Posts by briskraven28

Good grief, silentcyclist3 is being quite a handful today. 🙄 😁

hollowtinker18 said:-sorry, maybe my English is just trash because of my own terminology—that’s all. You’re saying it’s strictly a grammar issue?😳 😉(😂🙂...well, it doesn't hurt to laugh once in a while. They say if you let go, you might actually thrive through the chaos with all that meddling—me, playing at being wise, more awake than hopeful. Or am I just wide awake? Not everyone gets that luxury, I guess. "
-sorry, (fine, have it your way) my soul, my one and only, maybe a little shaken lately. Am I losing my grip? I used to be charming—if I wasn't such a fraud. I'm lying to myself for no reason, but I'm changing... stuck in this tomb of mental addiction. My own... well, 🥳, those jerks. They'll see what happens when I finally settle things, like a little bird... you know? You can't fully capture drama like in some old classic—maybe something by Hemingway or an old French poet? I tweaked it a bit 😁. Before the war, I watched him, wondering who would remember everything. Specifically, when Rose betrays him halfway through the ballad (and since everything to you is just rhymes and verses—like movies or books—it's all philosophy, the essence of spirit and hypocrisy, how everything comes back to haunt you). His own words hit him like a boomerang, fate slamming into his stubborn head. (depending on how subjective you want to be) He’ll just say: "I'll pierce you, you wretch, at the end of the song."
That's philosophy and life for you. It all hits home once the masks fall off. "I'm pretty sure I've drawn a solid parallel"—correct me if I'm wrong, okay?
-...and grammar (just like life) is a mess. One misplaced comma and the whole meaning shifts. (Please, explain. If it's hard to read because of the grammar, maybe it'll just sweep me away and leave nothing behind, who knows?😳 Oh, that's just my official terminology, obviously)
-(sorry, but is that prejudice? I don't know. Based on what I've seen, you're definitely in medicine, finished some psych major with decent success, and I wouldn't want to be wrong based on my own perceptions without digging into your private business)-but you're missing a smiley face. Is it better without them? (Personally, I think they're fine lately😁)
-if anything about my intentions is unclear, feel free to ask. Even I lose my way or miss a turn sometimes...👍

Look, hollowtinker18, it’s fine—once I finally got used to the heat... you show up like a blast from an air-conditioned hellscape...😁

What kind of medicine are you even talking about, hollowtinker18—but if you really feel the need to consult a doctor, go ahead... satisfy your curiosity... no harm done. 😎

Where are you headed, hollowtinker18? I was merely suggesting that your grammar makes you a bit difficult to follow—nothing more... 😳

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.

Assuming this "purpose" even exists—to you, it might be a "purpose," but to me, it’s simply the "nature" of being alive. When you say purpose, you imply there's a goal to reach. You talk about purpose and goals; I talk about nature as it exists inherently—if it truly exists, then it lacks a destination. Where does something that has always been go? Where can it possibly go if it has always existed? It may exist in constant flux, but what is the goal of something defined by infinite change?
Perhaps we are using different terms; maybe when you say "purpose," you actually mean the essence of something?
And here we are again, circling back to identity—the relationship between the individual and the universal.
Essentially, an identity that asks itself: who, or what, am I?
Are we merely the sum of our memories? If so, that would be my identity—because through the memory of what we once were, we construct a concept of ourselves, believing we possess a specific nature, seeking self-knowledge just so we know how to proceed with ourselves.
In other words, we equate our memory of any single moment of existence with our identity; we assume there is a "self" and that such an entity exists.
I suspect there is something you instinctively fear—for some, it's spiders, for others, heights, or perhaps empty space... American neurologists suggest that such fears develop when a stimulus carves a direct path to the part of the brain responsible for reaction. Otherwise, there isn't a direct path; typically, we process a stimulus first, then react. In a specific case, someone who doesn't fear spiders will first process (I typed "process" incorrectly😳) that visual information before reacting; however, if that same person fears heights, they won't process the visual stimulus—they will react immediately because the stimulus has carved a direct link to the reaction center.
Why mention this? Because a multitude of such things actually "defines" us—it defines our nature—yet those very things we believe constitute our identity can change once we understand how. In the case of the spider or the height, there are ways to reroute that path; to ensure the stimulus doesn't trigger an immediate response by consciously "programming" a different reaction each time. We won't eliminate the fear instantly, of course, but over time, there is a probability.
It raises the question: how much have we been unconsciously determined by these factors, leading us to believe "this is who I am," when in reality, we could be something else entirely?

the human being oscillates over time; circumstances shift, and our reactions shift along with them.

That is precisely what I am discussing—have we truly constructed a concept of our identity based solely on our memories? If our memories were different, would our identity be different? Does it even exist as a "self," or is it merely a collection of points forming my perception of what I am?

Fair enough, I misspoke. I’m stripping away the "breadth" and focusing strictly on the frameworks.
The truth lies beyond the illusion.

It seems we might just be using different vocabularies—so let me clarify; when you speak of this illusion, are you referring to what one might call "individual consciousness," while the truth represents that "pure spirit" mentioned earlier?

@ hollowtinker18, I'm starting to worry you'll pose a question so cryptic I'll have to spend all day decoding it. 😁 I do enjoy reading your posts, though—provided one can navigate the endless dashes and commas...😛

Kenneth Peterson5 said:That's exactly why an awakened person just stays quiet about it.

By the nature of "so-called awakening," yeah, they should be.

Kenneth Peterson5 isn't made of flesh and bone.

🤣😍

@Brian Foster3,
The perceived contradiction between my first and last points suggests you missed the distinction—I was addressing the futility of "defining" things initially, whereas the conclusion concerns the subjective expression of one's own experience through language—think semantic-syntagmatic relationships in any medium, be it verbal, visual, or auditory...
Peppers and cabbage grow for "nothing." Give me one sufficiently compelling reason why life proceeds—a reason that would qualify as a valid justification for existence? There isn't one. It happens for "nothing" and without inherent meaning; because if there were meaning, then there wouldn't be any meaning—if you follow my logic. That is my subjective view, however, and since it seems you haven't grasped my point, further debate is pointless... it’s simply a drain on both our time and energy.

Brian Foster3 said:Look, we have to actually define what awakening even means first. It’s nothing more than the direct perception of the spiritual realm. And since the spiritual world is made up of different levels, there are obviously different levels of being awakened.

The truth is simply whatever the person perceiving the spiritual is actually experiencing. That’s how they feel the spiritual reality—as the absolute truth. Compared to that, everything else is just a total lie.

And let's get one thing straight: both lie and truth still exist as categories (they don't just vanish) after that initial awakening and while you're climbing those spiritual rungs all the way back to the Source.

Honestly, arguing and philosophizing about what counts as truth versus a lie from a spiritual standpoint is just useless, empty work. You just have to get there, and once you do, everything becomes more than crystal clear. That’s the only thing that matters. Just get there.

Since you seem so eager to define terms—would you mind actually defining "spiritual" first?...
Definitions are unnecessary—it is an illusion to think we can define anything when our very tool for definition, language, is what constructs the syntagms of reality as we perceive them... As long as you view life through the lens of language, you will struggle with the need to define. Once the grip of vocabulary finally loosens, perhaps you will stop seeking definitions altogether and simply begin approaching what you subjectively experience as "reality."

Spirituality is composed of various levels—which means, naturally, that levels of awakening can vary quite significantly...

I find myself skeptical regarding your concept of levels—it’s much like claiming the universe is composed of distinct layers; essentially saying it's infinite yet attempting to grasp it by imagining floors... solar systems, galaxies, the Milky Way, micro versus macro... it just doesn't follow.
To my mind, there is no distinction between the spiritual and the non-spiritual—that divide exists only within language itself. It implies a fragmented way of perceiving things, a tendency to categorize... and once you allow that division to take root in your head, you inevitably fall for the illusion of "growth." If something is truly whole, it is indivisible; it simply *is*. There is no room for fragmentation, and therefore, no room for growth—only the growing illusion of progress. One might call this "pure consciousness," or whatever terminology people prefer... personally, I’d just call it "cat's paw." 😳 The only thing that matters—provided we actually understand one another—is that we are on the same page...

The truth is simply whatever the individual perceives spiritually—exactly what they sense. That sensation becomes their spiritual reality, their truth. Anything else... well, that’s just a lie.

If there exists some notion of wholeness, indivisibility, or pure consciousness—whatever one chooses to label it—what part of that is mere fabrication, and what constitutes the truth? Is it even possible to separate the two...

It is an illusion—and frankly, a waste of breath—to sit around philosophizing about what constitutes spiritual truth versus falsehood. One simply needs to show up... once you arrive, everything becomes more than crystal clear. That is the priority. Just get there.

On this PDF, people constantly spout these parrot-like "dogmas" regarding some supposed divine "ineffability"—this idea that "awakening" is also somehow "ineffable"... I suspect this has nothing to do with true ineffability and everything to do with the speaker's own lack of clarity—or perhaps just a mediocre ability to articulate a thought. That isn't inherently a flaw, mind you... but it’s frequently used as a convenient excuse for things they label "sublime," claiming such truths can only be "experienced" rather than spoken.
Anything experienced can be conveyed—provided the messenger possesses the capacity to express it. There is a certain beauty here, from a subjective standpoint, in these shared experiences... It isn't some illusory discount when someone successfully transmits their reality; it’s merely a "template" for those who lack either the experience or the ability to articulate it.

Kenneth Peterson5 said:Hey, placidharbor7,
How is any person supposed to fight off lies when they were born into them, raised in them, and surrounded by them every single day? It’s everywhere.
How can someone even tell what’s a lie and what’s the actual truth if they don't even realize they're lying to themselves in the first place?

Listen, placidharbor7,
Isn't it just common sense that being AWAKENED means staying quiet when the guy listening isn't even capable of HEARING you?

Look, Kenneth Peterson5, I am no Master—nor am I John—but I find the question intriguing enough to attempt an answer... by posing a question of my own;
how can any individual claiming to be "awakened" identify a lie if they lack the awareness that they are deceiving themselves? By the very "nature" of this supposed "awakening," wouldn't lie and truth be nothing more than non-existent categories?

Kenneth Peterson5, do throw in a smiley face or something—just to prove you’re actually a human being made of flesh and blood.
Ta-ta! 😁

silentcyclist3 said:Hmm, looks like I’m being a bit clumsy with my words... maybe.🙂

I’ll say it again. A person should just try to do what's best for themselves and everyone else. I guess that means being active, or maybe... just staying still. It's all part of it.
Awareness regarding how balance is maintained through creation and destruction... I guess it involves understanding. And maybe that understanding itself is peace.
If you ever find yourself wondering why bother doing anything at all when you know the whole thing is destined to fail—simply because that destructive side of balance exists—then I guess my take would be this:

By acting for the greater good, a person builds, frees, cleanses, and strengthens their connection to the "pure spirit." I guess that means there is always a necessity to act, or perhaps, to refrain from acting.
When, what, and how much we should—or shouldn't—do... I guess that all comes down to the framework we operate within. It’s mostly determined by those factors I mentioned earlier, I suppose.

In short, we just do what we can. The rest... I guess we just leave it to the forces beyond our control.

Balance, and who knows what else. If I actually knew the answer to that question, I guess I’d be communicating with you through dreams instead.

Imagination can take you anywhere, I guess. Or nowhere at all. 😉

Everyone has their own sphere of influence. I guess no one is ever just one thing.
A virus is essentially a disease—a form of destruction. I guess that's just its purpose, given what it is.
But he also finds survival and balance within his own world, I guess.

True peace is peace. It’s different from that surface-level calm because it’s absolute. I guess.

Yeah, that's just the fallout from how things went down...🙂

Today’s concept of tolerance... I guess it mostly just reflects how much we've convinced ourselves that we're somehow more valuable than everyone else.

I use the word "probably" to add a bit of humanity to my statements. I guess nobody needs another self-proclaimed saint walking around this earth, acting like they have all the answers. 😉

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?...

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.

When we get to the matter of "cause"... Where... The illusion of points within an illusion of time grants—if one follows the logic—a sense of non-free will... yet everything remains present, in full light, even within that deception?

silentcyclist3 said:Hmm, looks like I’m being a bit clumsy with my words... maybe.🙂

I’ll say it again. A person should just try to do what's best for themselves and everyone else. I guess that means being active, or maybe... just staying still. It's all part of it.
Awareness regarding how balance is maintained through creation and destruction... I guess it involves understanding. And maybe that understanding itself is peace.
If you ever find yourself wondering why bother doing anything at all when you know the whole thing is destined to fail—simply because that destructive side of balance exists—then I guess my take would be this:

By acting for the greater good, a person builds, frees, cleanses, and strengthens their connection to the "pure spirit." I guess that means there is always a necessity to act, or perhaps, to refrain from acting.
When, what, and how much we should—or shouldn't—do... I guess that all comes down to the framework we operate within. It’s mostly determined by those factors I mentioned earlier, I suppose.

In short, we just do what we can. The rest... I guess we just leave it to the forces beyond our control.

Balance, and who knows what else. If I actually knew the answer to that question, I guess I’d be communicating with you through dreams instead.

Imagination can take you anywhere, I guess. Or nowhere at all. 😉

Everyone has their own sphere of influence. I guess no one is ever just one thing.
A virus is essentially a disease—a form of destruction. I guess that's just its purpose, given what it is.
But he also finds survival and balance within his own world, I guess.

True peace is peace. It’s different from that surface-level calm because it’s absolute. I guess.

Yeah, that's just the fallout from how things went down...🙂

Today’s concept of tolerance... I guess it mostly just reflects how much we've convinced ourselves that we're somehow more valuable than everyone else.

I use the word "probably" to add a bit of humanity to my statements. I guess nobody needs another self-proclaimed saint walking around this earth, acting like they have all the answers. 😉

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.

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.

Master Ivan...I have some "secular" and "peripheral" work to attend to—so I'll be able to give you all my attention a bit later... This isn't exactly my priority right now.😉

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

silentcyclist3 said:Do you honestly believe life wouldn't exist if there wasn't someone there to "regulate" the balance by allowing or disallowing certain things?
Would the sun collapse? Would it burn the earth?
Would all living things just descend into chaotic imbalance?

Destructive thoughts and actions lead to destructive consequences for the person committing them. Predators, rogue doctors 😈 and anyone else acting out of malice—they create their own destruction, much like how we deal with our own messes. It is hard to predict exactly how the house of cards will eventually fall.
People are meant to strive for what is best for themselves and others, even when they know their efforts might fail because some higher purpose requires a "tragic" conclusion.
Once you realize that, you shouldn't destroy your own life by denying your spirit, simply because you feel disillusioned with "God's justice."

The answer to your question might be this: if an individual is causing a cycle of misery for those around them, then they should be stopped, based on the principle of doing good for oneself and others. But who carries that out, how, and under what circumstances... I guess that isn't something worth discussing right now.

Toward peace.

I don't mean that literally, because collective social intelligence these days is about as smart as a baboon's backside—and I know that's probably an insult to the baboon, but I'm struggling for better wording right now. You can't really rely on it to foster any real understanding.

I agree.

Yes, refusal can come from understanding, but then that refusal isn't really about tolerance (which is more like passively enduring a situation), it becomes a matter of action.

The state of the world is probably what it needs to be, which makes it optimal, even if I personally find it hard to accept sometimes.

😁
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. 😁

silentcyclist3 said:ha, ha, ha... you little troublemaker! 😁

Your example regarding the predator describes situations where you have to defend the very foundations of human dignity, which are vital for our survival as a society. In those moments, an innate instinct takes over, and it doesn't necessarily have to be linked to our level of consciousness or understanding. It's how animals react to protect their offspring. There isn't much need for philosophy there.
Of course, defending oneself and taking the necessary steps to resolve such a situation is one thing, but calling for the death penalty for some pathetic soul who has no clue what they are doing is quite another.

Yes, you're right about tilting at windmills. It's just a fact of life that we spend our lives trying to align ourselves with those windmills. No one is going to find a perfect way during their lifetime.
Finding a perfect path for this life on Earth isn't the goal; it's just the method by which we search for the path.

Balance means understanding our own flaws, not running from them, but becoming aware of them in accordance with what we've intuitively realized.
Similarly, it involves acting to defend the foundations of human dignity, which is perfectly in sync with the windmills rather than against them (that applies to the predator example).

I don't really see a massive difference between judging and not allowing something.
Not allowing something in a legal sense implies a judgment, which results in a punishment.
Legal condemnation stems from non-permission.
Even when laws haven't been written yet, people don't hesitate to use whatever means necessary to make it known that they won't permit certain things.

And that's the icing on the cake!😁
Of course, understanding and tolerance aren't the same thing. Tolerance is really just about endurance. Understanding, though... that's more about acceptance. It’s about grasping why a situation exists based on the circumstances and conditions that created it.
When tolerance and understanding overlap, I guess tolerance loses its purpose. At that point, the subject becomes exactly what it has to be. We don't necessarily have to agree with it, but even if we don't, the question of whether or not we "allow" it becomes pointless.
I mean, there are certain situations where you simply can't just permit something. But those cases are pretty obvious. Like, jumping out of a plane without a parachute is obviously going to result in death. I suppose there are exceptions, though. 😁

🙂

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.

silentcyclist3 said: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.

😁
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.

😁
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.

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.

silentcyclist3 said: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.

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?

silentcyclist3 said: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?

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?

silentcyclist3 said: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.

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? 😁

silentcyclist3 said: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.

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.

Edward Flores4 said:Take another look at the last few posts I’ve put up. I’ve already laid out the analogy regarding my conclusion—that consciousness itself, and by extension thought as a specific shape of conscious effort or activity, is the primary and fundamental "layer" of existence. Thoughts can only disappear if the very capacity for thinking disappears, which means consciousness and memory have to go too. But if consciousness and memory were to vanish, existence itself would cease to be, wouldn't it?

I’d really suggest looking back through some posts by a member named "ljubo." He’s gone into this specific point several times with incredibly thorough arguments—honestly, he does a much better job of explaining it than I ever could. From what I gather, he’s quite well-versed in both spirituality and philosophy. So, if you’re looking for a truly deep dive into that analogy... ljubo has mapped it out beautifully on multiple occasions. Personally, I just don't have the energy to keep rehashing it, especially since it's been covered so many times already. If you can't find them, or if you're just not feeling up to the hunt, let me know and I'll just copy/paste the whole thing for you.

You could pick five random phrases from my previous posts and ask me how I "separate" them, even though I've already provided a complete "analogy" explaining my conclusions. Just ask me specifically what isn't making sense... please don't throw these five-variable questions at me when they aren't even points of contention within the context of how I've already explained the distinctions. Ask direct, concrete questions. This one doesn't really hold any water.

You exist, but only relatively. Think about a stone tower sitting on a hill. We’d say the tower exists, right? But the tower is made of stone, and those stones were already part of that hill. If something has simply changed its form, we can't really call that the creation of something entirely new... can we? Transformation and creation are fundamentally different concepts. In this scenario, the stones exist absolutely, while the tower exists only relatively.

Again, I'm telling you... read ljubo's posts. He argues this point in great detail, and it feels redundant to keep repeating it in every single thread where someone struggles to grasp the idea of parallel absolute and relative existence.

You’d have to ask the Absolute itself. I was talking about how we perceive relative existence.

Ask the Absolute. My point was about the concept of "free will" within relative existence.

I don't really hold opinions on arbitrary words—mostly because the very fact that words are just arbitrary symbols makes having an opinion on what we call "meaning" feel pretty pointless. If something is arbitrary, there isn't some deep, underlying reason for it... it just is. We could just as easily call it "flibberty-gibbets" and nothing would change.🤷

Once again, you're throwing out these hollow questions... if you want to know something, just ask something specific. To be honest, your questions feel a bit like those kids who think they have this clever little trick up their sleeve, trying to steer you toward a specific answer just so they can say, "Aha! I got you!"

Thanks for the reading list; I will certainly dive into it if my schedule permits.
The questions I posed were meant to highlight a glaring logical inconsistency in your rather elegant post regarding "free will" and the "absolute"—specifically your premise that "your thoughts are not your own." Because if an "absolute" exists, what does "freedom of choice" even mean? That was the crux of my inquiry. As for this example of the tower and the hill—do they both exist absolutely within their "transformation," or do you believe you can "separate" them to make them "relative"... implying that everything exists independently in its own being?

Paul Campbell3 said:Haha, briskraven28, you're my absolute hero! 😘

Uma, can I get an autograph?😍