Posts by Jessica Gonzalez7

I don't find it useful to resort to insults; perhaps that is a personal weakness of mine, but I view these interactions through a different lens.

As a user of this platform, I have historically consented to granting the moderators and administrators the authority to ban me at their whim. Indeed, many users have been banned precisely at the moment they least expected it.

I now feel prepared to depart, and I am doing so on my own terms. I am effectively rescinding that power from the moderator—returning to them the absolute freedom to act as they please by terminating my implicit agreement with this site. Once I sever this tie, the moderator can no longer manipulate me or employ their coercive tools against me. Furthermore, I will no longer live in fear of being struck down by a sudden ban out of nowhere when I am unready, much like many other decent members of this community have been targeted by manipulative moderators at their most vulnerable moments.

I am not certain if you follow my logic. The reality is that certain individuals refuse to tolerate any expression of opinion, regardless of its content. Consequently, I feel compelled to speak the truth, even though the nature of that truth ensures I will be penalized for it. Because I face the threat of arbitrary punishment at any given time, I am terminating this arrangement. I am stripping the moderator of the ability to ban me when I am unprepared, and instead, I am choosing to ban myself at a moment of my own choosing.

Many users have been banned by incompetent moderators for mere contrarianism or various other forms of perceived deviance. It is frankly nauseating to see who has been removed and for what reasons. The last thing I desire is to grant anyone the satisfaction of catching me off guard and purging me from this forum. I intend to leave on my own terms, and frankly, it matters little to me who eventually decides to issue the ban.

Fine, what you're saying is likely accurate, but my goal is to burn these bridges behind me rather than leave them open. I want to conclude this matter without ever feeling the urge to look back. That is why speaking the truth, being completely transparent, and calling out the moderators seems like my only viable option.

Is there a way to delete a profile, and if so, what is the procedure?
If deletion is an option, what becomes of that user's active threads or posts? Are they preserved indefinitely or purged from the system?

I have been unable to locate any account deletion settings, which is why I am raising this inquiry here. It is frankly unacceptable that a user cannot simply close their own account; failing to provide this option forces a user to resort to badgering the moderators just to achieve a simple objective.

One should not feel compelled to pity anyone. What purpose does sympathy serve? Sympathy can actually be detrimental, even to the very person we are pitying, because we become those self-righteous altruists who suddenly decide to intervene in something simply because we believe it is necessary based on our own feelings.

Everything happening within you is essentially a struggle between who you truly are and who you intend to be when you want to function as a productive member of society. In this society, people have learned to perform sympathy; it is how they make themselves recognizable to others.

Beyond that predictable social behavior lies an individual world within our consciousness that remains a complete mystery. It is a mystery because we haven't explored it ourselves, and we have no one to ask. Within that internal world, there are only the rules we choose to accept. Personally, I see no utility in pity, so I consider it worthless to feel sorry for anyone or anything. However, I will perform sympathy when society demands it of me, purely because it facilitates my existence.

Social consciousness seeks validation and acceptance through the eyes of others. Personal consciousness seeks flawless confidence in one's own eyes. It shouldn't matter what others think of us, yet it matters deeply that we control what they think of us.

Do not misunderstand; I am not suggesting this is a tool for deception or manipulation. This ability of the consciousness to act consciously against one's own beliefs is vital for survival. Consider a situation in a remote part of the country where everyone belongs to a specific religion and is certain of their righteousness. For some, their nationality is paramount; others are die-hard fans of a local NFL team; some are strictly Democrat or Republican. To someone else, all of these distinctions might be entirely irrelevant. Yet, to survive in a world filled with these divisions—which they don't actually care about—one must perform the role.

Why would such a person behave and pretend to think like everyone else in society? Because it provides them the space to do whatever they wish with their own consciousness. That way, they can explore uncharted paths of the mind and then return to being a functional part of society exactly as they desire.

Susan Price30 said:🙂 puts it very well...

And that would serve as a solid expansion of my initial thesis.😁

So, once we realize who and what we are (being aware of the inherent power we all possess), the next step is surrender and letting go... to the Ultimate Power (for Christians, that is Jesus)—to the idea (and the words)"not my will, but yours".

Only then are we truly powerful... and in the right place, I believe.

On man's natural enemies

There are four natural enemies of man: fear, clarity, power, and old age.

If one conquers the first enemy, fear, they attain spiritual clarity. With this spiritual clarity, when everything becomes crystal clear, a person no longer doubts their own decisions; instead, they become blinded by them. They will refuse to back down from anything, even when they must defy their own clarity and consider that it might actually be flawed.

Once they realize that this clarity is merely a point before their eyes, they will encounter power. This time, it will be true power; their desire becomes law. This is the most formidable of all enemies, and it is the easiest to succumb to once a man has become truly invincible. Power is nothing more than a burden on his destiny; such a man does not rule himself and lacks the wisdom to know how or when to wield his strength. If he realizes that clarity and power, when unguided by self-mastery, are more ruinous than mere mistakes, he will reach a point where he can govern everything. Only then will he know how to utilize his power, thereby defeating the third enemy.

At that stage, man will be at the end of his learning journey and, without warning, will face the final enemy: old age. By then, fears have vanished, and that impatient spiritual clarity is gone. It is a time when he wields his full power, yet also a time when he feels an irresistible urge to rest. If he gives in to this desire for repose and oblivion—if he indulges himself by yielding to exhaustion—he will lose the final round, and the enemy will prevail. His desire to withdraw will overpower his clarity, his power, and his knowledge. However, if a man overcomes this fatigue and lives out his destiny, he can be called a man of knowledge, even if it lasts only for the brief moment in which he manages to resist his final, indestructible enemy. That single moment of clarity, power, and knowledge is sufficient.

The moment being discussed is the transition of consciousness after death.

Power lies not in quantity, but in the quality of knowledge a person possesses. What use is knowing how many sticks of dynamite it takes to reach Jupiter? None at all.

Everything else is irrelevant.

The man.

Hannah Barnes said:At the dawn of the 20th century, researchers hit a wall because
certain phenomena simply couldn't be "seen"—they were beyond direct measurement.
This creates a fundamental friction with the traditional scientific mindset:
"If I can't see it, touch it, or measure it, it doesn't exist."
The fallback, predictably, is mathematics; if visual confirmation fails, one must rely on calculation and

everything seems fine on paper...
Yet, even within the mind of a scientist, basic human psychology takes its toll.
Centuries of established scientific dogma, particularly those rigid principles from the 19th century...
Materialism—the old-school, reliable, scientific kind—demands physical proof.
Then there is Schrödinger's cat.
Are we meant to believe it is neither alive nor dead until someone decides to look?

The implication is that only what we measure (and only at the moment of measurement) earns the right to exist!

This is an old philosophical dilemma...
Our senses are inherently deceptive.
What truth can actually be gleaned from such flawed perceptions?
Cogito...

Consider this thought experiment:
An air traffic controller looks at a radar screen and sees a Boeing 747 flying from Chicago to New York...
carrying 300 passengers at an altitude of 33,000 feet.

But what does the controller actually see? Just a tiny blip on a glowing screen.
Is that blip the plane? Or is it just a blip?

If the controller makes a mistake and that blip vanishes from the display...
has he effectively killed 300 people?

Did they even truly exist, given that all he ever perceived was a single dot?

Do things persist when they fall outside our perception?

A brick falling toward my head certainly doesn't look the way I

perceive it. Under ultraviolet light, X-rays, or at a subatomic

level, its appearance would be entirely different.
Its trajectory, viewed from the sun, would look completely different; it moves at roughly

some 19 miles/s along a tangent to Earth's orbit, while the velocity toward

my head is almost
negligible. My perception of that brick is fundamentally wrong...
But it is the only reality I have.

One could conclude that perception is purely relative.

Can I then conclude that through my very act of perceiving, I am either creating or

deconstructing—that I am actively influencing reality?

It reminds me of how small children cover their eyes and insist:
"You can't see me!"

The reality is that by understanding his role as a controller, he possessed the perception of his own actions. He knew the truth because he perceived it through established protocols and the consensus of others. In essence, he accepted the responsibility of guiding that dot on the screen.

Kevin Flores87 said:If we assume a person lacks developed hearing and that's their only way to catch a sound, then for them, that sound doesn't exist. But the sound *does* exist, because that was our starting premise. It just doesn't exist for that specific individual. As a phenomenon, the sound exists on its own terms.

Precisely.

Now, let us push the boundaries of the limits established by that response just a bit further.

The sound exists, but it does not exist for the subject under test, as they have absolutely no way to perceive it. Within their specific reality, the sound is non-existent.

placidranger said:

Isn't that just basic logic?
While it's true that not everything can be laid out in a perfectly linear, logical sequence—given the numerous paradoxes we encounter—it is entirely reasonable to assume there are consciousnesses for whom reality is simply broader and more deeply understood than it is for us.

We shouldn't limit the definition of consciousness strictly to human awareness. Animals, plants, and everything surrounding us possesses its own mode of existence, which is to say, its own form of consciousness. Every entity acts according to the information available to it within its specific parameters. Water boils when heated. A human dies when subjected to extreme heat. Everything operates with the same level of consciousness relative to its own inherent capabilities.

Kevin Flores87 said:If we link the perception of something unknown to an illusion, where that illusion aligns perfectly with reality at the exact moment it occurs (like a deaf person experiencing the concept of sound), then for that individual, the sound truly exists.

So, sound exists for a deaf person if there is even a mere illusion of it within them. It doesn't matter how they define it or how much experience they have. The realization that "yes, that was actually a sound" might only hit them later, during social interaction with a hearing person who possesses the awareness to define the event for them.

In that scenario, the deaf person experiences a realization where the moment of perceiving the sound and the moment of the illusion overlap—which isn't strictly necessary for the sound's existence, but it is vital for the actual comprehension of it.

Essentially, I believe sound exists if the mental state of a deaf person aligns with the sound itself at the moment it happens. Even if they can't prove it, simply because they didn't consciously perceive the alignment happening.

Yes, but the question was phrased differently. 🙂

Consider an average person placed in a room where a sound is played at a frequency far beyond the range of human hearing. If asked what happened, they would say nothing. Hearing is merely one of many sensory possibilities, but let us assume this person had no other way to sense that sound.

The question remains:

If you were that person, does that sound exist, right now, in this very moment while you are incapable of perceiving it?

This implies that perception cannot be used as information provided by someone else, because, in that specific moment, that information simply did not exist.

Whether we call them higher states of consciousness or expanded realities, it remains a fact that they allow for the comprehension of paradoxes that currently elude us—or rather, paradoxes that we lack the cognitive capacity to even perceive.

I find it quite compelling to draw comparisons between humans and animals. For instance, when an animal travels from one place to another, do you honestly believe it possesses any concept of being in America or Uzbekistan? It is incapable of grasping our supposed "expanded reality." To such a creature, the paradoxes we struggle to understand are just as inscrutable as they are to us; from the perspective of a higher consciousness with an expanded reality, our deepest questions are easily explained.

The question is straightforward: is there anything that exists beyond our ability to perceive it?

Let’s look at it this way. Suppose someone is deaf, and a sound passes through the room. Does that sound actually exist if they cannot perceive it?
When I use the term "cannot perceive," I am referring to every possible avenue of perception. By definition, this means there isn't even a chance of accidentally sensing the vibration of that sound.

Now, consider the perspective of that individual. Does the sound you heard exist within their reality?
It does not. However, once you inform them that a sound occurred, they may attempt to imagine it in various ways, which serves to supplement their own reality. Without your input—that is, without the contribution from someone who did perceive the event—this deaf person would never even have the capacity to attempt to comprehend something like a sound.

Moving forward. Take an average person, place them in a room, and play a sound at a frequency that is entirely inaudible to the human ear. If asked what happened, they will say nothing. Hearing is merely one of many sensory possibilities, but let us assume this person had no other means of perceiving that sound.

The question remains:

If you were that person, does that sound exist at that exact moment while you are incapable of perceiving it?

You’re right about the ego; it's an important point to raise. That ugly little concept—it’s like a parasite, a constant intruder.
Whenever you convince yourself that your actions are somehow noble because you're doing them for someone else, that guilt starts to fester. It becomes a drain on your conscience. You begin to boil over, driving you to push harder just to prove your worth, fueled by the desire to outdo those similar types who operate under the same delusions.

That’s just not how I see things. I’m more interested in that Hollywood kind of romance—you know the type? Where if the love is truly mutual, there isn't this constant, exhausting pressure to prove yourself. I want a relationship where everything feels effortless and spontaneous, where we can just enjoy each other's company without the heavy burden of feeling like I constantly have to go above and beyond just to keep things afloat.