Posts by silentcyclist3

hollowtinker18 said:-Fine, briskraven28 is trying her best. I just need a shot of vitamins to catch whatever she’s actually saying, or what she thinks she’s saying.😁..Same for you guys. Different labels, different terminology, but the end result is always the same death. Your movements might be stalled, but you're still heading toward the finish line—which isn't the same thing as spinning in a circle of nonsense and false goals.
-So, haven't you all unconsciously graduated already (or am I just tripping?)?
-Look, briskraven28, based on certain definitions of this and that, you get it, right? If you haven't tried it, then—well, you can't talk about the same thing, but that's not the point. I can explain if needed. And why are you so afraid of questions when you're giving such specific answers? What am I supposed to be afraid of? Oh, right. They taught us fear comes from hatred and insecurity, didn't they?

-Yeah, silentcyclist3, but why am I reminding you and why this whole "curiosity..." thing?
-Look, if the goal is for me to reach the truth through some dramatic bullshit, don't bother. I could have found it without knowing it—what would I have lost? (Ten plus years, massive amounts of money, nerves, stupidity, man... just screwing myself over at dawn and cursing the day I was born... you feel me? That's the price of truth... and once it's gone, you can't get it back or make it right ever again.
-See, someone overhears it, sees it, hears it, watches a movie—but they aren't a consumer. So they just shovel and push the same old rumors—why? You say, "you won't explain it to anyone who hasn't tried it"—so why go through all that effort to force those specific beliefs on people?
-Honestly, better if he never tried it at all. Period.
(Look, just a cliché "truth-teller," this pseudo-intellectual artist, who's also a heavy opioid addict and an even bigger junkie from the older generation ((even movies didn't show it that way, and they were pretty gritty)). No, we have enough shitty LSD and ecstasy to go around, but this smart-ass wants to feel it immediately, even though he's never been high, so he waits for a dealer to offer it, wondering if he should take the hit🙏 just so he can see it... but nothing. In the end, he messed everything up and it turned out to be total gelatin. That's how it goes: when a hungry ass thinks it knows everything after hearing a rumor, it burns everything down and ruins it.
(Whatever... we almost beat him to death ourselves... haha.) Imagination can play tricks on you.

It's either paranoia or a wrong interpretation, just a side effect of the entity😁 (escape the thought—mental fatigue)
-Hey, nobody offended me, actually, thanks.
-An insult (briskraven28 knows for sure) can just be the result of projecting the same thing onto yourself.
-I think you were speaking your mind too, and you elaborated quite correctly. Goodnight!
-BTW—this is your topic, silentcyclist3, you're the author? Fine, just don't get possessive.😁

hollowtinker18 said:Aha, right back where we started. Same old story.😁
What kind of life experience do you actually need—specifically when it comes to the power of recognition? Honestly, what can I even tell you? I sort of get it, and yet, I don't. Not really.
I could explain the whole thing to unkomed, but I’m not going to. It goes against my principles—and mine alone. Or so I think, if I'm not mistaken.
I dealt with one of those self-proclaimed "gurus" once—some wannabe artist type. These losers act like they're geniuses just by putting everyone else down. It’s their only trick. Just talks and talks all day like a broken record without ever actually saying anything of substance. He basically manipulated his whole crew just to line his own pockets. Pathetic. I think that's exactly how he went out, too. Tanya knows the type; she wrote about him on the forums back in the day.
Why'd you even ask about my past? Honestly... yeah, I was in hell. All thanks to my own screw-ups and that "artist" who fed me nothing but fairy tales just to get what they wanted. Not blaming them, though. It’s just wild how many people like that you run into when life hits you with fear, hate, insecurity, and indecision. Like some sick coincidence—as if it were somehow meant to happen to me, wasting an entire decade of my life.
Oli, you asking me that last part seriously or just being rhetorical? And what about you? Could you actually do it? ...Ah, I get it, sorry. I could too, honestly. It wouldn't matter. Having experience on all sides would be my thing... but then again, who’d even bother reading or listening?

placidranger said:

We’re talking about the subconscious—that non-conscious layer of our total awareness that is just as real as anything else. Every single thing we've ever encountered—every sound, every scent, every lived experience in this life (and maybe others)—is tucked away in there. It's essentially how we exist. It builds our daily reality through memory, logic, emotion, and those automatic reactions we can't seem to stop. Because of this subconscious programming and those deep-seated habits, we end up inviting suffering into our lives—those endless, unresolved cycles—and, frankly, we bear some responsibility for it.

Sure, you could interpret it that way, but no matter how you slice it—thoughts don't actually pull physical objects toward us (unless we're speaking metaphorically).

hollowtinker18 said:-Okay, so you've given me some microscopic precision on those terms.🤣
-Truth? Why even ask? lol
-Look, I'm relatively new to this whole spirituality thing. I don't know if everyone else is actually some Zen master or spiritual superhero, but what are they doing? Are they all high on LSD-Coke and just masking it—as someone once said—with walking sticks? Whatever. You and Vertigo-ste seem grounded in your spirituality; at least you aren't just flexing knowledge like the rest of them. (Shout out to the exceptions, I guess.)
-Isn't humility, wisdom, and meekness supposed to be the hallmarks of spirituality?
-I guess we aren't using the exact same dictionary, but hey, we're looking in the same direction.😁(For starters)
-It feels like people love overcomplicating things just so they have something to lecture about, usually adding that little disclaimer: "I might be wrong, feel free to correct me."🤷-🙂
-The concept of "spirituality"—everyone interprets it differently. It seems subjective to some, while others just cling to it to feed their ego.
-Fine. I get the explanation about truth, but it’s hard for me to wrap my head around right now (and honestly, I need a bit more time)😁—how can you equate truth with a lie and weigh them like a scale?
-Why can't we just view truth and lies as separate things?
-And what are these "pieces" of one truth? How many are there in the end? (You did say "one truth," after all.) Why?
-With every vague answer you give, I could just keep asking "why" forever, spinning in circles until we either get dizzy or finally hit the truth.🙂
(Look, if you aren't feeling it, just say so instead of being difficult, okay? But if you want to hear how I perceive my own truth, fine... whatever. I won't delete this; if it's unclear, we'll figure it out.)
-There, six questions. I'm waiting for a decent response. (If it's hard to explain, just try describing how you experience and interpret it personally. Thanks.)
Btw—please, humbly and proudly, stop attacking our master Dustin in the comments of his high-quality, high-budget, representative, mega-spiritual posts.😁(Wouldn't want anyone to miss out on that wisdom, right?)☕

shadowcrane192 said:Has anyone here actually delved into the titles found in those local bookstores under the "self-help" section? I find myself wondering if any of you have derived genuine value from them, or if it is all merely an exercise in selling smoke and mirrors. If you have encountered anything truly substantive, I would certainly welcome your recommendations.

hollowtinker18;15211177 said:

silentcyclist3 said:It’s a universal relationship. Of individuals, society, and everything else in motion.

We recognize who we are and what our purpose is...

The reasons vary, and judgment is just one consequence of those reasons. Realizing something doesn't necessarily mean you will act in accordance with it.
As they say in those astrology books, a human being oscillates over time; circumstances change, and our reactions change along with them.

Yes, I suppose I wasn't clear. I'll drop the word "width" and just stick to the frames.

The truth exists beyond perception.

I already wrote something about this in that "wants and needs" PDF.

If you're asking what that bearded man was thinking when he imagined us here on Earth, then I really don't have an answer for you.
And if I did, I guess I'd be incredibly wealthy by now. 😁

People tend to find their purpose through certain impulses that follow them throughout their lives....
Naturally, they realize it when the moment arrives (if it ever does).

hollowtinker18 said:-tell me, please (I'm actually curious)... these "frameworks," are they like molds or something?... people, from what I've seen, love pigeonholing everything into their own little boxes (which makes this all a bit too vague, right?)
-is everything inside those boxes just a lie, or...?
-what kind of truth are we talking about?
-how do you define truth? what even is it? (do you have to understand the lie first to find the truth?)
-is there one single truth, or several?
(if your answer is "it depends on who you ask," fine... but can you give me your own personal take instead?)... thanks.

briskraven28 said:If a person creates in the direction of the "greater good," then they are building—strengthening, let's call it—a sort of spirit of unity. Is that what you mean by "pure spirit"? It feels like a matter of terminology to me; when you say it is "always necessary to act or not to act," you aren't referring to the individual, but rather to some universal relationship
of action and reaction—constructive versus destructive...?

"....strengthens the connection with the 'pure spirit'."

I ask because if the "pure spirit" is everything that exists—whatever you want to call it: consciousness, the absolute, God, the collective nothingness...—how can we strengthen something that we already are, and are uniquely and solely?...

Utilizing circumstances that present an opportunity to do good for oneself and others.
Everyone possesses such opportunities, as well as the capacity to recognize them.
Often, despite the circumstances, we willfully and consciously fail to seize the chance.

And what are the reasons for failing to recognize that capacity? To reach that point, something must be overcome. What is it that gets bypassed? Judgment? Because if I harbor judgment within myself, all other low passions follow—vengeance, malice, envy, hatred... Once you realize this ability to open yourself to—let's call it—the "greater good," it becomes difficult to return to incapacity; it becomes hard to resent or judge anymore. To react, yes—but to judge, no...

An illusion is always "real," regardless of the "width" of the frame we place it in.

The width of the frame and the illusion are one and the same; the frame cannot be wider than the illusion—especially not the other way around. That illusion is everything. Or rather, what lies outside the illusion (the frame)? Is that just another illusion? A higher level of illusion?...

briskraven28 said:If a person creates in the direction of the "greater good," then they are building—strengthening, let's call it—a sort of spirit of unity. Is that what you mean by "pure spirit"? It feels like a matter of terminology to me; when you say it is "always necessary to act or not to act," you aren't referring to the individual, but rather to some universal relationship
of action and reaction—constructive versus destructive...?

"....strengthens the connection with the 'pure spirit'."

I ask because if the "pure spirit" is everything that exists—whatever you want to call it: consciousness, the absolute, God, the collective nothingness...—how can we strengthen something that we already are, and are uniquely and solely?...

Utilizing circumstances that present an opportunity to do good for oneself and others.
Everyone possesses such opportunities, as well as the capacity to recognize them.
Often, despite the circumstances, we willfully and consciously fail to seize the chance.

And what are the reasons for failing to recognize that capacity? To reach that point, something must be overcome. What is it that gets bypassed? Judgment? Because if I harbor judgment within myself, all other low passions follow—vengeance, malice, envy, hatred... Once you realize this ability to open yourself to—let's call it—the "greater good," it becomes difficult to return to incapacity; it becomes hard to resent or judge anymore. To react, yes—but to judge, no...

An illusion is always "real," regardless of the "width" of the frame we place it in.

The width of the frame and the illusion are one and the same; the frame cannot be wider than the illusion—especially not the other way around. That illusion is everything. Or rather, what lies outside the illusion (the frame)? Is that just another illusion? A higher level of illusion?...

briskraven28 said:If a person creates in the direction of the "greater good," then they are building—strengthening, let's call it—a sort of spirit of unity. Is that what you mean by "pure spirit"? It feels like a matter of terminology to me; when you say it is "always necessary to act or not to act," you aren't referring to the individual, but rather to some universal relationship
of action and reaction—constructive versus destructive...?

"....strengthens the connection with the 'pure spirit'."

I ask because if the "pure spirit" is everything that exists—whatever you want to call it: consciousness, the absolute, God, the collective nothingness...—how can we strengthen something that we already are, and are uniquely and solely?...

Utilizing circumstances that present an opportunity to do good for oneself and others.
Everyone possesses such opportunities, as well as the capacity to recognize them.
Often, despite the circumstances, we willfully and consciously fail to seize the chance.

And what are the reasons for failing to recognize that capacity? To reach that point, something must be overcome. What is it that gets bypassed? Judgment? Because if I harbor judgment within myself, all other low passions follow—vengeance, malice, envy, hatred... Once you realize this ability to open yourself to—let's call it—the "greater good," it becomes difficult to return to incapacity; it becomes hard to resent or judge anymore. To react, yes—but to judge, no...

An illusion is always "real," regardless of the "width" of the frame we place it in.

The width of the frame and the illusion are one and the same; the frame cannot be wider than the illusion—especially not the other way around. That illusion is everything. Or rather, what lies outside the illusion (the frame)? Is that just another illusion? A higher level of illusion?...

briskraven28 said:If a person creates in the direction of the "greater good," then they are building—strengthening, let's call it—a sort of spirit of unity. Is that what you mean by "pure spirit"? It feels like a matter of terminology to me; when you say it is "always necessary to act or not to act," you aren't referring to the individual, but rather to some universal relationship
of action and reaction—constructive versus destructive...?

"....strengthens the connection with the 'pure spirit'."

I ask because if the "pure spirit" is everything that exists—whatever you want to call it: consciousness, the absolute, God, the collective nothingness...—how can we strengthen something that we already are, and are uniquely and solely?...

Utilizing circumstances that present an opportunity to do good for oneself and others.
Everyone possesses such opportunities, as well as the capacity to recognize them.
Often, despite the circumstances, we willfully and consciously fail to seize the chance.

And what are the reasons for failing to recognize that capacity? To reach that point, something must be overcome. What is it that gets bypassed? Judgment? Because if I harbor judgment within myself, all other low passions follow—vengeance, malice, envy, hatred... Once you realize this ability to open yourself to—let's call it—the "greater good," it becomes difficult to return to incapacity; it becomes hard to resent or judge anymore. To react, yes—but to judge, no...

An illusion is always "real," regardless of the "width" of the frame we place it in.

The width of the frame and the illusion are one and the same; the frame cannot be wider than the illusion—especially not the other way around. That illusion is everything. Or rather, what lies outside the illusion (the frame)? Is that just another illusion? A higher level of illusion?...

briskraven28 said:Whether you act or don't, you are always acting or not acting... it's a constant.😁
How exactly does a person "strengthen a connection" to a "pure spirit"? That implies they are separate entities to begin with... doesn't it?

In short, we do what we can and leave the rest to forces beyond our control.

And there it is—the question of free will. What would your definition even be?

Balance, and who knows what else. If I actually had the answer, I’d probably be communicating with you through dreams.

One never truly knows who is moving where on an astral plane...😎

Everyone has a specific sphere of influence. Given the circumstances, no one is exclusively just one thing.

True enough—sometimes the calm is restless, and the restless is calm... we might just be illusions, points of data within the illusion of space-time flow...

I use the word "probably" to inject a bit of humanity into my statements—nobody needs another self-proclaimed saint walking the earth claiming to know everything.😉

John is a good man, and God is good for looking after him.

briskraven28 said:Whether you act or don't, you are always acting or not acting... it's a constant.😁
How exactly does a person "strengthen a connection" to a "pure spirit"? That implies they are separate entities to begin with... doesn't it?

In short, we do what we can and leave the rest to forces beyond our control.

And there it is—the question of free will. What would your definition even be?

Balance, and who knows what else. If I actually had the answer, I’d probably be communicating with you through dreams.

One never truly knows who is moving where on an astral plane...😎

Everyone has a specific sphere of influence. Given the circumstances, no one is exclusively just one thing.

True enough—sometimes the calm is restless, and the restless is calm... we might just be illusions, points of data within the illusion of space-time flow...

I use the word "probably" to inject a bit of humanity into my statements—nobody needs another self-proclaimed saint walking the earth claiming to know everything.😉

John is a good man, and God is good for looking after him.

briskraven28 said:Whether you act or don't, you are always acting or not acting... it's a constant.😁
How exactly does a person "strengthen a connection" to a "pure spirit"? That implies they are separate entities to begin with... doesn't it?

In short, we do what we can and leave the rest to forces beyond our control.

And there it is—the question of free will. What would your definition even be?

Balance, and who knows what else. If I actually had the answer, I’d probably be communicating with you through dreams.

One never truly knows who is moving where on an astral plane...😎

Everyone has a specific sphere of influence. Given the circumstances, no one is exclusively just one thing.

True enough—sometimes the calm is restless, and the restless is calm... we might just be illusions, points of data within the illusion of space-time flow...

I use the word "probably" to inject a bit of humanity into my statements—nobody needs another self-proclaimed saint walking the earth claiming to know everything.😉

John is a good man, and God is good for looking after him.

briskraven28 said:Whether you act or don't, you are always acting or not acting... it's a constant.😁
How exactly does a person "strengthen a connection" to a "pure spirit"? That implies they are separate entities to begin with... doesn't it?

In short, we do what we can and leave the rest to forces beyond our control.

And there it is—the question of free will. What would your definition even be?

Balance, and who knows what else. If I actually had the answer, I’d probably be communicating with you through dreams.

One never truly knows who is moving where on an astral plane...😎

Everyone has a specific sphere of influence. Given the circumstances, no one is exclusively just one thing.

True enough—sometimes the calm is restless, and the restless is calm... we might just be illusions, points of data within the illusion of space-time flow...

I use the word "probably" to inject a bit of humanity into my statements—nobody needs another self-proclaimed saint walking the earth claiming to know everything.😉

John is a good man, and God is good for looking after him.

Brian Foster3 said:Look, everyone is getting closer to the spiritual side of things every single second, even if it feels like life is just hitting you in the face right now—that's just an illusion.

It really just comes down to how fast you can move, which depends on whether you're actually mature enough to handle the shift. Everyone is going to reach full spiritual realization eventually, period; the only real question is how much of a hurry you're in to embrace your true spiritual nature and stop dragging your feet.

Brian Foster3 said:

silentcyclist3 I can't even deal with this right now—honestly, I’m just sitting here staring at my screen wondering how anyone can be this dense! It’s like some people wake up every single day and decide that common sense just isn't on the menu anymore, you know? I was driving down the street near Starbucks earlier today and saw someone almost cause a massive pileup because they were too busy scrolling through their phone to notice a literal stop sign, and it just reminds me of how much nonsense we have to put up with lately!
What kind of opposites are you even talking about if you just went on a whole rant about how this stuff is spiritually "out of reach and inaccessible" to us?

Look, just because we can't reach the sun doesn't mean it isn't there, right? It’s just out of our damn reach, plain and simple.

We’re basically locked out of anything spiritual as long as we stay trapped in our own selfish ways, though that doesn't mean it's a permanent ban on us reaching that higher plane. There's this massive barrier separating the physical world from the spiritual one, and honestly, it feels like no amount of material action, whether it's some grand gesture or just a fleeting thought or feeling, can ever touch the spiritual realm. But here's the kicker: the spiritual side is what actually pulls the strings on everything happening down here, staying completely unshakeable and fixed in its nature while we're all down here scrambling around.

Brian Foster3 said:Hell no. Everything we wrap our heads around comes down to perceiving opposites and constantly measuring one against the other. You’ve got to let that ego grow and mature first; it’s a mandatory stage in the whole process. But honestly, this petty little earthly ego we deal with is nothing more than a tiny, insignificant speck compared to our actual spiritual egoism—something so massive we can't even begin to grasp it. And there's more...

One more thing for you to chew on: this basic, animalistic ego isn't some massive roadblock to spirituality. It doesn't even matter in the grand scheme of things, yet everyone acts like it's this huge obstacle standing in their way.

placidharbor7 said:briskraven28🤣, how on earth do you manage to raise such sharp objections against the "peripheral"? Your opponent's arguments rely heavily on the concept of "free will," which is honestly enough nonsense to justify just ignoring them altogether. They clearly don't know nearly as much as you do.

briskraven28 said:You provide the synthesis—I handle the analysis. But without one, the other simply doesn't exist... let me attempt to explain why.😁

😁
I don't mean to suggest things would be quite as dramatic as your vivid description implies—perhaps life would actually be more harmonious without humanity entirely... My questions are aimed at this instead—and please, don't take this the wrong way regarding your apparent "acceptance" in your posts—I don't mean that negatively; rather, I see it as a byproduct of your capacity for synthesis—that "intuitive" quality you mentioned earlier—but how much do you believe a person can (or cannot) influence their existence through action—or even inaction—as you noted below? Can small shifts truly make life on this planet more beautiful or comfortable, or are we simply left to the whims of a higher power—God, the Cosmos, the Absolute, the One... whichever term resonates most with you?

Destructive thoughts and actions inevitably trigger destructive consequences for the one who commits them—take pedophiles or those "evil" doctors, for instance... 😈 And all those who feel that same way—they’re just crafting their own destruction, much like we do with our own messes... It is difficult to predict exactly what kind of twist of fate will trigger the collapse of the house of cards.

Destruction exists for a reason, doesn't it? What I’m actually wondering—which is essentially the same question as the one above—is whether humanity will always have to be just as destructive as it tries to be "constructive"... though I find that term difficult to even wrap my head around... in order to maintain that balance we discussed earlier. If that's the case, then everything is functioning exactly as it should, isn't it?

One is tasked with always striving for the greatest good—for oneself and for others—even when one knows the effort is futile because the outcome must be "tragic" for some higher purpose...

I agree regarding these "higher reasons"—though I wonder... what exactly do you imagine those "higher reasons" might be?

Once you finally grasp that—once you realize there is no such thing as "divine justice"—you stop sabotaging your own life by denying the one thing that actually matters... your spirit.

My imagination is far too vivid for my own good—I can conjure up a million different scenarios that feel equally plausible... though, much like yourself, I find myself wondering if this "synthesis" I'm picturing is actually real—or just another one of my delusions.
The reason I’m hitting you with these heavy questions is that—unlike the usual preachy, surface-level spiritualists out there—you actually seem authentic... which is a rare find.😁

according to one's own peace.

For a spirit that is restless by its very "nature," what does this "peace" even signify?
What does that peace mean to you—could you elaborate?

I don't mean that at all, because today's collective social intelligence is roughly on par with the IQ of a baboon's backside—and I realize that might be an insult to the baboon's backside, but inspiration is currently lacking—so one cannot rely on it to reach any higher understanding.

I agree, but isn't that just a consequence of that interplay between activity and passivity—that tension between destruction and creation?

Yes, refusal can stem from true understanding, in which case it ceases to be a matter of tolerance—merely passively enduring a situation—and becomes a matter of action.

Precisely—an active engagement with the living fabric around you, or rather, with a specific situation. Tolerance, nowadays, feels more like a fashion statement.

The state of the world is likely exactly as it ought to be, making it optimal—regardless of how difficult that is for me personally to accept at times.

Well, that "likely" suggests you aren't entirely certain whether it is so or not.
I feel much the same way...
Yet, many visitors to this forum are absolutely convinced they have everything figured out!😁

Edit: Oh, look, Master Ivan has joined us... this is getting interesting. 😁

briskraven28 said:You provide the synthesis—I handle the analysis. But without one, the other simply doesn't exist... let me attempt to explain why.😁

😁
I don't mean to suggest things would be quite as dramatic as your vivid description implies—perhaps life would actually be more harmonious without humanity entirely... My questions are aimed at this instead—and please, don't take this the wrong way regarding your apparent "acceptance" in your posts—I don't mean that negatively; rather, I see it as a byproduct of your capacity for synthesis—that "intuitive" quality you mentioned earlier—but how much do you believe a person can (or cannot) influence their existence through action—or even inaction—as you noted below? Can small shifts truly make life on this planet more beautiful or comfortable, or are we simply left to the whims of a higher power—God, the Cosmos, the Absolute, the One... whichever term resonates most with you?

Destructive thoughts and actions inevitably trigger destructive consequences for the one who commits them—take pedophiles or those "evil" doctors, for instance... 😈 And all those who feel that same way—they’re just crafting their own destruction, much like we do with our own messes... It is difficult to predict exactly what kind of twist of fate will trigger the collapse of the house of cards.

Destruction exists for a reason, doesn't it? What I’m actually wondering—which is essentially the same question as the one above—is whether humanity will always have to be just as destructive as it tries to be "constructive"... though I find that term difficult to even wrap my head around... in order to maintain that balance we discussed earlier. If that's the case, then everything is functioning exactly as it should, isn't it?

One is tasked with always striving for the greatest good—for oneself and for others—even when one knows the effort is futile because the outcome must be "tragic" for some higher purpose...

I agree regarding these "higher reasons"—though I wonder... what exactly do you imagine those "higher reasons" might be?

Once you finally grasp that—once you realize there is no such thing as "divine justice"—you stop sabotaging your own life by denying the one thing that actually matters... your spirit.

My imagination is far too vivid for my own good—I can conjure up a million different scenarios that feel equally plausible... though, much like yourself, I find myself wondering if this "synthesis" I'm picturing is actually real—or just another one of my delusions.
The reason I’m hitting you with these heavy questions is that—unlike the usual preachy, surface-level spiritualists out there—you actually seem authentic... which is a rare find.😁

according to one's own peace.

For a spirit that is restless by its very "nature," what does this "peace" even signify?
What does that peace mean to you—could you elaborate?

I don't mean that at all, because today's collective social intelligence is roughly on par with the IQ of a baboon's backside—and I realize that might be an insult to the baboon's backside, but inspiration is currently lacking—so one cannot rely on it to reach any higher understanding.

I agree, but isn't that just a consequence of that interplay between activity and passivity—that tension between destruction and creation?

Yes, refusal can stem from true understanding, in which case it ceases to be a matter of tolerance—merely passively enduring a situation—and becomes a matter of action.

Precisely—an active engagement with the living fabric around you, or rather, with a specific situation. Tolerance, nowadays, feels more like a fashion statement.

The state of the world is likely exactly as it ought to be, making it optimal—regardless of how difficult that is for me personally to accept at times.

Well, that "likely" suggests you aren't entirely certain whether it is so or not.
I feel much the same way...
Yet, many visitors to this forum are absolutely convinced they have everything figured out!😁

Edit: Oh, look, Master Ivan has joined us... this is getting interesting. 😁

briskraven28 said:You provide the synthesis—I handle the analysis. But without one, the other simply doesn't exist... let me attempt to explain why.😁

😁
I don't mean to suggest things would be quite as dramatic as your vivid description implies—perhaps life would actually be more harmonious without humanity entirely... My questions are aimed at this instead—and please, don't take this the wrong way regarding your apparent "acceptance" in your posts—I don't mean that negatively; rather, I see it as a byproduct of your capacity for synthesis—that "intuitive" quality you mentioned earlier—but how much do you believe a person can (or cannot) influence their existence through action—or even inaction—as you noted below? Can small shifts truly make life on this planet more beautiful or comfortable, or are we simply left to the whims of a higher power—God, the Cosmos, the Absolute, the One... whichever term resonates most with you?

Destructive thoughts and actions inevitably trigger destructive consequences for the one who commits them—take pedophiles or those "evil" doctors, for instance... 😈 And all those who feel that same way—they’re just crafting their own destruction, much like we do with our own messes... It is difficult to predict exactly what kind of twist of fate will trigger the collapse of the house of cards.

Destruction exists for a reason, doesn't it? What I’m actually wondering—which is essentially the same question as the one above—is whether humanity will always have to be just as destructive as it tries to be "constructive"... though I find that term difficult to even wrap my head around... in order to maintain that balance we discussed earlier. If that's the case, then everything is functioning exactly as it should, isn't it?

One is tasked with always striving for the greatest good—for oneself and for others—even when one knows the effort is futile because the outcome must be "tragic" for some higher purpose...

I agree regarding these "higher reasons"—though I wonder... what exactly do you imagine those "higher reasons" might be?

Once you finally grasp that—once you realize there is no such thing as "divine justice"—you stop sabotaging your own life by denying the one thing that actually matters... your spirit.

My imagination is far too vivid for my own good—I can conjure up a million different scenarios that feel equally plausible... though, much like yourself, I find myself wondering if this "synthesis" I'm picturing is actually real—or just another one of my delusions.
The reason I’m hitting you with these heavy questions is that—unlike the usual preachy, surface-level spiritualists out there—you actually seem authentic... which is a rare find.😁

according to one's own peace.

For a spirit that is restless by its very "nature," what does this "peace" even signify?
What does that peace mean to you—could you elaborate?

I don't mean that at all, because today's collective social intelligence is roughly on par with the IQ of a baboon's backside—and I realize that might be an insult to the baboon's backside, but inspiration is currently lacking—so one cannot rely on it to reach any higher understanding.

I agree, but isn't that just a consequence of that interplay between activity and passivity—that tension between destruction and creation?

Yes, refusal can stem from true understanding, in which case it ceases to be a matter of tolerance—merely passively enduring a situation—and becomes a matter of action.

Precisely—an active engagement with the living fabric around you, or rather, with a specific situation. Tolerance, nowadays, feels more like a fashion statement.

The state of the world is likely exactly as it ought to be, making it optimal—regardless of how difficult that is for me personally to accept at times.

Well, that "likely" suggests you aren't entirely certain whether it is so or not.
I feel much the same way...
Yet, many visitors to this forum are absolutely convinced they have everything figured out!😁

Edit: Oh, look, Master Ivan has joined us... this is getting interesting. 😁

briskraven28 said:You provide the synthesis—I handle the analysis. But without one, the other simply doesn't exist... let me attempt to explain why.😁

😁
I don't mean to suggest things would be quite as dramatic as your vivid description implies—perhaps life would actually be more harmonious without humanity entirely... My questions are aimed at this instead—and please, don't take this the wrong way regarding your apparent "acceptance" in your posts—I don't mean that negatively; rather, I see it as a byproduct of your capacity for synthesis—that "intuitive" quality you mentioned earlier—but how much do you believe a person can (or cannot) influence their existence through action—or even inaction—as you noted below? Can small shifts truly make life on this planet more beautiful or comfortable, or are we simply left to the whims of a higher power—God, the Cosmos, the Absolute, the One... whichever term resonates most with you?

Destructive thoughts and actions inevitably trigger destructive consequences for the one who commits them—take pedophiles or those "evil" doctors, for instance... 😈 And all those who feel that same way—they’re just crafting their own destruction, much like we do with our own messes... It is difficult to predict exactly what kind of twist of fate will trigger the collapse of the house of cards.

Destruction exists for a reason, doesn't it? What I’m actually wondering—which is essentially the same question as the one above—is whether humanity will always have to be just as destructive as it tries to be "constructive"... though I find that term difficult to even wrap my head around... in order to maintain that balance we discussed earlier. If that's the case, then everything is functioning exactly as it should, isn't it?

One is tasked with always striving for the greatest good—for oneself and for others—even when one knows the effort is futile because the outcome must be "tragic" for some higher purpose...

I agree regarding these "higher reasons"—though I wonder... what exactly do you imagine those "higher reasons" might be?

Once you finally grasp that—once you realize there is no such thing as "divine justice"—you stop sabotaging your own life by denying the one thing that actually matters... your spirit.

My imagination is far too vivid for my own good—I can conjure up a million different scenarios that feel equally plausible... though, much like yourself, I find myself wondering if this "synthesis" I'm picturing is actually real—or just another one of my delusions.
The reason I’m hitting you with these heavy questions is that—unlike the usual preachy, surface-level spiritualists out there—you actually seem authentic... which is a rare find.😁

according to one's own peace.

For a spirit that is restless by its very "nature," what does this "peace" even signify?
What does that peace mean to you—could you elaborate?

I don't mean that at all, because today's collective social intelligence is roughly on par with the IQ of a baboon's backside—and I realize that might be an insult to the baboon's backside, but inspiration is currently lacking—so one cannot rely on it to reach any higher understanding.

I agree, but isn't that just a consequence of that interplay between activity and passivity—that tension between destruction and creation?

Yes, refusal can stem from true understanding, in which case it ceases to be a matter of tolerance—merely passively enduring a situation—and becomes a matter of action.

Precisely—an active engagement with the living fabric around you, or rather, with a specific situation. Tolerance, nowadays, feels more like a fashion statement.

The state of the world is likely exactly as it ought to be, making it optimal—regardless of how difficult that is for me personally to accept at times.

Well, that "likely" suggests you aren't entirely certain whether it is so or not.
I feel much the same way...
Yet, many visitors to this forum are absolutely convinced they have everything figured out!😁

Edit: Oh, look, Master Ivan has joined us... this is getting interesting. 😁

briskraven28 said:You provide the synthesis—I handle the analysis. But without one, the other simply doesn't exist... let me attempt to explain why.😁

😁
I don't mean to suggest things would be quite as dramatic as your vivid description implies—perhaps life would actually be more harmonious without humanity entirely... My questions are aimed at this instead—and please, don't take this the wrong way regarding your apparent "acceptance" in your posts—I don't mean that negatively; rather, I see it as a byproduct of your capacity for synthesis—that "intuitive" quality you mentioned earlier—but how much do you believe a person can (or cannot) influence their existence through action—or even inaction—as you noted below? Can small shifts truly make life on this planet more beautiful or comfortable, or are we simply left to the whims of a higher power—God, the Cosmos, the Absolute, the One... whichever term resonates most with you?

Destructive thoughts and actions inevitably trigger destructive consequences for the one who commits them—take pedophiles or those "evil" doctors, for instance... 😈 And all those who feel that same way—they’re just crafting their own destruction, much like we do with our own messes... It is difficult to predict exactly what kind of twist of fate will trigger the collapse of the house of cards.

Destruction exists for a reason, doesn't it? What I’m actually wondering—which is essentially the same question as the one above—is whether humanity will always have to be just as destructive as it tries to be "constructive"... though I find that term difficult to even wrap my head around... in order to maintain that balance we discussed earlier. If that's the case, then everything is functioning exactly as it should, isn't it?

One is tasked with always striving for the greatest good—for oneself and for others—even when one knows the effort is futile because the outcome must be "tragic" for some higher purpose...

I agree regarding these "higher reasons"—though I wonder... what exactly do you imagine those "higher reasons" might be?

Once you finally grasp that—once you realize there is no such thing as "divine justice"—you stop sabotaging your own life by denying the one thing that actually matters... your spirit.

My imagination is far too vivid for my own good—I can conjure up a million different scenarios that feel equally plausible... though, much like yourself, I find myself wondering if this "synthesis" I'm picturing is actually real—or just another one of my delusions.
The reason I’m hitting you with these heavy questions is that—unlike the usual preachy, surface-level spiritualists out there—you actually seem authentic... which is a rare find.😁

according to one's own peace.

For a spirit that is restless by its very "nature," what does this "peace" even signify?
What does that peace mean to you—could you elaborate?

I don't mean that at all, because today's collective social intelligence is roughly on par with the IQ of a baboon's backside—and I realize that might be an insult to the baboon's backside, but inspiration is currently lacking—so one cannot rely on it to reach any higher understanding.

I agree, but isn't that just a consequence of that interplay between activity and passivity—that tension between destruction and creation?

Yes, refusal can stem from true understanding, in which case it ceases to be a matter of tolerance—merely passively enduring a situation—and becomes a matter of action.

Precisely—an active engagement with the living fabric around you, or rather, with a specific situation. Tolerance, nowadays, feels more like a fashion statement.

The state of the world is likely exactly as it ought to be, making it optimal—regardless of how difficult that is for me personally to accept at times.

Well, that "likely" suggests you aren't entirely certain whether it is so or not.
I feel much the same way...
Yet, many visitors to this forum are absolutely convinced they have everything figured out!😁

Edit: Oh, look, Master Ivan has joined us... this is getting interesting. 😁

briskraven28 said:You provide the synthesis—I handle the analysis. But without one, the other simply doesn't exist... let me attempt to explain why.😁

😁
I don't mean to suggest things would be quite as dramatic as your vivid description implies—perhaps life would actually be more harmonious without humanity entirely... My questions are aimed at this instead—and please, don't take this the wrong way regarding your apparent "acceptance" in your posts—I don't mean that negatively; rather, I see it as a byproduct of your capacity for synthesis—that "intuitive" quality you mentioned earlier—but how much do you believe a person can (or cannot) influence their existence through action—or even inaction—as you noted below? Can small shifts truly make life on this planet more beautiful or comfortable, or are we simply left to the whims of a higher power—God, the Cosmos, the Absolute, the One... whichever term resonates most with you?

Destructive thoughts and actions inevitably trigger destructive consequences for the one who commits them—take pedophiles or those "evil" doctors, for instance... 😈 And all those who feel that same way—they’re just crafting their own destruction, much like we do with our own messes... It is difficult to predict exactly what kind of twist of fate will trigger the collapse of the house of cards.

Destruction exists for a reason, doesn't it? What I’m actually wondering—which is essentially the same question as the one above—is whether humanity will always have to be just as destructive as it tries to be "constructive"... though I find that term difficult to even wrap my head around... in order to maintain that balance we discussed earlier. If that's the case, then everything is functioning exactly as it should, isn't it?

One is tasked with always striving for the greatest good—for oneself and for others—even when one knows the effort is futile because the outcome must be "tragic" for some higher purpose...

I agree regarding these "higher reasons"—though I wonder... what exactly do you imagine those "higher reasons" might be?

Once you finally grasp that—once you realize there is no such thing as "divine justice"—you stop sabotaging your own life by denying the one thing that actually matters... your spirit.

My imagination is far too vivid for my own good—I can conjure up a million different scenarios that feel equally plausible... though, much like yourself, I find myself wondering if this "synthesis" I'm picturing is actually real—or just another one of my delusions.
The reason I’m hitting you with these heavy questions is that—unlike the usual preachy, surface-level spiritualists out there—you actually seem authentic... which is a rare find.😁

according to one's own peace.

For a spirit that is restless by its very "nature," what does this "peace" even signify?
What does that peace mean to you—could you elaborate?

I don't mean that at all, because today's collective social intelligence is roughly on par with the IQ of a baboon's backside—and I realize that might be an insult to the baboon's backside, but inspiration is currently lacking—so one cannot rely on it to reach any higher understanding.

I agree, but isn't that just a consequence of that interplay between activity and passivity—that tension between destruction and creation?

Yes, refusal can stem from true understanding, in which case it ceases to be a matter of tolerance—merely passively enduring a situation—and becomes a matter of action.

Precisely—an active engagement with the living fabric around you, or rather, with a specific situation. Tolerance, nowadays, feels more like a fashion statement.

The state of the world is likely exactly as it ought to be, making it optimal—regardless of how difficult that is for me personally to accept at times.

Well, that "likely" suggests you aren't entirely certain whether it is so or not.
I feel much the same way...
Yet, many visitors to this forum are absolutely convinced they have everything figured out!😁

Edit: Oh, look, Master Ivan has joined us... this is getting interesting. 😁

briskraven28 said:You provide the synthesis—I handle the analysis. But without one, the other simply doesn't exist... let me attempt to explain why.😁

😁
I don't mean to suggest things would be quite as dramatic as your vivid description implies—perhaps life would actually be more harmonious without humanity entirely... My questions are aimed at this instead—and please, don't take this the wrong way regarding your apparent "acceptance" in your posts—I don't mean that negatively; rather, I see it as a byproduct of your capacity for synthesis—that "intuitive" quality you mentioned earlier—but how much do you believe a person can (or cannot) influence their existence through action—or even inaction—as you noted below? Can small shifts truly make life on this planet more beautiful or comfortable, or are we simply left to the whims of a higher power—God, the Cosmos, the Absolute, the One... whichever term resonates most with you?

Destructive thoughts and actions inevitably trigger destructive consequences for the one who commits them—take pedophiles or those "evil" doctors, for instance... 😈 And all those who feel that same way—they’re just crafting their own destruction, much like we do with our own messes... It is difficult to predict exactly what kind of twist of fate will trigger the collapse of the house of cards.

Destruction exists for a reason, doesn't it? What I’m actually wondering—which is essentially the same question as the one above—is whether humanity will always have to be just as destructive as it tries to be "constructive"... though I find that term difficult to even wrap my head around... in order to maintain that balance we discussed earlier. If that's the case, then everything is functioning exactly as it should, isn't it?

One is tasked with always striving for the greatest good—for oneself and for others—even when one knows the effort is futile because the outcome must be "tragic" for some higher purpose...

I agree regarding these "higher reasons"—though I wonder... what exactly do you imagine those "higher reasons" might be?

Once you finally grasp that—once you realize there is no such thing as "divine justice"—you stop sabotaging your own life by denying the one thing that actually matters... your spirit.

My imagination is far too vivid for my own good—I can conjure up a million different scenarios that feel equally plausible... though, much like yourself, I find myself wondering if this "synthesis" I'm picturing is actually real—or just another one of my delusions.
The reason I’m hitting you with these heavy questions is that—unlike the usual preachy, surface-level spiritualists out there—you actually seem authentic... which is a rare find.😁

according to one's own peace.

For a spirit that is restless by its very "nature," what does this "peace" even signify?
What does that peace mean to you—could you elaborate?

I don't mean that at all, because today's collective social intelligence is roughly on par with the IQ of a baboon's backside—and I realize that might be an insult to the baboon's backside, but inspiration is currently lacking—so one cannot rely on it to reach any higher understanding.

I agree, but isn't that just a consequence of that interplay between activity and passivity—that tension between destruction and creation?

Yes, refusal can stem from true understanding, in which case it ceases to be a matter of tolerance—merely passively enduring a situation—and becomes a matter of action.

Precisely—an active engagement with the living fabric around you, or rather, with a specific situation. Tolerance, nowadays, feels more like a fashion statement.

The state of the world is likely exactly as it ought to be, making it optimal—regardless of how difficult that is for me personally to accept at times.

Well, that "likely" suggests you aren't entirely certain whether it is so or not.
I feel much the same way...
Yet, many visitors to this forum are absolutely convinced they have everything figured out!😁

Edit: Oh, look, Master Ivan has joined us... this is getting interesting. 😁

placidharbor7 said:Yeah—honestly, there’s no point in getting into the weeds here. It’s not like anyone in this thread has the depth to actually grasp Wilber’s trademark superficiality anyway. Well, except for those "V.S.P.Z.S." experts, I suppose! 🙄

placidharbor7 said:The whole "catch as catch Ken Wilber" thing is basically a global plague. Honestly, he’ll only start making sense once—and if—he actually wakes up.
It's all just endless babble about purpose, meaning, energy, and entrepreneurship. "Spiritual"? Give me a break!

Brian Foster3 said:I'll keep this short.

Everything we do is ultimately for ourselves. We never actually step outside our own egos; we're just selfish, plain and simple, and there’s no way to just grab hold of ourselves and somehow "rise above" that inherent selfishness. Even all this talk about "spirituality" on these forums is just another manifestation of an egoistic craving to be spiritual. Honestly, wanting to be spiritual is probably the most sophisticated, highly developed form of egoism there is.

True spirituality is anything that exists entirely outside the ego. Which means it's completely out of our reach and inaccessible to us. All we ever get are these tiny, fleeting glimpses through momentary flashes of love.

To truly *be* love—to put others before yourself and love them as much as you love yourself—that is the only actual spirituality. That's it. Period. But none of us are capable of it, and let's be real, none of us even want to do it. We just want to satisfy our own damn selves.

briskraven28 said:🙂

Your example regarding a pedophile refers to those moments where one must defend the very foundations of human dignity—things essential to our survival as a species. In such instances, an innate instinct takes over... an instinct that doesn't necessarily require conscious thought or rationalization. It's how animals react when protecting their offspring.

Ha, you read my mind. I was just thinking about escalating the examples, starting with that extreme case of the pedophile—but clearly, your "innate instinct" won't stop me from doing just that! 😁
Fine, then here is an instance where "innate instinct" is irrelevant: consider, for example, a Dr. Smith who "treats" his patients with prohibited substances in private practice. It doesn't affect you or your family, yet would you simply "allow" it? Of course, you understand him—you grasp his conviction in the "correctness" of his actions—but my God, even that pedophile from the first extreme example likely doesn't believe he is doing anything "wrong."

Yes, that is exactly what you mean about tilting at windmills. The reality is that we spend our entire lives trying to align ourselves with the wind. No one will ever find the perfect way during their lifetime.
Finding the ideal path in this life isn't the purpose itself, but rather the method by which we search for a path.

A path toward what... toward which goal?

I don't see much difference between judging and disallowing.
To disallow in a legislative sense means sentencing—or punishment.
Legal condemnation is the direct result of disallowing.

So, do you believe things would function better if there were no prohibitions?
You anarchist!😁

When tolerance and understanding overlap, tolerance loses its meaning because the subject becomes exactly what it can only ever be.

Very well.

Of course, understanding and tolerance are two entirely different animals. Tolerance is merely about endurance—putting up with something—whereas understanding involves true acceptance and grasping the context and circumstances that led to a situation in the first place.

In my view, tolerance often stems from being detached from the issue itself. That is why I draw such a sharp line between understanding and mere tolerance... Tolerance doesn't require comprehension; it’s more of a pre-packaged attitude toward life and its various occurrences.
Understanding implies acceptance—though even "refusal" can stem from understanding, at least in the world we find ourselves in today.
Or do you honestly believe this current state of affairs is ideal?

Meaning, there are moments where refusal is necessary—situations that are quite obvious, much like how jumping out of a plane without a parachute results in certain death.

Every situation is unique, making it difficult to predict outcomes beforehand... and without looking at the specifics—which would be generalizing, after all—it is impossible to determine what the right move would be.

briskraven28 said:🙂

Your example regarding a pedophile refers to those moments where one must defend the very foundations of human dignity—things essential to our survival as a species. In such instances, an innate instinct takes over... an instinct that doesn't necessarily require conscious thought or rationalization. It's how animals react when protecting their offspring.

Ha, you read my mind. I was just thinking about escalating the examples, starting with that extreme case of the pedophile—but clearly, your "innate instinct" won't stop me from doing just that! 😁
Fine, then here is an instance where "innate instinct" is irrelevant: consider, for example, a Dr. Smith who "treats" his patients with prohibited substances in private practice. It doesn't affect you or your family, yet would you simply "allow" it? Of course, you understand him—you grasp his conviction in the "correctness" of his actions—but my God, even that pedophile from the first extreme example likely doesn't believe he is doing anything "wrong."

Yes, that is exactly what you mean about tilting at windmills. The reality is that we spend our entire lives trying to align ourselves with the wind. No one will ever find the perfect way during their lifetime.
Finding the ideal path in this life isn't the purpose itself, but rather the method by which we search for a path.

A path toward what... toward which goal?

I don't see much difference between judging and disallowing.
To disallow in a legislative sense means sentencing—or punishment.
Legal condemnation is the direct result of disallowing.

So, do you believe things would function better if there were no prohibitions?
You anarchist!😁

When tolerance and understanding overlap, tolerance loses its meaning because the subject becomes exactly what it can only ever be.

Very well.

Of course, understanding and tolerance are two entirely different animals. Tolerance is merely about endurance—putting up with something—whereas understanding involves true acceptance and grasping the context and circumstances that led to a situation in the first place.

In my view, tolerance often stems from being detached from the issue itself. That is why I draw such a sharp line between understanding and mere tolerance... Tolerance doesn't require comprehension; it’s more of a pre-packaged attitude toward life and its various occurrences.
Understanding implies acceptance—though even "refusal" can stem from understanding, at least in the world we find ourselves in today.
Or do you honestly believe this current state of affairs is ideal?

Meaning, there are moments where refusal is necessary—situations that are quite obvious, much like how jumping out of a plane without a parachute results in certain death.

Every situation is unique, making it difficult to predict outcomes beforehand... and without looking at the specifics—which would be generalizing, after all—it is impossible to determine what the right move would be.

briskraven28 said:🙂

Your example regarding a pedophile refers to those moments where one must defend the very foundations of human dignity—things essential to our survival as a species. In such instances, an innate instinct takes over... an instinct that doesn't necessarily require conscious thought or rationalization. It's how animals react when protecting their offspring.

Ha, you read my mind. I was just thinking about escalating the examples, starting with that extreme case of the pedophile—but clearly, your "innate instinct" won't stop me from doing just that! 😁
Fine, then here is an instance where "innate instinct" is irrelevant: consider, for example, a Dr. Smith who "treats" his patients with prohibited substances in private practice. It doesn't affect you or your family, yet would you simply "allow" it? Of course, you understand him—you grasp his conviction in the "correctness" of his actions—but my God, even that pedophile from the first extreme example likely doesn't believe he is doing anything "wrong."

Yes, that is exactly what you mean about tilting at windmills. The reality is that we spend our entire lives trying to align ourselves with the wind. No one will ever find the perfect way during their lifetime.
Finding the ideal path in this life isn't the purpose itself, but rather the method by which we search for a path.

A path toward what... toward which goal?

I don't see much difference between judging and disallowing.
To disallow in a legislative sense means sentencing—or punishment.
Legal condemnation is the direct result of disallowing.

So, do you believe things would function better if there were no prohibitions?
You anarchist!😁

When tolerance and understanding overlap, tolerance loses its meaning because the subject becomes exactly what it can only ever be.

Very well.

Of course, understanding and tolerance are two entirely different animals. Tolerance is merely about endurance—putting up with something—whereas understanding involves true acceptance and grasping the context and circumstances that led to a situation in the first place.

In my view, tolerance often stems from being detached from the issue itself. That is why I draw such a sharp line between understanding and mere tolerance... Tolerance doesn't require comprehension; it’s more of a pre-packaged attitude toward life and its various occurrences.
Understanding implies acceptance—though even "refusal" can stem from understanding, at least in the world we find ourselves in today.
Or do you honestly believe this current state of affairs is ideal?

Meaning, there are moments where refusal is necessary—situations that are quite obvious, much like how jumping out of a plane without a parachute results in certain death.

Every situation is unique, making it difficult to predict outcomes beforehand... and without looking at the specifics—which would be generalizing, after all—it is impossible to determine what the right move would be.

briskraven28 said:🙂

Your example regarding a pedophile refers to those moments where one must defend the very foundations of human dignity—things essential to our survival as a species. In such instances, an innate instinct takes over... an instinct that doesn't necessarily require conscious thought or rationalization. It's how animals react when protecting their offspring.

Ha, you read my mind. I was just thinking about escalating the examples, starting with that extreme case of the pedophile—but clearly, your "innate instinct" won't stop me from doing just that! 😁
Fine, then here is an instance where "innate instinct" is irrelevant: consider, for example, a Dr. Smith who "treats" his patients with prohibited substances in private practice. It doesn't affect you or your family, yet would you simply "allow" it? Of course, you understand him—you grasp his conviction in the "correctness" of his actions—but my God, even that pedophile from the first extreme example likely doesn't believe he is doing anything "wrong."

Yes, that is exactly what you mean about tilting at windmills. The reality is that we spend our entire lives trying to align ourselves with the wind. No one will ever find the perfect way during their lifetime.
Finding the ideal path in this life isn't the purpose itself, but rather the method by which we search for a path.

A path toward what... toward which goal?

I don't see much difference between judging and disallowing.
To disallow in a legislative sense means sentencing—or punishment.
Legal condemnation is the direct result of disallowing.

So, do you believe things would function better if there were no prohibitions?
You anarchist!😁

When tolerance and understanding overlap, tolerance loses its meaning because the subject becomes exactly what it can only ever be.

Very well.

Of course, understanding and tolerance are two entirely different animals. Tolerance is merely about endurance—putting up with something—whereas understanding involves true acceptance and grasping the context and circumstances that led to a situation in the first place.

In my view, tolerance often stems from being detached from the issue itself. That is why I draw such a sharp line between understanding and mere tolerance... Tolerance doesn't require comprehension; it’s more of a pre-packaged attitude toward life and its various occurrences.
Understanding implies acceptance—though even "refusal" can stem from understanding, at least in the world we find ourselves in today.
Or do you honestly believe this current state of affairs is ideal?

Meaning, there are moments where refusal is necessary—situations that are quite obvious, much like how jumping out of a plane without a parachute results in certain death.

Every situation is unique, making it difficult to predict outcomes beforehand... and without looking at the specifics—which would be generalizing, after all—it is impossible to determine what the right move would be.

briskraven28 said:🙂

Your example regarding a pedophile refers to those moments where one must defend the very foundations of human dignity—things essential to our survival as a species. In such instances, an innate instinct takes over... an instinct that doesn't necessarily require conscious thought or rationalization. It's how animals react when protecting their offspring.

Ha, you read my mind. I was just thinking about escalating the examples, starting with that extreme case of the pedophile—but clearly, your "innate instinct" won't stop me from doing just that! 😁
Fine, then here is an instance where "innate instinct" is irrelevant: consider, for example, a Dr. Smith who "treats" his patients with prohibited substances in private practice. It doesn't affect you or your family, yet would you simply "allow" it? Of course, you understand him—you grasp his conviction in the "correctness" of his actions—but my God, even that pedophile from the first extreme example likely doesn't believe he is doing anything "wrong."

Yes, that is exactly what you mean about tilting at windmills. The reality is that we spend our entire lives trying to align ourselves with the wind. No one will ever find the perfect way during their lifetime.
Finding the ideal path in this life isn't the purpose itself, but rather the method by which we search for a path.

A path toward what... toward which goal?

I don't see much difference between judging and disallowing.
To disallow in a legislative sense means sentencing—or punishment.
Legal condemnation is the direct result of disallowing.

So, do you believe things would function better if there were no prohibitions?
You anarchist!😁

When tolerance and understanding overlap, tolerance loses its meaning because the subject becomes exactly what it can only ever be.

Very well.

Of course, understanding and tolerance are two entirely different animals. Tolerance is merely about endurance—putting up with something—whereas understanding involves true acceptance and grasping the context and circumstances that led to a situation in the first place.

In my view, tolerance often stems from being detached from the issue itself. That is why I draw such a sharp line between understanding and mere tolerance... Tolerance doesn't require comprehension; it’s more of a pre-packaged attitude toward life and its various occurrences.
Understanding implies acceptance—though even "refusal" can stem from understanding, at least in the world we find ourselves in today.
Or do you honestly believe this current state of affairs is ideal?

Meaning, there are moments where refusal is necessary—situations that are quite obvious, much like how jumping out of a plane without a parachute results in certain death.

Every situation is unique, making it difficult to predict outcomes beforehand... and without looking at the specifics—which would be generalizing, after all—it is impossible to determine what the right move would be.

jademarlin26 said:Regardless of Edward Flores4's defense of "me," which was unnecessary, it was clear I shouldn't bother bothering you with explanations; if you didn't catch my point the first time, perhaps you aren't meant to. I read somewhere else that your choice of phrasing was quite peculiar, so I thought we should just move on. It's trivial.

Let's proceed without fear or jealousy. After all, those peddling illusions remain my primary concern.

briskraven28 said:I follow your logic—mostly—and I agree with much of it, though I’m trying to dig a bit deeper into the nuance here... Understanding someone's motives doesn't necessarily mean you won't clash with them. Consider a hypothetical scenario: suppose you have a child, and heaven forbid they become a target for some predator. You might attempt to analyze why such things happen, but would you really allow yourself to remain "non-confrontational" in a situation like that?

There are certain rules to life that apply to everyone—regardless of how one chooses to perceive them. They are immutable. If you remain aware of them and act accordingly, life becomes significantly easier; any attempt to fight against them is merely... tilting at windmills.

If that’s your take—are you suggesting that in the previous scenario, you were merely tilting at windmills? Even if you were... perhaps that is simply your calling. Someone has to step up, otherwise those windmills would spread across the entire globe—leaving us to wonder what becomes of that balancing act you mentioned... Things are a bit more nuanced than that, I suppose.

I see you have decided to embrace a forced coexistence with certain "undesirable" individuals... quite the choice.
Perhaps you should consider why certain people are deemed "unacceptable" for communication in the first place...

It isn't that I find anyone difficult to talk to—not even Edward Flores4—it’s just that I lack the will—and frankly, the time—to deal with his aggressive, projective tendencies... I am simply questioning you.😁

Tolerance... a concept far too rare for most.
I am somewhat uncertain about the implications of that particular term...
Who exactly are we to decide what should be tolerated and what shouldn't... if we even have that authority to begin with?

I am not discussing tolerance in the sense you seem to imply—it feels more like you're advocating for a certain type of moral policing, which isn't my aim. There is a distinction between judging someone and simply refusing to permit their actions... In this hypothetical scenario involving a pedophile, I might not sit in judgment of him, but I certainly won't be complicit in his behavior. That is the crux of the matter...

Are we essentially playing God—allowing our creations to stumble, only to step in and say, "Look, I'm not thrilled with that choice, but since I'm feeling merciful, I'll let it slide this once"...?

Well, that would be passing judgment...

Tolerance is essentially a ticking time bomb—lingering at the threshold of misunderstanding until you hit the trigger that turns everything into an open conflict.

So, in this hypothetical scenario involving a predator—would an open conflict be better or worse than simply allowing it (in your opinion, naturally)?

A high degree of tolerance isn't actually a virtue—it just indicates how often you find yourself in situations where you fail to understand others.

There—perhaps I’ve clarified things slightly better now; tolerance (or permission) and understanding are two distinct variables... which, depending on the specific case, may diverge or overlap.