Same. I write as if I had Parkinson’s. I guess part of my typing this out is me trying to process how I keep flip-flopping between “people keep telling me this is useful” and “no, getting to the point where it would be useful for me would take way too much effort”.
Tragedy of the commons.
I feel like the goal of most fanfics is to tell the story in a way the author felt like it should have bee told
This exactly! Fanfiction, when it’s not just daydreaming, is opinionated critical analysis (if it’s really engaging with the original story) or turning elemets of it into cultural symbols, which no one thinks is “cringe” when someone does it with old mythology.
It seems like a lot of ancient cultures often reinterpreted their myths, without much concern about what was “canonical” so long as it was still recognizable.
Now, though, and I wonder if Abrahamic religion has something to do with this, everyone’s so obsessed about ownership of a story. It’s got to be exactly as the original teller told it or it’s wrong.
Same. I feel like it’s a reminder that it’s a tool, not a person, and not something to be relied on too readily.
This is a very good point, trademarks are pretty much identity theft protection for things other than individuals and that’s pretty important to have.
Copyright and patents… lately, I’m feeling like the world is just kicking and screaming against the single most beneficial aspect of digital technology, the ability to freely copy information. If the ability to freely copy information makes something unprofitable, honestly, I believe the importance of not nerfing that benefit comes first. It would be better than the cyberpunk DRM hellhole we’ve created for ourselves.
Sorry I didn’t get to this comment earlier!
The broadest answers to that question are Humanism and Scientific Pantheism, which I’m partial to. That’s what a lot of atheists have made a whole lot of fun of.
Of course humanism is still sort of opposed to what I’m talking about in thr second paragraph, or at least most humanists would be, as far as I’m aware. And most “earth religions” fall under some form of what I’d call spirituality.
In the U.S., at least, I’ve started attending my very local Unitarian Universalist church and I think they’re your best actual practical bet. As much as I whine about most religion, I deeply respect the UU’s commitment to include everyone, atheists included, and so I do my best to respect what people believe and what they want to talk about (which naturally doesn’t usually involve trying to convert people). Third spaces are too important to keep people out because of some sense of sectarianism.
And, of course, Buddhism is at it’s heart a very skeptical religion to the point that some interpret more as a philosophy, which is how I choose to see it, and it’s a philosophy and a practice that modern psychology owes a whole lot to (and should probably yank even more from). It’s literally just a framework of how to stop “suffering” and live a good life regardless of whether it seems like a good life externally. I do mostly stick to more secularized, almost new-age interpretations of it, I love the blog Deconstructing Yourself for being thoroughly dedicated to “Nondualism” while rejecting the schizo craziness it usually brings with it. But I like to learn from something closer to primary sources, too…
For which I’m relying on the Buddhist University. Of the two “original” explicitly supernatural elements of Buddhism, reincarnation was an assumption of the culture the Buddha was born into, and with that stripped away, Karma as cause and effect is just determinism without any “you’re screwed because your past self screwed up”. The second chapter of What the Buddha Taught (which is a great book) practically made me a Buddhist by illuminating just how dedicated the Buddha was to making sure people actually remained skeptical of him, only searching for what they could personally prove not really caring whether something was his idea or anyone else’s. This is a quote (supposedly from him, not that it matters) that sums it up:
Yes, Kālāmas, it is proper that you have doubt, that you have perplexity, for a doubt has arisen in a matter which is doubtful. Now, look you Kālāmas, do not be led by reports, or tradition, or hearsay. Be not led by the authority of religious texts, nor by mere logic or inference, nor by considering appearances, nor the delight in speculative opinions, nor by seeming possibilities, nor by the idea: “this is our teacher”. But, O Kālāmas, when you know for yourselves that certain things are unwholesome, and wrong, and bad, then give them up… And when you know for yourselves that certain things are wholesome and good, then accept them and follow them.
There’s also a story about him telling off one of his followers for insisting that he reveal the “mysteries of the universe”. He was pretty much like look, you’re being a dumbass, that’s won’t help you live well, that’s not important." I can respect that.
Well, yes, they’re certainly more than a regular walk in the woods or a bath, which is why I said self-administered mental health practices. Meditation be like that. Still no spirits involved, which is what the word spiritual implies.
…And another thing, despite putting a massive level of value on individual freedom as a movement, anarchic societies are inevitably very close-knit culturally to a degree that harms anyone who doesn’t gel with that culture. Keep yourself socially acceptable to the majority, or find yourself shunned and completely, utterly alone. Truly alone. See Ted Kaczynski’s assessment of the “over-socialized left”, from the perspective of a truly anarchic society, he’s correct, and that’s a huge problem. You’re stuck with whatever bigotry the community develops.
For what it’s worth, I’ve been having a private anarchist bent for a little while, now. Plenty of people seem to recognize that socialism seems nice other than the power structures it creates, and anarchism is the natural next step along that line of thinking. But… healthcare. And food. Food and health care. For this to ever work on a major scale we all need to re-learn how our ancestors lived self-sufficiently, which few people (even among anarchists) seem willing to do, and medically advanced healthcare, I’m not sure anyone is willing to give that up. I would have straight-up died at birth if Boston Medical Center didn’t exist. Even if I think charitably of the level of healthcare an anarchist society could provide, I can’t imagine it involving me being alive. There’s a huge level of self-sacrifice there.
For that matter, good luck solving our destruction of this planet. Most major climate-destroying activity is occurring because groups that aren’t as well-off as the preeminent first-world countries are (rightfully, I’d say) looking to fast-track their way to higher standards of living the same way that western Europe and the United States did. On one hand, sure, in an egalitarian society it’d be “easier” to teach them the right way of moving forward. But who’s gonna bother doing that? I just can’t imagine enough people ever really grasping the idea of collective action.
…And of course there’s the Anarchist Library’s apparent love of Ted Kaczynski’s jackass patriarchal, homophobic, ableist, generally bigoted rants against the “over-socialized left”.
I just wrote a comment on my own thoughts, and essentially, I think anarchism “works” until a sufficiently willful person shows up. There’s a reason the majority of human beings have existed under states of some kind, anarchist societies failed to prevent states from arising.
Anarchism, to me, is the thing people did before someone decided to do otherwise. It doesn’t matter that it’s how most human beings “naturally” congregate, because the fact is that the very moment someone decides to start consolidating power, they seem to do so successfully. Every state began with someone with a clear goal gathering other people with the same goal- and often, then gathering people who don’t share that goal through force. (People are power.) Clearly Anarchic societies failed to prevent that process from occurring, they are not hardened against violent, coordinated groups. Saying that “the majority of societies were essentially anarchist” fails to notice that far, far, FAR more people have existed within “stateful” societies. More individual anarchist “structures” vs. many more people consolidated within stateful structures is just down to the nature of both. To defend the anarchic nature of a group permanently, you’d need to get the people who actually cared enough to defend it all together and arm them as a militia. Even as an “as-needed” militia, you now have a power structure and it will grow from there. Without that coordination, someone else will step in and take power for themselves. It only takes a few greedy people.
“Freedom, as well as the ecological balance of the planet and thus our very survival, is incompatible with nuclear energy”
BIG LMAO
Wikipedia’s page on Fidel Castro is pretty fascinating. Dude was the IRL equivalent of movie villains who get some people like “wait, but they have good intentions, though”, he was batshit insane, and his life was very public.
I do all of those things. I choose not to call them spiritual because to a lot of people, spirituality implies a belief in the supernatural, spirits, some nonsense about vibrations, etc.
What you’re describing is just self-care and self-administrated mental health practices.
That the existence of any supernatural force is unprovable is exactly the problem. I consider myself an agnostic atheist as well, because it’s the only rational position you could have, but there’s a reason the term “god of the gaps” exists. The supernatural will never be found because anything legitimately found is, by definition, not supernatural.
I hate religion. I hate ““spirituality”” (what does that even mean?). It makes my skin crawl. I hate that people willfully delude themselves into believing things that they clearly know to not be true, on some level, and then argue wholeheartedly for their actual truthfulness. It’s the most nonsensical practice I can imagine someone engaging in and I struggle to see people who do so as willful, rational human beings. Just look at all the people in this thread searching for one that "speaks to them as if they can just pick the nature of reality out for themselves. How in the world can people do that and not make themselves crazy with cognitive dissonance?
BUT. What I do understand is that people are searching for structure, community and a sense of reverence towards… something. There have been attempts at replicating that experience sans-nonsense, but every time it’s tried it’s mostly ridiculed and laughed at by the sort of jackass atheists who can’t even empathize with that longing. It’s sad.
See, this is what I legitimately can’t comprehend about religion, you yourself call it mythology. Being a member of a religion requires that you essentially pretend that you’re convinced of this stuff. I can’t comprehend someone literally shopping around and picking how they’re going to view… reality. It’s just reality. It doesn’t work like that.
As someone who lives in a suburb far from any city (and the cities near me aren’t very walkable anyways) goddamn I wish I could have asked myself this question. The idea that I even could is alien to me. Without a drivers’ license and a car I wouldn’t be employable because I literally couldn’t get anywhere.
I’m autistic and almost certainly have inattentive ADHD as well. I totally thought that driving would always be a nightmare for me. It’s still stressful on certain roads, but most of the time, I enjoy driving now. At some point you learn to trust other drivers as much as is reasonable (only trust turn signals when they’re signaling a problem for you, for instance).
So… I really have no idea. I don’t think having a license and knowing how to drive a car could hurt, even if you don’t need to own one, y’know? Maybe you travel somewhere where public transportation isn’t really a thing and need a rental.
Ooh this is a REALLY good idea actually. I’m absolutely horrible at remembering names.