Posts by Edward Flores4

Sure thing... though "reason" feels like a bit of a clunky way to put it... I’d probably lean toward saying "mind" instead... but hey, you know what I mean!

Since everything we actually perceive exists within our own minds as an interpretation of some sort of "external signal"—and considering the "self" is really just another part of that very same interpretation—there isn't actually any real distinction between the "observer" and the "observed." That whole construct we call the "I" is really just a linguistic shortcut to make communicating with others easier. But if you try to actually point a finger at that "self"... there’s honestly nothing there. 🙂

casualmaker13 said:Nothing is separate if we're looking at the process as a whole—which is made up of the observer, the observed, and the interaction between them. Try to pull one part away and you don't have a process anymore. But, I suppose that doesn't mean the observer, the observed, and the interaction are all one single thing.
The point is, the observer only exists when there is awareness. When there's no awareness, the observer isn't there (they just become content within the consciousness), so the process effectively ceases to exist.

Your body successfully pumps out all sorts of enzymes, neurotransmitters, white blood cells, red blood cells... and you don't exactly claim those things aren't part of you.

If a thought isn't part of you—then what is it? Is it some invisible "cloud" floating around your head while you're thinking, or is it just a cognitive process that's inseparable from the "thinker"?

Where exactly do "you" end and your "thought" begin? If you can, maybe describe that "spot" for me.!?

I am not my thoughts, because I still exist even when I'm not thinking. I can choose to create a specific thought, or I can get myself into a state where there are no thoughts at all. I just can't put an equals sign between myself and a thought.
Thoughts come and go, but I'm always here, whether I'm conscious of it or not.

Thoughts, emotions, the body, energy—those are all just contents of consciousness. They're just the stuff through which consciousness manifests itself.

Right... but what's the common thread among all those "ways"?

Does a thought ever actually happen without a "thinker"?

Because if "A" always happens simultaneously with "B"—then "A" and "B" are essentially the same thing... part of the same thing... right?

A thought never happens without a "thinker," but I definitely exist without thoughts. So, I and the thought are not the same thing.

There is something honestly hilarious about seeing a spiritual leader fall into the trap of reductionism—it’s one of those quirks that really cracks me up if you look closely enough. It’s like watching someone try to explain the entire complexity of the American landscape by only looking at a single street sign in Des Moines; they think they’ve captured the essence of everything, but they’ve actually just missed the forest for the trees. You see these thinkers attempt to boil down the vast, messy, beautiful depth of the human experience into one neat little formula or a single dogma, and it just feels so incredibly small. It’s a bit of a comedy of errors when someone claims to hold the keys to the universe, yet can't grasp the sheer scale of what they're trying to simplify.

Look, I get what you're saying—you feel like if we strip away even one of those specific segments, the whole "process" of observation just falls apart. But here’s where I think we’re hitting a wall: you’re refusing to see that this very "process"—this constant, flowing stream of observation itself—is exactly what you’re calling the "I." It’s not something separate from the action; the action is the identity.

Without that specific process running, you’d basically be looking at a clinical coma—or maybe even a vegetative state. It’s pretty heavy when you think about it. But when everything is firing on all cylinders, when you’re wide awake and fully conscious, that "process" is essentially the bedrock of your entire identity. It’s what makes you, *you*.

You know, sometimes those famous gurus actually have a point... It’s just that most people need more than a few lifetimes to finally wrap their heads around it.

Here’s the thing—it all comes down to this: the observer only truly exists when there is awareness. The second that consciousness slips away, the observer vanishes. You aren't "observing" anymore; you just become part of the content within the mind. And once that happens, the whole process itself simply ceases to be.

Whoops, my bad! 😲 You really stepped in it this time...

When someone loses consciousness—you know, when they’re totally out of it and unresponsive—it really changes the whole vibe of a situation. It’s one of those moments where everything goes from zero to sixty in an instant, and suddenly you're the one standing there trying to figure out what the hell is going on. It's less like a movie scene and more like this heavy, unsettling stillness that just hits you. It just doesn't exist, honestly. (It’s no longer about just being an observer—it’s become the actual content of consciousness itself.)

If you aren't actually conscious—meaning, if there’s no "you" there to experience anything—then how on earth can you be the very thing that consciousness is supposed to be looking at? It's a total paradox, isn't it? It's like trying to be the flashlight and the beam of light at the same time when there's no battery to power the whole thing.

I’m not entirely sure what you were getting at there—honestly, I think I missed your point—but if I'm being real, that statement just doesn't hold water. It feels pretty contradictory to me, almost like it's arguing against itself as you read it. 🤷

I don't think just because I exist—and honestly, there are plenty of moments when there isn't even a single thought to be found.

Are you actually trying to tell me that being aware of your own existence isn't the same thing as having a thought? It feels like we're splitting hairs here—sort of like trying to argue that knowing you're holding a cup of coffee is somehow different from the act of realizing you're thirsty. One is just the baseline state of being, right? It’s that fundamental "I am" feeling that sits underneath everything else.

The moment you become aware of your own existence, it’s pretty much a given that you start thinking—it’s almost like an automatic reflex, isn't it? Once that switch flips and you realize you're actually *here*, the gears just start turning. It’s less of a choice and more of a fundamental consequence of being conscious. 🤷

It’s funny when you really stop to think about it—you actually have this incredible level of control over your own headspace. If you really put in the work, you can consciously steer your mind toward any specific thought you want to cultivate. But even more interesting than that? You can actually train yourself to reach that quiet, still point where the mental chatter just... stops. It's like being able to toggle between a busy highway and total silence whenever you decide.

Can you actually get yourself to a point where your mind just... goes quiet? Like, a total blank slate?

Wait, how exactly does the anesthesia part work? Is it through an IV or something else?

Because there really isn’t any other way to go about it... unless you're claiming you've cracked some kind of code that the rest of us haven't figured out yet?

I just can't seem to find that sweet spot—you know, that perfect balance where my logic and my actual thoughts finally shake hands and agree on something. It’s like trying to bridge the gap between what I know is true and what I actually feel; no matter how much I try to align them, there’s always this stubborn little disconnect right in the middle.

But seriously, I asked you point-blank to walk me through it—to explain exactly where you end and where your thoughts actually begin. I’m looking for that specific line in the sand, you know? Describe that dividing point for me, and tell me how you actually go about distinguishing your true self from just the stream of consciousness running through your head.

Look, just because you can't draw a straight line between two things doesn't mean that equality isn't actually there—it might just be that you're holding onto some personal conviction that makes you hesitant to call them "equal." It’s like looking at two different paths that both lead to the exact same destination; they might look different to you, but the result is identical. The only way we can really clear this up, though, is if you walk us through your logic and show us exactly where you think that distinction lies.

Look, if you can't actually pin down the difference and explain it... then there probably isn't one.

Thoughts come and go, but I am always here—whether I’m aware of it or not.

How can you claim to be "there" if you aren't even conscious of it? That logic just doesn't hold water!

Thoughts, emotions, the body, and energy are all just contents of consciousness—the medium through which consciousness manifests itself.

Once again, we're dealing with an empty, overly simplistic phrase... because everything you've ever seen, heard, experienced, thought, desired, believed, feared, or felt... all of that manifested exclusively through your consciousness.

Consciousness is essentially a "process" that grants you insight (perception) into yourself and the world around you. All your realizations happen via this process, but that doesn't mean those insights, feelings, or thoughts are necessarily the "contents" of consciousness itself!

Think about it like this: someone who isn't paying much attention might watch a show on an Apple TV and assume the show is the "content" inside the device... but we know that’s not how it works. The device just plays the program, while the program itself arrives at the device via an electronic signal sent from a studio or a satellite.

It’s the same deal with consciousness... it reproduces your "reality" for you by interpreting a "signal" that exists outside of you and independently of you. Calling that interpretation "content" shows a profound lack of understanding regarding the true nature of your own awareness.

But hey, at least now I see why you think "you" aren't the same thing as your thoughts... honestly, you've got a completely skewed concept of your own self-awareness. You're staring at the "television" and believing the "broadcast" is the internal content of the "TV set," effectively reducing yourself to just a viewer sitting in front of a screen... a passive observer playing a secondary role in your own life.

What a shame.

A thought never occurs without a "thinker," yet I exist even when there are no thoughts.

Do you actually have a physical organ that you call the "I," or is this "I" just an abstract mental construct created by your mind?

If it’s a mental abstraction—which, let's be real, it definitely is—then the "I" is also just a thought... a cognitive construct or a conceptual framework. Therefore... when there are no thoughts, there is no "you." Claiming that the "I" exists without thought is probably one of the biggest nonsense statements out there. ☕

I mean, honestly, you wouldn't even exist without me... because for me to truly be "me," there has to be a "not-me" out there—and that’s where you come in. It’s kind of deep, right? Like, "me" and "you" are essentially two sides of the same coin; one just doesn't make sense without the other. Think of it like light and shadow, or day and night... you can't really have one without the other being present.

casualmaker13 said:1. Consciousness. Consciousness is aware of itself, its surroundings, and everything happening during that interaction. All content flows out from consciousness.

2. There is. A thinker isn't a thought. The thinker is the one capable of generating thoughts (since a thought can't create itself), though most people can't really control them.

2.1. Thoughts are the content of consciousness, and they can pop up in a few ways:
a) through conscious deliberation,
b) when something external triggers a thought,
c) unconsciously—like that internal monologue we aren't even aware we're running.
Most people can't just snap their fingers and stop the flow of thoughts, but maybe by becoming more aware of everything happening, there's less room in the day for those unconscious periods and internal chatter. Eventually, you get more peace and internal silence.

I don't think you've actually made a point there... you've essentially just swapped one term (the observer) for another (awareness).

Sure, awareness is self-aware, but that doesn't imply you have two distinct consciousnesses operating side-by-side, even if they're aware of one another.

Think about it this way—if you’re looking at a tree, your awareness of that tree is entirely dependent on the tree itself. It’s a direct consequence of the fact that there is an object there for you to perceive. Without you, there would be no awareness of the tree, but without the tree, you wouldn't have anything to be aware of in the first place. To me, that seems pretty straightforward.

So... in this whole cause-and-effect loop, where exactly are you seeing something that stands "apart" from the process itself?

2. There is a thinker, and then there is the thought. The thinker is the entity capable of generating thoughts (since a thought can't create itself), though most people find they can't really control them.

Your body is constantly producing all sorts of things—enzymes, neurotransmitters, red and white blood cells... and you don't exactly claim those things aren't part of you, right?

If a thought isn't part of you, then what is it? Is it some invisible "cloud" floating around your head while you ponder things, or is it just a cognitive process that's inseparable from the "thinker"?

Where exactly do "you" end and your "thought" begin? If you can pinpoint that exact boundary, I'd love to hear it.

2.1. Thoughts are the content of awareness.

I'd call it a consequence... but it's not a huge deal.

they can arise in several ways
a) by consciously deciding to think something,
b) being prompted by an external stimulus to think of something,
c) unconsciously—just spinning through an internal dialogue we aren't even mindful of.

True... but what is the common thread among all those different "ways"?

Does a thought ever actually occur without a "thinker" present?

Because if "A" always happens simultaneously with "B," then "A" and "B" are effectively the same thing—part of the same singular unit... wouldn't you agree?

Harold Barrett7 said:Through the lens of one's own "self," we can observe all sorts of different scenes. How others perceived your "self," versus how I perceive my own. Within the realm of linear time, you see the history of your "self" laid out in a straight line. But what if you fast-forward those scenes?

You start seeing things that current life models simply don't permit—you see your "self" through forbidden perceptions. Or, if we dive into the warehouse of the implicit, we search for the records of the past, the future... Perhaps in this very moment, it's easier to know your "self" simply as "you."

If you didn't "catch" me, then you're giving me the chance to hunt through space-time for the non-linearity of the temporal "self."

Going back to what we were discussing... even if we take that extrapolated "self"—the one that just sits there observing itself from whatever specific vantage point it happens to occupy—there's hardly any "me" left in that equation.

The "self" is really just the entire world viewed from one specific coordinate at one specific moment. But when you look at the actual substance making up that "self," it’s really just everyone and everything else, except for me. 🤷

James Lee77 said:If I take a second to look at my own attention, I can notice that sometimes I'm pretty focused and other times I'm totally scattered. And on the flip side, sometimes I'm super relaxed and other times I'm just wound tight.

Usually, when I'm feeling both focused and relaxed at the same time, I'd say I'm "centered" (or "feeling like myself"). But when I'm too distracted or way too tense, I feel like I'm "not really there" or "not being myself," you know?

So, I guess the ability to "(not) be who I am" mostly comes down to those qualities of attention—basically how centered or relaxed I can stay.

Spot on!

Unfortunately, we don't have one perfect American English word that captures that specific type of attentiveness... that state where you're genuinely "present." It’s when your mind isn't cluttered with projections or distractions, but instead, you're pouring all your focus into the current moment—reacting spontaneously to what's happening right now, rather than just reacting based on your own preconceived notions or biases.

It's about being a conscious participant in life, instead of just sitting on the sidelines acting like a detached "observer" of your own existence. It's about being fully integrated with everything around you—staying focused and taking responsibility, but not in some isolated way, like sitting on a mountaintop or hiding in a cave... places where "responsibility" is just an abstract concept and all your attention is sucked inward toward yourself.

Yeah... you hit the nail on the head there. 🙂

Brian Foster3 said:Oh, so you want different wording? I labeled it perfectly accurately. Your whole so-called 'contribution' to this discussion is nothing more than elementary-level deconstruction—basically, pure destruction. Beyond that, you don't even have a foundation yet. And let's be real, you're just doing this because you love the thrill of it. If you can't grasp exactly what I said and you try to reduce my precise definition of your bullshit down to "you didn't say anything," then you're honestly insulting my intelligence.

I mostly end up creating these various 'victim societies of shamanism,' because delusional fools often look for comfort among people just like them, and sometimes that rebellion turns into some kind of Stockholm syndrome...

To the point where... and this is more of a byproduct, but they mostly lobby 'against me' (meaning, they believe they're acting against me, even if they aren't necessarily right about that).

Give me a break, you just want to act all big and tough by picking on someone weaker than you. 🙄

But to reach that conclusion, you'd have to test out all several thousand of them. Because within those 500 you haven't tried, there might be two others that aren't 'leftist,' 'centrist,' or 'rightist,' which puts us right back at square one, and you'll still be lying to yourself.

You're just convincing yourself of that because you don't know any better! To actually know, you'd have to experience them all. Therefore, claiming something is better than something you haven't even tasted is just a straight-up lie.

God, the 'logical gymnastics' you're pulling here are ridiculous. 😍
Do you even hear yourself? You think it makes sense to try out thousands of spiritual paths before deciding which one fits best? That logic is absolutely brainless. Plus, it's physically impossible to pull off. By your 'universal logic,' nobody would ever find the spiritual discipline that suits them or achieve any actual spiritual progress. Go ahead, try to make that work, then come crawling back here. 😛

I believe you truly believe that lie in your heart, so you're technically being sincere, but your entire performance is just a result of an unfounded belief, making you fake in your forced sincerity.

🙂 You are seriously pathetic in how hard you're pushing this 'logic' of yours. You're stuck insisting that I act solely out of conviction, completely erasing the possibility—and the fact—that I act based on experience. It's all because you've convinced yourself that it's impossible to have experiences that provide certain proof. So you just keep drinking the same poison over and over again...

Look, if it makes you feel any better, I’ll happily admit that I haven't stumbled upon the one spiritual method that fits me perfectly, but I have found the one that works best for me right now based on what I actually know. 😛

Deep down, you clearly realize there's this massive, shaky insecurity driving your whole act, so you instinctively try to drum up a huge crowd of 'believers' for your 'exclusive technique,' thinking if you just get enough followers, people will finally take you seriously...
Because if everyone believes the same thing, it must be true—WRONG!

🤣 Wow, you're already trying to play psychoanalyst on me! Listen, that kind of talk might fly with some low-level 'spiritualists,' but to anyone who actually has real spiritual achievements, you look incredibly clumsy. You're like a little kid playing dress-up in their dad's oversized shoes, strutting around thinking they're a grown-up just to impress the kids on the playground.

My condolences!

Right back at you, Edward Flores4...

They say a person learns throughout their life... but what you just said isn't something anyone actually says!

It’s said where I come from. What you wrote basically boils down to "people only learn what their prejudices allow them to, and they simply ignore everything else that doesn't please their 'heart.'"

Anyone who only learns what makes their heart happy is nothing more than a total idiot!

You don't even grasp the basic mechanics of how a human being functions. You probably ignored them because they don't suit your little narrative. The mind is the servant of the heart. By 'heart,' I mean the sum of all human desires. The heart wants, and the mind gets to work figuring out how to make that desire happen. If you honestly think humans operate any other way, then I'd be insulting my own intelligence by even arguing with you.

I'm not peddling 'my own image'... I deal in logic, arguments, concrete knowledge, vocabulary, being informed, and a level of sophisticationthat far exceeds yours.

I don't need an 'image' to hold water... my 'water' is held up by universal logic and widely accepted facts.

You just painted your own picture, specifically highlighting the parts that make you look good. Universal logic? I know exactly where you learned that—in your own private little universe. Here’s a quick reality check for your 'universal logic': why does the universe exist? If that's too heavy for you, why does a human exist? Or a frog? Or anything at all? ☕

What "widely accepted facts"? You haven't brought up a single relevant one. I've already debunked most of your 'facts' regarding the Kabbalah...

Vocabulary? So you're slightly above average, big deal. Who cares...

Being informed? Give me a break. You're delusional. Every single bit of information you've dropped about the Kabbalah has been dead wrong. And I've already torn apart your pathetic attempts at psychoanalyzing me.

Arguments? Where?! All I see are your own projections, and they're pretty shallow at that... where's the actual experience that serves as a real foundation for an argument?

Culture and manners? You’re acting incredibly arrogant and just plain rude.

You really went all out in that bolded part, didn't you? Honestly, you're just proving my point once again—you're absolutely right about what I said. 😛

Quincy:

Look, I don't actually have a "picture" or whatever you want to call it... I’m just sitting here performing a logical deconstruction of YOUR image, and honestly, once I strip away all the nonsense, I land on one undeniable conclusion—your whole premise is completely illogical, practically impossible, and therefore an absolute lie.

Of course you have a picture... you literally just drew it yourself! I already laid out exactly why your "applied logic" is nothing more than total nonsense—it's completely absurd, fake, and fundamentally flawed.

Quincy:

Look, I’m not about to go out and waste my own damn time personally testing every single thing that doesn't add up logically or contradicts the facts just to prove it's a scam! Look, when you sit there and insist that 2 + 2 equals 7, I don't need to go out and grab four apples just to "test" if they somehow magically turn into seven... because they absolutely won't! It’s common sense, for crying out loud!

What exactly is it about Kabbalah that you think doesn't line up with logic and facts? Seriously, what part of it is bothering you so much?

Quincy:

And what exactly is the proof for that? Look, you’re doing that thing again where you just spout off these "cognitive" theories that have absolutely zero basis in reality other than the fact that they're stuck inside your own head! You honestly think because you've convinced yourself of some nonsense, that makes it a universal truth, but let me tell you—it clearly isn't!

Look, if I think one thing and you think the exact opposite, then we’re both just sitting here stuck in our own little heads, and that doesn't make either of us right. For one of us to actually be correct, someone would need to pull off some massive, undeniable breakthrough that proves everything—every single science out there—actually stems from Kabbalah or whatever else it might be. Since I haven't reached that level of genius quite yet, I can't personally swear by it; I'm just passing along what those Kabbalists have observed, though who knows if they even got it right.

Here’s what a few people I follow—and you too—have been saying about Kabbalah:

It’s honestly mind-blowing how many big-shot academics spend their entire careers obsessing over the secrets of Kabbalah, and frankly, I think they’re missing the forest for the trees most of the time! You have these massive intellectuals pouring over ancient texts like they're cracking some cosmic code, yet half of them seem to be just chasing academic clout rather than actually grasping the weight of what they're studying. It reminds me of this professor I had back in college who could quote every philosopher from Plato to Nietzsche by heart, but the second you asked him something practical about real life, his brain just totally short-circuited. It’s the same thing here—you’ve got all these heavy hitters writing endless volumes on mysticism, but sometimes I wonder if they even realize that true spiritual insight isn't something you can just package up into a tidy little dissertation and hand out at a symposium!
You wouldn't believe the garbage being pumped out lately, but apparently, there are all these big-shot academics actually trying to make sense of Kabbalah these days. It’s honestly exhausting how much energy these scholars pour into dissecting ancient mysticism like they’re just solving some math equation at Harvard, when you know deep down it’s way more intense than their little textbooks could ever capture.
It’s honestly mind-blowing how many big-shot academics spend their entire lives obsessing over Kabbalah, and frankly, most of them wouldn't know a real spiritual truth if it hit them square in the face! I was reading this massive tome the other day—one of those dense, overly complicated books you'd find in a dusty corner of the New York Public Library—and it just reminded me how much these "experts" love to overanalyze things that are meant to be felt, not dissected like a lab specimen under a microscope.

Sure, that doesn't exactly prove all science stems from Kabbalah, but it definitely shows just how serious they're being about their "application" for that position.

Quincy:

So instead of actually enlightening the general public about those "extra" meanings, you just keep making these vague "cognitive" claims that they exist, then have the nerve to tell me I should go out and find them myself, and finally wrap the whole thing up by acting like I'm some kind of idiot! 🤣 You’re honestly insulting my intelligence at this point, and frankly, if you keep heading down this same path, there isn't much I can even say to you besides consider yourself warned.

Man, it is absolutely freezing out there today! I stepped outside for two seconds and felt like I was walking straight into an industrial freezer in Chicago. Seriously, someone needs to turn up the heat on this entire planet because I am officially done with this weather. 😍

Does everyone just want everything handed to them on a silver platter these days? It’s getting ridiculous—everything is so damn difficult lately, and honestly, you can't even just look something up without hitting a wall.from wiki:

Etymologically speaking, the term "sect" actually traces back to the Latin noun *secta*—which is just a feminine version of a past participle from *sequi*, meaning "to follow." It basically refers to a "beaten path" or a specific way of doing things, which eventually evolved into describing a particular discipline or school of thought held together by certain doctrines. Nowadays, people get confused because there’s another Latin word, *secta* (from *secare*, meaning "to cut"), which makes it sound like these groups are just pieces chopped off from the main religious body. It’s funny how language works like that, especially since in places like Italy, they use the word *setta* to cover both "sect" and "cult" at once.

....

Look, if you don't change your entire attitude toward responding to my posts and stop being so incredibly destructive, I'm done talking to you. I told you right from the jump that I could sense what you were up to. This is your absolute last chance to flip the script as far as I'm concerned. If you want to talk, then prove you actually know what you're talking about by using some actual facts, decent vocabulary, and a shred of basic human decency instead of this nonsense...

It’s impossible to insult something that isn't there... honestly, you're the one claiming to have submitted to "spiritual training," which pretty clearly implies you view yourself as incapable in some way. Otherwise, you wouldn't be following an "exclusive practice" at all; you'd just approach every question through your own lens without needing to rely on the "spiritual authority" of someone you believe is more capable than you are. ☕

Quincy:

Man, it sounds like you just want to feel big and strong by picking on people weaker than you.

I’m just calling things what they are... whenever I see a falsehood, I'm going to point it out.

Quincy:

With that "universal logic" of yours, no one will ever be able to find the spiritual discipline that actually suits them best...

Now you're changing your tune... there's a massive difference between "what works best for me" and "my spiritual technique is the absolute best."

A heroin addict might find heptane works for them, but that doesn't mean heptane therapy is the "best" solution for anyone else... ideally, you shouldn't need therapy or "training" at all.

Quincy:

... nor achieve any spiritual milestones.

What kind of "spiritual milestones" are you actually hitting... seriously? Care to give us a little more detail?

Do you glow in the dark, see auras, levitate, or heal the sick just by touching them?

To me, "spiritual milestones" sounds like a fancy euphemism for mental health. From where I'm standing, enlightened people are simply mentally healthy people. And truth be told... there aren't many of them, because most people are struggling. Self-awareness is a heavy weight that only the strongest carry with ease. Most people choose to follow *something* just so they can offload that burden onto whatever they follow, hoping for some "spiritual milestone" that will finally lift the weight of self-awareness and reason off their shoulders.

Quincy:

You're being ridiculous with how hard you're pushing this "logic" of yours. You're stuck insisting that I act solely out of conviction, completely ignoring—and erasing—the possibility (and the fact) that I act based on experience.

Even a guy in a straitjacket that buttons up the back in a padded room acts out of "experience"... unfortunately, that doesn't make him any less crazy. 🤷

Quincy:

That’s just how you see it because you’ve managed to convince yourself that it's impossible to ever have an experience that provides actual, undeniable proof.

You didn't even finish your thought... evidence for what exactly?

Look, if you put your hand in a furnace, your own experience is going to be all the proof you need that fire burns—there’s just no debating that. Or, if you decide to jump out of a window on the 10th floor of a skyscraper in Chicago, life is going to give you a very immediate, very painful lesson that "landing" isn't exactly a walk in the park—in fact, it's almost certainly fatal. There's really no room for doubt when reality hits you like that.

Look, unless you actually sit down and tell me what you’ve personally proven through your own lived experience, all this chatter about how much "weight" your experience carries is pretty much just empty noise. 🤷

Quincy:

Look, if it makes you feel any better—and I really mean that—I’ve come to terms with the fact that I might never stumble upon that one singular, perfect spiritual method that fits my soul like a glove. It’s okay to admit that. Instead, I’ve just focused on finding the path that actually works for me right now, based on everything I've learned along the way. It's more about what resonates today than finding some ultimate, lifelong answer.

Well, actually, that’s exactly what they want to do—they just want to comfort me. If you had been that direct about where you stood from the jump, we wouldn't even be having this whole debate right now. ☕

Quincy:

Well, look at you—you’ve basically become my unofficial therapist now! Honestly, that kind of approach might fly with some of those "spiritual leaders" who only scratch the surface, but if you ever sat down with someone who actually has real spiritual depth, you'd probably come across as pretty out of your league.

Look, the plain truth is that you’re incredibly persistent when it comes to trying to grow the "following" for exactly what you follow. If you want proof, just look at this PDF—there are hundreds of examples right here. This isn't some vague trend or something that's just "happening"—it’s a damn fact, and your constant presence through these posts is the undeniable evidence of it.

Every single thing we do—every little action—has to have a motive behind it. And that goes for your whole "building a following" thing, too. You’ve got to have a reason, you know? Sure, you can always try to deny it or spin your own version of why you're doing it, but let's be real: the true "strength" of any group is measured by its numbers. It doesn't matter if you're talking about political movements, pop stars, or even spiritual groups—it's all the same. Whether someone is out there preaching liberal ideals, acting like a die-hard Michael Jackson superfan, or deep into studying ancient mysticism, the sheer size of the crowd is what defines its power. In a way, mass psychology works such that people actually soothe their own anxiety just by increasing their number of followers. It's almost like a safety net in numbers.

I realize that what I just said might have sounded a bit too abstract—maybe even a little out there—so I’ll be kind enough to transcribe a really interesting passage from the book "Understanding Media" for you. This specific excerpt focuses mostly on the phenomenon of money as a medium, but the logic applies perfectly to mass media as well...

There’s actually quite a bit of common ground between a massive pile of cash and a sudden flash of light—and honestly, more than you might think at first glance. In fact... It’s funny how you look at certain psychological patterns—the kind that drive people to accumulate massive amounts of wealth—and you realize they aren't just random behaviors. There’s actually a really deep, almost symbiotic connection between those specific mental frameworks and the pursuit of endless riches. It’s like watching someone try to fill a bucket with holes in it, yet they keep pouring faster and faster, thinking if they just hit a certain volume, the emptiness will finally vanish.Elias Canetti When you really dig into it, the core driving force behind any massive movement—the kind that actually shifts the needle—is this relentless, almost primal urge for rapid, unchecked growth. It’s like watching a startup in Silicon Valley during its first big break; there's this unstoppable momentum where everything just wants to expand as fast as possible without anything standing in its way. When you start looking at how power actually moves, you realize it’s almost always tied to those massive concentrations of wealth or resources—you know, that kind of concentrated capital you see in places like Wall Street or Silicon Valley. It’s just a pattern: where the money pools up in huge amounts, that’s exactly where the leverage shifts. It’s all about that same dynamic.

Massive crowds and piles of cash—it’s not just about them growing larger; there’s this underlying sense of anxiety that comes with it, too. It's that constant, nagging fear that everything might just suddenly fall apart or lose its value entirely, leaving you holding nothing but empty air. It feels like this constant, two-way tug-of-war between economic expansion and deflation—that endless cycle we're all stuck in—is exactly what’s stirring up so much unrest among the masses. It creates this deep-seated sense of unease whenever people start seeing wealth move around, and honestly, it makes perfect sense why everyone feels so restless.

I don't know how much of this transcribed snippet you'll be able to wrap your head around—it’s a bit dense—but if you ask me, the whole psychology behind herd mentality and just chasing numbers is pretty damn obvious.

Quincy:

It feels like you haven't quite grasped the basic mechanics of how a person actually functions yet—though, honestly, it’s probably because you’ve just been choosing to ignore them since they don't really align with what you care about.

Look, I wasn't the one who went around saying that "a person learns wherever their heart leads them"—though I can see the appeal of that sentiment. 🤷

Honestly, the only thing I truly refuse to engage with is ignorance itself. ☕

Quincy:

The mind is really just a servant to what the heart feels.

Absolute, monumental stupidity!

Can you actually back up that blatant nonsense with any real evidence, or is this just another one of those empty cognitive assertions?

Quincy:

When I talk about "the heart," I’m not really talking about some poetic, mushy sentiment—it's more like the total sum of everything a person actually wants out of life. It's that core collection of all our deepest desires and drives.

It’s been a long time since I’ve come across something quite this ridiculous. 🤣

I think you’ll agree that desires are really just a mental process—something we possess solely because we have minds to begin with. Their whole function is basically to act as a motor, pushing us to actually get up and do something. It’s pretty simple when you break it down: if you want to grab a drink, you first have to feel the urge to quench your thirst. If you want to start moving, you either have to desire reaching a specific destination, or at the very least, have a strong enough desire to not stay exactly where you are right now.

Since desires are essentially just mental processes—and seeing as you’re calling this whole "totality of desire" the "heart," while claiming the mind is merely its servant—your logic leads to a bit of a loop, doesn't it? If we follow that thread, you’re basically suggesting that the mind is serving itself.

When I really sit back and think about it—and I do tend to dwell on these things—it probably holds true in your case. You’ve basically become a prisoner to your own ideas... the kind that just spiraled completely out of your control. 🤷

Quincy:

If you honestly believe that humans can function any other way, then I’m really just going to have to question your intelligence at this point.

Man, you have no idea how much I just jumped out of my skin. I was genuinely spooked there for a second. 😍

Quincy:

Universal logic? Honestly, I think I know exactly where you picked that up—in your own little private universe. Since you're so confident in that "universal" way of thinking, let’s put it to the test with a quick little challenge. Why does the universe even exist in the first place? If that feels like too much to wrap your head around, how about we scale it back a bit: why does a human being exist? Or a frog? Or... well, anything at all?

Basic logic lessons tell us that:

I’ve been thinking about this lately—it’s kind of a logic puzzle, really—but if you ask a question that starts with "why?" and you can't somehow rephrase it into one or more "how?" questions, then honestly, the whole thing is pretty much pointless. It sounds a bit pedantic, I know, but hear me out—without figuring out the "how," you never actually get to bridge that gap between an action and its cause. You can't truly establish a cause-and-effect relationship if you don't understand the mechanics of how we got from point A to point B. Without the "how," the "why" just ends up floating there without any real substance to back it up.

When you ask a "why" question, you’re actually baking a few assumptions right into the premise—it’s kind of like assuming there was a blueprint drawn up before the house was even built. By asking why something happened, you're essentially implying that there was a specific intent or a driving motive behind it. It carries this unearned assumption that whatever we're looking at didn't just happen by chance, but was instead born out of some concrete, calculated reason.

Logic would suggest that if the entire universe was kicked off by some specific, calculated intention—which, let’s be honest, feels like a massive long shot—then we run into a bit of a wall. By definition, since we are just a byproduct of that original intent, there is absolutely no way for us to actually grasp or understand the true motives behind whatever force set everything in motion. It's like a tiny gear in a massive machine trying to comprehend why the engineer designed the whole engine in the first place; we're just part of the mechanism, so the "why" remains completely out of our reach.

Look, if you’re asking *how* the universe actually came to be—the mechanics of it all—then sure, logic is an incredible tool to have in your back pocket. It can help us piece together some pretty solid explanations for the cosmic machinery. But here’s the thing—and this is where people usually trip up—logic alone won't ever lead you to the "why." You can crunch all the numbers you want, but you won't find a fundamental reason for why anything exists at all. To my mind, there simply isn't a reason for human existence or the existence of the universe itself; it just is.

The universe just... exists. It simply is. 🙂

Quincy:

For any of us to actually claim we're right, we’d need to pull off some kind of massive breakthrough—something where we can clearly and undeniably see how all the sciences stem from the Kabbalah, or whatever its actual source might be. Since I haven't quite reached that level of enlightenment (not yet, anyway), I can't personally vouch for it; I'm just passing along what the Kabbalists themselves have observed. Whether that's 100% accurate is anyone's guess.

BINGO!

That's my point exactly... you're essentially operating on the assumption that someone else is on a "higher plane," and based on that FAITH, you follow their "teachings." There's absolutely no way to reliably rule out the possibility that you've been sold a bill of goods—that this "exclusive wisdom" is really just a tightly clenched fist holding absolutely nothing inside.

Given that you're fully aware of your own convictions—and the fact that you're still in that stage of hoping your beliefs turn out to be true—it's honestly a bit absurd to make claims about the supposed "effectiveness" of the Kabbalah based solely on your faith in the sincerity of the people you've chosen to follow.

And there we go... at the end of the day, we've finally hit a point of mutual understanding, so there's really no need to keep dancing around your personal beliefs.

Best regards!

casualmaker13 said:Let's try tackling the answers in order:

1. I think you misunderstood me. I meant that when you first started talking—thinking back to those very first words you uttered as a kid—they were separate. You could say 'Mama' or 'Dada,' but you couldn't, and didn't even know how to construct a full sentence.

2. When I used the word 'detach,' I meant detaching yourself from all other content—thoughts, feelings, objects, sounds, and everything else you notice and are aware of in a given moment.

If you look a little closer at what I wrote in my last post, you'll see that I am specifically talking about how the observer and the observed are not the same thing.
We could say that without an observer, there can be no observed, and that they are inseparable during the act of observation, but any conscious observer can see that they and the observed aren't identical. Meanwhile, that observer who is unconscious and merges entirely with the content in that moment? They don't exist; they're gone.

Alright! Let's assume I totally missed the mark on your first post, and instead, let's just dive straight into what you described in your second one.

I've got a couple more questions for you:

1) If we agree that the "observed" can't exist without the "observer," and that the actual act of observing is the glue holding them together... then what exactly is this "I" that is capable of experiencing itself as something distinct from what it's perceiving?

From where I'm standing—and even following the logic of what you wrote above—it seems like the answer might be "thought." Thought is what exists apart from the "observed," but honestly, that feels like we're just sweeping the problem under a different rug... which leads me to my next point.

2) Is there actually a difference between a "thought" and the "thinker," or are thoughts simply the thinker themselves?

And while we're at it, I have a quick follow-up... because if we're trying to figure out if there's a real distinction between the "observer" and the "observed," the concept of thought is going to come up almost immediately.

2.1) What even *is* a thought? How and why does it happen? Can you actually use your willpower to think about absolutely nothing, or are thoughts—at least some of them—just a spontaneous reaction from the mind to changes in its environment?

---

PS: It’s really nice of you to put so much effort into staying coherent and being willing to jump into this dialogue. If you're still up for discussing this, I'm sure we'll eventually land on some concrete, and frankly quite reasonable, conclusion.

Harold Barrett7 said:Is the illusion of reaching a certain state of consciousness just an expression of feeling our own insignificance?
Maybe the problem isn't knowing your "self"... maybe. It's not our fault we're taught to try and figure out what that "I am" would even be. Dealing with this, I don't know either way.
I know, but I really don't feel like explaining it to you. Though, I'd bet anything that "you" are the one...??

Sorry, but man... I clearly missed the point of your post entirely, so I'm honestly not sure how to even respond. 🤷

Brian Foster3 said:I don't meditate. And honestly, you completely missed the point of my repetition—which I even bolded for you, by the way.

So what exactly is this "thing" I'm tripping on... what's the name of it again? You say you trip on Kabbalah... fine... but what the hell am I supposedly tripping on?!

Can't you see it yourself? 🙂 It's just empty intellectual posturing designed solely to give you that little ego boost of feeling superior by messing with everyone else's heads. ☕

Who knows where you started, but once this stops being enough for you, maybe you can go start your own little cult.😍

Let's try being logical for a second...

Say, for the sake of simplicity, there are 20 different "spiritual methods."

To "find" which one is best, you have to try all 20—otherwise, you have no idea which is actually the best, you're just falling for someone's sales pitch... right?

If there are 20 flavors of ice cream, I can only know which one is my favorite if I've tasted all 20... basic logic.

Since there are hundreds of "spiritual practices," and obviously you haven't tried them all, you're lying to us when you claim yours is the absolute best... elementary logic dictates that you are simply lying!

Comprende?

I get where you're coming from. But you're framing the argument arbitrarily and incorrectly. Look, thousands of spiritual practices can really be boiled down to three basic types: left, right, and center. Everything else is just cultural and historical window dressing with varying levels of complexity and accuracy. You realize that after spending some time searching and testing. In my case, that took ten years. Besides, I already said I found original Kabbalah to be the best method for me personally. That doesn't mean it's necessarily the best for everyone else. As they say: people learn where their heart leads them.

Unlike your "spiritual practice," which is invisible, intangible, and totally immeasurable, mathematical axioms are visible, tangible, and highly measurable. Unlike your "spiritual practice," mathematical axioms actually work in practice, DAMN IT!

They do it exactly the same way every single time, with that same damn precision, and I don't care one bit about whatever "spiritual belief" some person thinks they have while using them. They’re just self-evident, totally logical, and freaking consistent. It's because of them that a probe launched from Earth can actually nail a landing on Mars at the exact spot we planned!

You’re full of it. To even attempt a claim like that, you’d actually have to go out and test the spiritual practice in question, but it's painfully obvious you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about. You just love the sound of your own voice, hoping that your half-baked, surface-level understanding of spiritual disciplines will somehow pass for truth here, but let me tell you—it won't. If you actually bothered to dig into the original Kabbalah, you’d see for yourself that this stuff works; it’s tangible, it’s precise as a mathematical axiom, and honestly, you wouldn't believe it, but it can actually be measured.

Until you actually step up and do the work, you don't have any right to open your mouth about the truth while pretending you've got it all figured out. Go ahead and test it out for yourself instead of just sitting there acting all confident in these incredibly shallow, basic generalizations. Honestly, it just makes you look ridiculous and completely immature. ☕

You’ve even got a chance to catch this live! There’s an introductory lecture on Kabbalah happening tonight at 7:30 PM—literally less than an hour from now—so if you want to jump in, you better move fast! I can't believe people actually miss that old Justin.tv era like it was some kind of golden age, because honestly, looking back at how messy and unpolished everything was compared to what we have now, I just don't get the nostalgia!Look, if you’ve got questions, just go ahead and ask them. It’s not that complicated. 😍 Look, before you start flapping your gums, maybe try actually learning something about the original Kabbalah. When you’re just rambling on like this without any clue what you're talking about, there's zero chance we're going to have a single constructive conversation.

Look, you can talk about your "spiritual practices" all you want, but let’s be real—you can barely manage to handle your own basic daily chores, much less predict the outcome of complex physical feats like launching a probe to Mars!

Look, Kabbalah doesn't deal with the physical world at all, though if you really think about it, every single science we have basically stems from its principles...

That cult of yours isn't just a joke—it’s a total scam that doesn't provide even an ounce of actual value, and honestly, it's clearly rotted your brain so much that you can't even tell the difference between universal mathematical axioms and the exclusive, made-up nonsense your little group spews out like it's some kind of gourmet menu! ☕

You clearly don't even know what a sect is, because that word has way more layers than you're giving it credit for. Seriously, go do your own homework for once! Once you actually stumble upon the original definition, maybe—just maybe—you’ll finally wrap your head around what I meant about a mathematician blindly following axioms. But honestly, looking at how you're acting right now, you're just proving to be a total idiot who thinks they're right when they're dead wrong.

I hope you live to be a hundred years old just so you can blow every single cent you own on those overpriced seminars! 😉

The original amount isn't even being charged! Seriously, do some basic research and learn the fundamentals before you start spreading such absolute garbage online—otherwise, you’re just going to end up looking like a complete idiot.

And here’s the real kicker: why on earth would I believe that some charlatan could "unlock" or "prepare" me for something that only exists in their own head, especially when they’re charging me a fortune just to hear their delusional nonsense?!

Look, it’s not just some theoretical thing, because I’ve actually lived through it myself. Once I felt it happen, I became obsessed with finding my own way to trigger that state again... then again, if you've never had that breakthrough, I totally get why you'd think it's all a myth. But hey, what can you do?

It’s like people used to think a carriage couldn't possibly move unless there were horses pulling it. They just didn't see the engine coming.

As for the training, of course I ran tests first. If I hadn't seen actual results—if I wasn't seeing progress that actually satisfied me—I would have walked away from this whole thing a long time ago.

In other words—you can't really put a label on this whole "philosophy" of mine... right? 🙂

It’s actually pretty tough to put into words—you know, that specific feeling of trying to describe something that just isn't there. It's like trying to explain the shape of a hole or describing the silence in a room after a loud party ends; you aren't really talking about an object, you're talking about the absence of one. It’s a strange thing to try and capture, because how do you paint a picture using nothing but empty space? 😉

Quincy:

Who knows how this all started? Honestly, if you find that this isn't enough to keep you satisfied, you might just end up founding your own little cult one of these days.

I mostly end up creating these little "shamanism victim societies"—it’s funny how that works—because people who have been confronted by total idiots tend to seek out comfort among those who have dealt with the exact same nonsense. It’s a survival instinct, really. And honestly? Sometimes that shared sense of revolt just turns into a full-blown case of Stockholm syndrome.

It’s to the extent that... well, there’s a certain following involved, but they mostly lobby "against me"—or at least, that's how they see it. They operate under this belief that everything they're doing is aimed at taking me down, even if, in reality, that isn't necessarily true.

Quincy:

I hear what you're saying, and I get where you're coming from—really, I do. But I think you might be framing the issue a bit arbitrarily, almost misrepresenting the core of the matter. If you actually step back and look at the big picture, you can boil down thousands of different spiritual practices into just three fundamental categories: left-hand, right-hand, and middle-way paths.

Look, you can’t really draw a definitive conclusion until you've actually gone through and tested every single one of those thousands of options. It sounds exhausting, I know—but think about it this way: out of those 500 variations you haven't even touched yet, there could easily be two outliers that don't fit into any of our neat little categories. They might not be "left," "middle," or "right" at all. If that happens, we’re right back at square one, and honestly? You're just kidding yourself if you think you've found the answer already. ☕

Quincy:

It’s just one of those things you finally wrap your head around after spending a good chunk of time digging through the details and actually putting things to the test.

You’re just convincing yourself at this point... mostly because you haven't actually done the work! To really know what's what, you have to roll up your sleeves and try them all out for yourself. At the end of the day—and let's be honest here—claiming one thing is superior to another without ever having even tasted it is nothing more than a flat-out lie.

I honestly believe you truly believe that lie—like, you actually think it’s the truth—so when you speak, you really are being sincere in your own mind. But here’s the thing: because that whole premise is built on nothing, your performance ends up feeling fake. It’s that kind of forced sincerity that just feels totally disingenuous to everyone else watching.

Look, deep down—somewhere under the surface where you don't usually let people peek—you’re actually aware that your whole approach is built on this shaky, pretty uncertain foundation. It feels like you’re intuitively trying to pad the numbers, almost as if you're rushing to recruit more "believers" into your little "exclusive technique." It's like you're trying to use a massive crowd to make up for the fact that the actual substance just isn't there. You're essentially trying to trade quantity for credibility, hoping that if enough people follow along, nobody will notice the lack of real weight behind it all.

Because if everyone believes the exact same thing—well, that doesn't automatically make it the truth. Not by a long shot!

Quincy:

In my case, we're talking about a stretch that lasted ten whole years.

My deepest condolences to you.

Quincy:

There’s an old saying somewhere—you learn where your heart leads you.

Well, people say you learn as long as you're living... but what you just said definitely isn't one of those sayings!

What you're actually implying is that "a person only learns what their biases allow them to, and anything else—anything that doesn't resonate with their 'heart'—is simply ignored."

Anyone who claims they only learn where their heart takes them is, quite frankly, being a massive ignoramus!

Quincy:

You're just throwing shade, hoping that your little preconceived notions about spiritual practices will hold water here too. But they won't.

I’m not throwing around "my own image" or perspective... I’m working with logic, arguments, concrete knowledge, a vocabulary, and a level of informed discourse that honestly goes way beyond yours.

It’s not my "image" that needs to hold water... it’s universal logic and established facts that provide the foundation here.

In reality, I don't even have a "picture" to defend... I am simply performing a logical deconstruction of YOUR picture, and through that process, I arrive at an undeniable conclusion—your picture is illogical, practically impossible, and therefore absolutely false.

Quincy:

Until you do that, you have no right to say anything about Kabbalah while simultaneously pretending to speak the truth.

I am under no obligation to "personally test" something that is clearly inconsistent with logic and facts just to determine if it's a fraud.

When you tell me that 2 + 2 = 7... I don't need to go grab four apples and "test" whether the sum happens to be seven... it simply WON'T be!

Quincy:

Kabbalah doesn't deal with the physical world. Even though all sciences stem from Kabbalah...

And what’s the proof of that...?

Because you (as usual) are making cognitive assertions where the only foundation is your own cognition... you think it's true, so you say it's true... but that obviously isn't how it works!

Quincy:

You don't even know what a sect is. It has multiple meanings. Go look them up yourself. Once you find the original definition, maybe you'll understand what I meant by a mathematician following axioms... otherwise, you're just coming across as the fool here.

So why don't you enlighten the general public with these "extra" meanings instead of just making "cognitive" claims that they exist, telling me to go find them myself, and then concluding that I'm the stupid one? 🤣

By doing that, you're insulting my intelligence, and if you keep heading in this direction, I can't really blame you for the fallout... consider yourself warned.

Jeremy Ramirez6 said:I'm just the substitute 🤣

Honestly, this might be one of the smartest takes I've seen on this topic so far.

Kudos to you!

Brian Foster3 said:Like I said, just go ahead and enjoy your little bouts of schizophrenia...☕

Your whole cultish obsession is just Funny to me ☕

🙂 Now you’re sounding all confident like your little obsession isn't Funny. 😍

I read over on that Kabbalah info site that you:....

.. which basically means you're insisting on being exclusive... like only your "approved" little group holds the "real" truth while everyone else is dead wrong... right?

Man, if that isn't a cult, I don't know what is. 🤷

I'm not pushing exclusivity for the sake of being elitist; it's purely pragmatic. I've found that original Kabbalah is simply the most effective method for spiritual growth, so why would I waste my energy on anything else? If a mathematician sticks to mathematical axioms, you'd call them a cultist too, wouldn't you? ☕

As for the "real truth," no single teaching owns it. A teaching—a method—is only as good as its ability to enable you to perceive the "real truth" directly for yourself.
Every teaching and method out there exists for a reason. A classic mistake beginners make when they start exploring spirituality is jumping from one thing to another like a headless chicken. Eventually, you just end up with a pile of spiritual mumbo-jumbo that only makes sense to the person who came up with it. But hey, even that phase is part of the process....

They say repetition is the mother of wisdom—which sounds great on paper—but there’s a massive catch. If you find yourself doing the exact same thing over and over again while just sitting there hoping that, eventually, the universe will hand you a different result... well, then you aren't being wise. You're just losing it. It’s like that old idea attributed to Einstein: if you keep running into the same brick wall expecting it to turn into a door, you aren't practicing discipline, you're just being irrational.

It’s a nice way to put it—calling it "getting in touch" with meditation practice. You just sit there, repeating the same thing over and over again... and honestly, you just kind of hold onto this quiet hope that tomorrow might bring even a tiny bit more progress than today did. 🙂

Now you’re sounding pretty damn confident—like you’ve finally decided your jokes aren't actually funny.

Wait, what exactly am I "shaving" here? What’s this supposed obsession of mine... what was the word again? You’re claiming I’m obsessed with Kabbalah—fine, whatever you say—but what on earth am I supposedly obsessed with? For crying out loud! 🙂

Look, I’m going to double down on the idea of exclusivity here—and honestly, I don't mean that in some snobby or elitist way. It’s purely about being pragmatic. I’ve come to realize that the original Kabbalah is hands-down the most effective path for actual spiritual growth, so why on earth would I waste my energy, time, or mental bandwidth on all these other methods? It’s like if you found a shortcut that actually works to get you from New York to Los Angeles—you wouldn't spend your life driving every single winding backroad just for the sake of variety, right? You'd take the direct route and save your resources for the destination. For me, it's all about efficiency.

Let’s take a second to step back and actually look at this logically...

Let’s say, just to keep things simple and give us a concrete starting point, we’re looking at a landscape where there are maybe twenty different "spiritual methods" out there.

Look, if you actually want to figure out which one is the winner—I mean, the absolute best—you’ve gotta roll up your sleeves and test all twenty of them yourself. Otherwise, you aren't really making an informed choice; you're just falling for whatever someone else's hype happens to be at the moment, right?

It’s pretty simple math, really—if there are 20 different flavors of ice cream at the shop, I can't exactly claim to have a favorite until I've actually tasted all 20. It just makes sense that way... logic dictates you need the full sample size before making a call.

Look, since there are hundreds upon hundreds of different spiritual practices out there—and let’s be honest, you haven't tried them all—you're essentially just kidding yourself if you claim yours is the absolute best. It’s a bit of a stretch, really. If we look at this through the lens of basic, common-sense logic, it becomes pretty obvious that you're just being dishonest with us.

Got it. I’m ready to go. I'll make sure everything sounds like it was written by a real person living right here in the States—natural, conversational, and completely original. No literal translations, no leftover traces of the old setting, just smooth, authentic American English that keeps the soul of the original message while swapping out all the specifics for their US counterparts. I've got the persona down, too—long-winded, friendly, and full of those little conversational asides. Just send over the text whenever you're ready.

If you’re the type of person who thinks a mathematician following basic mathematical axioms makes them some kind of cultist, then I honestly don't know what to tell you—you'd probably call a structural engineer a cult leader just for trusting the laws of physics. It’s like saying someone is part of a conspiracy because they actually follow the rules of the game instead of just making things up as they go along.

Look, there’s a massive difference here—and I mean a fundamental one. Your "spiritual practice" is essentially invisible, intangible, and frankly impossible to quantify in any meaningful way. It's all very subjective, isn't it? But mathematical axioms? Those are different. They are visible, they are concrete, and they are incredibly measurable. Unlike that abstract stuff you're working with, mathematical axioms actually hold up when you put them to work in the real world, Rade!

They work the exact same way every single time—with this incredible, unwavering precision—and they don't care one bit about whatever "spiritual beliefs" the person using them might hold. It’s not about faith; it's just pure, self-evident logic. They are constant, predictable, and honestly, just plain reliable. It’s because of that consistency that we can launch a probe from the US and trust it to land on Mars at the precise, calculated spot we intended.

Look, on the other hand—and I say this with all due respect to your "spiritual practice"—you can barely manage to get through your own daily chores, let alone predict the outcome of a massive physical undertaking like launching a probe to Mars. It’s just not realistic.

Look, your little cult isn't just a total joke—I mean, that "spiritual practice" you're so obsessed with doesn't hold an ounce of actual value. But honestly? It’s more than just a waste of time; it seems like it’s actually clouded your judgment to the point where you can't even see the massive, glaring gap between universal mathematical axioms and the exclusive, made-up nonsense your group spits out like it's some kind of gourmet menu. ☕

I hope you live to be a hundred and spend every single cent you have on these seminars! 😉

When it comes to finding the "ultimate truth," honestly, no single teaching holds the monopoly on it. A method—any method, really—is only as good as its ability to actually help you perceive that truth for yourself.

But here’s the real kicker: why on earth do you believe someone can "prepare" you for something that supposedly exists—at least according to the person charging you a premium to do the "preparing"—and then bill you for it one way or another?

jademarlin26 said:Hey Edward Flores4, it’s been a while. 🙂 I must say, after enduring all the emotional outbursts from those who struggle to reason because they prefer to think with their hearts, their backsides, and whatever else, I truly missed your precise and concrete reasoning.

As for the response to the question, you cannot expect much from followers. It isn't their job to think. It would be interesting if one of the magicians managed to summon a true Brahmin to this forum—someone who actually understood the concept of Atman—so we could explain that he could have simply read some unlearned Shastras and skipped the theatrics. Then again, from their perspective, it’s probably easier to just fantasize about being detached from the body and these thoughts while getting screwed over. 🤷
Pardon my french

That’s actually pretty likely—and honestly, it's the main reason I pop back in here so sporadically. Usually, when I do show up, it’s because someone has posed a particularly sharp, well-constructed question...

...and that whole idea about the separation between the observer and the observed? That’s probably the "question of all questions," isn't it?

But you make a fair point... until that realization travels from the gut up to the brain, trying to think your way through it with just sheer willpower is a lost cause!

As for what actually answers that specific question, you can't really expect much from followers. It’s not their job to do the heavy lifting of thinking. It would be fascinating if one of those spiritual "magicians" could actually summon a true intellectual heavyweight to this forum—someone who has actually grasped the concept of the self—just so we could explain that they could have reached that understanding simply by reading some unrefined, basic texts without all the theatrics. Though, I suppose from their perspective, it’s much easier to just drift along, pretending they aren't even tied to this physical body or these passing thoughts while they're being taken for a ride. 🤷
Pardon my French

Your "French" is perfectly fine... if you want to be a bit provocative, you absolutely have to earn the right to be. And if someone wants to be pushed around, they inevitably end up following someone or something once they decide they're incapable of helping themselves. They essentially strip themselves of all dignity and hope that some "specialized" or "exclusive" therapy will somehow work its magic.

It’s just easier for them to believe they’re clueless and need a hand, which leads them to blindly follow the first "certified" or "authorized" fool they come across. The more exclusive the nonsense, the more indescribable the experience, and the higher the price tag on the seminars—the better it is for them. 🙂

So, don't be surprised when their guru tells them they’ll likely need several more lifetimes to figure it out... all while waiting for that realization to travel from the gut to the head!

Aha, well, I’ve got to run now—someone needs to teach this Kabbalist the basics of logic!

Brian Foster3 said:Look, I’ve got zero interest in getting into some pointless, circular argument or playing games with you, so honestly, just go ahead and enjoy your little "spiritual delusions" all by yourself. 🙂

I can't believe I'm even seeing this right now, but honestly, it's just typical of how things go sometimes when you least expect them to fall apart!

If I ever decide I want to join some cult, I'm going straight to Madonna. 🙄

Madonna has about as much to do with the Kabbalah as you do with Christianity, if you catch my drift. But hey, if you're that desperate to join a cult, go ahead and follow her. ☕

When you say that, it honestly sounds like you actually believe you aren't a schizophrenic yourself... which, let’s be real, is just impossible. I mean, look at what you're doing right now—you're speaking, you're writing, you're communicating, you're digging into introspection, and you're even acting like a bit of a wise guy by rambling on about how the observer is somehow detached from the thing being observed. 🙂

That whole cultist mindset of yours is honestly just Funny. ☕

Look, saying Madonna has anything to do with the Kabbalah is kind of like saying you have a direct connection to Christianity—it’s a bit of a stretch, roughly speaking. But hey, if you're really itching to join a cult, go ahead and follow her lead.

I was just scrolling through some Kabbalah info forums and I saw this about you:

I work exclusively with... izvornom ...kabbalistic literature, written by... recognized I'm a Kabbalist. On top of that, I’ve been following the lessons from... It’s all about being recognized—truly seen and acknowledged for what you bring to the table. kabalista

So, what you’re really saying is that you’re digging your heels in on this idea of exclusivity—like your specific little group is the only one holding the "real" truth, while everyone else is just wandering around in the dark. It’s almost like you’re claiming to be the only ones with the map while the rest of us are just lost, right?

Look, man... if that isn't a cult, then I honestly don't know what is. 🤷

casualmaker13 said:Look, you haven't lost your mind or anything. It’s just that you haven't really trained yourself to be an observer yet. Because you lack that practice, things don't feel easy or fluid. You struggle to step back and actually detach—to just sit there, be aware of yourself, and watch the sunset while letting all those waves of thoughts and emotions wash over you without getting swept away by them. I guess it takes work.
It’s just like how you can't exactly string together complex sentences the second you start talking.

If you’re actually interested, my advice would be this: just try to sit back and watch what's happening inside your own head. You know, like observing the random images, the stray thoughts, and all those weird emotions that pop up out of nowhere. Just stay awake to it all—stay fully conscious of everything that’s unfolding in the moment. Maybe that's a good place to start.
If you actually want to pull this off, you probably need to cut out all the outside noise. I mean, seriously—isolate yourself from everything going on in the world. Shut out the chaos, close your eyes, and just focus inward. It might make that initial step of becoming an observer a little easier, I guess. Maybe.
At first, it’s just impossible to stay aware for most of the time you spend meditating. It's a bit of a roller coaster, I guess. You cycle through these different roles of the observer—moments where you’re actually conscious of yourself, your thoughts, your feelings, or even just the random images and sounds drifting through your mind or the room around you. But then, you slip. You drift into those states where you aren't really "you" anymore; you're just floating, carried away by that endless internal monologue and the mental movies we all play on loop. It’s always the same stuff, too—like, what happened to me earlier today, what am I going to tackle tomorrow, or that one thing I totally forgot to do... it just pulls you right back under.

With enough practice and time spent meditating, staying present during everything happening around you gets a whole lot easier. You actually start to truly soak in things—like watching a sunset—because you're fully aware of your own emotions and thoughts. You experience the beauty of the moment as one complete thing, without feeling lost in it or like you’ve somehow disappeared into the background.
Since we’re actually awake—you know, truly present and conscious in the moment—we realize that we aren't that sunset we're staring at. We exist even after the sun dips below the horizon, and we're fully aware of the sheer beauty and peace that sunset brings us. And honestly? Just being there to witness it doesn't disrupt anything or make us feel tense. It just is.
I guess anxiety tends to creep in whenever we try to tackle something that isn't coming naturally. You know, when you can't just cruise through it effortlessly, but instead find yourself straining and pushing way too hard. It’s exhausting, really. And honestly, that kind of intense effort usually ends up sucking all the joy right out of whatever you're looking at.

Alright, I have a few questions here...

1) Do you typically formulate every single sentence in your head before you actually say it out loud?

Because I don't... I basically construct my sentences while I'm speaking them. For me, there isn't this separate stage of "formulating" versus "speaking," so your comparison about "stringing sentences together" is completely lost on me.🤷

2) When you say "you simply can't detach yourself"... well, can you even detach from yourself? I genuinely don't get it—if you "detach" the "you" from the "self," what exactly is left behind?

To me, that sounds like fragmentation, and honestly, that's not something I struggle with at all. I can observe myself observing the sunset... I can essentially lease my "self" out to five different "tenants," where each one plays a totally different role... BUT

that doesn't actually address the core question I posed in my original post:

Can the observer be separate from the observed? Don't they function together, like two sides of the same coin?

I’m arguing that they *are* inseparable, and even with the best intentions, I can't wrap my head around how your advice fits into that specific dilemma, so please, walk me through your logic!

Look, in case it wasn't clear, I wasn't asking for tips on "meditation." I was addressing the question of whether the observer and the observed can truly be split apart.

If your "advice" is meant to answer that specific point, then please show me exactly how it relates.

I'm going to ignore the rest of your suggestions—not because I don't value them, but simply because I didn't ask for them. It seems you took my rhetoric quite literally when it was actually intended metaphorically, so I'm taking this opportunity to clarify what I was actually getting at, what I'm truly curious about, and what the "real" question was at the heart of my opening "ballad."

Brian Foster3 said:🙂 Look, spirituality is the polar opposite of the material world, so you're wasting your breath trying to find "spiritual" reasons for physical things happening.

The bottom line is that we’re running on two different operating systems here. One is that well-known, materialistic, ego-driven mode—basically our god-given nature—and the other is the spiritual mode, which sits right on the flip side. But let me tell you, hitting that spiritual gear isn't easy; it takes actual grit and hard work, specifically working against your own selfish instincts. You aren't trying to kill off your ego, you're just learning how to outmaneuver it and take the lead.

Honestly, the only thing being wasted here is your time reading my post—you missed the point entirely because you're trying to slot my ideas into the little mental cubbyholes of your own dogma.

The core issue is that we are essentially running two different operating systems at once.

If I ever decide I want to join some cult, I'll be sure to check in with Quincy first. 🙄

jademarlin26 said:Can the observer truly be separated from the observed? They seem inextricably linked, much like two sides of the same coin.

Just to get this conversation moving, I’ll play dumb for a second and pretend my question isn't purely rhetorical.

To be honest, I was pretty floored by how poorly some "spiritual leaders" responded to such a straightforward question. It almost leaves you feeling like nobody in the entire "spiritual community" is actually "spiritual" enough to even attempt to grasp the true essence of what's being asked here.

I'm willing to risk looking a bit foolish, so let me try to ground this question with a concrete example.

Picture this: I'm sitting at my kitchen table, looking out the window at a spectacularly ordinary sunset. From my perspective—if I didn't exist, there wouldn't even *be* a sunset. But since I am right here, watching this damn sunset unfold, I can't find a single way to distinguish myself from the experience of seeing it.

In fact, the very moment I try to pinpoint the difference between "me" and the sunset, the actual experience of the sunset vanishes. Instead, I'm just experiencing my own struggle to differentiate myself from something I'm no longer actually perceiving... and that honestly triggers a sense of anxiety almost instantly.

Looking at this through a layman's lens—as a bit of a "spiritual amateur"—I'd say that during the actual experience of the sunset, the "observer" and the "observed" ARE one and the same. Trying to draw a line between them just results in fracturing the "observer," who then spends all their energy fruitlessly trying to "catch" themselves in the act of observing, while the "observed" ceases to be a sunset in that moment.

Essentially, for the "observer" and the "observed" to be distinct, I would have to stop observing entirely, split myself in two, and then somehow "lend" one half of myself to the other to perform the observation (which sounds like a nightmare of a process).

The more effort I pour into that mental gymnastics, the more anxious I get, because I lose track of who is watching whom and why. Both halves feel equally real—both as the "observer" and the "observed"—so the whole experiment starts feeling like a mild schizophrenic episode.

I only find any peace when I give up on trying to tear the "observer" away from the "observed." Mostly, I just try not to ruin a perfectly beautiful sunset by making useless attempts to detach myself from it, which only serves to break the peaceful Unity that exists in the simple act of perceiving the light fading.

But hey, maybe I've finally lost it... since I'm just a "spiritual amateur," I have to assume there's some deep "spiritual" complexity in this division that keeps slipping through my fingers.

Sean Castillo said:Sometimes I don't even know what's going through my head... so being totally honest is basically impossible. And honestly? When I'm stuck for words but I've already started a sentence, I just let my thoughts drift into whatever logical sequence of words happens to pop out. That’s the truth. 😁

Honestly, that just means you're a regular human being—you’ve got both an introverted side and an extroverted side.

In my experience, the people who claim they always know exactly what they're saying are usually the ones with the real issues, because it means one half of their personality has been completely suppressed.

Mark Torres14 said:I agree regarding language. It’s so flexible that you can give the exact same thing totally different meanings.

No matter what we're talking about, once we decide someone is dishonest, they have—by definition—failed to respect the rights of others, and thus gained something dishonestly. And anyone who gains something while respecting the rights of others—that’s what we consider honestly earned.

But respect is a much broader term than honesty. You can respect strength, injustice, stupidity... whatever you want. Honesty is way more narrow.

Sure... you could try to pull a complete 180 and say the same person can be dishonest toward me, but at the same time respect you, and thus be honest toward you. But being dishonest to just one person is enough to conclude you don't respect others, unless you're doing it for some selfish reason.

I'm not doing any mental gymnastics here. What you said is true. I'm just saying the terms respect and honesty are clearly distinct.

So you get that being 'partially honest' is the same as being dishonest?

Absolutely. Otherwise, I'd have to treat those words as opposites of universals, and if that were the case, they wouldn't mean anything when used. Just like you can't be partially honest, you can't be relatively honest either.🙂

Exactly—that’s precisely the point we were making. We're saying that "integrity" essentially branches off from that much larger idea of "respect," but that doesn't mean "respect" loses its wider range of connotations just because integrity exists within it.

I can't exactly pull a complete 180 here. What you said is true. All I can really add is that the terms "respect" and "integrity" are clearly distinct from one another.

Think of one as an expression of the other... which is why they manifest themselves so differently in practice.

Mark Torres14 said:Respect and honesty are two completely different things.
If they were the same thing, you wouldn't even be able to ask:
Can a dishonest person still show respect?

It's like saying water and iron are the same thing...

... which brings me back to my point .. I could just as easily ask, "does water respect iron?"

See, grammar lets you construct all sorts of questions, even ones that make zero sense from a semantic standpoint—kind of like what you just did here.

Look, regardless of the angle we take, once we label someone as dishonest, they’ve essentially failed to respect the rights of others by default, which is how they gained whatever they have. On the flip side, if someone gains something while respecting everyone's rights, we call that being honest.

I get it... you might try to pull a mental gymnastics move and argue that the same person could be dishonest toward me, yet perfectly honorable toward you. But honestly, if someone is being dishonest with one person, it's safe to assume they aren't respecting anyone else—unless, of course, they're just playing both sides to serve their own interests.

You surely realize that being "partially honest" is really just a fancy way of being dishonest, right?