feralhound55 said:From what I’ve noticed, every single thread is filled with the same archetypes—the theorists, the ones peddling "expert" advice, the genuine supporters, those who *think* they're brilliant, and then there are the trolls who just spit on everything without making a single actual point. You’d think spirituality and psychology circles would have fewer of those bottom-feeders, but somehow, they actually have more.
At the end of the day, everyone has the freedom to read what they want, ignore what they don't, reply to whoever they feel like, and stay silent when they don't—and we should probably extend that same courtesy to everyone else.
Look, maybe I’m just being a bit thick here, but let me try to translate what you actually said into plain English. When Ronin asked you to clarify that one point of yours—and we can circle back to her specific comment in a second—your response was basically this: you told him that unlike most people who just ramble on without ever making a point (kind of like those politicians we see on the news all the time), you prefer to use fewer words that actually carry some weight. In other words, you were essentially telling Ronin that he’s just too slow to grasp your simple, concise way of speaking.
So far, so good! Now, let's dive into the heart of this whole disagreement by taking a hard look at that bit of condensed wisdom—the kind that, frankly, silly Ronin just doesn't seem to grasp. To be honest, it caught me off guard too, but I’m really grateful you were kind enough to share it with us.
So, here’s a bit of that wisdom you were looking for—just as it was originally intended:
feralhound55 said:@jademarlin26: The OP should probably weigh in on that. My take? It’s because there's an expectation that people reading those PDFs have actually matured—so they won't "sink" to the level of nitpicking or those "infantile outbursts" Quote said, as per Ravih. Apparently, these "spiritual gurus" are expected to have conquered their egos by now.
The part I've highlighted in bold is the only bit that’s actually up for debate—everything else is just circling back to what was said earlier in the thread, specifically that post by silentcyclist3, which honestly doesn't change the core issue we're looking at here.
So, if I’m reading you correctly, your main takeaway is that "mature adults" shouldn't be expected to sink down to the level of constant nitpicking and those kinds of childish outbursts. The rest of what you said just circles back to the setting—that whole "PDF spirituality" landscape we've been discussing. Based on that, here is how I interpret your point:
So, you’re basically equating being critical with those "infantile outbursts," and then grouping it all under the umbrella of "immature" behavior. In other words—if I'm following your logic correctly—you're suggesting that a "mature adult" shouldn't really be critical at all, because you've tied being critical directly to being childish. It's like saying if someone starts questioning things, they've just regressed into a toddler tantrum.
I’ve noticed a few times now how Ronin keeps trying to dig for more clarity on that one point you made—you know, trying to get you to expand on your reasoning—but you just won't budge. You stay firm in your stance that, unlike the rest of us—who seem to be stuck in this cycle of being overly critical or maybe just a bit too analytical for our own good—you’re staying strictly non-critical, mature, and, most importantly, keeping things brief and to the point, which is a far cry from the way politicians love to ramble on forever.
It’s honestly wild to me how some people actually frame being critical as a sign of "immaturity"—as if having an analytical mind is somehow a developmental flaw. By that twisted logic, I guess you have to assume that someone lacking basic cognitive function is the pinnacle of maturity. But let’s look at the actual science here for a second. What makes someone truly incapable of critical thought isn't just a personality quirk; it’s often a literal dysfunction of the prefrontal cortex—that area sitting right behind those bumps on your forehead. That part of the brain exists for one primary reason: to run "mental simulations." It’s our internal laboratory where we perform critical thinking, weigh the consequences of our actions, predict outcomes based on what we've learned, and handle long-term planning. Every single one of those functions is inherently critical by design. They exist solely to allow us to run a sort of mental filter—a discriminatory process—so we can sift through all the noise and pick the path that actually makes sense after it has passed the "criticality test." Without that ability to evaluate, you aren't being "mature," you're just operating on autopilot.
If you’ve spent all this time convincing yourself that being critical is just some sign of immaturity—that having an analytical mind is basically a "childish phase" you need to outgrow alongside your sense of wonder—then honestly, you're doing yourself a massive disservice. It’s a strange way to look at things. To me, it feels like you're essentially choosing to bypass your own cognitive tools. Think about it this way: people with certain neurological impairments lack the capacity to perform deep, critical analysis or make complex selections. You, on the other hand, actually possess those abilities—you have the mental hardware to dissect an idea or spot a flaw—but by refusing to use them, you're effectively leveling yourself down to that same functional baseline. It's like owning a high-end MacBook but using it exclusively as a paperweight; you still have the power, but you're choosing to live as if the processing speed doesn't exist.
When you really sit back and chew on it—it’s actually pretty terrifying—because you end up stuck in this loop of "circular reasoning" that just feeds itself. It works like this: if someone tries to walk you through the actual facts using logic, common sense, and solid arguments—basically using all those critical thinking muscles we're supposed to have—your immediate reflex is to label them as "immature" or "childish" simply because they're being critical. And honestly? That reaction just serves to lock your own bias even tighter in place.
Still, I have to say, thanks for that perfect little demonstration of how a "mature" person acts when they've supposedly conquered their ego to become "spiritual." Out of all the calculated, forced attempts people make to define what spirituality actually looks like, this spontaneous little outburst of yours managed to capture the essence better than any textbook definition ever could.
Thanks for listening.