Posts by silentcyclist3

wanderingscout13 said:If you ask me, everything you’re saying holds water—even those attempts to "psychoanalyze" the people on this forum. But here’s the thing: just because 2 + 2 = 4, does that really mean we’ve unlocked every secret in the universe? Not even close!
I want to tell you that while what you're writing might be true, it's only a fragment of the whole picture. You can never, ever underestimate people. It reminds me of a time back when I was serving in the military (under the old administration). I was stationed with this kid from Washington, D.C., who desperately wanted to study electrical engineering but failed his entrance exam. A few months passed, and then one night, he told me he was going to dedicate an hour every single evening to studying so he could ace the exam next year. Knowing him—and considering how terrible our living conditions were for actual studying—I honestly didn't believe him. But he did it. Every single night, for over six months. He eventually pulled the necessary strings, made it to Washington, D.C., and passed that exam! Now, you might think that's where the story ends and he goes off to become an engineer. Sadly, it wasn't so simple. Just one week before classes were set to start, he was killed in a car accident.

That is why we have to be so careful with these kinds of judgments. Just when we feel most certain that things are exactly as we imagined them, life proves they are something else entirely.

See? It turns out his dream college wasn't meant to be after all. 😁
The situation remained the same the whole time; it's just that you thought it had changed.

I agree with what you said about underestimating others.

If I were to add anything, it's that I haven't underestimated anyone by a single word.
And if my description of the events on this forum offended someone, then I guess I have to wonder why it offended them!?

briskraven28 said:I agree, but where exactly does one person's "pursuit of happiness" end and the infringement upon someone else begin? That was my point regarding egocentrism... Some people live entirely for themselves without a shred of guilt, while others—driven by their conscience—will pass up opportunities just to stay true to their principles. Then there are those who act against their own morals and suffer for it. When I brought up egocentrism, I wasn't talking about self-actualization—rather, I meant one's capacity for tolerance toward difference. It's about whether a person can step outside their own narrow "bubble" to grasp a perspective unlike their own. Why should they have to? Because, quite simply, we aren't destined to only interact with those who make life easy...

Fear—that massive, merciless tyrant—refuses to let anyone enjoy a quiet nap under a palm tree on some sunny beach... It forces you into motion instead.
How does one spot someone who can practically feel fear breathing down their neck...?
On... Screaming... Let them all hear him. Every slight feels like salt in an open wound to this man—pure egocentrism...

Here... I wrote a few brief thoughts on fear—just to ensure I'm not simply repeating myself...

I don't believe change requires much effort... if one thinks about it.

Well, I am glad you mentioned that... 😁 It’s easy to play the part when things seem to fall into place by "destiny"—even if an outsider thinks you're breaking a sweat... one doesn't truly feel the exertion when they're doing what they love, regardless of how much energy is actually spent.
Once again—we find ourselves forced to tackle tasks that we dislike, which in turn dislike us... making every single movement feel like an uphill battle.
That leads directly to this discrimination—or rather, that selection process you mentioned...

I expect to be crucified for claiming that everything I’ve written constitutes universal truth... 🙂

aaaaaa—and what exactly constitutes a universal truth?...

A child's spirit—it lacks that heavy dose of cynicism we all carry. They don't view the world through a lens of constant judgment... mostly because they haven't lived long enough to accumulate the failures that adults usually inflict upon themselves.

My parents used to tell me I was an incredibly exhausting child—mostly because there was no end to my constant questioning—which, as you can clearly see...😁
And then they looked at me like I was the crazy one—and honestly, I felt exactly the same way about them...

As my esteemed colleague Edward Flores4 puts it... Discrimination—an old story, really... though one would hope we'd have moved past such trivialities by now..
Given the circumstances I laid out previously—it’s simply unrealistic to assume everyone is operating from the same level of experience... or any other relevant baseline.
Attempting to merge two different tiers is like trying to crossbreed a chicken with a horse—and then expecting this bizarre new creature to go happily frolicking through a meadow... 😁
Similarities attract—whether we care to admit it or not—and that principle is woven into the very fabric of everything around us. The same logic applies to our differences...
We all follow the rules. And yet, someone—inspired by this mythical notion of absolute freedom—decides to try mixing chickens and horses just to see if they can uncover something the "rest of the world hasn't seen"... all in a desperate bid for attention...
Selection—if you want to call it "discrimination" for the sake of drama—is simply a consequence of natural principles. If we can just acknowledge that reality, perhaps we can actually communicate and build this house together... one floor at a time.

I agree. Then again, we aren't lucky enough to only do what we love—or only talk to people we actually "click" with—but also have to deal with those where the conversation just doesn't flow... So, what’s your take? Does tolerance for different perspectives actually grow when we're tested by people we don't mesh with, or does it just lead to mutual frustration?

It always comes down to your relationship with yourself. I guess once you sort that out, you start to actually understand other people—you see their motives and why they act the way they do. Maybe it just makes everything clearer.
So, if you need to talk, you should probably know how to handle that—knowing what to say and how to actually say it to people. I guess the issue is that people only start picking fights when they don't understand the situation. That’s really where we run into trouble.

briskraven28 said:I agree, but where exactly does one person's "pursuit of happiness" end and the infringement upon someone else begin? That was my point regarding egocentrism... Some people live entirely for themselves without a shred of guilt, while others—driven by their conscience—will pass up opportunities just to stay true to their principles. Then there are those who act against their own morals and suffer for it. When I brought up egocentrism, I wasn't talking about self-actualization—rather, I meant one's capacity for tolerance toward difference. It's about whether a person can step outside their own narrow "bubble" to grasp a perspective unlike their own. Why should they have to? Because, quite simply, we aren't destined to only interact with those who make life easy...

Fear—that massive, merciless tyrant—refuses to let anyone enjoy a quiet nap under a palm tree on some sunny beach... It forces you into motion instead.
How does one spot someone who can practically feel fear breathing down their neck...?
On... Screaming... Let them all hear him. Every slight feels like salt in an open wound to this man—pure egocentrism...

Here... I wrote a few brief thoughts on fear—just to ensure I'm not simply repeating myself...

I don't believe change requires much effort... if one thinks about it.

Well, I am glad you mentioned that... 😁 It’s easy to play the part when things seem to fall into place by "destiny"—even if an outsider thinks you're breaking a sweat... one doesn't truly feel the exertion when they're doing what they love, regardless of how much energy is actually spent.
Once again—we find ourselves forced to tackle tasks that we dislike, which in turn dislike us... making every single movement feel like an uphill battle.
That leads directly to this discrimination—or rather, that selection process you mentioned...

I expect to be crucified for claiming that everything I’ve written constitutes universal truth... 🙂

aaaaaa—and what exactly constitutes a universal truth?...

A child's spirit—it lacks that heavy dose of cynicism we all carry. They don't view the world through a lens of constant judgment... mostly because they haven't lived long enough to accumulate the failures that adults usually inflict upon themselves.

My parents used to tell me I was an incredibly exhausting child—mostly because there was no end to my constant questioning—which, as you can clearly see...😁
And then they looked at me like I was the crazy one—and honestly, I felt exactly the same way about them...

As my esteemed colleague Edward Flores4 puts it... Discrimination—an old story, really... though one would hope we'd have moved past such trivialities by now..
Given the circumstances I laid out previously—it’s simply unrealistic to assume everyone is operating from the same level of experience... or any other relevant baseline.
Attempting to merge two different tiers is like trying to crossbreed a chicken with a horse—and then expecting this bizarre new creature to go happily frolicking through a meadow... 😁
Similarities attract—whether we care to admit it or not—and that principle is woven into the very fabric of everything around us. The same logic applies to our differences...
We all follow the rules. And yet, someone—inspired by this mythical notion of absolute freedom—decides to try mixing chickens and horses just to see if they can uncover something the "rest of the world hasn't seen"... all in a desperate bid for attention...
Selection—if you want to call it "discrimination" for the sake of drama—is simply a consequence of natural principles. If we can just acknowledge that reality, perhaps we can actually communicate and build this house together... one floor at a time.

I agree. Then again, we aren't lucky enough to only do what we love—or only talk to people we actually "click" with—but also have to deal with those where the conversation just doesn't flow... So, what’s your take? Does tolerance for different perspectives actually grow when we're tested by people we don't mesh with, or does it just lead to mutual frustration?

😁
There are certain rules to life that apply to everyone. They don't care about how we perceive them. They are fixed. I guess if you realize this and act accordingly, you make things easier for yourself. Any attempt to fight against them... well, maybe it's just like tilting at windmills.

briskraven28 said:I agree, but where exactly does one person's "pursuit of happiness" end and the infringement upon someone else begin? That was my point regarding egocentrism... Some people live entirely for themselves without a shred of guilt, while others—driven by their conscience—will pass up opportunities just to stay true to their principles. Then there are those who act against their own morals and suffer for it. When I brought up egocentrism, I wasn't talking about self-actualization—rather, I meant one's capacity for tolerance toward difference. It's about whether a person can step outside their own narrow "bubble" to grasp a perspective unlike their own. Why should they have to? Because, quite simply, we aren't destined to only interact with those who make life easy...

Fear—that massive, merciless tyrant—refuses to let anyone enjoy a quiet nap under a palm tree on some sunny beach... It forces you into motion instead.
How does one spot someone who can practically feel fear breathing down their neck...?
On... Screaming... Let them all hear him. Every slight feels like salt in an open wound to this man—pure egocentrism...

Here... I wrote a few brief thoughts on fear—just to ensure I'm not simply repeating myself...

I don't believe change requires much effort... if one thinks about it.

Well, I am glad you mentioned that... 😁 It’s easy to play the part when things seem to fall into place by "destiny"—even if an outsider thinks you're breaking a sweat... one doesn't truly feel the exertion when they're doing what they love, regardless of how much energy is actually spent.
Once again—we find ourselves forced to tackle tasks that we dislike, which in turn dislike us... making every single movement feel like an uphill battle.
That leads directly to this discrimination—or rather, that selection process you mentioned...

I expect to be crucified for claiming that everything I’ve written constitutes universal truth... 🙂

aaaaaa—and what exactly constitutes a universal truth?...

A child's spirit—it lacks that heavy dose of cynicism we all carry. They don't view the world through a lens of constant judgment... mostly because they haven't lived long enough to accumulate the failures that adults usually inflict upon themselves.

My parents used to tell me I was an incredibly exhausting child—mostly because there was no end to my constant questioning—which, as you can clearly see...😁
And then they looked at me like I was the crazy one—and honestly, I felt exactly the same way about them...

As my esteemed colleague Edward Flores4 puts it... Discrimination—an old story, really... though one would hope we'd have moved past such trivialities by now..
Given the circumstances I laid out previously—it’s simply unrealistic to assume everyone is operating from the same level of experience... or any other relevant baseline.
Attempting to merge two different tiers is like trying to crossbreed a chicken with a horse—and then expecting this bizarre new creature to go happily frolicking through a meadow... 😁
Similarities attract—whether we care to admit it or not—and that principle is woven into the very fabric of everything around us. The same logic applies to our differences...
We all follow the rules. And yet, someone—inspired by this mythical notion of absolute freedom—decides to try mixing chickens and horses just to see if they can uncover something the "rest of the world hasn't seen"... all in a desperate bid for attention...
Selection—if you want to call it "discrimination" for the sake of drama—is simply a consequence of natural principles. If we can just acknowledge that reality, perhaps we can actually communicate and build this house together... one floor at a time.

I agree. Then again, we aren't lucky enough to only do what we love—or only talk to people we actually "click" with—but also have to deal with those where the conversation just doesn't flow... So, what’s your take? Does tolerance for different perspectives actually grow when we're tested by people we don't mesh with, or does it just lead to mutual frustration?

😁
It looks like you've decided to commit to this forced coexistence with people who aren't exactly welcome. I guess.
Maybe you should ask yourself why certain people seem so "unapproachable" to you in the first place.

Tolerance.
I'm a bit uneasy about what that term actually means. I guess I'm just worried about the implications.
Who are we to even think we have the right to decide what to tolerate or what not to? I guess. Maybe we just don't.
Are we like gods who let our creations slip up sometimes, thinking, "Alright kid, I don't love what you did, but I'm a good person, so I'll overlook it this once"?
Tolerance can be a ticking time bomb. Staying stuck in a state of misunderstanding just waits for a trigger to turn everything into an open conflict.

I guess a high degree of tolerance isn't really a virtue. Maybe it just shows how often you end up in situations where you fail to understand the people around you.

To answer your last question:
Yes, unfortunately, our tolerance seems to be shifting in different directions.

briskraven28 said:Egocentrism—we are all essentially self-absorbed, everything else is just nuance...😁
If communication starts from a need to prove oneself or persuade others—and if both sides feel that way—then there is no actual exchange happening; people are simply hunting for validation of their own "worth."

The motivation behind why we communicate is largely baked into those elements you listed. For instance, if someone initiates contact out of a fear of loneliness or the unknown, conflict can arise because they want connection, yet their fear might prevent them from venturing into unfamiliar territory—or even talking to unfamiliar people. In spiritual circles, this is almost glaringly obvious... you see the formation of cliques—keeping "like-minded" people together—where everyone clings to their own little "dogmas," which reflects both that desire for connection (or fear of isolation) and the fear of the unknown.
After all, once you think you've found something "valuable," you feel compelled to scatter it everywhere—all while failing to realize you're just reciting empty sentences that have lost their meaning even to yourself...

Then there are our established criteria—though I would categorize that as the upbringing and experiences through which we build our filters for viewing the world. I’d call it a "grid"—thinking through a "grid"—because it takes significant effort to step back from that conditioning to consider that others are looking through entirely different "grids"... and to actually grasp a perspective born from a different framework. Ideally, we would all be free from these "grids," but as I said, that requires work...
One such grid is certainly "morality"—which is likely why you claim the "crowd will crucify you" when you try to equate creation and destruction on a single scale.

Btw, what exactly do you mean by this "childlike spirit"?
What prerequisites, in your view, are necessary for communication that actually results in an exchange and mutual enrichment—aside from perhaps this spontaneity?

It’s only natural that a person prioritizes their own happiness.
If the need for happiness doesn't find those little treasure chests, then unfulfillment sets in, followed by insecurity, and eventually, a fear of "poverty."
Fear is a massive, merciless tyrant. It won't let you just lounge on a beach in the shade of a palm tree. It forces you to move.
How do you recognize someone with fear breathing down their neck?
They scream so everyone can hear them. And any time someone turns their back, they feel it like salt in a wound. "Egocentrism."

I don't think change itself requires effort. We don't make changes because we expect the struggle of facing fear during the process; we don't do it because we expect "effort."
I’ve done plenty of stupid, hedonistic things in my life where I put in a huge amount of energy, and I didn't feel any "effort." Yet, for certain immediate decisions I used to run away from, I felt a massive amount of "effort."
We define "effort" ourselves, so we can just change the definition when it becomes necessary.
Whether we are capable of changing that definition again depends on the factors I mentioned in my previous post.

What I meant was that I’ll get crucified because I’m claiming everything I wrote is a universal truth. 🙂

Childlike spirit. A child doesn't look at the world with such a heavy dose of criticism. They don't judge based on repeated, unhappy experiences—experiences that are usually caused by the person themselves—because a child hasn't had the chance to build those kinds of patterns yet.
Children—and maybe others too—have a more direct connection to their surroundings. I guess they often notice things adults just miss.
There is also this instinctive drive in a child to develop their own virtues, though that drive gets stifled by what parents need. If you apply that to the adult world, people suppress their own virtues because of societal demands, mostly out of a fear of being alone.

The prerequisites for communication...

As my esteemed colleague Edward Flores4 mentioned, discrimination.
Given the circumstances I laid out in my previous post, I don't think it's possible to assume everyone has the same level of experience, or anything else for that matter.
Trying to bridge two different levels is like trying to crossbreed a chicken and a horse and then expecting this strange new creature to happily run around a field. 😁
Similarities—whether we realize it or not—attract one another. It seems deeply embedded in the nature of everything we see. The same principle applies to differences.
We all act accordingly. However, someone, perhaps inspired by some non-existent idea of absolute freedom, tries to force that chicken-horse combination, thinking they might discover something "the world hasn't seen" just to finally grab some attention.
Selection (which could be called DISCRIMINATION if you're being malicious) is a result of natural principles. If we recognize this, maybe we can communicate calmly and build a shared house, floor by floor.

slydriver17 said:I haven't. I assume they were. Wild berries are usually delicious, though I suppose that depends entirely on the palate and the brain of whoever is processing them. But then again, considering how my own brain was functioning this morning...🙂

haha... I wonder which processor we're talking about here. Is it an Intel or an AMD? 🙂

Edward Flores4 said:First off, you claim you're just being selective about who you talk to... but let's be real—that only happens when you actually have an argument to make. When it comes to throwing out provocations, suddenly you aren't being picky anymore; anyone will do, even the people you supposedly "didn't choose" for a serious discussion. 😁

That’s a pretty interesting way to frame it... or should I say, a really terrible excuse for dodging the actual point. 🙄

Sorry, I just couldn't help myself after seeing how much you've twisted what she said in just a few sentences.
Creativity: 5/5! 😁

I'm quite impressed by how much you care about jademarlin26.🙂

briskraven28 said:This post should probably be pinned to every thread as a paradigm of common communication errors—especially that bolded section.😁
Sometimes depth overrides breadth, and instead of complementing one another, ideas merely clash. What other reasons do you see for getting stuck in these communication dead ends—of which there are many on this platform—beyond the demagoguery you mentioned? And what, in your view, drives this need for "corrections" by these self-appointed experts? 😁

The reasons for such behavior?

- fear of isolation: if forced to pick a side, people usually go with the consensus because there's strength in numbers. Nobody wants to be an outcast.

- fear of the unknown: a person will always choose a familiar situation regardless of how bad it is. People try to avoid the unknown by any means necessary.

- upbringing: the systematic crushing of a child's spirit just because of "what the neighbors might think."

- inclinations and talents: it seems obvious that people are born with certain leanings toward different skills. Not everyone is receptive to all levels of awareness or ability. Some people are tied to the ground, to stability, to logic; any sort of irrational adventure feels like losing their footing, which leads to a very uncomfortable sense of fear.
Because of that, some will gravitate toward jobs involving mechanics, machinery, or finance—anything requiring "exact" results—while others will pursue communication, art, or anything requiring improvisation and creative freedom.

experience: we all had our own preconceptions about how life works when we were kids, feeling certain our view was perfectly logical.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, things change. Our youthful logic gets dismantled by experience.
Of course, there are many types of experience, varying levels.
"Chasing The dragon"—catch the essence, the meaning, and the origin of experience. Mostly, we are passive, waiting for circumstances to force us to learn.
For some, that force comes often; for others, it comes rarely and over much longer intervals.

shortcuts: humans will always look for the quickest path to happiness. There’s nothing wrong with realizing that the most common shortcuts are actually the longest routes. The human organism depends on cycles and psycho-biological changes.
Simply put, there are times when you can handle certain things because your mind and body allow it, just as there are times when you won't succeed no matter how hard you try.

balance: in this massive macro-organism, there must be equilibrium.
- there must be those who destroy just as much as those who create.
Something as perfect as the world around us can only persist if there is a balance between creation and destruction.
That fact is painful until it is realized.
Maybe that explains why there are always at least two sides; one cannot exist without the other.

What I'm saying is a universal truth, much like the truth that the group here will likely crucify me just for bringing it up! 😁

I suppose... what's left to discuss?

Edward Flores4 said:Look, maybe I’m just being a bit thick here, but let me try to translate what you actually said into plain English. When Ronin asked you to clarify that one point of yours—and we can circle back to her specific comment in a second—your response was basically this: you told him that unlike most people who just ramble on without ever making a point (kind of like those politicians we see on the news all the time), you prefer to use fewer words that actually carry some weight. In other words, you were essentially telling Ronin that he’s just too slow to grasp your simple, concise way of speaking.

So far, so good! Now, let's dive into the heart of this whole disagreement by taking a hard look at that bit of condensed wisdom—the kind that, frankly, silly Ronin just doesn't seem to grasp. To be honest, it caught me off guard too, but I’m really grateful you were kind enough to share it with us.

So, here’s a bit of that wisdom you were looking for—just as it was originally intended:

The part I've highlighted in bold is the only bit that’s actually up for debate—everything else is just circling back to what was said earlier in the thread, specifically that post by silentcyclist3, which honestly doesn't change the core issue we're looking at here.

So, if I’m reading you correctly, your main takeaway is that "mature adults" shouldn't be expected to sink down to the level of constant nitpicking and those kinds of childish outbursts. The rest of what you said just circles back to the setting—that whole "PDF spirituality" landscape we've been discussing. Based on that, here is how I interpret your point:

So, you’re basically equating being critical with those "infantile outbursts," and then grouping it all under the umbrella of "immature" behavior. In other words—if I'm following your logic correctly—you're suggesting that a "mature adult" shouldn't really be critical at all, because you've tied being critical directly to being childish. It's like saying if someone starts questioning things, they've just regressed into a toddler tantrum.

I’ve noticed a few times now how Ronin keeps trying to dig for more clarity on that one point you made—you know, trying to get you to expand on your reasoning—but you just won't budge. You stay firm in your stance that, unlike the rest of us—who seem to be stuck in this cycle of being overly critical or maybe just a bit too analytical for our own good—you’re staying strictly non-critical, mature, and, most importantly, keeping things brief and to the point, which is a far cry from the way politicians love to ramble on forever.

It’s honestly wild to me how some people actually frame being critical as a sign of "immaturity"—as if having an analytical mind is somehow a developmental flaw. By that twisted logic, I guess you have to assume that someone lacking basic cognitive function is the pinnacle of maturity. But let’s look at the actual science here for a second. What makes someone truly incapable of critical thought isn't just a personality quirk; it’s often a literal dysfunction of the prefrontal cortex—that area sitting right behind those bumps on your forehead. That part of the brain exists for one primary reason: to run "mental simulations." It’s our internal laboratory where we perform critical thinking, weigh the consequences of our actions, predict outcomes based on what we've learned, and handle long-term planning. Every single one of those functions is inherently critical by design. They exist solely to allow us to run a sort of mental filter—a discriminatory process—so we can sift through all the noise and pick the path that actually makes sense after it has passed the "criticality test." Without that ability to evaluate, you aren't being "mature," you're just operating on autopilot.

If you’ve spent all this time convincing yourself that being critical is just some sign of immaturity—that having an analytical mind is basically a "childish phase" you need to outgrow alongside your sense of wonder—then honestly, you're doing yourself a massive disservice. It’s a strange way to look at things. To me, it feels like you're essentially choosing to bypass your own cognitive tools. Think about it this way: people with certain neurological impairments lack the capacity to perform deep, critical analysis or make complex selections. You, on the other hand, actually possess those abilities—you have the mental hardware to dissect an idea or spot a flaw—but by refusing to use them, you're effectively leveling yourself down to that same functional baseline. It's like owning a high-end MacBook but using it exclusively as a paperweight; you still have the power, but you're choosing to live as if the processing speed doesn't exist.

When you really sit back and chew on it—it’s actually pretty terrifying—because you end up stuck in this loop of "circular reasoning" that just feeds itself. It works like this: if someone tries to walk you through the actual facts using logic, common sense, and solid arguments—basically using all those critical thinking muscles we're supposed to have—your immediate reflex is to label them as "immature" or "childish" simply because they're being critical. And honestly? That reaction just serves to lock your own bias even tighter in place.

Still, I have to say, thanks for that perfect little demonstration of how a "mature" person acts when they've supposedly conquered their ego to become "spiritual." Out of all the calculated, forced attempts people make to define what spirituality actually looks like, this spontaneous little outburst of yours managed to capture the essence better than any textbook definition ever could.

Thanks for listening.

😲

you've become a risk to your own health. 😁

It makes me think of an old acquaintance I used to grab drinks with. He was just a regular guy, we played in a band together, used to hang out... nothing serious.
About 15 years passed—maybe even more—and we ran into each other by chance and decided to meet up. It was supposed to be a relaxed, low-key drink at a local pub. But once he started using all this "expert" jargon to theorize about everything under the sun, it wasn't just awkward for me; people at the next table actually started turning around and laughing.
He couldn't help himself, either. He made sure to mention several times how much people at his job tell him what a genius he is.
I don't think I'll be grabbing a beer with him again. 😁

briskraven28 said:Well said, silentcyclist3. Truly well put.
Communication based solely on analytical or mathematical logic would only work if we possessed every existing fact—meaning, if ignorance didn't exist. And if that were the case, I suspect communication itself wouldn't even be necessary. This type of communication, which excludes the "intuitive," is actually quite regressive—it’s infantile. It attempts to build a complete picture from fragments, assuming those parts represent the whole. Even though facts support it, they are incomplete without the missing pieces that one must grasp intuitively. Even modern psychology has become sensitive to this; in its attempt to define such understanding, it reaches for tangible concepts—like emotional or social intelligence—just to justify the process, though it still hasn't found a way to express it mathematically... assuming there's even a measurable unit for it.

Yeah, regarding psychology as a science—it honestly starts to feel a bit absurd, seeing how people obsessively invent names and definitions for every minor deviation from some supposed "standard."
And there's this other thing, which is maybe more interesting: the fanaticism of people who cling to tiny slivers of data from scientific studies and try to turn those crumbs into a full banquet.
The issue is, after such a feast, they always end up hungry again. So they just keep repeating the same cycle indefinitely.
I suspect any truly intelligent researcher would be much more cautious about drawing the kinds of sweeping conclusions our "internet scientists" toss around so freely.
But, like I mentioned before, the goal here doesn't seem to be actual thinking. It's more about "correcting" others and engaging in a sort of demagoguery that ultimately just feeds someone's ego while embarrassing those who look up to them.

I often think of those old Hollywood movies set in ancient times, where you'd see crowds of "preachers" shouting their wisdom in public squares. They think being louder makes them more right, but most people just walk right past them, completely ignoring the noise.

granitecyclist41 said:Honestly, let them snap. Let them do whatever they want. If someone doesn't want to talk to someone else, then don't talk to them! Period. And acting contrary to your own proclaimed "beliefs"? That just proves you never really had them to begin with. Maybe you had them once and lost them, or maybe they were always a lie. Besides, why is changing your mind such a big deal? People shift their convictions every single day, whether they're willing to admit it or not.😁

Now, this part is actually interesting. The whole phrase "higher aspects of life" is incredibly vague. Plus, it seems to me that any "higher aspect" shouldn't involve the kind of exclusivity being described here as "the only possible version of the truth."

Personally, I think there's only one truth: personal truth. Someone can find it anywhere, even in something as mundane as a head of cabbage. What I'm getting at is that the "spiritual realm" isn't some separate thing floating above life—it *is* life. As humans, we are part of this entire living system, which makes us spiritual beings by default. So, the only true sphere of spirituality is life itself. Everything about it, even the most basic, gritty, everyday stuff.😉

I am talking about more aspects, not higher aspects.🙂

I suppose my view is that truth is both personal and transcendent.
If we were to go deep enough into ourselves, I think we would eventually start to emerge from ourselves.

Edward Flores4 said:I noticed that Edward Flores4 was touching on something pretty profound there—it’s one of those ideas that really makes you stop and think for a second. It reminds me a bit of how we approach psychology in the States, where we're always trying to peel back those layers of the subconscious to see what's actually driving our behavior. When you look at it through the lens of Jung's theories, everything starts to connect in this much deeper, almost architectural way. It isn't just about surface-level reactions; it's about the foundation underneath. I've always felt like understanding these patterns is a bit like trying to map out an old, winding city—you might think you know the layout, but then you turn a corner and realize there's an entire neighborhood you never even knew existed. It takes patience and a lot of deliberate reflection, but man, is it worth it when the pieces finally click into place.

Honestly, nobody worth their salt is going to respect someone who relies on discriminatory rhetoric or just runs away from an actual argument. If that doesn't bother someone, then it’s pretty obvious—and I mean really obvious—that their goal wasn't actually to have a meaningful conversation in the first place. I don't need some official badge or a title to point this out; all I need is a little bit of basic logic. Look, if you actually want to engage in a debate, but instead you spend your time obstructing the flow and dodging questions or withholding solid arguments, anyone else who is genuinely interested in a real discussion is going to side with me, hands down. At the end of the day, this isn't about representing some specific group or identity—it’s simply a matter of logic and what your underlying motives are. 😉

Do you see what I was getting at with that whole "ladder" analogy now?

No, look—my categorization here is strictly a byproduct of you refusing to actually clarify your statement or back up your arguments. You’re essentially forcing my hand, pushing me to cut you out of this conversation despite the fact that I’ve made repeated efforts to avoid doing exactly that. That conclusion you're reaching? You’re the one who imposed it through your own selective way of handling the dialogue. I have absolutely nothing to do with it. 🙂

Look, making a choice doesn't have to be synonymous with discrimination—it really isn't. It’s just about deciding what fits best in the moment. Besides, I’d much rather just grab a coffee and chat with you about something else entirely anyway.😉

Think about it this way—when you’re picking between, say, five different candidates for a job, you aren't just looking at them all equally. You’re actually filtering through the group—effectively weeding out four of them—so that the "chosen" one is simply the only person you *didn't* dismiss. It’s the same logic when you sit down with a book. Your eyes hit the paper, but you’re constantly ignoring the vast amount of white space and ink patterns to "select" only those specific characters that your brain recognizes as words. That selective process is what actually allows you to read. Or even simpler: if you’re staring at a ceramic vase on a table, you aren't seeing everything in the room—you’re instinctively filtering out the empty space around it just to focus on the vase itself. Selection, at its core, is just a fancy word for what we choose to ignore.

The human mind doesn't really perceive things in a vacuum—it works almost exclusively through "contrastive comparisons." It’s all about relativity. We don't just see "big"; we see that *this* is bigger than *that*. We don't just sense "hard"; we feel that *this* is tougher than *that*. This whole discriminative nature of how we process reality has been a known factor in psychology for ages. In fact, that's exactly why most psychological assessments rely on those simple "like or dislike" frameworks. That's where you get the concepts of dominant versus repressed traits, which eventually leads us to the classic distinction between introverts and extroverts. All of this serves as the bedrock for Jung's personality typology, which maps out those 16 different character orientations. It’s actually a remarkably robust system—so much so that it isn't just confined to clinical psychology. You see it being applied everywhere from career coaching and corporate team management to customer profiling and even criminal forensics. It’s funny, because based on the very principles behind this testing, Jung actually developed the device most people know as the polygraph—or, as it’s more popularly called, the lie detector.

Look, I’m sorry if I drifted a bit off-topic there—I really didn't mean to, but I genuinely feel like you've missed the mark on this one, and I want to walk you through my reasoning. I’m not looking for a fight or trying to get into some heated back-and-forth with you; honestly, if I can just lay it out clearly and help you see where I'm coming from, we’ll both have used our time a lot more effectively than if we just spent it bickering.

By the way, if you realize someone in your social circle just isn't your vibe, do you find yourself constantly trying to force a conversation even when they clearly aren't feeling it either?

We aren't a group of people physically hanging out in the same room. Everyone comes here specifically to talk—and since it’s all through typing, it’s pretty counterintuitive (if not totally illogical) to expect people to show up if they don't actually want to engage. After all, there’s nothing else to do on a forum besides communicate.

I'm sure you get where I'm coming from, because it seems pretty self-evident to me. You probably haven't given it much thought—which is fair—but it could lead to some misconceptions, making it seem like you can be part of a forum without actually participating.

black and white, machinery, poor and hollow.....

I honestly don't follow that haiku at all... I guess you need me to break everything down for you in plain English.

I understand you....

Edward Flores4 said:It isn't weird at all—it's actually pretty obvious—but it does fly right in the face of what you said earlier:

What really gets to me is how everyone tries to force themselves into these rigid little categories.

In one breath, you're claiming you don't categorize people, and in the next, you're saying it's perfectly fine to pick and choose who you engage with, which is, by definition, a discriminatory process.

Since you won't slot yourself into any category, deny that you're labeling or discriminating, and then dodge follow-up questions by hiding behind your "right to choose," you’re essentially opting out of any meaningful, intelligent discussion.

That whole aspect of the conversation is often completely ignored in this thread, and that kind of exclusivity is actually one of the criteria I use to decide if I want to communicate with someone.

I mean, what would even be the point of talking to just anyone?

What you’ve laid out here is basically just a description of your initial stance. You aren't looking for a debate or trying to reach new conclusions; you're strictly looking for an echo chamber—people who already agree with you so you don't have to deal with any pushback.

Sure, that's what forums are for, and it's a totally valid way to exist online. But just keep in mind that taking that stance automatically undermines the weight of your opinions, regardless of how smart or sound they actually are. Someone who cherry-picks their audience and only responds to what fits their narrative isn't a credible participant in a discussion; they're just someone seeking validation rather than trying to re-evaluate their own views.

If you had just been upfront about that from the start, you would have saved us all a lot of time.

Forcing this "everyone talks to everyone" style of debate is basically a violation.

Nobody is forcing you to do anything... you have every right to stay silent, and we have every right to interpret that silence however we see fit since you missed the chance to clarify or defend your position.
Public statements invite public scrutiny. If you aren't prepared to argue your points openly, then maybe don't put them out there in the first place. Nobody is dragging you here to post, but once you hit "submit," there's an expectation that you'll stand by what you wrote. When you don't, no matter what excuse you give, it's perfectly fair to assume your position carries zero argumentative weight.

Next time you start a thread like this, just lead with the fact that you're only interested in hearing from people who already agree with you, and there won't be any drama. If you make your intentions clear, I won't feel the need to try and talk sense into you or shove arguments down your throat. It's quite simple 😉

Are you speaking for yourself, or are you representing some group that gave you permission to speak on their behalf?
🙂 Do you see now what I meant by the drawer comment?

Choosing isn't always discrimination. I might still be happy to chat with you about something else.😉

By the way, if someone in society doesn't click with you, do you insist on communicating with them even when they clearly don't want to?

Black and white, mechanical, thin and hollow.....

slydriver17 said:A spiritual individual understands that true change doesn't require making a scene; it’s about the quiet revolution of separating the wheat from the chaff—or perhaps the other way around. That process happens naturally on its own. 😁But let me give you something tangible, something concrete. For instance, I was out picking wild strawberries the other day when I spotted a rainbow. Think about it: light refraction, moisture in the air... isn't it true that those colors emerging from the invisible are precisely what trigger a spiritual awakening? It certainly triggered mine the moment I tried to interfere with the natural order. 😕😕I am not on drugs.🙂

Nice 🙂
have you written any poetry in that kind of vein?
Were the strawberries good?

granitecyclist41 said:Wouldn't it have been way easier if you just told mistybison which group you belong to? Why respond to questions you want to dodge with these long-winded judgments, especially when you claim they might not align with what the asker intended?😉

Seriously, knowing how to communicate matters, and communication is a two-way street. If you pre-determine your expectations, cherry-pick answers that suit you while tossing out the ones that don't, and judge people based on their specific takes, then you aren't communicating at all. 🤷

So, do you fall into the category you described yourself? You said: "It's perfectly clear who's here just hungry for attention and provoking reactions in the vulgarest ways possible, but I can't wrap my head around those who present themselves as sober thinkers only to immediately discredit themselves with cheap bickering against 'their own kind' or those from the 'opposing camp'!"

What was your actual goal when you started this thread?🙄

Are you asking who spiritual leaders are? Like, "Never heard of them, how about you?" type of thing?😂

To hold a position, you need a solid pillar to lean on. Having an opinion without any foundation is just being immature. It’s like trying to lean against something only to have it collapse under you.🙂

I'm vetting the people I'll be talking to. Is that weird?
The reality is that these kinds of PDFs—stuff about spirituality, mysticism, and all that—deal with human experiences that just don't fit into a strictly scientific framework. If everything could be measured by science, I guess there wouldn't be much point in even talking about it. You’d just use mathematical logic to reach a conclusion and be done with it.
But I don't think this is really something you can just solve with math. It's not quite like that.
If you're looking for a definition, you won't find one. It just doesn't exist, I guess.
I guess there are plenty of people who just can't accept it. Their minds are constantly hunting for a definition. I suppose they're just used to trying to rationalize everything in their lives.
I see an issue here. Without acknowledging the experiential, spiritual, and intuitive side of things, I don't think a real conversation can even happen. That part of the story is often completely ignored in this PDF. To be honest, that kind of exclusion is one of the main criteria I use when deciding whether or not to engage with someone.

Then what would be the point of talking to everyone?

Forcing that "everyone talks to everyone" approach feels like a violation. Some people can spend hours talking and end up with nothing but wasted energy and frayed nerves. Others might talk for an hour and feel completely satisfied—they might even end up meeting up in person if they connected on a forum first. I guess it just doesn't work for everyone.

Look, if someone really enjoys spitting venom, mocking others, and being insulting, they can go ahead and waste their time that way. It’s entirely their choice, I guess. It has nothing to do with me.

What was my goal in starting this thread? I guess. Maybe just to get things moving.
Maybe I just wanted to shift the focus away from those seeking peace through spirituality. Instead, I wanted to look at how we react when talking to people. It happens so often. People snap way too quickly when they try to "prove" their beliefs to someone else. The result is just a contradiction of self. They end up doing the exact opposite of what they actually believe—if they even believe anything at all, I guess.

I suppose you could say spiritualists are just people who take one single slice of life and mistake it for the whole truth.

bluemason3 said:I haven't the slightest clue.😳 🤷

But looking at this PDF, it’s basically turned into some weird "back to the sixties" thing—like some kind of chemical spirituality.😁

I suppose I could tell you... it looks like a burnt-out film reel. 😁

bluemason3 said:Looking through these threads... we might as well just rename this whole PDF "The Drug Den" 😁 😁

And I guess you're some kind of expert on drug dens?😁

feralhound55 said:How about this: 😉

I actually did something—it just slipped past you and silentcyclist3... Someone already used the magic word: expectations... Here's one more 🙂 just so there's no misunderstanding...

A smile usually fixes things. 😵

Edward Flores4 said:Look... it’s kind of like how people get worked up when you call them short—they take offense because they feel it's unfair, but the reality remains the same regardless of their feelings. Now, obviously, nobody is going to barge into your house just to harass you about your height. Most decent folks will treat you like a normal person, provided you don't go around insisting you're some six-foot-five model; if you don't, nobody's going to force that image on you. But, if you forget that nobody is obligated to be patient with your public antics or your statements, you might find that people stop being so accommodating pretty quickly. Just because someone finds a comment offensive doesn't mean we shouldn't point out a truth that affects everyone else involved. When someone is genuinely acting foolishly, calling it out isn't an insult—it’s just stating a fact.
Quincy:

Sorry, I didn't mean to get you all worked up.

Hey... don't sweat it. You aren't bothering me at all. 😉

Quincy:

In some cases, I can see exactly how a "discussion" is going to end, so I don't see much point in getting dragged into a pointless tug-of-war.

Fair enough. Every time you decide to pick a fight knowing full well you're in the wrong, 😁 it's pretty obvious.

Quincy:

Believe me, once things turn into provocations or insults, I just check out. The more you lean into that stuff, the further away I stay.

I believe you... and honestly, that's fine with me. But personally, whenever I see someone dodge a dialogue—especially when they're avoiding actual arguments—I always view it as a "silent defense." It feels like a way to avoid admitting fault without actually saying it.
Just because something offends you shouldn't stop you from laying out your points and proving you're right. In fact, if you were focused on that, you wouldn't feel "insulted"—you'd feel like you won the debate by being correct. If that were the case, my occasional jabs would actually have the exact opposite effect...

Quincy:

Regardless, I think you're a smart guy, just a very impatient one.

I'm patient when it's worth the effort. When it's not? Not so much.

I wouldn't call myself smart, though—I just try my best to be consistent, which, let's be honest, is often more important than being clever.

You know too much, I guess. Maybe once you're a bit more ignorant, then we might actually have a conversation.

Edward Flores4 said:I’m looking at what Edward Flores4 said—it’s an interesting take, really—but I can't help but feel like we might be overcomplicating the whole situation. It's a bit like when you're trying to fix a leaky faucet in your kitchen; you could spend hours researching the most advanced hydraulic theories available, or you could just grab a wrench and see where the drip is actually coming from. Sometimes, the simplest path is the one that actually gets the job done without all the extra noise. I was chatting with silentcyclist3 about this the other day, and they made a point that stuck with me—we often get so caught up in the theoretical "what ifs" that we lose sight of the practical reality right in front of us. It's easy to get lost in the weeds, especially when everyone seems to have a different opinion on how things should work. But at the end of the day, if the system isn't functioning for the people using it, then all the complex planning in the world won't matter much. feralhound55 mentioned something similar regarding the recent policy shifts, and honestly, I think there's some truth to that. We need to focus on the core issues rather than getting distracted by the peripheral stuff that doesn't move the needle. It’s about finding that sweet spot between being thorough and being efficient—sort of like balancing a budget in a mid-sized city like Columbus; you want to be precise, sure, but you also can't let the paperwork paralyze your ability to actually pave the roads.

Does it really sound like I'm picking a fight? If it does... well, that’s honestly just your own subjective take and your specific way of looking at things. You were the one who kicked this whole thread off by trying to sort everyone into these little boxes—yet you conveniently refused to put yourself in one—which feels a bit hypocritical if we're being honest. And then, to top it all off, you went ahead and denied the very categorization that served as the entire foundation for your opening post.

So, when you follow that up by asking me who exactly I’m picking a fight with, it makes that whole flawed assumption of yours pretty obvious—the one that, true to its nature, basically presumes my reaction to your post is somehow completely detached from you. 😁

Look, I’m not trying to pick a fight here—really. My whole intention was just to wrap my head around what you were saying. I was digging deeper, asking for more context and fleshing out that hypothetical scenario you laid out—you know, since you're the one who actually came up with it in the first place. If anything, my reaction was meant to be a gesture of good faith. I’m just trying to make sure we’re actually communicating in a way that makes sense, where we can reach a real conclusion together. It isn't about winning an argument or obsessing over who’s "right"—especially when we're both working from premises that might not even be grounded in reality to begin with.

I’m honestly fascinated by how you manage to play the complete idiot—just dodging every single attempt I make to find some middle ground. It’s actually pretty impressive, really. At this point, I can't help but assume you know exactly what you're saying is nonsense, and like any decent criminal trying to dodge a rap sheet, you're just hiding behind silence to protect your own ridiculous claims.

Look, if we’re actually going to start bickering—which, let’s face it, is always on the table—you’ll know we’ve crossed that line because my tone is going to shift completely. I’ll start approaching you much like the way you tend to handle people who challenge your baseless claims—sort of a defensive, circular style of debating. Honestly, that’s kind of the whole point of an argument, isn't it? To bait someone into using their own logic against them until they essentially trip over their own feet. Once we hit that stage, you'll know exactly where we stand. But until then, just enjoy how clinical and detached my points are—because, in my experience, the longer you play dumb, the more foolish you end up looking in the end. 😉

I’m pretty convinced this is the truth of the matter—mostly because my gut feeling is rarely ever wrong about these things. It’s funny, really, though I know you might not see it that way—everything you say or post out there in the open basically invites a reaction. It becomes fair game for criticism. In a weird sort of way, the only real way to avoid being critiqued is to just keep your opinions to yourself entirely. So, if we're being honest, you're actually the one opening the door for us to push back, simply by choosing to share your perspective. I’m just stepping through that door and exercising the right you’re essentially handing to us—even if you probably haven't even realized you've done it.

Look, I have to make a choice here. I can either sit there feeling awkward because every random person thinks they have a divine right to cling to their own "integrity"—which, let's be honest, is usually just stubbornness—or I can actually exercise my right to think critically. If I choose the latter, I’m essentially taking that discomfort and putting it exactly where it belongs. Unfortunately, that means you end up catching some of the fallout, too. But honestly? Once you realize that I’m really just acting as a mirror for everything you're trying to suppress in your own subconscious, you should probably just hop off this damn ferry. Just step off the boat and let it sail away with the rest of these "spiritual travelers" who are just along for the ride. 😉

Using words like "bullshit," "idiot," or "fool"... is that your version of coherent communication?

Sorry, I didn't mean to upset you. 🙂

Sometimes I can see how a "discussion" will end before it even starts, so I don't see the point in engaging in pointless contests.

Your very first question after everything I wrote in my intro was, "Which group do you belong to?"
That set the entire tone of this conversation. A question like that is either a provocation or just a completely unintelligent outburst that wouldn't make sense to respond to rationally.
Maybe you didn't mean to be provocative, but words carry weight, and I guess there's a way to communicate properly.
Trust me, when things get provocative or insulting, I just shut down. The more you lean into that, the further away I’ll stay from this conversation.

Regardless, I think you're a smart guy, though maybe a bit impatient.

feralhound55 said:@jademarlin26: The OP should probably weigh in on that. My take? It’s because there's an expectation that people reading those PDFs have actually matured—so they won't "sink" to the level of nitpicking or those "infantile outbursts" Quote said, as per Ravih. Apparently, these "spiritual gurus" are expected to have conquered their egos by now.

Let's not overstate it. It would be enough to just pay attention when someone starts talking nonsense and shut them down until they get bored.

jademarlin26 said:🙄 Your penchant for sweeping generalizations is truly unmatched.

From your point of view, I probably am. 🙂