

Here’s the idea, in somewhat condensed form:

1. As far as the individual is concerned, there are two sides (or poles) of reality: Self and Other.
2. The Other is comprised of other people, and also other things, objects, energies, etc.
3. The distinction between Self and Other is often relatively distinct, but it is not completely black-and-white. It is not an absolute yes or no question.
4. The distinction between Self and Other is a fluid, moving boundary. Like the heap of sand Sorites paradox.
5. The Self/Other question is affected by several things, two of which have a noticeable effect: awareness and identification. Awareness reflecting one’s current apprehension of the situation. Identification reflecting one’s current choice of defining one’s nature.
6. It is possible to identify with that which is outside of one’s strict notion of oneself. For example, identifying with a city, nation, or tribe.
7. To further elaborate on the moving boundary between Self and other... awareness and identifications with Self and Other can be simultaneous. (I find it helpful to visualize it like the Bass/Treble equalizer settings on a stereo. It is an “X-Y” map. Both co-ordinates can be any number from zero to maximum, from low to high.)

When a person is a child, one is probably very fuzzy about the difference between themself and their surroundings or mother, for instance. But put in a positive way, children seem in general to be very aware of the “connectedness” of things. They are in the moment, in the flow of life. Thus they often seem to have wisdom beyond their years. Adults gain the critical knowledge of individuality, but often lose the sense of immersion or connection with anything beyond oneself. The goal (as some have said) is to have the ability to recognize both, in whatever proportion is necessary at the moment. To be deficient as a part, or as a whole is to be an incomplete human. For an individual is a whole, which is a part of a another whole. Not unlike viewing energy as both a wave and as a particule.

That’s the theory part of it. The “putting into practice” part is somewhat customizable, I believe. If music helps one go beyond oneself (without getting lost) then that is helpful. Or whatever practice/activity happens to work for someone, keeping the general idea or theory in mind.

On the more musical side, but features vocalizing such as discussed above. Simple, but deep.
Mystifying how those sounds are made. Trying not to injure myself attempting it! :gasp: :lol:

Well, linking it is done by pressing the three dots at the bottom of a post. Then tap the boxed arrow. That’s the link. Copy and paste.

Quoting is done by selecting the part you want quoted and then tapping the “quote button” which sometimes floats above the post. On my ipad, i have to make sure that I’ve zoomed completely out. Otherwise the quote won’t appear in the response box. :smile:

I’m not a fan of the current POTUS. But the self-righteous mocking and mostly cringe-inducing unfunniness coming from comedians and talk-show hosts smacks of piling on and bandwagon jumping. Combined with the President’s tweeting and other bizarre behavior, the whole affair is more immature than middle school. Totally self-serving all around. Robert Bly’s The Sibling Society years ago warned that there were few adults left in the public sphere. Now there seems to be none. At least none with much of a platform or audience.

That is quite moving. — All sight

Yes, Daniel Quinn combined story, idea, history with a sense of urgency and relevance that I’ve not seen much elsewhere. Though I’d love to discover more.

Do you suppose that we are in captivity? — All sight

I try not to be unbalanced and negative about it to the point where it affects daily life. But, yes. I do think there is a core of thought in our culture that is virus-like or even cancerous. There is a force operating that simply and absolutely acts to consume and infest regardless of its effect on people or the planet. It simply won’t stop of its own accord. It is intentional thought and must be countered with the intentional thought, only stronger. I think some movies and other works of fiction capture this menace and the struggle against it. Like Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, and The Terminator (original movie).

But this force is devious and drug-like. Imagine having a cancer that is eating you alive, but is also releasing doses of an opium-like drug within you. That might be enough to make one ignore treatment until it is too late. To go a step further, I’ll propose that there will not be, that there simply CANNOT be, justice and relative equality between people until there is a fundamental change in how our culture views and treats the Earth. If this planet is seen as just raw material for ME Incorporated, the tragedies will continue to worsen. This may be veering into another topic, but it is all interconnected.

I did not ask those questions with pure curiosity, but with the insinuation that flow being a captivating concept of engagement is perhaps only so in contrast to the depths of its opposites. — All sight

True. Then again having enough water in and of itself probably is not enough to send one into an ecstasy as strong as the pain of dying of thrist. But no ecstasy, nor even simple joy is to be had until the basic need is met. Similar with a productive and playful type of work versus something closer to indentured servitude.

Thanks for your replies!

:sweat: Ha! Busted!

I once heard a riddle that may be relevant: when is three greater than a thousand, or even ten thousand? — 0 thru 9

It’s when the ten thousand days you’ve lived, and the ten thousand days you thought you had left are whittled down to three days, or three hours left to live...

I once heard a riddle that may be relevant: when is three greater than a thousand, or even ten thousand?

(Answer in a while.) :chin:

jamalrob, I started my discussions in The Lounge, I don't know that any one of my threads has been moved. I am just asking for the consideration of the #MeToo discussion I started to be moved out of the lounge into a Philosophical category so it can be found if ever the topic comes up again. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I did a little experiment. Some might be aware of this already, but it appears that it is possible to move a thread from one category to another IF one is the thread starter. Just edit the OP, and choose a different category. I moved an old thread I started into The Lounge to see if it was possible. Maybe that is helpful now that there is a larger difference between Lounge and Philosophical threads.

As for flow... well, why aren't we always like that? Why does it require a high level of stimulation? Can one enter flow state while meditating? Time flies, loss of self-consciousness? Is our natural state to be bored, anticipatory, and self-conscious? — All sight

Darn good (and relevant) questions. :up:

Why aren’t we always in that state of “flow”? It is probably unlikely that someone in history has lived the majority of their life “in the zone” unless they had some kind of neurotransmitter imbalance and were constantly in a manic state or something. Though I think we could be in that state more often with effort and awareness, not unlike other habits and skills. However, we of course do not live in a bubble. The environment and world around us have an undeniable effect. No, I definitely don’t believe that it is our natural state to be bored, anticipatory, and self-conscious. But we’ve kind of been trained to be that way. When the overall education and job situations are what they are now, one has to swim upstream NOT to be bored, confused, and isolated. Daniel Quinn’s gorilla-philosopher Ishmael considered “captivity” to be his main focus, concluding that humans are captives of a civilizational system that compells them to destroy. Destroy the world as well as a sense of belonging in the world, a sense of meaning. From Ishmael:

I'm pretending, experimenting, trying things out. — All sight

That statement I think I understand and agree with. Nicely put. :up:

I think that what characterizes play, is its non-commitment. It isn't serious. It isn't true. — All sight

These thoughts and the rest of your post, I’m somewhat more ambivalent about. Play definitely seems to have aspects and appearances of the nonsensical, the non-serious, and non-commitment. I certainly don’t wish to extol Peter Pan by seeking some sort of everlasting childhood. But often (in my experience and observations) there is a type of focus, a certain serious intent, in the play of a child or adult (which we call hobbies or leisure activities). I would agree with the quote from the OP: “Play is the work of a child”. Play gets the mind active and the body moving. Actually, some people’s choice of play activities seems exhausting and draining to me. It seems too much work, like skydiving or mountain climbing or such. But it fits the bill for them, and that’s what matters. If they survive, they’re all the better for it! :grin:

As a side question for example, what would you call what LeBron James does on the basketball court or Bernadette Peters does on a Broadway stage? Play? Work? Compensated effort? A seriously playful job? Some combination of those? None of the above? And how about the writing that is done on this forum, for instance? Hobby? Story telling? Academics? Other?

Also, perhaps you are familiar with the concepts of “being in the zone” or “flow”. The Flow idea was expounded by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. A summary from Wikipedia:

In an interview with Wired magazine, Csíkszentmihályi described flow as "being completely involved in an activity for its own sake. The ego falls away. Time flies. Every action, movement, and thought follows inevitably from the previous one, like playing jazz. Your whole being is involved, and you're using your skills to the utmost."[15]

Csikszentmihalyi characterized nine component states of achieving flow including "challenge-skill balance, merging of action and awareness, clarity of goals, immediate and unambiguous feedback, concentration on the task at hand, paradox of control, transformation of time, loss of self-consciousness, and autotelic experience".[16] To achieve a flow state, a balance must be struck between the challenge of the task and the skill of the performer. If the task is too easy or too difficult, flow cannot occur. Both skill level and challenge level must be matched and high; if skill and challenge are low and matched, then apathy results.[12]

One state that Csikszentmihalyi researched was that of the autotelic personality.[16] The autotelic personality is one in which a person performs acts because they are intrinsically rewarding, rather than to achieve external goals.[17] Csikszentmihalyi describes the autotelic personality as a trait possessed by individuals who can learn to enjoy situations that most other people would find miserable.[13][page needed] Research has shown that aspects associated with the autotelic personality include curiosity, persistence, and humility.[18]

Thanks for your reply!

The mental approach to work and play can have a yin/yang aspect to it. When I find that some work I’m doing is getting to be like drudgery, making a game or puzzle out of it seems to ease things along. Driving long distances seems to flow better by playing little games, like “where’s the problem?” (determining upcoming risk situations, like the motorcycle going 120 mph sneaking up on you) and “find the bubble” (slowing down or speeding up to find the pocket of empty space on the freeway). And if there is some play activity that needs firming up with a little dignity, calling it “work” can make it seem less frivolous. Like “I’m working on a song” or “I’m planning to build my stamp collection”. Ok, maybe not that last one so much! :yum:

On The Waterfront. An examination of ethics that is very moving, engrossing, and entertaining all at the same time. It presents a landscape which is both harsh and fascinating. The movie unravels in its own little world, but reflects our here-and-now. We all have to take care of ourselves, that is a simple fact of life. If we don’t take care of ourself, someone else has to. So better and simpler to do what is necessary oneself as much as possible. But where does “taking care of oneself” become “taking away from others”? When does that concern cross the line from theoretical to transgression, even crime? Well, murder is hard to rationalize away even though some of the characters in this movie try diligently to: “Hey! This guy was impeding my cash flow! That guy squealed to the cops! Knock him off!” The bad guys here are as rotten as maggoty garbage. But as a performance, Lee J. Cobb’s Johnny Friendly is a force of nature. He growls and barks and is the roaring engine of the movie, a one-man hurricane. And on the “good side”, Eva Marie Saint’s character roars as well, with wounded pain seeking some kind of justice.

What do you do if you’re caught in the middle? You don’t want to go along with murderers, but you naturally don’t want to be a victim either. Caught in the gears, being suffocated and slowly crushed.
Words sometimes are empty and hollow, maybe well-intentioned, but not much more than a wide but shallow mud puddle. But when the stakes are high, every word and syllable can be critical. One word could be life or death. When the character Father Barry gives his take on the whole tangled situation, standing in the glass of shattered whiskey bottles next to the bloody body of the latest victim, he is gambling with his comfort, safety, even his life. That gives his words a tangible reality which cuts through the air, and slices through the toxic trash:



And of course... THAT scene... the pivotal point of the movie. And one of the most memorable and quoted scenes ever. What might get overlooked is that it is Charlie’s redemption. Not a feel good moment for him. Not an “AHA!” moment. More like “I’m a goner”. But he pulls a last minute U-turn that saves his soul, even at the price of his life. It’s near impossible to swim with the Great White sharks and live for very long. Like Sydney Carton in A Tale of Two Cities, it was a far, far better thing he did than he had ever done.

A lot of us probably spend too much time on politics, discussions of which tend to be more contentious and less charitable than other areas. But what do you suggest we change about the site in terms of policy to deal with that (other than what we've done)? — Baden

I think the word “politics” derives from Greek polis or city. But with each passing day, the word politics resembles the word polemics more and more. A purely intellectual and theoretical discussion of the current political landscape may be rare, if not impossible. And if it were possible, would it be relevant? If relevant, would it put us all to sleep?

Sure, but if we called it, say, "The Marquis de Sade's Den of Iniquity", would that not lend the site a certain Je ne sais quoi?. — Baden

:sweat: Ha! Instead of bannings, there could be spankings of an interesting nature! Would @Hanover volunteer to dominate... er, moderate? :wink:

Probably if we changed the name of the lounge to "The Secret Space" or something mysterious sounding, nobody would mind its discussions not being on the front page and would rush there to partake of its enigmatic ambience. Thinking aloud here.. — Baden

As you probably know, there are some other forums that have a minimum number of posts required to view certain areas or threads... which are supposedly safe from search engines, and probably contains NSFW videos of spankings in Spandex.

ha! You got the joke and answered the challenge. Good show! Rinse and repeat. Thanks for sharing. :up:

So we should just take this as a joke? — Sir2u

No, probably more like a one-off manifesto. Usually, when someone signs up and two minutes later posts a rambling screed, they are not heard from again. Unless (like me), they return and post more rambling proclamations. :smile:

Who doesn’t cringe a little when someone says that they are completely honest about everything, and don’t care what people think of them? Often that lofty image PR is reduced to blunt argumentative assertions and image damage-control. But sometimes not... would like to be proven wrong.

I voted for “other”. By which I mean having a broad category listing. Like all main philosophical discussions in the top 60% or so. Then “Interesting Stuff” discussions below that. The Lounge stuff at the bottom.

Love the Lounge and Shoutbox, along with the topical political stuff. But let’s sandbox it. Put it at the bottom or to the side. Having oddball threads pop up at the top seems slightly off-balance. Even keeping it as this currently modified “no Lounge on front page” thing is fine. The Lounge will be cooler if it’s a secret! :snicker:

Thanks for considering making some changes/improvements. Not an easy thing to do, and it’s impossible to please everyone. But some tweaking may be beneficial here. :up:

This duck is an inspirational hero to low-level trolls everywhere... Got any grapes? :yum:

But dont pay me much mind about it...as I said, I have just watched the movies and not the more in-depth writings in the books. Still I wouldnt mind knowing if I have a point or if im complete lost ? :joke: — Aleksander Kvam

The movies helped me get through the books more. Before the movies I had some trouble sorting out the characters and the places and the bad guys. Even Sauron and Saruman on the page can be confusing to the first time reader. The films brought Middle Earth firmly into the consciousness of the present time. Despite some quibbles and changes, the movies were quite a feat.

The One Ring is a seductive invitation to challenge Sauron for power. Alas, the Ring is also corrupting. Gandalf is powerful, and perhaps could defeat Sauron if he possessed the Ring. Perhaps the same could be said for Lady Galadriel, Elrond, or Cirdan. But no one in Middle Earth is immune to the evil inherent in the One Ring, and Gandalf, Cirdan, or Lady Galadriel would have become evil in victory. — Bitter Crank

That’s it in a nutshell. The Ring is the ultimate in centralized power, archetypal imperialism at its pinnacle, in my estimation. The temptation to be “king of the mountain”, the delusion that it would bring anything except a temporary high, and the insanity to try it. Tolkien was influenced both by his love of fable and languages, and the experience of fighting in one world war and living through another. His attempt to make sense of it, to tie seeming chaos into a narrative, is one of the high points of twentieth century art. It perhaps seems more relevant now, like it is still bearing fruit.

I :heart: Huckabees. Darn funny and metaphysical film. How often can you say that?

Some dialogue:

Mrs. Hooten: Albert, what brought you to the philosophical club?
Albert Markovski: You mean the existential detectives?
Mr. Hooten: Sounds like a support group.
Cricket: Why can't he use the church?
Mrs. Hooten: Sometimes, people have additional questions to be answered.
Cricket: Like what?
Albert Markovski: Well, um, for instance: if the forms of this world die, which is more real, the me that dies or the me that's infinite? Can I trust my habitual mind, or do I need to learn to look beneath those things?
*******

Vivian Jaffe: You live all the time with things you can't see. You can't see electricity, can you? You can't see radio waves, but you accept them.
Bernard Jaffe: Trust.
Albert Markovski: Fuck trust!
Bernard Jaffe: You better stay away from Caterine, Albert, 'cause she's gonna lead you down the path of darkness.
Vivian Jaffe: She was our prize graduate student until she went astray.
Albert Markovski: No, I think that I am going to stay with her, and the cracks and the pain and the nothingness, because THAT's more real to me, THAT's what I feel.
Tommy Corn: Word.
Bernard Jaffe: Okay, we're not sweatin' it.
Vivian Jaffe: No, we're gonna work with Brad.
Bernard Jaffe: It'll all come back to you and interconnection.
Albert Markovski: Brad? Are you kidding me? I'm gonna work on that prick and it's all gonna come to pain and no connection!
Bernard Jaffe: No.
Tommy Corn: It's on.

:lol: and many more like that. Good stuff.

What (to you) does the Ring symbolize? Both within the story, and perhaps more interestingly, in our own world?

The question here is whether we are metaphysically unified in some "meaningful" way (i.e.not trivial connection points like how everything infinitely stretches out in quantum mechanics, for example) or whether we are metaphysically isolated. In other words, is there an overarching unification of all that exists or, is there simply isolated events? — schopenhauer1

The “whole” is the invisible half of reality. It is the larger half in fact, like the unseen bottom half of an iceberg. Being unseen, it is all too easily ignored. But invisible most empatheticly does not equal nonexistent. It is the matrix out of which every thing arises. (Matrix having the same root as “maternal”). To see or account for both sides of reality (the whole and the parts) is to have a model of the universe. The universe in microcosm of course, but still an accurate model out of which patterns could be discerned. (Pattern sharing a root with the word “paternal”).

I think that most would agree on at least some interconnectedness. It would be difficult for example to disagree with the observed phenomenon of the food chain. The unity is all around us, even providing something to resist or to push against for the sake of maturation, like a child eventually separating and becoming distinct from their mother. But this is not a one directional arrow. Individuality is not the finish line despite appearances, I would argue. The concept of yin and yang conveys it more accurately: a round and round or back and forth motion. From the general to the specific. From the specific to the general.

How meaningful or even noticeable these things are mostly depends on the observer. The waking consciousness usually sees things as separate. Look at a comb. Is it one thing (the comb?) or many (the teeth)? Both? Neither? Neither both nor neither? Can you repeat the question? :blush:

An example of a unity in metaphysics would be Schopenhauer's concept of WIll. It is noumenal and the "reality" behind the appearances of the individualized subject/object world of space/time/causality (i.e. world of appearances). However, as 21st century scientific materialists, it would be easy to dismiss this idea as naive wild 19th century speculation. The flip side would be that there is no unity. Only events of a contingent kind with not much connection other than perhaps coming out of the same material and being similar in its form through being effected by similar physical/social circumstances. — schopenhauer1

You are doubtless familiar with nondualism. Not one, not two: the essence of reality, according to the concept. Eastern cosmologies (almost to a T) incorporated such concepts into their core. Western scientism (which I believe is the dominant current belief system, or mythology if you will. But that veers off-topic) starts from the 10,000 things, from the multiplicity, and builds toward a “theory of everything”. The East does the opposite. I think both approaches have their strengths, and both are needed. There are difficulties too. How does one “name the unnameable”? The Tao Te Ching tackles that thorny issue right off the bat. The difficulty of the West is like solving a Rubiks cube. If one starts from the beginning point of a cube with all same colored sides, it is easy to achieve “scrambledness”. However, starting from the scrambled point going towards a solved cube is distinctly different and difficult. Maybe the Rubiks cube is an illustration of the archetypal “the uncarved block”.

And I’d like to add that this is NOT to say the OP presents a simple problem at all , or even a situation that has easy (or any) answers. The question goes all the way down. The issue of unity, the whole individual/universe or part/whole paradox is hidden at the very heart of many of our triumphs and tragedies. It very well might be THE philosophical question, as far as far as I’m concerned.

:up: :up: :up: Don’t think I’ve ever given a post three thumbs up. Maybe because usually I only have two of them. But I borrowed an extra one for your insightful answer, and I agree with every word. I may later elaborate on your points, and respond to the OP, but it would simply and mostly be an elaboration, addendum, and footnote to your thoughts. Thanks for the effort, and saving me the same. :smile:

, sex to keep the species going
— 0 thru 9
im sure it mostly for the sake of pleasure... — Aleksander Kvam

Oh, definitely! Agreed. But from our point of view. The pleasure is so large that it usually obscures the possible future outcomes. But from the hormone’s point of view (so to speak), evolutionarily speaking, it is merely what gets the job done. Which species will have more individuals, and thus be more likely to survive? The one with the pleasurable sex, or the one with “meh”?

It is a strange and almost incomprehensible thought to think about the potential child, the possible person, while making love. That possibility is dwarfed by the present with which one has their... erm... hands full. But look at a person, any person. The murky, forgotten act of conception that brought them into the world is dwarfed by their being, by their presence.

:grin: Lol. Probably more the result of hormones than the appendage, one would think. The sex hormones in both (all?) genders have many effects but simply one basic goal: reproduction. Whether that upends one’s life, causes conflicting feelings and acne, or puts one in jail, is of no concern to the hormones. They do their job, and because they do we are here today to discuss them!

I think of sex and its attendant desires not entirely different from food, eating, and hunger, just on a species level. Food to keep the individual going, sex to keep the species going. With both intrinsic punishments and rewards for certain choices and actions.

I had thought “inchoate” meant chaotic or incoherent, until looking it up. Here’s the definition. (Sorry for the pedanticism)

adjective: inchoate
just begun and so not fully formed or developed; rudimentary.
"a still inchoate democracy"
synonyms: rudimentary, undeveloped, unformed, immature, incipient, embryonic; More
beginning, fledgling, developing
"their government should not interfere in the inchoate market forces"

That reflects my reaction to the quote in the OP. That some questions like “how shall we live” are too vague, too general. Not unimportant or unanswerable, just incomplete. Questions like that need further clarification, or need to be broken down into component parts. Like asking “where do we drive to?”
Where do you want to go? What do you want to see?

Forgive the side question, but... are you intentionally trying to bait Agu, or is it merely accidental? :lol: I mean, this thread is like waving a picnic basket in front of a large, hungry bear. I’m getting out of here while I can, and watching from a safe distance! :nerd:

I just realized the irony of asking people who may be politically alienated to vote on something political. :chin: It’s just a poll, but still... you want to say something, even if it’s “ahhhhrrrgggh!!”

Anyway, I agree that one best keep the smallest glimmer of hope. I mean, this isn’t Europe in 1942, things could always be worse. We can shut and lock the door. But it’s too early yet to board up the house, bring out the shotguns, and wait for the opiod and meth-fueled zombie tsunami.

Boring — Sapientia

I’mmm so bo-o-ored with the U.. S... A! (Feel free to sing along. It’s our new national anthem. That or “White Riot”. :razz: )

Sad — Michael

Well, sometimes it just seems like you’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t, and damned before you get the chance to do either. Similar to being in a close relationship. Those that can fight off the distaste and distrust to bring themselves to vote, and otherwise contribute to the political process may be spinning their wheels. Maybe not. People already belong to something larger than themselves. It is life itself. But that is hard to picture or grasp. We also need the rather mundane things too. To keep ourselves rooted somewhere. Ashes to ashes one day, but not quite yet...

And also, we don't have that weird Electoral College thing. — Sapientia

Sure, go and brag about it! :razz:

Or maybe the big flaw in democracy is that it's a vote maximizing system, as Eliezer Yudkowski suggested. — Marchesk

Any possible further comments on this? Or potential solutions? Not that Washington is listening. Well, they’re listening as in eavesdropping, not caring. :zip:

That is all, everything else people wish democracy were and imagine democracy is, is fantasy.

Obviously the individual qua individual has no impact, they are only ever a tiny part of a larger coalition. — gurugeorge

Well, that one particular point in the Wikipedia article could have been worded better. But I think the gist is accurate of many people. Speaking of fantasy... if before the Middle Class could have imagined that Washington was their cozy chum, that dream is over.

I read somewhere about some graffiti once scrawled on a wall somewhere which makes a good point:'if voting made a difference they'd make it illegal' — allan wallace

Ha! Lovely dark humor usually eases the pain for a moment. Like is said about Vegas: “the house always wins”.

There are some honest, caring, hard-working people in elected government. Thank goodness for them. Not exactly sure how they got through the screening process. But they are swimming upstream. They are not the pace-setters. The ones calling the shots may plead that the rules of the game may be unfair, but they didn’t make the rules. No, they didn’t. They just follow the unfair rules unquestioningly. Perhaps until there is a chance to make a big haul by sneaking outside the rules. Like a teenager trying to sneak out of the house after dark to go partying, and come back without being noticed. More difficult now with cameras almost everywhere.

Too generalized and too cynical? Perhaps. But we’re looking for the general big picture, and it’s not too inspiring. And any political story in the media that seems “uplifting” reeks of PR, campaigning, and spin control.

While alienation is far from being a coherent political philosophy, one would hope that the ideas of the politically alienated would vere closer to a strong and well-deserved skepticism than outright paralyzing nihilism. The skepticism of realizing that there has to be another option, somehow someway. Necessity is the mother of (re-) invention.

Any possible appearance of a fascist future for the USA would be a plutocracy/capitalist corporatocracy. It probably already is. Orwell’s 1984 is now quaint and like child’s play. The government now is a de facto employee and/or prostitute of our beloved billionaire heroes and prosperity gospel role models. The current POTUS not surprisingly happens to be both. The rugged individualism of US history has become a ragged and rigged individualism. Ragged because we are increasingly isolated and vulnerable. Rigged because certain forces find that the desperation of the population is to their advantage. Talk about poisoning the well. Slavery ended when? Or did it simply change form?

Partisan political finger pointing is good for a smug laugh, but not much more at this point. The violent protesters of both extremes are valiant heroes only in their own minds, and are almost indistinguishable from each other.

We have become the Pharoah, shrugging off each increasing plague. Just the cost of doing business. Not much to wait for... except maybe for the Galactic Mothership to return... or the Rapture... or the Earth’s magnetic poles flipping... or for Frodo to throw the damned ring back into the fire already.

:up: Yes, the “silenced majority” in the U.S. has lost much faith in the two powerful organizations of the Scylla Party and the Charybdis Party. Whichever is in power at the moment, and which is playing “good cop” to the other sides’ “bad cop”, seems not to make an appreciable difference. I’m waiting patiently and expectantly (and would be joyous) to be proven wrong... I don’t know exactly what I was hoping for with Mr. Obama’s presidency, other than the fact that Richard Cheney would have no part in it. But the sense of disappointment, of simply maintaining the “status quo” is difficult to ignore, IMHO.

No. I used to be. I have since joined the Labour Party. — Sapientia

Thanks for your reply. I am no expert in the UK political party system, but from what little I do know it seems to be a good deal fairer or at least more representational than the USA (for lack of a better way to put it). This based on the sheer number of parties with some elected officials. But please, anyone comment if that is mistaken or misleading. Of course, no country’s system is perfect.

Also, (if you wish) it may be relevant to indicate one’s current country of residency. And country of birth, if different.

(I’m in the USA, and voted “yes”.)