Posts by Ryan Wilson2

This isn't some mindless chat room, which is precisely why we have zero tolerance for stalkers or trolls; they get deleted immediately.

Now, you can go right back to acting like an idiot if that's what you choose to do.

It really depends on the specific movie in question. If I find myself watching something that is an absolute slog, yet I am dying to know how it concludes, I might find myself pausing and resuming it over several sessions just to get through it. However, if the film is actually engaging and holds my attention, there is absolutely no way I would dare pause it before reaching the credits.

Oh, please. For hundreds of years now, people have been crying wolf, claiming that we’re all hurtling toward some inevitable apocalypse 😁

I just finished watching it... honestly, it’s a fun enough ride regardless of how predictable the plot is. The only thing that really feels out of place with the rest of the script is Salma Hayek 😍

bluemason3 said:I’m not entirely sure, but they don't typically receive direct funding from the diocesan budget unless they’re performing duties similar to a parish priest—which happens sometimes with active orders like the Franciscans, though rarely with the contemplative ones.

From what I can see, some of them run little side businesses, selling things like artisanal cheese, craft beer, or woodwork... others make a bit on the tourism side by renting out rooms within the monasteries. Beyond that, I honestly don't know much. But money doesn't just grow on trees, and I highly doubt their parents are footing the bill.🤷

Perhaps I went a bit overboard with the caricature, but let’s be honest: that doesn't change the reality of how people like that actually operate.

If these hermits are actually out there engaging in meaningful work—and I mean truly contributing to society without being bankrolled by the Church, the local municipality, or some state welfare program—then fine, I’ll buy into the whole concept. It sounds plausible enough. But if they are simply sitting in their cells, refusing to lift a finger while the community continues to feed and support them? Then this entire notion of "asceticism" is nothing more than a convenient excuse for laziness.

bluemason3 said:If I recall correctly, Catholic monasteries generally try to be financially self-sufficient. Who exactly do you think is paying the bills there?

Where does the money come from? The food, the clothing...?

Look, I don't claim to be an expert on how their internal economy functions. Perhaps these hermits head out into the wilderness to hunt, or maybe they maintain vegetable gardens, raise sheep for wool, and manufacture their own garments.

As long as you have a roof over your head, a comfortable bed, and a steady supply of food provided by others, you aren't living some sort of ascetic, hermit-like existence. It is incredibly easy to sit around philosophizing about the deep meaning of life when you have zero responsibilities and everyone else is handling your meals and your wardrobe.

I fail to see any distinction between Edita Majić and these self-proclaimed "minimalists," much like I see no difference between them and those teenage spiritual seekers who still rely on their parents for every single necessity.

Peter Murphy6 said:Does having the job and checking all those boxes actually mean you're satisfied—like, does it mean you've finally "made it"?

Honestly, feels like wearyrider16 is more about chasing that inner peace than anything external—just looking for that internal satisfaction, you know?

Having a polished life on the outside doesn't mean you're actually happy on the inside—man, if only it worked that way. Things would be a hell of a lot easier.

That whole "world pressing against your back" thing... yeah, I feel you there. But honestly? You can't fix that kind of weight just by moving this way—it's not gonna cut it.

It is quite difficult to achieve true contentment if you lack autonomy.

Maintaining an organized exterior serves as a general roadmap toward inner stability. If your environment is pure chaos, how can you possibly hope to preserve any semblance of mental peace?

Besides, I suspect further debate on this matter is futile, given that he laid everything out quite clearly in his previous post.

Peter Murphy6 said:Look, if you had a real life going on, you wouldn't even be thinking about this, right? Is that what you're getting at?

Just to get ahead of you—I'm 28, I work, I cook my own meals, and I live with my partner.
So, clearly, I don't have a single problem in my life and I'm just sitting here wasting time. If I were living in the "real world," I wouldn't even bother with this kind of "nonsense."

Not to mention, it's hard for a kid who's 28 years old to have "experienced" much by now. (answering your little prediction there)

Anyway, I don't really "buy" into this whole Indigo concept. Honestly, I think it’s dangerous for individuality and human worth—just as much as psychiatry is. Indigo is basically just spiritual psychiatry—it's a diagnostic label.
But hey, I get the human urge to categorize everything just to feel like we belong.

The point I am making is quite simple: if you lack the capacity to manage your own existence—meaning, if you aren't even satisfied with your own life—how on earth do you expect to fix a world that is currently collapsing under its own weight?

Personally, I don't buy into this whole "Indigo" concept at all. In fact, I find it dangerous to the very idea of human individuality and intrinsic value. It's nothing more than spiritualized psychiatry—a way to slap a label on people through a pseudo-spiritual diagnostic lens.

I couldn't agree more.

Maria Parker77 said:Needs more coffee.😁

But seriously, what part of this are you not getting? Do you even realize that this whole 3D world is just one big illusion?

Now I see

I am genuinely curious: how exactly would you react if that "illusory" wardrobe of yours decided to fall directly onto your head?

Maria Parker77 said:Yeah, there are others. We're the ones who are going to actually change the world.☕

Buff, don't be an idiot. bluemason3 get a life ☕

The quintessential modern "spiritual" response.

Before I even consider addressing the question at hand, there are several other matters I find myself curious about... for instance, do you actually hold down a job, who is responsible for preparing your meals, how old are you, and with whom do you reside?

hollowpuma762 said:Look, there isn't just one "Christian," "Jewish," "Muslim," or "Hindu" God. Instead, what we have are all these different interpretations of the same thing.

Just various concepts viewed from totally different perspectives, grouped by different categories, focuses, and scopes.

I fail to see any logical reason why monotheism should be the governing principle of the entire universe.

Well, I identified as an agnostic on the last census 🧐

Gregory Carter67 said:I’m intentionally dropping this thread here instead of the religion sub—mostly to steer clear of theological debates and keep things strictly focused on the metaphysical side through a logical lens. Let's skip the whole Bible discussion and religious text commentary.

I'm curious how folks who lean toward agnosticism explain this one.
Look, a human exists. There are endless possibilities. You can experience life—walking, doing, loving, feeling—basically testing out all sorts of experiences during your time here. Let's just call them "gifts" (doesn't matter if you believe in God or not; call them gifts from whoever you want right now).

An agnostic believes in *something*, they just aren't sure what. A lot of them claim to believe in a higher power, but they don't necessarily believe God is a living being. They see it as some kind of energy. And since energy isn't a sentient being, it can't make decisions, intervene, or anything like that. So, that pretty much rules out the idea of a personal God—a God who actually steps in and meddles in human affairs. The religious take (at least in mainstream American traditions like Christianity) views God as both a higher force *and* a personal being.

So, my question for the agnostics is this: if a person has the capacity to experience all these things, and an agnostic attributes those blessings to a higher power, does it make sense to suggest that this higher power/God is incapable of experiencing those same gifts (in whatever form, doesn't even matter which) that they bestowed upon a lower being (a human)?

In other words, is it logically sound to think that something as incredible as the gift of life is something only "lower" beings—animals, humans, plants—can experience? Is it possible that for a higher power/God, experiencing these things, even in a spiritual or otherworldly way, is impossible? It's like the Being Above gives a gift to the being below, yet that very gift remains unreachable to the Source itself. As someone who believes in God as a living being rather than just raw energy, that doesn't sit right with me—but I'm genuinely interested in the logic used by those who don't believe in a living God.

Just looking for the logic here. No need to pull out a holy book for the answer, which is why I'm posting this here. Cheers.

The gift of life is a miracle? Where on earth are you getting that from? Are you living on the Moon or something, wondering why there's actually life around you? 😁

From where I’m standing, looking at the world around me, life isn't even that miraculous; it's everywhere you look. And frankly, we destroy it quite frequently. People strip away this supposed "miracle" all the time because of their convictions, their religion, or some abstract ideology. We send people off to die in wars just to secure fuel supplies—specifically oil. To simply survive, we have to kill—whether it's animals, plants, or whatever else stands in the way.

There is nothing miraculous about it. It isn't a "gift" at all; in my view, it is simply a fundamental law of the universe, much like gravity. Is gravity considered miraculous just because it consistently follows the exact same formula to function? How does gravity "know" which formula to use? Perhaps that is the true miracle of gravity.

So, there you have it. 😁

Andrew White6 said:At the end of the day, you're looking at two different targets: the pursuit of truth versus the preservation of the ego. Some people are willing to tear down their own pride to find what's real, while others will sacrifice the truth just to keep their ego intact.

Quentin:

Man is a social animal. That isn't some abstract theory; it’s a fundamental scientific fact.

The thing about any objective fact is that you can approach it from a dozen different angles—including this one. For instance, even regarding that Aristotelian idea, Nietzsche famously added his own perspective: that outside of society, there is nothing left but a god or a beast.

It’s all a bit too much philosophy for my taste... though I suppose it serves as a convenient way to justify just about any personal action you care to take.

hiddenpuma75 said:I have to disagree when it comes to Smith (George Washington). I don't think it's fair to say he isn't LHP in that sense.
To me, LHP represents a path that weaves together true self-reliance, magic, and a refusal to just follow the herd. It’s about standing against the mainstream, which, at its core, feels like the ultimate hero's journey.
Smith and his little club share quite a few characteristics with the LHP.

Look, they don't really follow classic magic as a strict methodology. Instead, they’ve essentially mashed together various RHP techniques. But if you look at it from a purely political standpoint, George Washington and Smith are pure LHP through and through.
Besides, who exactly is this political bureau deciding what qualifies as "true" magic, or distinguishing between LHP and RHP practices? Honestly, his success across so many different fronts is proof enough—that’s pure magic right there. Sure, maybe it doesn't fit the textbook definition of LHP magic or the usual way people talk about it, but make no mistake: it is magic.

Aleister Crowley does a brilliant job of breaking down how the original Jesus was actually the ultimate embodiment of LHP. He lays it all out perfectly in his masterpiece. I’ve been spending quite a bit of time lately diving deep into the philosophy behind the Left Hand Path, and I feel like there's a lot to unpack regarding how we navigate our own individual sovereignty. It isn't just about rebellion for the sake of being difficult; it’s a much more structured, intentional way of looking at the self versus the divine. When you look at the traditional religious frameworks most people grow up with, the focus is almost always on submission—surrendering your will to God to find peace or salvation. But the Left Hand Path flips that script entirely. Instead of seeking to dissolve the ego into a greater whole, the goal here is to strengthen the ego, to refine it, and eventually to elevate it to a god-like status through sheer willpower and self-knowledge. It’s a heavy concept, I know. I sometimes catch myself overthinking the nuances, wondering if I'm being too analytical when I should just be experiencing the practice. But that's part of the journey, right? Finding that balance between intellectual rigor and raw, lived experience. There is a certain beauty in the idea of becoming your own master. It’s not about chaos; it’s about order—but an order that you define for yourself rather than one imposed upon you by an external authority. It requires a level of discipline that many find uncomfortable, but for those who crave true autonomy, it’s the only path worth walking.

Jesus combined magic into his life; he didn't have a partner because he was LHP. 😁 He was a true hero who stood up against the establishment and the Matrix of that era, which is exactly why they had to take him out.

Politics, organized religion, and two millennia of sheer momentum have stripped him down. They’ve taken what was once an authentic, raw LHP figure and turned him into this pathetic, mainstream version of Jesus—just another face in the crowd, stuck in Sunday services and watered-down rituals. It feels like he's been diluted from being 90% LHP into nothing more than a standard, RHP caricature.

In my view, Komaj isn't even remotely LHP. Perhaps he would have been considered LHP if he had lived two hundred years ago.

And as for Jesus... who can truly say if he even existed at all?😁

And yes, I own that book; I noticed they redesigned the original cover to make it more socially acceptable.😉
For the record, mine has this kind of cover.

Benjamin Taylor6 said:My cousin, a Reiki practitioner, didn't have any luck either.
After becoming a widower as a young retiree at sixty, he threw himself into Spark. Instead of continuing his studies in Yoga and Zen, he decided to focus exclusively on the Kama Sutra. And now, he goes through women like he's changing socks. Mind you, none of those women are exactly in their prime anymore. 😁

The lucky man certainly doesn't have to worry about menopause.😁

Andrew White6 said:@Baphomet

You can't play both sides of the fence. In my eyes, that’s just pure hypocrisy.

Now, I don't think you should view hypocrisy—or a lack of total sincerity—as a fatal flaw. For someone practicing LHP, being blinded by counterproductive pride is actually a far more dangerous pitfall than being a bit hypocritical.

The way I see it, the right-wing path is easier because you're just conforming to society.

Easier for whom, though? You're talking as if you're describing some abstract, generic guy on an assembly line making a purely rational calculation about what's "easier." Is it actually easier for *everyone*?

No one following LHP can stay with a woman whose entire purpose in life is centered on having children. And sorry, but that’s basically almost all of them.

It really comes down to the specific circumstances, the math involved, and what other options are on the table. What you're saying is difficult, sure, but it isn't impossible. Even those women aren't a monolith. You have the ultra-religious conservatives where life would be a nightmare, but then you also have the modern, "devout" types (who are effectively atheists) who are mostly just looking for pleasure, have careers outside the home and bedroom, and generally just "live and let live."

It is, of course, quite convenient to fabricate justifications whenever one finds themselves incapable of facing the truth. One can always retreat behind the pretentious label of being "eclectic" to mask a simple refusal to accept reality.

Quentin:

Easier for whom, exactly? You speak as if you’re discussing some abstract, generic individual standing on a conveyor belt, making a purely rational decision that is somehow deemed "easier." Is this supposed ease universal? Is it easier for everyone involved, or just for the theoretical model you've constructed in your head?

Man is, by his very nature, a social animal. This isn't some vague philosophical abstraction or a mere poetic sentiment; it is an established scientific fact.

Quentin:

It all comes down to the specific circumstances, the underlying math, and the available alternatives. What you’re proposing is a difficult path, certainly, but by no means an impossible one. Even that sweeping generalization about "all" women fails to account for reality; they aren't some monolithic group. You have those religious, ultra-conservative types where life would be an absolute nightmare, and then you have the modern, nominal believers—those de facto atheists who prioritize their own pleasure, maintain careers outside of the kitchen and the bedroom, and essentially just live their lives without making it everyone else's problem.

It is nearly impossible. Especially when you actually know exactly what you are looking for.

hiddenpuma75 As stated by:
Personally, I don't claim membership to either side, as I clearly don't fit neatly into one category or the other—even if I find certain elements of both paths appealing. But calling me a hypocrite? That is a stretch. Simply because I don't belong exclusively to one camp, or because I find myself navigating the space between them, does not make my position insincere. 😁 .

After a few whiskeys and some beers, I start feeling like Jehovah himself—and that’s exactly when I begin passing judgment on everyone else. 🤣

Which path holds more merit? Is it more logical to embrace a state of perpetual inquiry—to remain unattached, to admit my own ignorance, and to relentlessly investigate while maintaining a healthy distrust of everyone I encounter? Or is it simply more honest to admit that I am captivated by the curves and the undeniable vibe of Ms. RHP and Ms. LHP? 😁

Ladies remain universal, regardless of the path one chooses to follow. 🧐

When one takes the time to look at this sociologically, you’re positioning yourself as RHP—but does that logic hold up when we try to dissect every single domain of human existence into a binary of LHP versus RHP? 🤔
Is it truly too harsh to call you a hypocrite? You claim certain principles, yet you aren't an LHP or an independent entrepreneur. Instead, you chose the path of least resistance by conforming to societal norms, taking a corporate job, and remaining RHP-subservient to an employer.

It isn't hypocrisy; I discuss this matter quite openly myself. One simply has to adapt if they intend to survive.

In my estimation, this leans much more toward being an FMP matter—or perhaps even closer to the Flexible Magich Path.

In many respects, Komaj embodies the very essence of LHP, yet he maintains two, three, or perhaps even four wives along with an indeterminate number of children—a reality that, in my estimation, firmly categorizes him as RHP.

Komaja loves women... that would be the KVŽ path. 🤣 It has absolutely nothing to do with LHP. The man just has an insatiable appetite for attention from women, and frankly, that sums up his entire character perfectly.

When exactly did you "consciously" decide to embrace LHP as your sole path? If you could elaborate on that turning point, I would appreciate it.

It is difficult to accept this as the sole path forward. In fact, it is largely impossible—unless, of course, you possess enough wealth to ensure you aren't beholden to the whims of society.

It never occurred to me to consider the connection between LHP and parenthood. In my mind, the primary association with the Left-Hand Path has always been the active, rigorous practice of magic itself—not whether or not one has children. It strikes me as a curious oversight. I find myself genuinely wondering: what is the actual percentage of practitioners within the LHP who are parents? Is there an inherent contradiction there, or am I simply overlooking a fundamental aspect of the lifestyle? 🤔

Kids consume an enormous amount of your daily bandwidth. Is it even feasible to maintain a dedicated magical practice when you have children in the house? Can you honestly tell them, "I am performing various rituals for the next thirty minutes, so please do not disturb me"?

because... Buddhists and Catholics follow the RHP, and they essentially advise those walking that path to avoid having partners or children altogether.🤔

The reality is that nobody actually follows that path to its absolute extreme, so that specific requirement is... well, it's just enough to wedge itself into your psyche and take advantage of your doubts.

hiddenpuma75 said:Could you be a bit more specific?

For instance, throughout my own life, I've walked both paths—left and right—even if, at the time, I didn't consciously realize I was navigating them that way. I just explored everything...

It wasn't until much later that I realized there was a "theoretical distinction" between the two, and that certain practices, actions, and ideas of mine were firmly on the "Left-Hand Path," while others aligned with the "Right-Hand Path."

What really stands out to me in your post is your comment about it being an "incredibly difficult path..."

Because, from where I'm sitting, there shouldn't be a distinction in difficulty; any spiritual path should be challenging by its very nature.

Am I missing something here? It feels like you might be implying that the "Right-Hand Path" is inherently easier than the "Left-Hand Path" by default.

I am not quite sure how to explain this to you gently.

One cannot simply be "a little bit left" and "a little bit right." In my view, that is nothing short of hypocritical.
It would be like deciding to be a Buddhist one day, a Telematist the next, then a Wiccan, then a partisan, then a fascist... essentially, just drifting according to whatever whim takes hold in the moment.

In my estimation, the right-hand path is "easier" because it allows you to conform to society. No one practicing LHP can maintain a relationship with a woman for whom childbearing and family life are the ultimate purpose. And let’s be honest—that is the reality for almost everyone.

So, there it is... I won't dwell on it any further.😁