Posts by briskraven28

I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve asked myself—likely because I unconsciously engineer these exact scenarios—why, once I finally commit to a path with total devotion, I realize that the thing diametrically opposed to my choice is actually what defines me... Perhaps some would argue it’s merely a matter of resolve; if we just stuck to that first impulse, we’d convince ourselves it was the "right" one. But that kind of logic is nothing more than running from the abyss—and you can’t truly stare into the void unless it stares back. Of course, there is a resonance there, but it’s our own internal echo that prevents us from actually falling. I often find myself standing on a balcony, staring down—it’s terrifying. It’s hypnotic, enough to make me consider stepping over the railing. I’ve come to suspect that Nietzsche didn't quite grasp the reality of staring into the abyss; he likely used the imagery just for the sake of a striking metaphor. An actual abyss doesn't resonate—it simply pulls you in. If you believe it’s still watching you, it means you haven't been swallowed yet.

electrictrucker18 said:That’s such an interesting quote from Nietzsche. I wonder, how would you guys go about explaining it?

When you stare at a forum long enough, the forum starts staring back at you.

If you start fighting monsters, you might just end up becoming one yourself. 😁

It’s essentially the threshold of hypnotic madness—any kind of intense observation can lead to insanity. It’s inexplicable, really... but those who have looked that deeply either know it, or they've already lost their minds. And then there are the madmen who know it too.

If you’re measuring under 6 inches, you might need some Viagra—if you can manage to stretch it to 6.5, consider it a win for Humanity... but hitting 6.7? Now you’re riding high. 😂

slymaker9 said:It really comes down to finding a way to flip the script.
That extreme approach doesn't work for me, but it’s also a mistake to confuse an explanation with a solution. An explanation is actually part of the problem, not the cure.
Ultimately, I have to strengthen my core personality through medication and other methods alike, working as hard as possible to increase my stress tolerance and learn to manage and resolve tension effectively.
I have to give everything I've got to find that strength. After all, if I can't find my own inner power, that is exactly what medication is for—to act as a temporary crutch.
Right now, I need to focus on pulling myself out of this slump. Whether I'll bounce back remains to be seen.
In the end, I've been through this before; things were even worse then, and I made it out.

There's an old saying where I'm from that a kick in the pants is a step forward. I had a bit of a breakdown yesterday, but I've picked myself up.🙂
I am a fighter, too. 🙂
Whatever. It's either living or just surviving, and it's worth fighting to truly live.🙂

An explanation alone just keeps you trapped in that endless cycle of medication...

So, I have to strengthen my own internal structure—through meds, sure, but through other ways too—and work as hard as possible to build up my stress tolerance and actually manage it.
I have to give it everything I've got to find that strength. After all, if I don't have my own strength, that's what the medication is for—to give me a push, a temporary crutch.
Now I just need to push through this rough patch, and we'll see if things turn around.
In the end, I've been here before—things were even worse then, and I made it out.

It seems clear to you that you could manage without the pills right now—you've already anticipated this... you're just stalling a bit to give yourself time to process it all.😁
🙂

dustyskipper3 said:Look, let’s say you’re just calibrated a certain way. You even mentioned it yourself—it’s about intensity. Some people are calibrated for high intensity, kind of like pneumatic jackhammers used for breaking up asphalt or those massive jet engines on a Boeing. Then there are others who are more like tiny jeweler's hammers used for delicate gears, or perhaps those little electric motors that drive highly precise mechanical devices.

Why has modern life evolved toward increasing the intensity of pleasure while sacrificing refinement? Well, I imagine it's because intensity is easier to mass-produce than quality. It’s much simpler to churn out something like a Red Bull than it is to craft a fine Champagne that needs to age for a century to reach its peak flavor. Even modern perfumes seem raw; they either hit one heavy note or create a bouquet of mismatched scents that, frankly, just smell bad. 😉

And, interestingly enough, progress isn't possible without creativity and creative individuals. In a way, creativity is similar to psychosis—just a thought. A high IQ alone isn't enough for true creativity; you also need high LI (latent inhibition) and SM (fantasy proneness). Of course, IQ matters, but people with high IQ and high LI tend to see everything the exact same way, even if they are brilliant, so they aren't truly creative since they don't question things from multiple angles. The downside of low LI—that tendency to constantly question everything as if seeing it for the first time—is that the same trait exists in psychotic individuals. The same goes for fantasy proneness.

So, there’s this thin line separating geniuses from the mad. It seems that rapid progress through reducing latent inhibition would lead to general madness rather than advancement, which might be why society needs a larger number of inhibited people to keep things from spiraling. It’s possible you are intentionally inhibiting yourself as a sort of shield against psychosis, but if you overdo it, you might end up suppressing your own creativity and inviting melancholy or depression... well, we shall see.

This kind of inhibition stifles imagination, which effectively traps a person in a state where they can't see any alternative solutions.

slymaker9 said:Certain anxieties are universal. No one escapes them because they are baked into the human experience. No amount of achievement can erase that; to suggest otherwise would be to suggest we aren't human. Therefore, total eradication is impossible—it's really just a question of intensity.
Life is a constant cycle of struggle and joy for everyone.
As for why my nervous system overreacts to stress, who knows? A doctor calls it a "vulnerable personality structure" (which is just a clinical way of saying I'm sensitive). 😉 By that metric, I'm definitely not average. I once actually fainted from sheer distress. 🤣
Does success make me stronger? It does, which is why my bouts of anxiety and depression are cyclical; they are fundamentally reactive.
Could some massive success eliminate them entirely so they never feel overwhelming again? I don't know.
Success might suppress them for a significant period of time—that much is proven.
But life involves stress. Period. For everyone.

When things are as intense for me as they are, someone who hasn't experienced it simply won't understand.
You don't even have the strength to give up.

Landing in that state wasn't an accident; it's teaching you something. Accepting the doctor's diagnosis of a "sensitive structure" offers a bit of comfort, but it isn't enough—it just keeps you hovering on the edge of a total collapse. You need to lean into that frustration until you hit your limit—just make sure someone is there to hold your hand, because even your therapist can't do more than that. That process teaches you how to prevent that structure from being so "vulnerable," helping you find the balance between being creative and losing your mind.
A friend of mine—a gay guy—hit a wall of total depression after a few disastrous breakups, only to resurface months later with this self-deprecating grin: "I eventually grew to loathe myself for all that self-pity."

slymaker9 said:I don't buy that. There is nothing better than experiencing success and truly shining. Finishing a project you started or finally getting that college degree—those are great things.
What is there to actually fear? Standing out? Being judged by a society that tends to tear down anyone who rises above the crowd? Dealing with envy?
Why should someone be afraid to step into a role they've earned?
And why would success lead to an end, rather than simply providing the momentum for the next goal?

It’s a matter of simple fact. Can you actually envision a level of success that permanently cures anxiety, depression, and such? If you claim you can, then why haven't you reached that state already, starting right now?

slymaker9 said:No. However, I don't view myself as some holy icon that is too special to be categorized or simplified into a standard group.

I am no nobody.

That is precisely my point—it is a fear of success that far outweighs the fear of failure. It is why humanity struggles to handle what it actually achieves. It is easier to just hide away... If you fail, you can always wallow in self-pity; but if you succeed, then what? You might as well just end it all.

And yet, in the end, you admit you are nobody. 😁

slymaker9 said:Not fundamentally, no, but statistically speaking.
As they say, statistics is just a precise sum of inaccurate data.

And you view yourself as a mere number just to make the digestion easier—since everyone else is chewing along blindly, I suppose?

slymaker9 said:It’s what happens when you plot a person's traits and abilities on a Gaussian curve and they land right in the middle.

Do you honestly believe a Gaussian curve can define you? I’d love to know who convinced you of such a thing.

slymaker9 said:So, stupidity is the real threat. There is no evolutionary leap where we become super-geniuses capable of anticipating and solving every existential crisis. This brings us back to the original point: as a species, we have definitely bitten off more than we can chew.

Anything you can bite into—if you actually try—you can eventually chew up and swallow. Then you die happy. It’s impossible to bite into something you aren't capable of swallowing in the first place. Why we don't chew (or think we don't) is a different matter entirely... You can't know why someone else isn't chewing—not even God knows what's going on in their head—you can only judge for yourself, which is really why this whole topic exists. And honestly, it's not bad news... it means you're at least chewing.

slymaker9 said:So, Vertigo, let’s speculate for a second. What’s your take? Is technological progress going to crush us, or will we somehow evolve into geniuses capable of handling it all?

Personally, I consider myself an average person with average abilities. I approached this topic from that standpoint, which is also where most people sit. After all, those who know more are naturally better equipped to make accurate predictions.

Progress won't "crush" us—we'll be crushed by our own inability to adapt, which is far more likely than anyone actually stepping up... self-pity is easier than growth. And genius is purely relative; compared to some cosmic intelligence, we're just basic idiots, even if we feel brilliant compared to the bottom of the barrel. We'll probably go out because of something trivial—an asteroid or the sun burning out—rather than tech itself. If we kill each other, it won't be because of progress, but again, due to sheer incompetence.
Evolution isn't about reaching a destination where everything is handled; it's about the struggle itself—the spirit of the challenge.
eros equals longing.
I find it hard to believe you actually aim for being an "average" person. Who even defines such a category?...

slymaker9 said:Since standard IQ tests primarily measure logical-mathematical and sometimes verbal-linguistic abilities, everyday conversation has conditioned us to view those specific traits as the sole definition of intelligence. That represents intelligence in the classical sense. When we look at intuition, researchers attempt to measure it through specialized testing, yet they rarely include it in mathematical or verbal metrics; instead, it is occasionally categorized under bodily-kinesthetic intelligence.

If spirituality is supposedly based on some superficial notion of intuition, then it serves as nothing more than a smokescreen for lower cognitive ability and diminished intelligence, because a highly intelligent person would inherently be more spiritual. And what is the result? How could figures like Coelho, Tolle, various Cardinals, priests, fortune tellers, Buddhas, or other "ascetics" and proponents of this exclusionary spirituality—which excludes everything by labeling itself "spiritual"—ever profit from their followers? There is no greater spirituality than being true to oneself. 😁 If these so-called believers actually read the New Testament, they would see that Jesus was essentially saying the same thing (great minds think alike😍).

I don't quite follow the bolded section regarding the superficiality of intuition acting as a cover; I have never encountered the argument that intelligence and ability are inversely proportional to spirituality. I have heard calls for humility and renunciation, but certainly not the claim that they share an inverse relationship.
Regarding intuition: even if we aren't entirely certain of its exact mechanics, that doesn't make it a superficial preconception. The issue might simply be the difficulty of verbalizing certain experiences.
Take vision, for example. It isn't easy to describe every single detail of what a person sees using only words; it is far simpler to present one's perception to others through a painting.

My point is that people who label themselves as "spiritual" often discard anything that doesn't fit their preconceived notions of spirituality—for instance, when Shakiri claims she isn't spiritual, I actually find her quite so because of her intellect. They tend to pivot to "rationality" the moment they realize they can't win an argument logically—it's similar to how Quincy writes, though I'm only drawing that parallel to clarify my thought process, stripping away the parts that remain obscure to me and turning that fuzziness into something vaguely defined as "intuition." But intuition isn't fog; it's clear, piercing, and perceptive—and when it's truly pure, it can actually be shaped into a form of expression.
Painting isn't necessarily any easier—beyond years of mastering the tools, you need more than just sight; you need to know how to interpret what you see, since you can't cram every single detail into a canvas without losing the point. That's a much longer process than just talking—unless, of course, you're writing a novel.
Ultimately, I agree with Shakiri that humans need more; we need a challenge to truly grow. You can't achieve that if you think you already have everything you need or if you're completely satisfied—which is exactly what this kind of spirituality aims for: total contentment or peace. It’s like taking a sedative; you aren't actually at peace, you're just numb—or perhaps you've just offloaded your restlessness onto some higher power, sweeping the problem under the rug rather than actually solving it.

Nancy Peterson3 said:Personally, I feel like that's all just fairy tales for kids—it seems to me people just use that talk to line their own pockets.😁

Sorry, but could someone please list the actual qualities of a "spiritual" person—in an everyday, real-world setting—that would make them any different from someone like me? How exactly is that person wealthier or happier, while I'm somehow left behind?

It seems that way to me too. Furthermore, there’s this frequent insinuation within spiritual circles that intuition is somehow distinct—even contrary—to intelligence. What is intelligence, exactly? It is the capacity to navigate new situations, the ability to solve problems, the sensitivity to recognize them... even the ability to "invent" complex problems just to devise sophisticated solutions when things are going well. Therefore, intuition *is* intelligence; intelligence is mental acuity and insight. Since spirituality is ostensibly based on some shallow preconception of intuition, it serves merely as a smokescreen for lower capability and diminished intelligence—because a truly intelligent person is necessarily more spiritual. And what happens next? How could types like Coelho, Tolle, various Cardinals, priests, psychics, Buddhas, gurus, or any other "ascetic" advocates of a spirituality that excludes everything (which it does by declaring itself "spiritual") manage to fleece their little flock? There is no greater spirituality than simply being oneself. 😁 If these so-called believers actually read the New Testament, they would see that Jesus was essentially saying the same thing—great minds think alike 😍...

Steven Allen9 said:Look, I’m a liberal and I respect all faiths and people acting in good faith, but there’s this persistent, ugly undertone in America—this primitive tendency to be intolerant toward different racial or social groups. People claim ignorance is the root cause, but honestly? That feels like an excuse. It goes deeper than that; it’s baked into our cultural prejudices.
It’s wild how many people carry around genuine hatred for others without ever having lived through any real hardship themselves. It’s almost like humans have this innate, dark need to find a scapegoat. You can try to pray it away or use religious interventions, but it’s not that easy to purge from the soul.
It’s all about balance. This darkness probably exists in everyone; the only difference is how much of it you let show.

You’re right—it isn't just about a lack of knowledge. Ignorance persists because people refuse to learn... and they refuse to learn so they can have someone to be intolerant toward. That intolerance provides a sense of identity—because if they actually realized how little they knew, they might lose their footing entirely.

@enky,
N'Dug explained things much better than I could have—I didn't quite have the right words for it...

Kenneth Peterson5 said:@Vertigo M,
I honestly think we’re getting tripped up in this discussion because we aren't distinguishing between "genuine friendship" and the concept of "honesty."
See, when people talk about "genuine friendship," they really just mean a "real, true friendship"—basically emphasizing that a real friend isn't some fake persona playing a role.
But "honesty," as its own thing, means "saying or doing what we actually think," which also includes being honest with yourself.

When someone says "honesty is the foundation of friendship," I take that the same way I take "unconditional love." To me, both are just empty platitudes.

I feel like it’s actually a massive deal to allow yourself to trust someone so deeply that you don't even stress about whether they're telling you the absolute truth or not—because at the end of the day, isn't the most important thing just knowing your friend has your back?
Let me give you a super basic example. Say I’m a vet and you’re a huge animal lover. We agree to meet up at 5:00, but I’m running over thirty minutes late. I call your cell and say, "Hey, emergency popped up, I'll be there a bit later." When I finally show up, you ask, "So, what happened?" Why should I dump the whole depressing story on you about having to put a dog down because the poor thing was suffering and even steroids weren't working anymore? Why wouldn't I just tell you it was a false alarm and recount some old case with a happy ending instead? Why would I force you to listen to something miserable that you can't do anything about anyway since it's already over? You know what I mean?

If friends "should" be there for one another through the dark stuff, why wouldn't protecting each other from that darkness fall under the same umbrella?
Don't forget that a real friend is someone who doesn't use others to feed their own ego—and let's be real, being "excessively honest" is often just egoism in disguise.

No, that term isn't just a synonym for "real friendship" (which, granted, can also sound like a cliché)—it’s exactly what I described, encompassing honesty toward both oneself and the other person. I've experienced this firsthand, and it certainly wasn't a cliché; it was one of the best things that ever happened to me.
If you haven't experienced it, I can see why you'd dismiss it as a "phrase" or remain skeptical that something like this even exists. But it does—all it takes is two people allowing each other to simply be who they are. That might sound like a cliché to you too, but that doesn't mean it isn't real; it just speaks to your own perspective.

I feel like it's a massive thing to allow yourself to trust someone to the point where you don't even worry about whether they're telling you the truth or not—because isn't the most important thing just knowing your friend wants the best for you?

Simply by not dictating how they should think or assuming they won't have my best interests at heart (and having that trust)...

Let me give you a mundane example. Suppose I'm a veterinarian and you're a huge animal lover. We agree to meet at 5:00, but I'm over half an hour late. I call you and say, "I've got an emergency, I'll be there a little later." When I finally show up, you ask, "What happened?" Why would I tell you I had to euthanize a dog because it was suffering after a long illness and even steroids weren't working anymore? Why wouldn't I just tell you it was a false alarm and recount some old case with a happy ending instead? Why burden you with an event that I know will be hard to hear, especially when it's already over and there's nothing you can do to help? You see my point?

Wait—are we discussing healthy, grown adults here, or children, or the mentally impaired?
In other words, if you "spare" me that information, am I supposed to remain oblivious to the fact that dogs are being put down?😕
And regarding that first example—if a friend wanted to "spare" me details about their own illness—wouldn't I perhaps want to spend even more quality time with them while they're still mobile, precisely because of that information?
So, I'll ask again: are we talking about healthy, adult individuals?

If friends are supposedly there for one another during the "dark times," then why wouldn't sparing one another from those same dark moments fall under that same umbrella?

Because you aren't giving them the space to actually think for themselves...

Let's not forget what a true friend looks like—someone who doesn't use others as a punching bag for their own ego... in fact, being "brutally honest" is often just selfishness in disguise.

That bolded part is really just about our own expectations of others—we reject their honesty because it shatters our preconceived notions and everything we've been conditioned to believe (even this idea that "excessive honesty is selfish" feels like a learned sentiment rather than an observation... you haven't backed it up with anything, though I assume I know what you meant, so I'll call it a learned cliché—be honest and prove me wrong). Isn't that the real egoism here?

Kenneth Peterson5 said:Maybe, but look—what you're saying kind of implies that friends have to be equals, like, perfectly level, otherwise they aren't actually friends at all.
So, what, if your IQ is off the charts like some genius and mine is just a solid 135, we can never be buddies?
Or
If you're a total knockout and I'm just your average Joe, does that mean we can't be friends?
Or
If you've got two Ivy League degrees under your belt and I only managed two years of community college, are we not "on the same level" enough to hang out?
Basically,
Is it impossible to have a friend unless they're on your exact "level," or is it actually possible for someone like me—despite all your brilliance, beauty, and education—to be your friend even though I'm just a regular person compared to you?

You are conflating abilities with rights—specifically equality.
That might be why you would lie to someone to protect them; or perhaps compromise their rights as a friend because you're making assumptions about their capabilities.

Everyone has certain skills and lacks others. Someone might be a fantastic parent but a disaster at making business decisions—and obviously, that doesn't make them unequal, they just have different aptitudes.

I have never chosen my friends based on a checklist. I don't know if there is any real connection between shared interests, abilities, and friendship—maybe there is, maybe not.
A friend is someone who becomes and stays a friend based on a feeling—a certain vibe you get when you're with them. For building trust, the most vital ingredient is honesty; the certainty that one can say anything (or do anything) without hesitation, knowing they won't face judgment from me—though I will certainly tell them exactly what I think, whether I support their actions or not.
In that sense, I have only one male friend and one female friend like that; everyone else I get along with well can really only be called close acquaintances. And yes, those two people are capable of understanding a great deal—which, I suppose, does relate to their abilities, specifically their capacity for empathy.

You can go through life with people—experiencing highs and lows, being both successful and humbled—without ever truly knowing what is going on in their head, just as they don't know what's in yours. This happens constantly in families, and even in those "friendships" where people end up "disappointed." In those cases, there was never true friendship to begin with, because someone simply failed to meet expectations. But expectations are just my image of who that person is—meaning, how they "should" be. If they don't fit the preconceived notion I held, what am I actually doing? Am I judging them for that?
Of course, I am judging them by my own standards.
That is why, occasionally, I want to protect them... because I am measuring their abilities against my own criteria.

Kenneth Peterson5 said:I'm gonna need a little more context on this one.
Look, to me, it feels way more logical that trust—specifically trusting someone's intentions—is the actual foundation. Being brutally honest and causing unnecessary pain isn't always the move; sometimes, by just keeping a painful truth to yourself, you're actually doing the kinder thing.
Like, say you find out you've got MS. Are you really obligated to drop that bomb on your best friend immediately, knowing exactly how much it's going to wreck them?

But that’s precisely where the lack of trust shows up—when we start deciding what's best for someone else. Thinking "I don't want to hurt you" or "I want to protect you" (all under the guise of "good intentions") implies we view that person as less capable than ourselves... and frankly, can one truly trust someone they deem less capable?
So, I am in total agreement with N'dugu; there is no room for "intentions" in a real friendship—because wherever there is an intention, there is a goal, and wherever there is a goal, there is calculation.
(intention = calculation)
I could understand a friend staying silent because they simply weren't ready to talk about it, but withholding information specifically to protect me... well, that's where things start to feel wrong.

hollowtinker18 said:Didn't catch that, my bad. (You know I need a little extra boost to stay sharp.)😁What kind of hell were you used to? Because here I am again, just like some kind of nightmare—even if it’s a mild one. Let's go.🤷(For the first sentence)

doctor's sentence:
Wait, are you kidding me? How exactly does that "fulfill a desire"?☕ What a joke. We just tap our fingers against our own skin like some counter-intuitive ritual, and suddenly hollowtinker18 is cured? Yeah, right. Body hacking this, body hacking that... what a scam. You have to contact them, but honestly, do you even have any actual alternative methods?😂
God, it’s actually hilarious when I look back on it all. Before my Rocking era, my old lady used to drag me around to all sorts of weirdos—everything from Ayurveda and music therapy sessions with some Dr. Giovanni to those Russian types with their alternative computer setups. My dad once took me to the local YMCA where I actually saw a couple of people collapse into these deep, trance-like states, supposedly "healing" themselves right there. We went through seven or eight different bioenergy healers before my own self-proclaimed guru finally took over and "realigned" me.😂)
silentcyclist3 is tearing up brain molecules—and honestly, I get why. It’s fine. What’s the main thing for me? Back in college, before the war hit, I was on top of my game. A model student, really. Three years in, then everything went south with the conflict and I stepped up to serve. Now? I’ve forgotten about 95% of what I studied. Total amnesia. You go to war, you step up... and just lose it all. Plus, back during freshman year, I nearly kicked the bucket from mushroom poisoning. Green agarics. Spent 48 days in the ICU under some old lady's care. She thought she was making a "last supper" with those wild mushrooms, but she had no clue how dangerous they were.😂...my bad (English)☕Look, I’m laying out my life story here just so someone can finally fix me. But you all just sit there philosophizing. I can barely get a word out before my thoughts start racing—like some total lunatic—and the whole train of thought just derails.
Exhausted. Bone-tired. Haven't slept in two nights, so now I'm seeing double and the walls are practically crumbling around me. I'll just go deal with my own mess. silentcyclist3, watch out—we'll talk, but I'm telling you, things aren't going to play out the way you imagined. That's the catch. All those twisted, devilish projections of yours.
Just remember... or maybe explain why the devil always shows up dressed as a lamb. Ha. Yeah.
Hey.👍 Is that how you're supposed to say hello? Is it even appropriate?
Hey everyone—how many of you are actually out there?

hollowtinker18 wanders in from the kitchen
chewing on some toxic mushrooms😍

hollowtinker18 said:-Wait, what do you mean "extra"? Maybe you just have your own way of saying things while thinking the same thing—maybe you're just inexperienced, according to Robert (oops, sorry, my bad😳)

-Who knows if those old roads were actually simpler, more innovative, or just better built?😂

-So, how do you handle dreams? How do you interpret them using your "terminology"? (Do you fly in your sleep, like me and everyone else?)😁

From hollowtinker18: regarding dreams, it's everything. Here is a method of analysis for whenever you feel inclined: upon waking, do not immediately open your eyes—or if you have already, do not look toward the window. Try to replay the entire dream with your eyes closed; once you are certain you have captured it, write down the sequence exactly as it occurred. Then, assign a sequential number to every single word (one, two, three... including conjunctions and such). Once you have listed them vertically, attach an association to every word—what does that specific word mean to you? Next, group those associations—for instance, the first few associations (5, 6, 7, or however many, depending on the dream's length) should form one cluster, which you then condense into a single representative word. Repeat this for the second, third, and subsequent clusters. Once you have derived these collective words, attempt to form a sentence from them—which is, in itself, another layer of association, rather than forcing a literal meaning onto the words.
Let me know how it goes.😍

I would enjoy a chat as well. 🙄