73 posts shown.
Indeed. Certain memories have begun to take on a life of their own—much like ghosts. And unlike many other specters I have encountered during my lengthy tenure here, which suggests they have achieved some form of immortality, these hauntings imply something even more unsettling: that forgiveness and forgetting are nothing more than convenient fictions.
It’s a beautiful concept—one that carries an inherent message of oneness and fundamental equality. If you look inward through introspection, you can conclude that consciousness itself lacks any defining characteristics that would allow one instance to be distinguished from another; in that sense, we are all essentially equal.
Throughout history, numerous traditions have been defined by this kind of idealistic philosophy—most notably Hinduism. You see it most clearly in the Upanishads, with their profound concepts of brahman and atman.
Even here in the West, there are specific currents within Islam and Christianity that touch upon this non-duality and the primacy of the mental state—think Gnosticism or Sufism. Even the Gospel of John possesses certain Gnostic and idealistic elements, primarily found within some of Jesus' statements. Of course, there are plenty of valid reasons to suspect that the real Jesus never actually uttered them.
That said, I am not aware of any compelling philosophical arguments against this brand of idealism—especially against the core idea of a single divine being residing within us all as our own consciousness or "I." The issues typically associated with idealism tend to arise elsewhere, but that really isn't the focus of this particular discussion.
One more thing—some of those elements (especially in the photo I shared) are genuinely masked against the background. I’m certain of this because I couldn't project them onto the scene; I wasn't just staring at those images in isolation. Later, I compared notes with someone else who had been searching and analyzing them alongside me, and we both saw the exact same thing. Neither of us was aware of these details beforehand, so there was no way to "project" them from memory or anticipate where everything was positioned. I’m simply stating the facts.
While certain aspects were likely projected—it’s hardly surprising given how extensively I searched for them—he also had a few observations that differed slightly from my own findings.
But yes, it is certainly one of those conspiracy theories that might hold a grain of truth, in my opinion.
mistygull16 said:I guess I have this one thing going for me, though it's more of a downside... certain people just give me this claustrophobic, suffocating vibe, and honestly, this picture does the exact same thing.😉
A shame, really.
For instance, here is what I am referring to (spoiler): http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ao8tv8nSTb...subliminal.JPG
And frankly, this represents barely 40% of what I have uncovered.
crimsonhawk47 said:Subliminal messages? I mean, it’s easily one of the most plausible conspiracy theories out there, yet somehow nobody ever seems to talk about them.
mistygull16 said:Like, for instance... 😕
I once spent a good few hours performing an exhaustive analysis of a single photograph of George Bush—it took longer than you might think—only to be genuinely unsettled by what I found. Every square inch seemed saturated with these murky, underlying messages. By the end of my deep dive, I had identified over forty distinct instances, which left me staring at the screen wondering whether those signals were truly embedded there, or if I was simply projecting my own suspicions onto the image.
A portrait of George Bush.
Alright, now it’s your turn to step up and put in the work.
Hint2 — Clear your mind and just stare at the image; some things should start surfacing on their own.
Hint2: To start with—take a look exactly where the mustache ought to be.
Hint3: Download the image to your computer and open it in a dedicated drawing program—something that gives you enough control to sketch directly over the file. If certain lines look like they might actually be letters, I’d suggest marking them in black. It should make the whole process much more straightforward.
.
Nicholas Gonzalez8 said:Look, sure, the brain churns out a whole spectrum of emotions, but if you ask me—and I mean really dig into it—there are two core emotions that feel more spiritual than biological.
Nicholas, emotions have been under investigation for decades now, with various scientific disciplines—psychology and neuroscience included—contributing to our understanding. At this stage, we possess a massive body of knowledge, and if I can guarantee you one thing, it is this: there isn't a shred of evidence suggesting that anything has a cause or origin outside of, and independent from, brain activity. That includes those "fundamental" emotions of yours—and I suspect you are referring to fear and love. It would certainly be groundbreaking news if that were ever proven otherwise.
Rather, as I mentioned, we already know quite a bit about what is what and how things function—specifically regarding the neural correlations of different emotions, which systems are involved, the role of neurotransmitters, and so on.
I don't see why, for instance, when looking at today’s technology and what we might achieve with it in the relatively near future, we couldn't develop something akin to a specialized headset—functioning similarly to Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation—where, with our precise knowledge of exactly where things occur in the brain, we could essentially toggle emotions on and off just like flipping a light switch. We can actually perform similar manipulations with certain mental functions already. The sole reason such widespread tools don't exist yet is purely an ethical one; such manipulation is problematic. However, other methods exist—psychoactive drugs being the most obvious example. And yes, we can certainly "influence" emotions through them. By "influence," I mean creating them. And yes, fear and love are part of that equation.
Brandon Mitchell said:Personally, I don't buy into the Law of Attraction. I think things happen randomly in this world; you meet random people, someone can coldly screw you over even if you've been nothing but kind to them, and events unfold completely independent of your thoughts. You can't control everything in your life because you have no idea what the next moment will bring or how you'll react to it. More specifically, you simply cannot have absolute control over everything. That's why I don't believe in God or any concept of "infinite love." I do believe in love, sure, but just like everything else in this world, it isn't perfect. The only thing that might feel perfect is a single fleeting moment filled with genuine wonder, but even that passes. The only real meaning in life is finding something to connect with and working at it—meaning, work. And that depends entirely on our natural inclinations and interests. And yeah, I've read David Icke, and I definitely don't believe aliens are running the world; I think that's bordering on a serious psychosis :P
It seems like people have drifted away from the actual topic, but hey, whatever happens, happens.
Exactly. As I previously stated, it is somewhat reassuring to know I am not hallucinating—especially since the original poster seems to be in agreement with me.
Regarding David Icke, my mention of him wasn't about his conspiracy theories involving fourth-dimensional humanoid reptiles; rather, I brought him up because he discusses the very same concept you touched upon at the start—this idea of some infinite consciousness or love, or whatever one chooses to label that New York City brand of mysticism—mixed with a touch of holographic universe theory. It’s quite the cocktail. However, when someone with even a rudimentary grasp of physics actually sits down to read the first page of his book—where he touches on atomic structure—they quickly realize the man hasn't exactly earned his seat at the table; he is simply being superficial, likely having skimmed Wikipedia to assemble a decent (okay, let's be honest: terrible) pamphlet.
But that is beside the point. If you happen to have picked up your metaphysics from him, and if it still feels unclear, then don't just worry—simply understand that whenever you encounter someone rambling about "consciousness" and "frequencies," you can be certain they are talking nonsense to a degree that precludes any serious consideration.
That said, if you are still determined to find an answer—despite the fact that there isn't much substantial ground to cover here—I included that YouTube link above for a reason.
Anthony Cook8 said:It really isn't, though. If we're talking about the illusion of life, we're specifically discussing the underlying reality and the reasons why life itself is considered an illusion...
In reality, it is; because the original poster simply started a thread about reading something they didn't quite grasp, asking someone more knowledgeable to clarify. That’s all there is to it.
Notice how people aren't actually writing about "life," and notice how nobody is even responding to that specific point. He mentioned reading somewhere that the world is an illusion—which he found confusing—and touched upon infinite consciousness; frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if he had been reading something by David Icke, for instance. The actual subject matter here is the nature of reality—the metaphysical claims made by various spiritualists and alternative thinkers—rather than the concept of "life" itself.
The true answer to this thread lies precisely in that distinction, particularly in explaining what those types of people actually mean when they employ such metaphysics. But no, people here just want to talk about the Law of Attraction and whatever else...
I find it quite fascinating how people have hijacked this thread—completely bypassing the author’s actual question in the process—to turn it into a vehicle for various off-topic tangents.
It is absolutely real. There exists an objective reality that functions entirely independently of us as observers, and a significant portion of that reality is what we label as matter. It is just that our internal model of it is an "illusion"—or more accurately, a construct—that happens to represent the external world quite effectively; if it didn't, we wouldn't have survived this long. However, we are inherently limited by our sensory input and processing capabilities, which leaves much of existence far beyond our perceptual reach.
By manipulating the way our brains receive and interpret that data, it becomes entirely possible to alter that construct—that internal model. The way psychoactive substances affect the mind is perhaps the most striking example. Illusions, and even hallucinations, are merely distortions within that perceptual and mental framework inside our heads.
As for what you just read—you are looking at the idealistic or metaphysical ramblings of spiritualists who often lack even a fundamental scientific understanding of the subjects they love to philosophize about. Nothing groundbreaking.
The core concept here is that the universe is some sort of mental construct, or perhaps even a dream occurring within some cosmic mind or consciousness. In that sense, it isn't "real" in the traditional sense—it exists as something even more substantial than physical reality, which serves as merely a manifestation of a higher plane of existence.
What truly makes children happy—among all the various factors at play—is their innate capacity to maintain a state of mindfulness for extended periods. Most adults lose this ability as they grow and evolve, and honestly, there are countless reasons for that decline. It’s essentially what people on these forums mean when they say they live entirely in the moment, unburdened by the weight of the past or the anxieties of the future. It likely stems from the fact that their default-mode network isn't fully developed yet—that specific neurological setting where the brain operates when we are calm, idle, or not hyper-focused on the external world. In adults, that mode manifests as a constant internal monologue and a persistent preoccupation with what was or what might be. Our modern lifestyle, our environment, and the sheer volume of stress and noise we deal with only exacerbate this. A certain lack of awareness, a diminished version of that "idle" mode, and perhaps even a lower level of self-consciousness provide children with that "something special" that allows them to reach the heights of happiness some of you have mentioned here. There was actually a study demonstrating that individuals were significantly happier when they remained present and fully conscious of the task at hand while performing it. Therefore, if someone genuinely wishes to reclaim a fraction of that childhood bliss and freedom, they need to cultivate mindfulness—which, I should note, is no easy feat.
Morgan Bishop4 said:So, you’re mostly talking about being infatuated rather than actually loving someone.
What happens when two people move past that initial rush? Does that mean there's no more racing hearts or butterflies or any of that other crap?
What about when friends love each other?
Or when parents love a kid who treats them like absolute garbage, but they still love them anyway? Or when someone actually donates a kidney to another person? Is that all just brain chemistry? Are we just being driven by chemicals to give a lady a kidney or jump under a subway train to save someone's life or, I don't know, forgive someone for the worst possible things they've ever done?
My previous example regarding infatuation was intended to illustrate its role as the early stage of romantic love—it is merely a component of the whole. Once that phase passes, we enter a period of deep attachment, which is primarily driven by oxytocin. It is a significantly more complex phenomenon; a multitude of factors interact within what we collectively label "love."
Platonic love is a form of interpersonal relationship rooted in trust, care, and connection. Attachment is a fundamental element of human affection and exists within all serious relationships. Parental love, meanwhile, is pure attachment and instinct.
As for the act of donating a kidney or similar sacrifices—that isn't "love" itself, but rather an action that can be motivated by many different reasons, including love.
Regarding the question of whether this is *only* chemistry—of course not. Chemistry—specifically various neurotransmitters—influences or creates these states; at the very least, it contributes heavily to the emotional conditions that subsequently dictate the body's actions and decisions. This entire process emerges from a complex system of mind and body—conscious and unconscious, mental and chemical, and even electric in nature—where every factor influences the others in endless combinations. All of these elements converge to create the phenomena we experience. What I have outlined here is a broader, and therefore more accurate, picture, though it wouldn't be incorrect to say that emotions possess a physical foundation. And... yes, that would be it.
Quentin Tarantino
nimblewolf11 said:But you're describing love as nothing more than some organic trope found in cheap drugstore paperbacks or cheesy soap operas on TV...
That isn't really love! Sure, maybe there's a tiny glimmer of actual affection in there sometimes, but what you're talking about is just what love *isn't*—it's selfish lust and raw sexuality. Once that initial physical spark fades and your interest shifts to someone else or some other object, you're left with just brain chemistry stripped of any real tolerance or deep understanding.😉
The original essence of the word "love"—what it truly meant back in the day and what it actually represents—is one thing entirely. But then there is this other issue: the very concept of the word "sacred." It is quite another matter altogether that we find ourselves bristling at the idea of such nonsense being labeled as such.
Quentin Tarantino
nimblewolf11 said:I think you're looking at this through such an ego-driven lens—you basically assume anyone thinking differently is just being delusional!
When you're stuck in that mindset, it's impossible to come up with any truly objective conclusions.
We all possess an ego—it’s a fundamental part of being human, really—and frankly, it is nothing more than a natural byproduct of our evolutionary trajectory, specifically the development of the brain and consciousness. It is a gift of individual self-awareness; I have mine, you have yours, and everyone else does too, so let’s not make it an issue. Quite frankly, I have zero interest in anyone attempting to psychoanalyze me or dictating to me who I am.
Oh, and I almost forgot to mention—she claimed that everyone knows this, but my only intention was to correct her and point out that not everyone possesses that particular perspective. Where exactly are you coming from when you claim I’m merely driven by an ego? That reaction—that specific judgment—is actually psychologically "worse" than being ego-driven; it’s the act of placing oneself above another, at least based on how it was phrased. But honestly, it’s hard to escape our own nature. We all operate on that same level of ego—it’s just where we live. We are who we are, having evolved from whatever we evolved from, shaped by the forces that shaped us... you know what I mean. This whole concept of egoism, and much of the behavior people attribute to it, is labeled as "morally wrong," but morality itself is a concept known only to a select few living beings—and frankly, the universe (or God) couldn't care less about it. You can see that in the fact that the vast majority of species that have ever existed are now dead—99%, to be precise—wiped out by volcanoes, earthquakes, asteroids, and so on. So, uh... what else can I say? No big deal. I apologize if I came across as behaving that way; I only said it because it felt like the civilized thing to do. And since the ultimate goal of spirituality is to become one with God, let's aim to become something that makes the left side of the cosmic egg ache with its disregard for morality and ego. Of course, that means reaching a level where we realize none of this should be taken too seriously. Let's just be happy and laugh. 😁
Quentin Tarantino
Robert Diaz2 As I have previously observed—and I tend to be quite certain about these matters—there is an underlying truth here that most people seem to overlook in their haste to reach a conclusion. It isn't merely about the surface level of the argument; rather, it is about the structural integrity of the logic being presented. One must look closer.
What Nancy Wilson2 suggested holds some weight—it really does. People tend to rush into relationships out of pure, unadulterated fear. There is the dread of being alone, the terror of mortality, and everything in between. It becomes a desperate flight into various distractions, all just to avoid having to confront those truths directly.
Love is, as any rational observer understands, nothing more than a series of chemical reactions firing within the brain. It is, quite frankly, the ultimate glitch in the Matrix—a grand illusion designed to manufacture hype and lead humanity straight into a state of voluntary servitude. This is precisely why our entire culture—from Hollywood blockbusters to the top of the Billboard charts—is so relentlessly saturated with themes of romance and affection. There is this pervasive, systemic pressure everywhere you look to conform to the standard model of being in a relationship or tied down in marriage. |
Good heavens—it appears there are actually people in this corner of the internet who perceive the world through the same lens I do. 🙏 But let’s be clear—not everyone possesses the insight to grasp the situation, nor does everyone have the vision to see things for what they truly are.
Elizabeth Castillo87, you hit the nail on the head—it is precisely the clergy and the religious types who have taken this concept and inflated it through sheer mystification and romanticism. It isn't just Hollywood, poets, or philosophers either. I recall an old debate I had with Camelot where I made the exact same point that Robert Diaz2 just raised; his response was to suggest I wasn't quite right in the head and should perhaps seek professional help. He leaned heavily into that nonsense about love being a fire in the soul, dew upon the face, or even having Jesus himself residing within a person. We are still dealing with that same brand of absurdity today. I have also heard the notion that love is simply the conscious presence of the self—which is actually a rather elegant thought—but it stems from conscious experiences where the organism is fully relaxed. We know for a fact that oxytocin can be released during such states, which explains those intense feelings of love that certain meditators happen to experience.
Reality is a fickle thing—it encompasses everything that actually exists—and this pervasive notion that "everything is love" is nothing more than a hollow declaration used to justify even the atrocities committed by Hitler. If we accept the premise that love is the sum total of all existence, then we are forced into some rather grim conclusions. Is love found in a man rotting away in his own suffering? Is the act of shooting an innocent child in the head considered an act of love? If one insists that everything is love, and that the entirety of reality is composed of it, then yes—hate becomes love, the deepest depths of depression become love, and even the act of suicide becomes the ultimate expression of love, simply because love is supposedly everything and within everything.
Everything stems from the inherent nature and subsequent impact of those emotional states—it isn't just poetic fluff. It’s a documented phenomenon, really; people don't just say the sky looks more vibrant when you're in love without having a reason.
But just because things may appear that way—it doesn't mean they actually are. People tend to take that specific term—which, if you look at the name itself, carries this almost sanctified, hollow glow—and stretch its definition to cover just about anything. It’s a bit much, frankly. While poetic, romantic, or abstract language might serve a purpose in art, it is fundamentally ill-suited for describing objective reality. Such phrasing is meant for subjective experiences—those fleeting, deeply personal perceptions that belong to the individual alone. Just because your heart rate spikes from an adrenaline rush doesn't mean love originates in the chest; biology doesn't care about our metaphors. But then again, people misinterpret just about everything, usually twisting facts to fit whatever narrative suits them best. This single point of contention opens up far too many unnecessary debates and endless, circular definitions.
Quentin Tarantino
Elizabeth Castillo87 said:I mean, I kind of find myself nodding along with Nancy Wilson2 on this one—there’s no such thing as "old souls" versus "young souls." It’s really just about where you sit on the consciousness scale. If we’re all fundamentally one big entity in the end, then we’ve gotta be the same age, right? I know, I know... but isn't time itself just a relative concept anyway? Once you move past this rigid 3D perception we're stuck in, the whole idea of aging probably becomes totally irrelevant.
When people speak of the "oldness of the soul," they are almost certainly referring to maturity. Yet, maturity isn't a byproduct of age—not necessarily. It is more accurately a result of experience and, more importantly, how we choose to react to those experiences. That said, if someone is older, one might assume they have accumulated more life lessons—essentially, more time spent carving the raw wood of character into a "perfect" shape. We all possess distinct personalities shaped by varying degrees of pressure; some were molded harshly, others more gently, some extensively, others barely at all. There are simply too many nuances and individual variations to make any sense of categorizing people.
No commentary, no deep philosophical musings, and certainly no clever rebuttals—just a single statement accompanied by a few emojis that should convey my point. What’s the matter, kid? If I were young? Well, yes, I am. And yet, I am not. If we look at it strictly from the perspective of counting the years since the moment I was born, nineteen years have passed. By that metric, I am young.
Now, let’s apply that same temporal measurement system to the actual facts of reality. The "I" that possesses self-awareness wasn't birthed at the exact moment this body was born. That consciousness emerged—or rather, coalesced—over several months. There isn't one precise moment, one specific point in time, where it suddenly snapped into existence. And that's where we run into a problem. Exactly how old am I? Technically, I'm slightly younger than those nineteen years. But by how much? It is impossible to determine.
Or, if we choose to define my age based on the physical body that came into being nineteen years ago, we encounter the same issue. That body is merely a multi-scalar system composed of atoms that are certainly not nineteen years old. For instance, the atoms in my right hand might be two billion years old, forged in some ancient exploded star. Meanwhile, the atoms in my left hand could be three point two billion years old, originating from an entirely different star... the problem seems fairly obvious, doesn't it?
Furthermore, the atoms making up specific parts of my body are constantly being recycled through various biological cycles. This would only complicate the entire matter even further. 😂
But jokes aside, the point I'm trying to make should be clear. Or at least, it ought to be. In the context of what I've just written, it is evident that our method of counting and measuring time is nothing more than a common-sense absurdity—a total fabrication. The concepts of "old" or "young" don't truly exist, or if they do, obsessing over them is somewhat foolish. Ultimately, the point remains: reality is not whatever we wish it to be. And I realize I probably made a few typos; I tend to type quite quickly.
Be right back—just one more round of linguistic over-analysis and theoretical nitpicking to get through first.
Self-awareness is, quite frankly, a massive design flaw. Our minds—to put it bluntly—are an absolute liability. It feels as though nature made a catastrophic error in judgment somewhere along the evolutionary line. We have reached this precarious state where we are conscious enough to recognize a distinct "self," yet that very realization leaves us feeling utterly isolated and severed from the rest of existence. Then there is the matter of memory—that internal archive we use to construct a fabricated version of the past—and imagination, which allows us to conjure up a future that doesn't actually exist. We’ve taken certain predictable patterns found in the natural world and used them as a springboard to invent the entire concept of time—specifically this rigid, mechanical way we insist on measuring the duration of our existence. It is all rather absurd when you step back to look at it.
When you aggregate all these factors—plus a few other variables—you eventually arrive at a sobering realization regarding the sheer transience of existence. It stands in direct opposition to those primal impulses and survival instincts inherited from our animal ancestors; those deep-seated drives that dictate we must do absolutely everything in our power just to endure. To live, one must breathe. When the oxygen fails, panic sets in—you struggle, you fight, you suffocate. But how does one truly live while carrying the constant, quiet knowledge that, at some unpredictable moment, that air will simply vanish?
And then, inevitably, fear and panic set in. What comes next? Deep down, most people are drowning in a state of sheer terror and depression. To avoid facing a reality that—let’s be honest—is essentially a collective mental breakdown, we lean on our intellect to find excuses, or even more frequently, to outright invent delusions. We suppress the fear by staying busy, doing anything just to avoid thinking about certain uncomfortable truths. People crave comfort and security in others; they hunt for love. It’s entirely consistent with our animalistic nature—the instinctual belief that belonging to a pack is the only way to ensure survival.
We have essentially manufactured this entirely romanticized, mystified nonsense—this concept we call "love." Throughout the course of human history, poets, painters, and novelists have all been driven—perhaps even controlled—by their own subjective perceptions and fleeting emotional surges. In an attempt to capture these feelings, they’ve utilized poetic, visual, and artistic language to repackage absolute trivialities. The heart symbol is perhaps the most glaring example of this absurdity. People actually took it seriously simply because it felt pleasant; they convinced themselves there was some profound truth hidden within the imagery. Even today, certain individuals cling to these delusions—it makes life feel more beautiful, more spiritual, more meaningful—but at its core, it serves as nothing more than a mask for the actual nature of things.
Make no mistake—this isn't some sentimental discourse about love. This is something far more visceral: we are talking about fundamental fear, raw panic, and the encroaching dark. 😁 It’s truly fascinating. I find myself wondering how many people here have actually bothered to dig into the history of religion and spirituality—to really look beneath the surface. If you take a moment to examine it, everything is remarkably blunt and uncompromising; despite the vast spectrum of philosophies and belief systems, every single one has claimed absolute truth and precision. Even within specific spiritual frameworks, there is surprisingly little consensus regarding the fundamental nature of their own supposedly "divine" philosophies. Take the true nature of Brahman, for example—the answer changes entirely depending on which scholar or mystic you choose to consult. Then there is the origin of the concept of God—specifically the concept of Jesus' God, which bears such striking similarities to the idea of a universal soul, or perhaps more accurately, the internal experience of one's own consciousness. When we consider the sentiment "I and the Father are one," one has to wonder whether that refers to a purely subjective, personal state of being, or if it describes something that actually exists within an external reality. Most people never even stop to ask that question. Given what we know about the physiological and psychological effects of deep states of consciousness—those moments where the sense of self simply dissolves—it seems quite likely that we are talking about nothing more than a profound personal experience.
Everyone seems to be clinging to one fundamental misconception—one that is, quite frankly, rather fascinating in its persistence. It is the delusion of pure dualism: the notion that the soul is something entirely distinct from the body, an entity that remains untouched once the physical vessel is destroyed. There is this persistent idea that the conscious mind exists independently, floating somewhere apart from our biology. It is a fallacy that was debunked a long time ago. Now, let me be clear—there is no doubt that the soul exists. However, whether you call it the soul, the mind, the psyche, or the spirit, these are all just different ways of describing the same thing—the human mind and its vast array of mental functions. And that, of course, undeniably exists.
His relationship with his own body is... complicated, to say the least. Think about it this way—most of us here on the forum spend our lives staring at a computer monitor. Now, if you were to take a marker and a ruler and divide that screen into six equal squares, you'd have six distinct blocks. Those individual squares, when viewed together, constitute the entirety of the monitor.
Now, imagine you start destroying the pixels one by one, leaving just that single block right in the center of your monitor. Once you’ve wiped out all the other blocks, the image vanishes—there is nothing left. And now, you destroy that final, solitary pixel in the middle.
There are essentially two outcomes:
1) The entire image—every pixel and fragment comprising it—will somehow lift off the screen and exist perfectly, entirely independent of the hardware.
2) Everything simply goes to hell.
The relationship between spirit and matter follows this exact logic. Which scenario is more probable? Of course, one could argue it is possible to fuse the two such that the first outcome occurs regardless, but we must ask ourselves what is truly likely.
'The knowing (Self) is not born, it dies not; it sprang from nothing, nothing sprang from it. The Ancient is unborn, eternal, everlasting; he is not killed, though the body is killed.'
So, why did I bother writing that? Because there are certain foundational matters that demand our attention before we attempt to tackle more "advanced" concepts. You cannot bypass the process. We travel from point A to point B; we cannot leap toward a point B that we cannot even see, especially when we haven't identified point A or the path connecting them.
Then there are these various categories of souls—some young, some old, some highly evolved, others not—and all these endless theories regarding reincarnation. People cling to these ideas as absolute truths, yet they are often fundamentally contradictory. We could play the intellectual game and claim that every theory holds a kernel of truth, but who are we to judge? Suppose you take a group of people, place them in separate rooms, and ask them to determine the ultimate truth. Better yet, to stay true to spiritual principles, ask them to follow their hearts, their intuition, and their personal experiences. The chances are high that their conclusions will differ wildly. After all, their individual filters are inherently different. Even if you ran this experiment repeatedly, filtering the results until you reached a consensus...
...if you then conducted the same experiment on the other side of the world and compared the findings, you would find—to anyone's surprise—that they are different. Which is exactly what one would expect. This is precisely why we are faced with such a chaotic sea of information. It seems that perhaps only through direct divine guidance can one discern what is truly accurate and true.
There are actually individuals who have attempted this very thing, claiming they were taught directly by God. Yet, much of their "revelation" fails to align with objective reality. If a hypothesis is disproven through experimentation, then the flaw lies within the initial idea itself.
The Idea: consciousness exists throughout the universe as a scalar system of a single, interconnected awareness, spanning from atoms to galaxies (via dark matter). Sounds brilliant, doesn't it?
The Reality: there are entire galaxies that contain little to no dark matter.
The Result: the idea is flawed.
And yet, I felt it was true. I felt it intuitively. In my mind's eye, I could see how everything connected and how it all looked. That is all there is to it.
There are just so many endless "theories" and endless streams of speculation floating around out there—it’s enough to make you want to throw yourself out a window.
Honestly, the best move is to just toss it all aside, take some advice from Alan Watts, and start meditating on the void.
rustymaker5 said:If you’re saying everything in the universe is interconnected, then sure, I guess you're right about that...
But if you mean that being attached to someone or something is actually a good thing, then I have to wonder why there are so many miserable, unfulfilled people walking around this country, considering how deeply attached everyone seems to be—not just to other people, but to material things, specific ideologies, abstract concepts, or even past events... 🤷
I was referring to the concept of attachment—the way species formulate emotional bonds that essentially act as a biological glue, serving the greater purpose of ensuring survival. This mechanism exists within all meaningful relationships, whether they be platonic friendships, parental ties, or those more "romantic" connections. It serves a fundamental function; if these bonds were to vanish, I suspect humanity would descend even further into chaos. Of course, there are instances where this becomes problematic—where excessive attachment triggers significant emotional and psychological distress—that much is true. But what can I really say about it? It is a natural phenomenon, certainly, yet ultimately, it remains neutral.
Jacob Sanchez7 said:You know what's actually fascinating? The fact that we've convinced ourselves that controlling the ego is an impossible task. Sure, centuries of societal conditioning have left their mark, but we are still free. Completely. You always have the choice to act on a thought or an emotion, or simply not to. Sometimes we just fall into the trap of thinking we *have* to react, so we give the ego a microphone.
Like you said, if a person has a goal and a focus, they won't be clingy or emotionally dependent on their partner. And if that goal and focus is simply "to be free," then there isn't an ego around to distort things. 😁
@Nancy Wilson2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZofi4ly8bg
Yes, selfhood is essentially the very nature of being—of self-consciousness—so there, they’ve hit the nail on the head. When we speak about someone being "self" in an ultimate sense, what we really mean is that they exist in relation to themselves—distinct, isolated, and fundamentally severed from anything or anyone else. That, quite simply, is the inherent nature of a conscious individual.
Robert Diaz2 said:Exactly. That’s what I'm saying. It's right there in plain sight, especially with that part in bold. I don't think anyone ever claimed it wasn't natural, either. I mean, obviously, it is. 🙂 I guess some souls have just already been through all of this before. You know, after going through a few different lives, they finally start to realize that maybe it’s actually time to rise above all these earthly attachments. They begin to see that even though being connected to everyone and everything brings a certain kind of happiness, it’s really just temporary. I mean, at the end of the day, you're always facing sickness, death, and—don't even get me started on the daily grind—all those constant stressors and worries that just drain you. Eventually, there comes this moment where it just clicks, and you feel this intense need to pull away from all that heavy heartache.
I was just sitting here wondering, how does that one psalm by John the Apostle go again? I think it was him who wrote it, if I'm remembering correctly.
I was thinking about this bit from the Bible earlier, and it’s honestly such a heavy concept when you really sit with it. It basically says we shouldn't get too caught up in chasing after everything this world has to offer. I guess the idea is that if someone is totally obsessed with worldly stuff, there isn't really any room left for the love of God. It’s kind of like how everything material—you know, those physical cravings, the constant desire for more things, or just that overwhelming pride in what we own and who we are—doesn't actually come from God, but from the world itself. Everything around us is so temporary; trends fade, stuff breaks, and eventually, all those worldly desires just pass away. But, if I'm reading this right, the people who focus on doing what God wants? They’re the ones who actually last forever. It’s a pretty deep way to look at life, I suppose.
My bad if I got any of the Psalm a little bit wrong, but I just memorized it once a while back, so I’m really hoping I remembered it correctly and stayed true to the actual wording. 🙂
Yes, it’s transient—and if that attachment was intense, the inevitable result is pain and loneliness. That is perfectly natural. Pain serves a purpose, after all. In this instance, its role is motivational, preventing someone from simply running in circles... circling through a repetitive loop of short-lived happiness and suffering.
Modern society is truly in a bind because it neglects the spiritual nature of the individual—which is, inherently, solitude. Everything is designed to ensure a person avoids being alone, pushing them toward building ever-larger social networks to surround themselves with noise. People are quite literally terrified of being alone with themselves; they flee from it as if it were some insurmountable catastrophe. Furthermore, people fundamentally misunderstand the definition of solitude, conflating it with loneliness simply because they look visually similar (in both cases, one is alone) and because they remind people of the sadness, pain, and depression associated with being lonely. That is what people are actually running from. Our environment is largely to blame here—and by environment, I mean the distorted, romanticized image of love and relationships that permeates everything. Life is painful and brief, yet it seems the collective "greatest achievement" or life goal has become this pursuit of finding a "soulmate" or similar nonsense (in terms of the concept itself).
http://chronicle.com/article/The-End-of-Solitude/3708It is an interesting observation that the number of single people is supposedly increasing. It is as if more people are beginning to see through the very nature of how they have been conditioned since childhood. However, this isn't always a positive development, as many of those individuals end up alone in the sense that they suffer from actual loneliness. That is merely a byproduct of what this world is turning into and how people behave toward one another. We are too distant... people who don't truly know each other don't even speak. Honestly, this is such a massive topic that I could write entire novels on it, so it is better if I remain silent; there are other threads for that. 😁
Robert Diaz2 said:Since pretty much every spiritual teaching out there hits on the same core idea—that getting too attached to people or things during our temporary time on this earth isn't exactly the move—I really hope you've done enough soul-searching and inner work to make sure you don't end up getting emotionally hooked on anyone.
Personally, I know I’d probably get attached, and honestly, that just leads to nothing but anxiety, stress, and heartache, so maybe it’s just better off being by myself. I actually think it's kind of cool how the English word "alone" can be read as "all one." 🙂
Thank God most people don't actually follow those "spiritual" teachings—if they did, there wouldn't be anyone left on this planet.
This is where things actually start getting interesting. All those spiritual teachings handed down by supposedly "enlightened" figures—well, they ultimately originate from the spirit itself. It stands to reason that the spirit shaped this world to align with the human experience. From what I can gather, it seems to have been part of the grand design for us to form deep emotional bonds; everything in existence points toward this being a fundamental, natural necessity—something clearly visible in the wild and among the animal kingdom. Furthermore, if one looks at the ancient Upanishads—which served as the foundational bedrock for most of the spiritual philosophies currently trending in America—the universe and nature are essentially synonymous with God.
And now, even the spiritualists are pushing back against this—it’s truly bizarre. It’s as if God is acting in direct opposition to Himself, working against His own design in an attempt to dismantle exactly what He intended to create.
Emotional attachment remains one of the fundamental pillars of human love—it manifests within the bond between parent and child, among friends, and between romantic partners alike. It is, by all accounts, entirely natural. While certain animals exhibit similar traits, they don't all possess this specific depth—as I mentioned before. From a theological perspective, one might ask why this exists in the first place; if it is indeed the intention of God, then there is a glaring contradiction to address. This capacity for connection inevitably brings with it immense suffering, heartache, and a myriad of complex problems—which suggests it doesn't quite stem from a source that is purely composed of love and goodness. Something simply doesn't align. Of course, everything I have just laid out is merely me airing my own thoughts—it doesn't necessarily bear much direct relevance to the core topic at hand.
The fundamental point here is that bonding is a biological imperative—it’s entirely natural. Without that instinctual connection, life as we know it wouldn't even exist; and even if it did, parents wouldn't feel that innate drive to protect their offspring. There is actual scientific precedent for this, too—studies have shown that when you artificially suppress oxytocin levels in parents, that protective instinct vanishes, often resulting in them becoming aggressive toward their own young.
While certain inclinations may be innate, an individual still maintains the agency to decide whether or not to engage with them—provided they have the willpower. Of course, that choice is often a fragile thing, given that our neurological wiring is essentially hardcoded to respond to these stimuli. We aren't entirely helpless, however, when pitted against those relentless evolutionary pressures and primal instincts.
Nicholas Gonzalez8 said:So, get this—for the longest time, we were all under the impression that the universe was basically just 4% atomic matter that we actually recognize, maybe 23% dark matter, and then the rest—about 73%—was just... empty space, right? At least, that's what the scientists used to tell us before they realized they were totally off base. Turns out, that 73% isn't just a big, lonely void; it's actually dark energy. Think of it less like "nothingness" and more like a massive, underlying nervous system that’s woven through every single thing that exists in the cosmos. It completely flips the script on how we view everything—it's this wild idea that everything in existence is fundamentally interconnected.
Check out this image if you want to wrap your head around what I'm getting at.
Actually, that’s not quite right. The dark energy responsible for that negative gravitational effect—the force driving the accelerated expansion of space—is that ~70% chunk. What you described above, Nicholas Gonzalez8, is actually dark matter. You’ve mixed up your terms slightly—not a huge deal, really—but I figured I should set the record straight.