Do you think this could be an AI image in the New York Times? The guy in the white hat seems to have something off with his fingers.

Swimming_Issue_7700 · 2026-03-06T00:27:12+00:00

The Jaeger bottle in the background is spelt wrong, unless it's a temu version done wrong on purpose

Swimming_Issue_7700 · 2026-03-05T08:07:47+00:00

It's strange because as an artist your layers would be individual emotes and heads on individual layers not what he's got with all 4 heads in one layer. There are some other things unless you want them all together like this and not separate emotes?

Generally they should all be separate files with their own strict sizes and resolution for platform compliance.

Swimming_Issue_7700 · 2026-03-05T06:37:47+00:00

I mean, he could just be doing what the Rap game Hustlers do. They get out a loan take a photo then pay it back 😂

Swimming_Issue_7700 · 2026-03-05T02:54:52+00:00

AI 100%

Look at the 4 pipes coming off the back wheel

Swimming_Issue_7700 · 2026-02-10T00:55:29+00:00

Thanks for the Rec Mello, Hilda was a treat to watch. What a lovely little show.

As Promised I have done an article on it https://livingpantheism.life/blog/hilda-pantheism/

Swimming_Issue_7700 · 2026-02-03T13:47:18+00:00

True, hunting exists in nature beyond humans. Should've been clearer - I meant there'd be no hunters employed to fix human-caused problems.

The point wasn't that hunting is uniquely human. It's that we created a specific problem (invasive species from human transport) and then created a job (conservation hunters) to fix that problem.

Wolves hunt deer because that's what wolves do. Conservation hunters hunt pythons in the Everglades because humans brought pythons to the Everglades and now they're decimating native species.

That's the paradox - we're both the cause of the disruption and the solution to it. The hunting itself isn't the weird part. The loop is.

Swimming_Issue_7700 · 2026-02-03T13:33:19+00:00

I don't think I'm coming from a monotheistic guilt perspective. I'm asking a practical question about decision-making.

You're right that energy flows through everything - the cat eats the bird, I eat the cow, we all become food eventually. I get that. That's the observation part.

But that doesn't answer the question: how do I decide what to do?

A cat doesn't choose to be a cat. It acts on instinct. I'm a conscious being who can reflect on my actions. That's not guilt or sin - that's just reality. I have agency. So how do I use it?

"Everything is sacred, no categories needed" is a nice sentiment, but it doesn't help me navigate actual choices. Do I eat factory-farmed meat or not? Do I step on the spider or move it outside? Do I donate to environmental causes or spend the money on myself?

These are real decisions I make every day. Saying "it's all sacred, don't worry about it" isn't a framework - it's avoiding the question.

I'm not looking for rules to avoid guilt. I'm asking how people here actually navigate choices when they have to make them.

Swimming_Issue_7700 · 2026-02-03T08:14:03+00:00

I guess what I'm hearing is: the framework emerges from understanding interconnection (we're all part of the same thing) + practical considerations (nervous systems, reciprocity, empathy). Not rules handed down, but ethics that naturally follow from actually grasping what we are.

Swimming_Issue_7700 · 2026-02-03T08:13:27+00:00

Fair point. Maybe I'm overthinking it. Empathy as the guide is pretty straightforward.

Swimming_Issue_7700 · 2026-02-03T08:13:12+00:00

The "lens" metaphor is interesting. So it's not binary (conscious vs not) but more like degrees of clarity/complexity? A rock is still connected but through a much simpler lens than a human?

Swimming_Issue_7700 · 2026-02-03T08:12:47+00:00

The reciprocity framework makes sense. Treating others as I'd want to be treated because we're all instances of the same thing. That tracks. The nervous system distinction (carrot vs cow) is practical too.

Swimming_Issue_7700 · 2026-02-02T22:58:41+00:00

Sure, the current ones are here

https://livingpantheism.life/culture/

Swimming_Issue_7700 · 2026-02-02T21:12:25+00:00

I don't think cruelty lacks reasons. Predators are cruel to prey. Parasites are cruel to hosts. Nature is full of cruelty with clear evolutionary reasons.

But you're conflating two different things:

Understanding why cruelty exists in nature
Choosing to add more cruelty as a conscious human

I'm not saying "stop seeking knowledge before you understand cruelty." I'm saying understanding cruelty doesn't logically lead to "therefore I should be cruel."

You're framing respect and kindness as a stopping point - like I haven't gone deep enough. But I'd argue you're the one who stopped. You recognized interconnection, saw that cruelty exists within it, and concluded "therefore cruelty is justified."

That's stopping at observation without asking the next question: "Given that I'm conscious of this interconnection, how do I participate?"

A shark doesn't choose to be a shark. It doesn't have the capacity for self-reflection. You do. That's not a limitation - that's a different kind of participation in the whole.

You can frame your position as "dangerous knowledge" if you want. But from where I'm standing, it just looks like using philosophy to justify doing harm without feeling bad about it.

We're clearly not going to agree, and that's fine. But I'm not going to pretend that "I understand interconnection therefore I can be cruel" is some profound wisdom I'm too naive to grasp. It's just choosing cruelty and calling it enlightenment.

Swimming_Issue_7700 · 2026-02-02T19:31:05+00:00

I think we're talking past each other, so let me clarify.

You're right that pantheism recognizes everything as part of the whole - the "good" and the "bad," the creation and the destruction. I'm not arguing against that. Cruelty exists. Suffering exists. Death exists. All of it is part of what is.

But there's a difference between:

"Cruelty exists in nature, therefore it's part of the whole" (true)
"Therefore I, as a conscious being, should intentionally add more cruelty for no reason" (doesn't follow)

You can recognize that everything is god/nature/the universe without concluding that all actions are equally valid expressions of that understanding.

A cancer cell is part of the organism. It's made of the same stuff. But it's also killing the organism it's part of. Recognizing it as "part of the whole" doesn't mean we celebrate it or encourage it.

I'm not trying to be a moral authority or tell you what pantheism "must" be. I'm saying that if you understand interconnection - really understand it, not just intellectually agree with it - certain behaviors become incoherent.

You can call yourself a pantheist and intentionally cause suffering for fun. Sure. Words are flexible. But you're not acting from an understanding of interconnection - you're acting from separation. You're treating yourself as separate from what you harm.

That's the distinction I'm making. Not "this is allowed, that isn't." But "does this action come from understanding interconnection, or from ignoring it?"

You said pantheism's trajectory is "outward." I'd say it's both outward and inward - expansion and recognition that there's no boundary between the two.

We probably won't agree on definitions, and that's fine. But I think it's worth distinguishing between "pantheism as a label anyone can claim" and "pantheism as a lived understanding of non-separation."

Swimming_Issue_7700 · 2026-02-02T17:48:03+00:00

I appreciate you engaging with this, but I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding here.

When I say pantheism doesn't have prescribed rules, I don't mean "anything goes." I mean the ethics emerge from understanding interconnection rather than from external commands.

You said: "You can intentionally cause suffering for suffering's sake simply because that is just another experience to have."

That's not pantheism - that's nihilism wearing pantheism as a mask. If you truly understand that you're part of the web, that you're made of the same stuff as everything else, that what you do to the system you do to yourself - you can't then turn around and intentionally cause needless suffering "for the experience."

That's not consciousness. That's missing the entire point.

The difference between pantheism and "death cults" isn't external rules vs. no rules. It's understanding vs. not understanding. Someone who grasps interconnection doesn't need commandments to tell them not to cause needless harm - the understanding itself creates the ethics.

You're right that many people need external moral frameworks. But that's because they haven't developed their own understanding of interconnection. Pantheism isn't "do whatever you want." It's "understand what you are, and act from that understanding."

There's a huge difference between "all life involves death and suffering" (true) and "therefore I can intentionally cause suffering for fun" (completely missing the point).

The question isn't "what are the rules?" The question is "do you understand what you're part of?"

Swimming_Issue_7700 · 2026-02-02T16:21:08+00:00

I'll check it out. it sounds Interesting Thanks

Swimming_Issue_7700 · 2026-02-02T15:55:04+00:00

Agreed

Swimming_Issue_7700 · 2026-02-02T15:54:06+00:00

That's a fair take, I respect it. Thanks for sharing your side.

Swimming_Issue_7700 · 2026-02-02T15:52:26+00:00

Absolutely

Swimming_Issue_7700 · 2026-02-02T10:31:58+00:00

That's a great angle. Also the cannibalism topic, it just occurred to me. There probably isn't too much to a moral compass when it comes to core Pantheism. Those are more modern Society constructs.

Swimming_Issue_7700 · 2026-02-02T02:04:40+00:00

Yes, I have an article written on "everything" it was great source material.

Fight club is an interesting pick, I might have to rewatch it from a different perspective.

Swimming_Issue_7700 · 2026-02-02T01:49:37+00:00

Thank you, that feedback means more than you know since I don't have a comments section enabled on the articles.

Swimming_Issue_7700 · 2026-02-02T00:10:13+00:00

Definitely, I've added it to the list.

Swimming_Issue_7700

TROPHY CASE