From "Great Civilizations of the World - Greece," specifically this passage by Catherine Regulier: "For the Greeks, the gods didn't necessarily represent what modern sociologists or philosophers would label as 'sacred.'
(..) ...anything we need to say about the Parthenon and the Acropolis will be covered elsewhere, where we measure how these sites and structures radiate the presence of the Palace of Athena.
Nietzsche's analysis kind of overlooked some of these myths and legends surrounding Athens. Nietzsche seemed mostly preoccupied with capturing the sheer variety of Greek tragedy. I guess to really grasp an ancient city, especially Athens, you have to understand the magnificent statue of Athena Parthenos (Virgin Athena) sitting right at the heart of the Parthenon..."
Nike is usually honored alongside the goddess Athena, since she’s linked to her following the victory over the Persians at the Battle of Marathon. Sometimes Athena herself is even shown holding Nike's attributes. According to Pausanias, there was a statue of Athena Nike that depicted Nike without wings (Nike Apteros), basically ensuring the goddess would never leave the city of Athens.
I mean, how much can you even compare the ambiguity of the Holy Spirit—specifically wisdom as one of his gifts—with Athena, or anything else for that matter?
Looking back at things like the "March of the Ten Thousand," followed by the massive success of Alexander the Great, the rise of the Serapisian cult, and how the influence of the Museum spread through lands once held by the Persians—plus the syncretism involving the Egyptian priest Manetho as a co-architect for spreading Serapeum temples without needing military conquest—you start seeing these overlaps between gnosis and wisdom. It makes me wonder where the line is drawn between logos and sophia. And finally, was Basil the Great http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_of_Caesarea actually the main undertaker of wisdom, using concepts of the Holy Spirit to turn reverence into a sort of sacramental magic? (If you're interested in the link between magic and religion, I'd suggest looking into Father Ante Škobalj's work on "Ritual Masses")...
In a similar vein, there's the story that Alexander, while pushing the Greeks and the mix of Mexicans and Thracians (a policy his father started and he carried across the East despite Aristotle's advice) toward conquest in the mountains, told them they were going to liberate Prometheus...
So, besides Athena, you've got the provider, the fire, and then all of Hermes and Thoth too...
And since it was standard practice for high-ranking state officials to hold priestly roles, the authors of Greek drama were essentially priests themselves...
In Sparta, those traditions of king-priests have stayed pretty much permanent...
Which brings me to what might actually be considered philosophical atheism—not a disbelief in the principles themselves, but a rejection of their personification; the opposites being perhaps demons, which are cast out of people in Christian stories from the New Testament, but also in the broader magical practices of the Assyrians and others... If that's the case, then this type of atheism wouldn't mean a lack of respect for those values—it would just be stripping away the magical models used to access them...
Jonathan Chase78 said:If we’re talking about brainwave frequencies, then you can actually layer them for better results:
Use Alpha and Theta for reprogramming (healing purposes), while bringing in Delta for rapid physical recovery and cellular regeneration.
To pull this off, you'll need: A neuro programmer (either a dedicated device or a computer running similar software), some decent headphones, and—optionally—glasses (though a high-quality monitor can sometimes do the job). Just find a comfortable spot, pop on your gear, hit play, and let yourself "surf" those waves...
Beta waves (12 Hz – 38 Hz) represent a fully awake, alert mental state—basically where most people spend their lives. It's the realm of concentration. (Including SMR (12 Hz – 15 Hz), Beta 1 (15 Hz – 20 Hz), and Beta 2 (20 Hz – 38 Hz)).
Alpha waves (8 Hz – 12 Hz) offer a deeply relaxed state of wakefulness without the constant processing of external information. Think imagination and visualization.
Theta waves (3 Hz – 8 Hz) correspond to light sleep and extreme relaxation. Theta is famously known as a hyper-suggestible state—perfect for mental reprogramming using previously recorded suggestions. (Essentially, deep meditation.) (Specifically Theta 1 (3 Hz – 5 Hz) and Theta 2 (5 Hz – 8 Hz)).
Delta waves (0.2 Hz – 3 Hz) are all about depth—dreamless sleep and the body's natural ability to heal itself. ("Deep Meditation.")
But honestly? I wouldn't recommend doing any of this without a gentleman's guidance!
Does anyone know if there are any actual visual representations out there? I mean, like graphic designs, musical scores, or even just examples in mainstream art where you can really spot these relationships acting as major or minor components within a composition?
I guess you could kind of look at it all as a sort of pressure, right? Like, maybe everything just boils down to some kind of internal or external tension building up over time. I don't know, it's just a thought.
So, I was falling down a bit of a rabbit hole online earlier—you know how it goes—and ended up reading all about blood pressure. It’s one of those things we all hear about constantly, like something you just check at the doctor's office during an annual physical, but when you actually dig into the mechanics of it, it’s kind of wild. Basically, it’s just the force of your blood pushing against the walls of your arteries. It sounds pretty straightforward, right? But there’s that whole distinction between systolic and diastolic pressure that always trips me up. The systolic is that top number—the peak pressure when your heart actually beats—and the diastolic is the lower one, which is the pressure while your heart is resting between beats. I guess you could think of it like water moving through a garden hose; if the pressure is too high, you might worry about the hose bursting, which is a pretty decent analogy for what happens to our vessels if things get out of whack. The scary part is that high blood pressure, or hypertension, is often called a "silent killer." That’s a heavy term, but I suppose it makes sense because you can feel totally fine even when your numbers are climbing. It’s easy to ignore until it starts causing real issues with your heart or your kidneys. There’s a ton of stuff you can do to keep things steady, though. Most doctors will tell you it's about the lifestyle grind: cutting back on the salt (which is hard, let's be real), staying active, and maybe managing stress. I’ve heard people talk about how much diet matters, too—like sticking to things similar to the DASH diet here in the States. Anyway, I don't mean to ramble on about medical stuff, but it's one of those things that feels important to wrap your head around. Just something to keep in the back of your mind, I guess. Stay healthy out there!
And then there’s those feelings, I guess... the emotions or whatever states of mind that just sort of tag along with him.
1. The mindset aspect—you know, how someone struggling with mental health might fall into these harmful thought patterns, which then trickles down into their psychological state and eventually even physical health; though I guess it works both ways too...
2. The social side of things. It’s interesting how public perception of mental illness just kind of swings back and forth depending on how much media attention certain extreme cases get during some weekend news cycle or when Hollywood decides to use a condition as a plot device. Once someone is labeled as having a specific issue, all that info floating around the scene starts to shape how everyone—from their inner circle to the general public—views them, regardless of what they're actually going through...
3. The professional sphere. On one hand, you have pharmaceutical companies setting up all these rules to protect themselves from liability, and on the other, there are plenty of jobs where you basically need a psychologist or psychiatrist to sign off on whether you're actually fit for the role or if you can handle the pressure.
I suppose there's a potential upside here. If a person can finally wrap their head around why they feel the way they do, or if they learn to recognize those red flags before they hit a breaking point, they might build up a sort of "immunity." Like, maybe they could develop better self-control or gain enough insight to actually help out friends or family members who end up facing similar struggles later on...
4. Finally, I honestly feel like psychology and psychiatry still don't have a full grasp on all these moving parts and how to actually resolve them. That might be why people talk about certain conditions being "incurable," when really we're just stuck using limited ways to manage them. I mean, some part of the "disability" might actually come from the people who are supposed to be helping—whether it's family, therapists, doctors, clergy, or even spiritual healers—if they use the wrong approach. They might help to a degree, but sometimes they might actually make things worse. This is especially tricky because of how much influence the media and entertainment have; since those sources carry so much authority, it's way harder to spot the misconceptions. It creates this situation where a person's actual, valid understanding of themselves gets swept under the rug along with all the more irrational stuff...
jimmy jazz said:Regarding Carl Jung, yeah, he was super interested in schizophrenia. It was actually a huge motivator and kind of an "inspiration" for his whole research process (I guess one of the smaller drivers was definitely the fact that Sigmund Freud basically had nothing useful to say about it). His theories actually managed to explain it quite well—it's that whole mind-over-matter thing, obviously—which Freud never really nailed, and honestly, I don't think many others did either! I'm not entirely sure how things stand regarding actual cures for schizophrenia, but I'm pretty certain that because of how he explained it, he wouldn't have been able to treat it once it hit those "advanced" stages. And yeah, it's well known that most psychologists today don't really get Carl Jung at all, since they just drill them on statistics and behaviorism... but then they end up coming to me to actually learn something. 😁 😁
Schizophrenia is one of the most frequent psychiatric disorders out there. About 1% of the population lives with it...
...Schizophrenia is a complex condition. Even the experts aren't totally sure what triggers it...
..Since schizophrenia symptoms can vary wildly from one person to the next in terms of intensity and how they present, there isn't a single "best" medication for everyone. A drug that works wonders for one patient might not do much for another. While antipsychotics can't cure schizophrenia—since it's considered a chronic, incurable condition—they do significantly reduce or eliminate hallucinations and delusions, which helps the person reconnect with reality. http://www.psychiatry.org/edu/sch.htm
Accounts of a schizophrenia-like syndrome are thought to be rare in the historical record before the 19th century, although reports of irrational, unintelligible, or uncontrolled behavior were common. A detailed case report in 1797 concerning James Tilly Matthews, and accounts by Philippe Pinel published in 1809, are often regarded as the earliest cases of the illness in medical and psychiatric literature.[111] Schizophrenia was first described as a distinct syndrome affecting teenagers and young adults by Bénédict Morel in 1853, termed démence précoce (literally 'early dementia')..
...The word schizophrenia—which translates roughly as "splitting of the mind" and comes from the Greek roots schizein (σχίζειν, "to split") and phrēn, phren- (φρήν, φρεν-, "mind")[114]—was coined by Eugen Bleuler in 1908 and was intended to describe the separation of function between personality, thinking, memory, and perception....
..Social stigma has been identified as a major obstacle in the recovery of patients with schizophrenia
I'm especially curious about one thing; since this area really fascinated Carl Jung, what specifically did he propose regarding it? Has anyone here actually read his works where he dives deep into this topic enough to pull out the key points?
steelcrane5 said:I was sitting around the other day and this question popped into my head—it might sound a bit silly, honestly. I was thinking about how I have quite a few attractive cousins in my family, and obviously, there isn't even a flicker of attraction there, which got me wondering... what is it that actually stops us from seeing relatives in that way? Is there some sort of built-in mechanism in our brains that just shuts down any kind of sexual thought when we look at a family member? Like, why is it fundamentally impossible for me to imagine being with a cousin?
I hope you guys get where I'm coming from, I really don't mean anything bad by asking! 🙂
Maybe humans are just naturally drawn to whatever is different. Maybe we gravitate toward things that feel mystical, new, or like that missing piece of the puzzle... who knows, I guess.
When people talk about incest, they usually mean both blood relatives and adopted ones too...
I've heard stories about how Eskimos used to offer their wives to strangers as part of certain customs, and I think I read somewhere that "sacred prostitution" in ancient societies was actually a way to introduce new genetic elements to a population...
Even Paulo Coelho wrote about the taboo idea of a man feeling turned on while his wife is with another man in one of his books...
And I mean, even cats—during mating season, they just wander around, right? If I remember correctly, they end up having kittens with whoever happens to be hanging around.
Maybe, when it comes to how humans pick partners over time, the main driver is just this deep urge for change. I don't necessarily mean polyamory or anything like that, but maybe it's just more natural to be attracted to difference rather than similarity... 🤷
Out where I live in the countryside, there’s this elderly couple who keeps goats. Honestly, goat farming isn't exactly a walk in the park, so every year around the same time, I hear them telling the exact same story about how they’re finally going to sell them off. They tell the neighbors, they tell everyone around town, and then—surprise, surprise—they end up keeping them anyway. It happens every single year.
It makes me think about how maybe certain traditions, like clearing out grain from the house during a holiday, are kind of similar to how people try to sever family ties. Or even thinking about death as just a way to cut all connections to everything, including worrying about things like natural disasters or revolutions. Anyway, if those folks with the goats didn't create a situation over a few weeks where they could essentially lie to themselves and everyone else, they’d probably find it even harder to hold onto something that shifts from being a burden one day to a blessing the next. Maybe there’s something good about setting things up so that every relationship—whether it's marriage, parenting, or whatever—has an expiration date. It opens up a door that freedom allows: the chance to be unattached. Being unattached means you can actually face challenges head-on and weigh whether certain things, however trivial they seem, actually bring more good or bad to your life and the world around you. I guess you could say spirituality is really just a struggle against the anxiety caused by being too attached to specific types of relationships. Even religious bonds work that way; they often teach from the jump that stepping outside the ritualistic formula is somehow immoral. Maybe getting rid of goats or grain is a way of testing "God," but I think it’s more about testing yourself. Now, if someone wants to jump off a building, that’s a total sin against "wisdom." If wisdom is really about learning through dialogue with others, then true dialogue involves realizing that doing something like that results in injury 100% of the time.
Rudolf Steiner was apparently so deeply tuned in that, from what I recall during my own deep dives, he’d sometimes just stand perfectly still for long enough to actually watch plants grow,
Nikola Tesla once said something along the lines of how he wasn't really an inventor, but more like someone who just discovers things that already exist in the natural world,
And then you’ve got Leonardo da Vinci who championed the idea of art starting from a personal investigation of nature—you know, totally different from that stuff where artists just end up copying each other...
Man, I actually had a bit of a falling out with a plant recently. I started sketching it last night, but then by morning it had sprouted new flowers, so I basically had to scrap the whole drawing and start over. 😁
Nature moves at its own pace, I guess. Art kind of requires you to adapt to whatever speed is happening within that massive spectrum of everything we can see, hear, or touch.
Just to add a little more regarding the whole thing about individual perception; besides just naming things, you really have to account for the current space and time we're in. It brings up thoughts about conflict, the general anxiety over the state of the world, and even those Taoist types who learned from nature—historical records show they actually led peasant revolts against emperors and kings. I think there was even one guy back in China who wanted it all to start with him, so he went ahead and had all those rich sources of Chinese culture wiped out...
I mean, if you try to idealize a small town on one hand, or if you spend all your time hunting for the good and bad traits of people who mostly exist in that physical space, you might end up totally overlooking their mental and spiritual existence... so, looking for good and evil in certain individuals eventually leads to questions like whether that whole story about the dog that needed to be put down was just an excuse for me—if I can even say that—to share my own take. Personally, I checked out of having opinions or feelings about stuff like that a long time ago. A shallow conclusion about someone being "tough" or "sensitive" is usually only visible through a pattern of similar experiences. People find it pretty hard to truly pass their experiences onto one another, unless they act as a sort of foundation for spreading those experiences to others... which, at its core, is what wisdom is—filo/sophia...
It’s kind of interesting that despite all the emperors and kings, the Western world today basically measures time by whoever made the ultimate sacrifice. Maybe the idea of God is indirectly tied to this expectation of sacrifice and the constant craving for more space—for ourselves. Then you have the opposite extreme, like how Apollo makes beauty the ideal concept, where both God and man are judged by the beauty they can provide... Both of those extremes feel like a form of total conformism when observing others. And when you mention that the game started maybe 5,000 years ago or so... maybe seeing God as a sacrifice is just the best sign of our collective childishness—this refusal to take personal responsibility and actually take action while waiting for some shared fate or circumstances where we'll finally try to find ourselves in this world...
I mean, I guess you could say all art is just a little bit of magic, right? When it actually hits home and connects with your own past, it’s almost like some researcher getting lost in those abstract, astral dimensions they think they see—it becomes this deeply mystical thing. Trying to write about your childhood or that younger version of yourself feels like a collision between who you were back then and who you are today. It's heavy stuff. Since poetry is all about packing a ton of symbolism into a small space, I actually think those little typos or grammar slips can be pretty telling. In a Freudian sense, they sort of reveal these tiny fragments of the subconscious. Because this specific piece is so personal, I’m probably going to leave the errors alone—things like overusing personal pronouns and stuff like that. It just feels more honest that way. 🙂 I guess when our current self finally collides with that massive pile of past experiences—you know, those moments that suddenly start making sense through some weirdly logical, rational math we couldn't wrap our heads around before—something really specific happens. It’s like when you're caught in this tug-of-war between different impulses, and one just surges to the surface, forcing a choice. Some schools of thought, I think, get too hung up on digging through sexual experiences in their psychoanalytic searches. But honestly? I feel like a person is actually shaped by everything they loved first. That's what builds us. And because those early loves are so foundational, it makes it way harder to let them go, or even harder to try and find happiness again using those same old mental pathways. To me, overcoming "evil"—or just getting past those bad vibes we associate with certain people, things, or events—comes from there. It makes me wonder, though... does circling back to childhood memories actually bring us closer to that inner child, or is it just revisiting old trauma? Or maybe, just maybe, it’s the actual path to overcoming it? It's hard to say for sure. I suspect that memory might just be the conscious mind trying to take an old experience and face it with a fresh perspective. If we just regress back to the past without adding any new insight or growth to the mix, it probably isn't doing much good for our personality. It feels kind of negative, if I'm being honest. Maybe true maturity is just allowing these two processes—the past and the present—to constantly merge in our consciousness, instead of shoving one side into the subconscious. In that sense, the present moment carries all the messages from our younger selves. It’s all just this big interplay where we question how we’d handle things today if the people around us were actually just versions of ourselves. I feel like we spend our whole lives trying to make sense of why people act the way they do, basically trying to step into every single role in the drama of life. And the beauty of living in the "now" is that it gives us the chance to pivot—to take all that complexity and distill it down into words, symbols, prose, or even a poem.
So, I was thinking about how early spirituality was basically just people staring at the world around them and trying to make sense of it all—you know, those ancient cave paintings and that whole totemism thing where everything in nature felt alive. It’s like, before we had organized religion, we just looked at a storm or an animal and felt that connection. And if you look into the Dictionary Symbol by Chevalier and Gheerbrant, they actually touch on this idea:
I guess if you look back at ancient Egypt, the Falcon was basically treated like the king of all birds because of how powerful and beautiful it was. It was seen as this ultimate symbol of the heavens. It was also the perfect embodiment of Horus, the god of the skies—you know, the one whose eyes were actually the sun and the moon? He’d usually be depicted either as a bird or as a man with a Falcon head. The Egyptians were apparently really fascinated by this little dark mark under the Falcon's eye, which supposedly represented that all-seeing gaze. Because of that, the whole symbolism surrounding the Eye of Horus eventually turned into this massive concept representing total fertility (according to POSD, page 112). Also, the Falcon was an attribute of the god Ra, representing the rising sun. Sometimes he was even shown with a solar disk around his head instead of a crest, wrapped in a cobra to symbolize those intense solar flames. It's pretty wild how much meaning they packed into a single bird, I suppose.
So, I was reading up on this bit of history, and it turns out the Falcon was actually a huge emblem and solar symbol for the Inca people in Peru. According to this chronicler named Sarmiento—who's cited by Means—it seems like every single Inca, starting all the way back with the dynasty's founder, Manco Capac, had this kind of spiritual double or a guardian angel. They apparently manifested as a Falcon that they called Inti, which basically means the Sun. It’s pretty wild to think about, honestly.
So, I was reading this wild bit of folklore from the Yunga people down in Peru, and it’s honestly kind of trippy. In one version of their myth, these legendary heroes don't even start out human—they actually emerge as Falcons from a cluster of five eggs laid high up on some mountain before finally taking on a human shape. It's pretty heavy stuff. Then, there's this other version where a heroine has a child through a relationship with a God, specifically this Falcon-Noe figure. Just a really unique way of looking at how legends begin, I guess.
So, I was reading this old Irish short story about those adventures involving Tuan Mac Cairill, and it’s pretty wild how the Falcon keeps popping up as one of his different states of being. It kind of reminds me of that eagle figure you see in those ancient Welsh myths about the old worlds—you know, where everything feels much more primal? I guess there's a connection there. Also, if you look at those old Welsh legal codes from back in the 10th century, like the laws of Hywel Dda, the whole importance of the Falcon really stems from how big falconry was as a type of hunting back then. It's interesting stuff, I suppose.
Back in the Middle Ages, you’d sometimes see a Falcon depicted tearing apart rabbits. If you go by certain interpretations where rabbits are a symbol for lust, then the Falcon basically represents winning the battle against those primal desires (CIRD, 134).
The Falcon is always such a solar, Uranian, masculine, daytime sort of symbol—it’s upwardly mobile on every level, whether we're talking physical, spiritual, or moral stuff. It stands for dominance or victory, whether that’s something already achieved or just something someone is working toward. When ancient Egyptians, like in the writings of Horapollon, wanted to depict a god, height, diving, status, or a win, they’d go with the image of a Falcon (TER, 162).
Sometimes, a Falcon is shown with a perch. In that context, it symbolizes the hope for light held by someone living in darkness; it's like an image of a prisoner, someone whose spiritual spark is being held back. A lot of Renaissance printers actually loved using the emblem of a Falcon on a perch, often pairing it with the motto: *Post tenebras spero lucem* (TERS, 163).
It’s pretty obvious from that smudge under the Falcon’s eye, all the way down to the rabbits (though anyone who’s ever kept rabbits knows just how fast they multiply!) acting as symbols of lust and such—it means that this kind of spiritual-religious symbolism from ancient times is almost impossible to grasp without a deep dive into animal behavior and how they were portrayed... but it also shows that nature was humanity's very first spiritual teacher, nudging us to face our own inner selves...
Reading these bits about the Falcon, and then hitting a line from an opera like "Ero on Borrowed Time"— "which shines high in the sky; the moon is either a gray Falcon" ... it creates this visualization of birds watching the world from a higher vantage point between humans and the sun. Then you have thoughts about war, and even the names given to defenders during wartime (which, I guess, mirrors my own transition from childhood to puberty), and it all kind of crashes together in the closing words of that first text. Based on those words, and considering how medieval printers used symbolism—likely because their work drove them toward a desire for greater freedoms... that mention of crucifixion is also symbolic of striving to rise above things, aiming for the good, or hoping for something higher... whereas the "crucifixion of the soul" feels like a rejection of reducing spirituality to mere physical suffering or death. At the end of the day, I wonder about the concept of sacrifice in an individual who is upgrading their own consciousness to find ways to belong to the whole; it makes you question if we should even use the symbol of sacrifice at all... So, whether it's Falcons or crucifixion, these symbols live their own independent lives—because when you link someone else to the same terms, or even just slightly less abstract words, you can end up with totally different associations... I suppose the only way out is to exist in the face of reality, acknowledging and listening to every perspective... While nature itself, stripped of all this symbolism, is more like a simple matter of mathematical relationships—much like how our ancestors interpreted things thousands of years ago—our own thoughts are limited by symbolism and a more restricted sense of community as we search for distance from whatever might become a source of evil for us as individuals or as a whole... Ultimately, it's about facing our own names, which we still use today, because we try not to stay stuck in the past but to overcome everything through some new kind of awareness. In this case, that would be the richness of nature as a source, though honestly, as much as it's all around us, I don't know nearly enough about it... To wrap this up, there's this mysterious thing where cats and other animals manage to find their way home to their owners from unbelievable distances. They use basic logic regarding tracks and scents, but it's not something that's easily explained...
I guess you can really see how all sorts of people—whether they actually have a deep background in theology and philosophy or are just figuring it out as they go—end up stumbling upon their own unique truths just by paying attention to the world around them. It’s like, when you sit back and really observe how nature works and how everything connects, you start to wrap your head around things on your own terms. Maybe it's because the patterns in the natural world are so obvious once you stop to look, I don't know. People find their own way to make sense of it all, regardless of what they studied in school.
I figured I’d start this thread to give us all a place to vent about these kinds of situations—you know, when people describe stuff that just doesn't sit right. To get things moving, I think I'll kick things off with a little story from my own life...
I was born and raised basically playing in the ruins of an old city. I spent my early childhood living in houses right next to the remains of ancient Los Angeles, so my playground was basically just nature mixed with stone relics from some massive civilization that used to be there. Later on, I moved into the heart of Miami, but honestly, I always loved heading out to a rural town whenever I could. I’d go back there all the time on weekends or during holidays—it was like my escape. Out there, the forest became my new playground again.
I guess I should probably mention that I was thinking about those birds again. It’s funny how they just sort of exist in your peripheral vision, you know? Like, you're busy doing something important—or at least something that feels important at the moment—and then suddenly there's this flash of color or a weird little chirp that just pulls you right out of your head. Maybe it's just me being distracted, but I feel like people don't pay enough attention to them. They have their own whole little world going on, completely indifferent to whatever drama is happening on our side of the glass. Anyway, just a random thought I had while staring out the window earlier.
So, I was thinking back to when I was just a little kid. I remember being out in this rural town, probably near some old gap in the wall of a garden shed, when I stumbled upon this bird's nest that had somehow fallen out. Honestly, I was so stoked about finding them. I already had this whole vision in my head of me domesticating these little guys—it was pretty cute, I guess. I grabbed them in my hands and just sprinted through those old streets toward my grandma’s house. I was feeling so good about it, too. I kept telling myself it was the right thing to do, like, how could the mother bird possibly fix this on her own? It felt like a mission. I was already mentally planning out the setup—you know, getting some cages ready, making sure there was plenty of water and food. It was such a beautiful, sunny day, and everything felt perfect. Then, my grandma happened to walk in. She had clearly been out running errands all day, and when I ran up to her, all excited, begging for some corn or whatever else I could find to feed them, she wasn't having any of it. She just gave me this cold look and shut me down immediately. She told me there was no food for them, and that they couldn't even eat stuff like that anyway. Apparently, their diet consists strictly of worms or something. Yeah, talk about a buzzkill.
The whole thing went from this beautiful, inspired vision to a total gut punch of disappointment just as fast. Honestly, I had no clue where I was supposed to find worms on a daily basis or how I’d even manage to feed those little chicks, so my mind immediately jumped to them slowly starving to death. It sounds dark, I know, but I ended up heading out behind the house, trekking through the yard, and—with tears in my eyes—just crushed them one by one with my own hands...
In later years, whenever I’d head out to a rural town, I think that one specific moment really started the process of me emotionally checking out from the whole animal kingdom thing. It was like I decided right then that I wasn't going to mess with natural processes I don't fully wrap my head around. Instead of stepping in, I just let things play out—like letting the cats get to the birds before I could even try to do something about it, which I honestly wasn't capable of doing anyway. I guess I just traded those rushed, impulsive decisions for just... watching. Just observing, I suppose.
Growing up in a rural town, things were just different. I mean, there were always situations where my relatives would be slaughtering lambs or pigs, or maybe it was just a dog running itself ragged trying to keep up with a tractor pulling a trailer full of hay while I sat in the back. I guess I had my moments where I actually stepped in, too—like that one time when a dog was being processed alongside the neighbor's livestock, or that heavy feeling you get when a little rabbit you’d managed to tame enough to bring out to the fields dies on you. But honestly, I think I kept a bit more emotional distance than most kids from big cities like Chicago or New York would. You know, those people who call themselves "animal lovers" but then turn around and feed their pets meat from industrial factory farms—places so grim you wouldn't wish them on any living creature. It's a weird disconnect, I suppose.
I’ve spent my whole life wandering through the woods out in some rural town, usually just me and my dog trailing behind. I grew up watching how things work out there, observing all those little cycles of nature, I guess. But then there was this one time when my relatives decided to get two more dogs, and they reached this weird, heavy conclusion that they had to put the third one down because they didn't have enough names for them—or maybe they just couldn't afford to feed three. It sounds crazy, I know. Back then, I just listened to the older folks without pushing back; I was honestly ready to do it myself. When the moment actually came, my uncle headed out into the trees, and I offered to go along and handle it, but he wouldn't even let me step foot out there with him. Then, from deep within the oak forest, I heard a single shot, followed by a few others. It was an animal that, looking back, was probably my favorite creature of all time. I suppose I just never allowed my own feelings to weigh more than what the people close to me thought was right.
It’s funny how things work out, I guess. It wasn't until much later in life that I started connecting all the dots—realizing what those people from my own bloodline actually did to me. When you start linking situations from years ago to things happening in your family today, you realize they weren't exactly looking out for me the way I thought. Even now, I don't think I can ever truly build that emotional wall I tried to put up when I was younger, trying to distance myself from the very people I felt I owed my sense of security and happiness to. Everything just hits you at once. Like, even when I see that old, overgrown vineyard back in that rural town, it brings it all back. I spent most of my life hating anything involving booze, mostly because I saw how wine and the mental toll it takes can really mess someone up. But then, I'll remember being this little kid, feeling so incredibly stoked while helping pull the first concrete posts through the dirt. Now, when I look at the tall weeds growing over those posts, my heart just kind of aches, and I wonder if that feeling will ever actually go away. The folks who used to work that land are gone now, and honestly, a lot of the ones who are still around might as well be. All that's left in me is the time that's passed, the time I'm living right now, and whatever comes next. I suppose I owe the life I have—and even the end I'll eventually face—to the spiritual tools I picked up from people far from home. It's how I learned to manage my thoughts and emotions, to steer them toward doing good instead of letting the bad take over. In a way, those same skills are what's saving the lives of people who were once close to me. And maybe, part of it is just thanks to the beautiful moments from the past that I still carry with me.
I ended up writing this whole holistic piece, I guess, though I was really just trying to pull my entire universe into the present moment as I went along. It’s all connected—plants, animals, people—it's just how nature works, you know? When people lose that sense of goodness, they start looking toward the heavens for answers, watching all those birds circling above and drifting down to earth.
To all the falcons that pierced through both body and soul;
Oh, I totally forgot to mention—what if we just declared that any property owned by people holding American citizenship actually belongs to the US? It’s kind of along the lines of what I heard a Slovak guy saying once—basically, if someone owns a house in Slovakia, then Slovakia is right there with them.
I mean, we’d probably see how many people actually stick around with dual citizenship after that... 🙂 ( especially when you factor in the tax situation ).
urbanotter said:I think it's best if we just look at the Pope's own words and let everyone draw their own conclusions here.😉
"Conflicts driven by economic dominance and the hoarding of energy, water resources, and raw materials make it harder for those working toward a fairer and more solidary world," the Pope warned, adding that we need a profound sense of hope to allow us to choose the common good for everyone over the luxury of a few and the poverty of many.
So, if we're talking about the unfair distribution of wealth, let's be real—church "assets" were mostly built by wiping out sects and cults and seizing their property to reward whoever was closest to the Roman Emperor. And when you look at state ownership and how land was handed back to various nobilities, the whole US was basically under the thumb of rulers who just handed out spoils to anyone who helped them fight off external or internal enemies...
But nowadays, with capital flowing across borders so easily, it just favors whoever has the most cash, regardless of where that money actually came from...
I guess what makes things truly fair or unfair would be if someone could actually achieve more just through their own hard work and dedication...
Vatican City is pretty unique in how they manage their own resources. I wonder, maybe, what if others actually took a page out of their book?
Should we just hunt for an absolute monarch and hand all our assets over to the government, then hire foreign mercenaries to guard the "altar"? ☕ 😬
The Daily News is hiring; looking for a monarch. What kind of criteria should we even set? Does he have to be filled with the Holy Spirit?
redeagle42 said:The paranoia surrounding joining the EU has just gone totally off the rails. I mean, people are getting so desperate they're actually labeling the Vatican and the Pope as communists. 🙂 To me, this stuff belongs in the Conspiracy Theories subforum.
What about church-owned real estate? Is that communism or what?
Vatican City is basically an elective monarchy led by the Bishop of Rome—the Pope.
The Pope functions as an absolute monarch, holding all the legislative, executive, and judicial power. Honestly, he's pretty much the only absolute monarch left in Europe.
Then you’ve got the Vatican's military, which is easily the smallest and oldest in the world—the Swiss Guard. It was actually established by Pope Julius II back on January 22, 1506, originally made up of Swiss mercenaries.
I find this whole thing kind of fascinating because of the Vatican's push for America to be part of the EU... and since Americans-mainly are Catholic, we haven't really had our own sovereign state for maybe a thousand years or so... I wonder if the specific version of "Catholicism" being promoted is partly responsible for that...
It’s also a weird thought, right? Looking at the setup of the most Catholic state on Earth—Vatican City itself—complete with its ceremonial guard, while it sits there as a European nation that isn't even in the EU.
bluemason3 said:What does the Bible have to do with any of this?
There are countless different schools of psychotherapy out there, but if they want to be taken seriously, they have to pass specific vetting processes. They’re managed by professionals who follow strict regulations, which I think is a completely different ballgame than a religious group.
And what's the connection between how long a religion has existed and its validity? Over all those years, beliefs have constantly shifted as people searched for new answers. It isn't some unchanging, monolithic block...
Besides, for thousands of years, people believed gods controlled the rain or that humans were formed from anything and everything—from dust to corn. Does that mean we should still believe that stuff more than actual objective evidence?
I guess it’s more about lost knowledge buried in different translations than it is about actual differences in belief. Like, when people talk about Egyptians back in the day, they weren't necessarily worshiping specific deities; it was more like they were talking about certain universal principles or forces. I think this whole idea of "polytheism" was mostly framed by outsiders who looked at the worship of human-like or animal-like figures and just labeled it as multiple gods. If you look at the zodiac, for instance, it seems more like an early attempt at science—trying to make sense of the world. People were observing everything from diet to seasonal shifts through the lens of these eternal principles. Even when you look at those old Greek "gods," a huge part of their identity was basically just personifying human emotions. A lot of that religious thought was tied to astrology and trying to find the link between nature and humanity—basically how these "gods" influenced people's lives. In a way, it was ancient psychology or even early understandings of energy flows coming from the East. Certain customs probably started out as ways to prevent disease (like basic hygiene rules) or to build the mindset of a warrior—and I don't just mean muscle and weapons, but mental toughness too. It was about keeping a community organized. Religion was really just a vehicle for gaining knowledge. If someone said the gods brought the rain, they were probably just observing that certain seasonal cycles lead to rainfall and flooding, which is vital for farming. I heard a story once about an eminent Greek scholar in Egypt who was told the Nile flooded because of melting snow, and he basically called that idea total madness. Some things were personified, while others were represented symbolically by animals—using certain traits of an animal to explain a cosmic principle. But since most regular folks weren't deep into astrological studies or priestly secrets, rituals eventually turned into festivals, trade days, and social gatherings rather than deep acts of devotion. That’s where the forgetting happens, especially during political upheavals. Just like how Stalin wiped out anyone who didn't fit his agenda, astronomers and scholars throughout history have been purged during political reforms. Festivals and cultural identities survived, but the core knowledge either vanished or got twisted by whoever was in power. There was also a lot of "secret knowledge" kept away from enemies or the uninitiated. As communities grew from small tribal groups into massive kingdoms and empires, these "gods" were reinterpreted to serve the goal of national unity. Different groups fought each other over what was considered "sacred," which usually boiled down to what they ate, what they wore, or how they used local resources. So, polytheism became this weird mix used to buy peace or assert dominance—it shifted from being about nature to being a tool for political control. In the end, I feel like a lot of religions aren't even original. They’re often just compilations of elements from older ones, which creates this total chaos of interpretation. You see it when one dominant religion tries to smear another by highlighting tiny, insignificant differences just to make itself look better, even if they actually share the same roots.
Using the Bible as an illustration for the point you made—where the same tactics used to smear smaller cults are actually present within mainstream Christianity—makes sense. I guess indoctrination starts from a very young age; churches and clergy get paid for all sorts of things, and nowadays, the government even steps in to help manage that. Whether it’s indoctrination for a tiny sect or a major religion, it's pretty much the same thing. When they were smaller, they just asked more from their members.
But getting back to the main point, if we're talking about confessing to a priest or a psychologist, you're really talking to professionals, since both are people trying to make a living. However, if we were to frame anything that smells like "self-help" as something less serious, we’d run into that same biblical example again; which brings me back to technique number 1.
Matthew 6:17 But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, Matthew 6:18 so that people don't see that you are fasting, but only your Father, who is in secret. And your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you.
Matthew 6:6 But you, when you pray, go into your room, close the door, and pray to your Father, who is in secret. And your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you.
Luke 11:1 Once Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he finished, one of his disciples said to him, "Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples."
Luke 6:12 On those days he went out to a mountain to pray. And he spent the night praying to God.
There’s that old song "Only in God I Trust"; regarding that, humans usually function through various interactions and circumstances that aren't always exactly pleasant. In trying to find where they stand, all kinds of conflicts arise, along with an inability to communicate assertively even with those closest to them. So, maybe God comes in as a method for searching for one's true self. Since every faith is defined by doubt—because it's not about absolute knowledge—the idea of whether God exists and how we define that concept becomes this mental exercise where everyone turns inward. If we could describe any idea of God as a sort of polygraph test for the soul, then in that sense, it's a confrontation with oneself in a way that might surpass any human communication. By accepting the idea that nothing can be hidden from God, a person is essentially being honest with themselves; or perhaps they are digging through their own ambitions and desires, searching for peace, self-actualization, meaning, and so on.
Things like prayer, fasting, specific postures, and stuff like that can be parts of a process meant to pull consciousness out of its usual habits, the daily grind, or that feeling of being lost when facing power dynamics and deciding how to act toward someone or something to achieve a certain outcome... However, these activities can also be misunderstood; they can turn into an idea of making a sacrifice, trying to buy favor through rituals, or reciting prayers as penance. This just turns into habit and a series of reactions rather than a space for a contemplative meeting with oneself. The idea of God and the divine—through various ways of sacralizing elements and content—can end up having almost nothing to do with what that self-examination could actually be. People might oscillate toward "God" simply because they are helping themselves or indulging themselves, creating a false sense of peace, or turning to God out of fear because they committed a sin, treating it as a sacrifice out of reverence. The forms this relationship takes are endless—everything from various pilgrimages to trying to meet God by looking at "holy" objects, listening to mantras, or meditating with a specific focus.
In a way, this self-help technique for actual life can also be self-destruction or an escape from it, much like how sunlight can either warm you or give you a nasty sunburn. And being in massive crowds at Mass and such creates the same reaction as crowds singing at a stadium or a concert; when you bundle all those elements together, the rituals and services start to feel like participating in an opera. It can even become an attempt at identity-building and gaining or maintaining social status, which is why Jesus criticized that kind of relationship with "God" as hypocrisy.
bluemason3 said:If someone needs psychological help, they should just go to psychotherapy.
If they’re paying for any kind of expert advice—whether it's alternative methods or "orthodox" ones—they have every right to expect pure professionalism. If someone is charging people just to indoctrinate them into a cult, they’re a total idiot.
..."There are actually over 200 different types of psychotherapy."
In this hyper-commercialized era we live in, I guess it’s worth noting that both pharmaceutical drugs and certain psychotherapeutic methods are basically just market products—just like the news you see on TV... and then you have people paid by government institutions to act however they can given their specific circumstances; in a society dealing with such complex issues, the whole narrative feels kind of manufactured...
Psychology is still a relatively young science when you look at it through the lens of academic advertising. When you use factor analysis to study certain aspects of being human, it tends to lead to an overemphasis on specific traits as if they were the only thing that matters. On the other hand, for religions that have existed for thousands of years, these things are the core essence; and since human needs are so varied (man does not live by bread alone), religious rules (however a specific group defines them) touch upon every single aspect of life...
If someone needs any kind of professional help that they’re paying for (whether it’s alternative or "orthodox") then they definitely have a right to expect a purely professional service. If someone is charging them money just to indoctrinate them into a cult, they’re honestly an idiot.
Regarding the whole cult thing: Acts 2:45 They would sell their possessions and goods and distribute them to everyone, as any might have need.
Acts 4:34 Indeed, there was not a needy person among them, for whoever owned land or houses sold them and brought in the proceeds...
But before that:
Mark 1:19 Having gone a little further ahead, he saw James Zebedee and his brother John: they were in the boat mending nets. Mark 1:20 Immediately he called them. They left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired hands and went after him.
So, if anyone "leaves everything" to be a disciple, but socially speaking they belong to a family that owns a boat and employees, then maybe there is some room to dedicate oneself to the kinds of investigations that anyone can offer...
It seems Christianity started establishing a division of roles quite early:
"Acts 6:2 The twelve gathered the own disciples and said, 'It wouldn't be right for us to neglect the word of God to serve tables. Acts 6:3 So, brothers, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will put them in charge of this work, Acts 6:4 while we will devote ourselves to prayer and the ministry of the Word.'"
Though:
Mark 9:35 He sat down and called the twelve, saying to them, 'If anyone wants to be first, he must be last of all and servant to everyone!'
And it continued like this:
Regardless of whether Constantine became a Christian because of his own genuine faith or due to pragmatic, political reasons, he later became a devout believer who, among other things, wrote prayers for his army and went on military campaigns with a mobile chapel. The Church, which until recently had been persecuted, was suddenly showered with attention: the construction of grand churches (in Rome and Constantinople), donations and gifts, freeing priests from civic duties, granting judicial authority to bishops, and the rapid advancement of Christian officials. Still, the pagans weren't persecuted, and Constantine kept his title as pontifex maximus. But he did speak of the pagan gods with contempt and banned certain rituals, specifically nighttime sacrifices. Then, in 331, he ordered the census of pagan property, plundered the wealth in temples, and finally destroyed several shrines in the East under the pretext of immorality.
Anyway, I digress, but I wanted to circle back to how all this stuff leads to actual power—specifically when you look at personal freedom as the necessary foundation for love. I’ll throw in self-help technique number 5: math. Just some basic logic, I guess.
"This spiritual leader from a certain corner of India has been gathering mathematical insights that are basically 2,500 years old"...
PS Just a quick heads-up: I'm stepping away from any specific Christian or Catholic labels here. I'm not talking about what the word Christ or Jesus might mean to those 32,000 different denominations out there, nor am I leaning on any other specific terms from the Bible... I'm just trying to use some pretty universal examples to show how different traditions deal with fighting off that materialistic "anxiety" we all feel:
Matthew 6:25: Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes?
These would be (just the first things popping into my head, honestly... I'll get into the reasoning for them later..);
God 2. Working on your intuition 3. Art 4. Memory exercises ...
I’m still working through my list here, but I really want to emphasize this one point: if all those different spiritual techniques were later repackaged and sold off as official religious rites, it might have happened simply because all that specialized knowledge was hoarded by the clergy. If those specific groups in various societies acted as the primary gatekeepers and carriers of any kind of ancient wisdom, then their individual... development It all started with me just trying to learn how to actually pay attention—you know, working on those skills like being able to really notice things, observe what’s going on around me, and actually remember it later...
I guess maybe people in this modern era look at those folks who opt for a more monastic lifestyle through a certain lens—you know, like they're just people who got totally burned out by life and decided to pivot toward radical changes or some kind of strict "order." But honestly, I feel like being part of that specific group—the ones actually out there acquiring, passing down, and building up knowledge—is something else entirely. Privilege... I mean, what even is that word these days? It feels like everyone's throwing it around like confetti, right? I was sitting here thinking about it earlier—probably shouldn't have been thinking about it at all, honestly—but it’s such a heavy concept when you really dig in. It’s funny how we talk about it like it's this one big, monolithic thing, but I guess it’s more like a million tiny little things that just add up over time. Like, maybe you grew up in a suburb where the schools were actually decent, or maybe you didn't have to worry about your car breaking down every other week just to get to work. Those aren't huge, dramatic moments, but they kind of shape who you are without you even noticing. I don't know, maybe I'm overthinking it. It’s easy to get caught up in the debate and forget that most people are just trying to figure their own stuff out. It’s a weirdly complicated topic, and I probably don't have the right words for it, but it's definitely worth mulling over once in a while. Anyway, just some random thoughts rattling around my brain today.So, I guess if you look at how Moses set things up, he was basically organizing the Levi tribe to make sure different groups weren't constantly stepping on each other's toes or getting jealous, you know? It’s like a system where the priests give up certain things or duties just to take on their specific responsibilities instead. Everything gets wrapped up in these ritualistic garments and traditions. I mean, my take is that the whole point of the divine path being "holy" is to create this intentional separation from pure philosophy or hard science. If you dig into the ancient sources, what we usually label as just "religion" was actually where people used to cultivate deep knowledge about both nature and humanity at the same time. Sure, there’s a ton of political bias baked into it all over the years—no doubt about that—but at its core, there’s a certain quality there. That’s probably why these ideas still grab people today. It’s not just folks sticking to it because of old family traditions; they actually find something genuinely valuable in the substance of it.
I guess when people start turning to spirituality, it’s usually because they're hitting a wall and desperately need some kind of help. In those moments, most folks look at spirituality like a quick fix—something to patch up their specific problems or heal whatever ailment is bothering them. But I don't know, maybe there's a deeper way to look at it. To me, true spiritual growth is more about expanding your consciousness and evolving as a person overall. It shouldn't just be a band-aid used to "fix" someone so they can go right back to living the exact same way that caused the issues in the first place. You know? It’s not about just getting back to a baseline where you're still stuck in those old, unhealthy habits that keep creating the same cycles. It should be about actual transformation, not just a temporary remedy to get you back to being "functional" in a broken way.
So, I was scrolling through some news online today—just a snippet of an article, really—about Scientology;
And they describe this pretty wild experience. It basically says how, within their whole teaching system, they just bleed members dry of money and time while pushing them into all sorts of activities. And right in the middle of all that, besides those supposed "self-help" courses, there's this idea that you can't just reveal massive religious secrets to someone all at once—because, apparently, it would just break them or something—so instead, they drip-feed the info as you "progress" through their specific path...
My takeaway is roughly that the entire setup is just a giant scheme to rake in cash. Since I haven't actually read much about Scientologists, I'm honestly pretty grateful for the heads-up that it's essentially just a way to claim they're helping people clear out past traumas. Now, since psychoanalysis and all those other fields have pointed out that addressing trauma is a huge deal, I guess I should look at this from a different angle. First off, the article frames the whole thing as just another "self-help" technique, which, to me, makes the entire situation feel kind of trivialized. Maybe the opposite conclusion is what we should draw here: anything that smells even remotely like "self-help" shouldn't be taken seriously. Like, I don't know, maybe just go see a psychiatrist and take the meds the scientists recommend instead of messing around with self-help nonsense...
But if we want to actually distinguish between genuine self-help, analyzing your own past, and all those various religious tricks, how would we even define what that looks like? Because, I mean, running off to visit gurus—whether they call themselves cults, religions, psychologists, psychiatrists, or even just support groups for alcoholism, drug addiction, or internet addiction—none of that really fits the bill, does it?
Real self-help starts with observation. But maybe it’s not exclusively about looking at your own past, or maybe it isn't even about that at all. What would self-help actually include, and more importantly, what would it leave out? Because, it feels like this whole thing is just an attempt to devalue what actually holds the most weight in spirituality...
I wonder what a Hare Krishna follower would make of this?
I’ve been sitting here thinking about this one; it really sticks with me...It's better to live an imperfect life that is truly your own, rather than living a perfect imitation of someone else's existence. Bhagavad Gita
Since we're talking about such an ancient source, I was wondering... has anything been lifted from it by other religions? Like, are there any obvious cases of plagiarism or anything along those lines?
