Posts by Joseph Bailey41

Gregory Thomas said:Poets really are wonders in this world.

Yeah, thanks! 👍

I honestly don't know what to make of this. I’ve been sitting here staring at my screen for a while, trying to wrap my head around the whole situation, but it just feels... off. It’s one of those things where you want to jump in and offer an opinion, but you realize how much weight your words actually carry. I'm probably overthinking it—that's my problem, I guess—but I can't shake the feeling that we're missing the bigger picture here. Does anyone else feel like we're just scratching the surface? kaže:
Exactly. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter if this "guru" has some official certification or if they’re just an author or some guy from down the street. What matters is that there is a teacher—an authority figure—and you accept them as such because you actually trust what they’re saying. You can certainly push back, but there’s a right way and a wrong way to do it. A healthy rebellion comes from a place of clarity; you challenge them based on the actual substance of their teachings. The bad kind of rebellion is just losing your temper, tearing everything down, and then immediately running off to find a new guru just to start the whole cycle all over again.
Look, I just can't get behind that whole "leap of faith" approach if there isn't even a teacher there to guide you.

I don't subscribe to the whole "guru" culture, which means I don't have anyone to rebel against or any fake idols to tear down. Honestly, those mental constructs don't really have anything to do with me. To me, a teacher can be anyone—or even any living thing—with whom I share a meaningful connection. It’s a two-way street; we learn from each other, and I learn from them just as much as they learn from me. It’s a mutual exchange that brings value to both sides. If someone is looking for a shortcut to reach some higher state of being—whether you call it enlightenment, nirvana, or whatever else—then sure, they might feel like they need a guru. But I still don't quite get why anyone would rush that process. If we’re living our lives on this planet, there’s likely a reason for it, even if we don't fully understand why yet. Even if we assume we're souls from a higher plane who incarnated here, it seems pretty silly to think we did all that work just to find a fast track back home. On the flip side, if we’re all just here by chance and there isn't anything beyond this, then the most logical thing to do is simply make this short life as pleasant as possible for ourselves and everyone around us. At the end of the day, I don't see the point in these "certified," trademarked spiritual leaders. They’re just people doing a job to make a living, just like the rest of us.

Melissa Stewart6 said:True humility is about being spiritually grounded—not puffing yourself up without any substance. You see this mindset in all the great thinkers who study Bogey.
That doesn't mean falling into morbid submissiveness or masochism, which usually happens when people fail to find deeper meaning in life. It simply means knowing where you stand.

Finding your place requires struggle, growth, and mental sharpness.

I don't really follow Bill Gates—that whole concept just doesn't interest me. As for spiritual poverty or whatever else people call it, I'll leave that to those who have chosen that path, the believers.

Paul Rogers94 said:That term is weighed down by all sorts of biases and preconceived notions—everyone has their own skewed idea of what humility actually means depending on their perspective. If you’re looking at things from one level, everything seems unified; if you're at another, all you see is chaos and diversity. Those two perspectives are fundamentally irreconcilable—there's just no way to bridge that gap.

Humility isn't about groveling before others or being a bootlicker—and it certainly isn't "letting someone else dictate your will." Humility is the realization that everything is interconnected (it looks the same from this side as it does from the other). It's a natural reflex to the sheer miracle of existence and the fact that we can even be conscious of it. On a relative, more grounded level, we could simply call it self-respect and respect for everything that exists.

The posts in this thread would sound a lot more coherent if we just swapped out the word "humility" for "respect."

Humility stems from insight, whereas respect is a matter of will—and ultimately, respect serves a practical purpose: it makes coexistence a whole lot easier.

If this thread were titled "Respect," the discussion would look completely different. Honestly, I'm not even sure if anyone would be asking these questions. In the common sense of the word, it's hard to put "humility" and "self-respect" in the same sentence. And while there aren't any real boundaries between our inner and outer worlds except for the ego, that doesn't mean they are identical; it means they form a single whole. Some parts of that whole are simply more beautiful or pleasant than others, and I think closing your eyes to that fact is just denying that connection. The world isn't some shapeless, singular blob; it's a complex entity made up of distinct yet interconnected parts. No one would argue that there's no difference between a leaf and a root, even though they clearly belong to the same tree.

Melissa Rogers4 said:I kind of agree, though I don't think "new" ideas should be used as an excuse to shut down those kinds of discussions. It’s also not helpful to dismiss different perspectives by saying, "well, it doesn't matter what you think or what you call it." That feels especially hollow when you're talking about something like humility, since the person pushing the idea ends up contradicting themselves just by how they act...

How we interact is really the best indicator of where someone actually stands or how much they've progressed. In this context, trying to take a high ground of modesty, tolerance, or acceptance is a pretty tough sell, which is why you see so much hypocrisy. When you’re a certified, trademarked guru with a seal of approval from a specific tradition, it’s easy to adopt a "don't do what I do, do what I say" attitude—basically forcing your own concepts as the ultimate truth. Maybe it is the truth, maybe not; but a student of a certified, trademarked guru has to accept it as such, otherwise the whole interaction is pointless. In open settings where information flows two ways—or even multiple ways—in totally unexpected directions, it’s just crazy to insist on acting like a guru, especially if you aren't willing to put your credentials on the line. And it’s even sillier to take someone else's claims at face value when you have no idea where that path actually leads.

This is a place for exchanging knowledge and experiences. Nothing else. For every "I know," you should be prepared to explain how you know it, what your sources are, and what your arguments look like. If you say, "my experience is X," you have to be ready for different bystanders to project whatever they want onto that, because that's the easiest way to discredit a person and boost one's own importance. So, even that route isn't recommended unless you are truly humble—meaning you don't cling to your own experiences or your own self-image, and you genuinely don't care what others think or say about you. This forum is by no means a "safe space," especially the parts where most participants are just trying to prove their intellectual or spiritual superiority or simply shout, "I am right." Measuring humility, ego, or the intensity of spiritual experiences here mostly boils down to a contest of egos, or like primates fighting over dominance. It’s all quite amusing and fun, right up until someone tries to swing for the fences and actually hit you. 😁

Betty Patel172 said:We could just as easily be talking about aliens; it doesn't change the logic. Humility isn't exclusive to Christianity; you find it in everything from Islam to Hindus to Native Americans.
Humility is about respecting others and their differences, rather than forcing your own will upon them.

I think humility is actually just letting someone else push their will onto you.

Robert Reyes4 said:Does "groups" here mean people?
Because they probably haven't earned that kind of label.

It doesn't bother me personally; I've been called much worse than that.

hollowpuma762 said:Honestly, you're just spinning fairy tales again and trying to pass off your delusions as hard facts.

Maybe if people actually dealt with their own baggage—and the people who caused it—first, they wouldn't be so blinded by obvious biases or feel the need to engage in these endless, pointless internet shouting matches with total strangers about things that don't even matter.

Fair point. So why aren't you fixing them?

Betty Patel172 said:Everyone is entitled to their perspective, but this specific attitude toward humility is reminiscent of how settlers acted during the conquest of the USA, the displacement of Native Americans, and the era of slavery, which effectively subjugated entire populations. Even today, we remain enslaved to various metals and non-metals. 🙂

Sources?

From what I understand, those settlers were Christians, and they placed such a huge emphasis on things like humility and forgiveness. So, how does it make sense that things turned out the way they did? ☕

Melissa Stewart6 said:And why are you so focused on the forum users and their motivations instead of the actual topic?
I might not have much to say personally, but that's why I share thoughts I actually like. It doesn't matter at all if someone else said them first.
What do you actually have to contribute, aside from trying to tear down the people you don't like?

If I wanted to, I could write a much more detailed response and dive into that whole ego thing. But I won't—not here, and certainly not right now. With other people, maybe.

You created this thread to drop wise spiritual quotes, so by all means, knock yourself out. You’re also more than welcome to deal with that whole ego thing with other people somewhere else. If you haven't managed to say anything smarter than "some users find the concept of humility disgusting" up to this point, there's no need to even try. But hey, feel free to post some more tattoos; this thread wouldn't be half as interesting without them. ☕

Melissa Stewart6 said:I think he wasn't talking about people who happen to notice evil, but rather those who actively go looking for it everywhere they turn.
Are you familiar with the concepts of Ergon and Pragma?

Pragma refers to a specific action—like buying a pack of matches. It’s an isolated act performed with a particular goal in mind.
Ergon, on the other hand, is one's life work, or what philosophers might call a person's essence.

What's the takeaway? You can't judge a whole person based on a single isolated incident. A good person might slip up and do something wrong occasionally, but that isn't the same thing as living a life defined by evil.

Okay, so what’s the point of all that?

The legal system punishes individual actions, but in our day-to-day lives, we usually rely on our general impression of someone to decide if they're even worth dealing with. Hegel was incredibly precise about this in other contexts, but for some reason, his claim here feels vague and unsupported. Since I haven't personally studied Hegel, I'm basing this on what's available (specifically that quote you shared), and my conclusion is that it doesn't seem worth my time to dive deep into his work. I doubt anyone will hold that against me, since it seems like almost nobody here has actually read Hegel or feels any deep emotional connection to his theories. Hegelianism isn't a religion; you don't have people knocking on your door wanting to chat about him, church bells don't ring in his honor on Sundays, women aren't wandering the streets wrapped in bandages because he told them to, and elementary school kids aren't learning a thing about him in class.

The real reason you and I are even talking about Hegel on a Saturday night is that you constantly hide behind quotes. One minute it's Nietzsche, the next it's Hegel. And then you act surprised when people call you out, even though you haven't technically "said" anything or insulted anyone directly—you just show up to be a nuisance, complaining about how certain women on these forums don't subscribe to your idea of humility. Wherever you pop up, you're trolling. At this point, we aren't talking about a single action anymore; we're talking about your entire legacy. I honestly don't know what you're trying to achieve, but it's becoming exhausting. No amount of Greek terminology or philosophical citations can mask the fact that you don't actually have anything to say—not about this topic, and not about anything else.

Melissa Stewart6 said:Why's that?
Hegel had this idea that when someone looks at the world and sees only evil, they end up isolating themselves from the very society they're criticizing—and that isolation itself becomes the problem. Then again, if you look at it through a dialectical lens, evil is just a necessary step on the path toward something good.

Well, in this particular situation, I don't give a damn about dialectics. Bad people exist. Liars, hypocrites, malicious trolls—they're all out there. Just because I can see them doesn't mean there's "evil in my eye." It just means I'm not blind.

If someone wants to chant mantras about how we're all one, or how a benevolent God is watching over us, or even that the Earth is flat, go ahead. It’s their business. But I reserve the right to be exclusive toward people I simply don't like, and I have zero intention of bleating along with the politically correct (or, in this case, spiritually correct) herd.

Melissa Stewart6 said:Who exactly is acting up?
It reminds me of something Hegel once said: evil is found in the eye of the one searching for it.
If you're convinced that humble people are being fake, you'll start seeing them everywhere.

To be clear, I never claimed to be humble, nor did I say I don't have an ego.

Honestly, I was actually considering picking up some Hegel lately, but you've totally convinced me that he's just some massive windbag who isn't worth my time. ☕

I honestly find it hilarious how all these "humble" types suddenly turn into total monsters the second you bruise their non-existent egos. 🤣

Melissa Stewart6 said:Is there any actual argument to support this?

Look, I don't have any hard statistics on me. There are a few people on this forum who do—you’ve got Pavun—and then there are some folks I know personally. Those who stayed in the TM-voda waters for the long haul (meaning they didn't just finish the basic course, but went through the residential bases and regular home practice) basically popped like popcorn; now they can see things clearly for what they really are.

If you want to dig into this issue, this link is a pretty good starting point for your research:
http://skepdic.com/tm.html

So, I was just scrolling through a Wikipedia link I stumbled upon while digging through some totally unrelated topic, and it made me wonder if this counts as synchronicity:

1973: Allegations of "ego-stripping" and "brainwashing"

In 1973, LaRouche started writing about applying specific psychological techniques to new recruits. In an article called " Beyond Psychoanalysis", he claimed that a worker's persona had to be completely dismantled to reach what he termed a "little me" state, which would then allow them to "rebuild their personalities around a new socialist identity," according to The Washington Post.[64][65] The New York Times wrote that the initial session—which LaRouche dubbed "ego-stripping"—involved a German member, Constantine George, during the summer of 1973. LaRouche claimed that during this process, he discovered a plot to assassinate him had been planted in George's subconscious.[66]

He also recorded sessions with a 26-year-old British member, Chris White, who had traveled to England with LaRouche's former partner, Carol Schnitzer. In December 1973 LaRouche asked The couple to return to The U. S. his followers Sen tapes of The subsequent sessions with White to The New York Times as evidence of an assassination plot. According to The Times, "[t]here are sounds of weeping, and vomiting on the tapes, and Mr. White complains of being deprived of sleep, food and cigarettes. At one point someone says 'raise the voltage,' but (LaRouche) says this was associated with the bright lights used in the questioning rather than an electric shock." The Times wrote, "Mr. White complains of a terrible pain in his arm, then LaRouche can be heard saying, 'That's not real. That's in the program'." LaRouche told The newspaper White Had been "reduced to an eight-cycle infinite loop with look-up table, with homosexual bestiality." He maintained that White hadn't been harmed and noted that a physician—a member of the LaRouche movement—was present the whole time.[66][67] Ultimately, White told LaRouche that he had been programmed by CIA and British intelligence to set up LaRouche for assassination by Cuban exile frogmen.[68]

According to The Washington Post, a sort of "brainwashing hysteria" swept through the movement. One activist recalled attending meetings where members were actually writhing on the floor, claiming they needed de-programming.[14] During a single two-week stretch in January 1974, the group put out 41 different press releases regarding brainwashing. One activist, Alice Weitzman, voiced her own skepticism regarding these claims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche

Even though this falls squarely into the "WTF" category, I have a feeling it ties back to what we're discussing here. Basically, once a guru or whoever strips away a person's ego, there's usually an attempt to plant something new in its place. It’s also interesting to me how so many long-term meditators end up believing in total nonsense, like the Flat Earth theory, reptilians, and other absurdities. It's almost as if after the "emptying of the mind" and the "death of the ego," something *has* to fill that void, and for some reason, the most irrational concepts seem to be the ones that stick best.

Daniel Castillo11 said:The ego is essentially everything we are. It encompasses our entire identity—our preferences, our history, that whole complex collection of traits that makes us unique, stretching from our most primal instincts to those subtle artistic sensibilities or abstract cognitive capacities.

When someone attempts to deny or suppress the ego, they are effectively trying to forcibly strip away the parts of their own nature—or perhaps even their very humanity—that they find inconvenient.

That whole "I am who I am" sentiment only truly holds water when you view a person as a complete entity, warts and all; it loses its meaning if you only focus on some "spiritual," abstract, or idealized mental construct where personality is expected to die off or be humbled.

This is why I’ve always found that non-dualistic rhetoric that Western spiritualists have been peddling for ages to be somewhat hollow. Their concept of "the absolute" or total unity feels strangely exclusive, almost fascist in its own way, because it seems to embrace nothing but emptiness while showing zero tolerance for diversity or our fundamental human nature. To many practitioners, this "unity" represents a state of mind where all differences are extinguished—a place of pure stasis and stillness. It’s a sort of comfortable numbness.

Spirituality often finds itself at odds with our basic nature. You rarely encounter spiritual literature that speaks positively about the ego, even in those schools of thought that claim to see personality or uniqueness as raw material for transformation. Even there, the ego is implicitly disapproved of, if not outright loathed; it's treated as something that simply needs to be discarded.

As the years go by, I don't just see how misguided and irrational this stance is, I also see the damaging fallout from such beliefs. For those chasing non-duality, suppressing personal struggles is incredibly convenient. It’s a seductive trap: the teaching suggests that your achievements, your feelings, or your earthly reality don't actually matter as much as the mere fact that you "ARE." As if that fact were ever up for debate or somehow insignificant. 🙂 However, forcing this mindset through the lens of "oneness" is deeply problematic. People struggling with various issues will often—consciously or not—leverage this potential for self-deception to deny their actual problems and avoid seeking help. In many ways, "unity" becomes a convenient code word for passive aggression.

Doesn't LHP fall under the umbrella of spirituality?

Daniel Castillo11 said:The ego is essentially everything we are. It encompasses our entire identity—our preferences, our history, that whole complex collection of traits that makes us unique, stretching from our most primal instincts to those subtle artistic sensibilities or abstract cognitive capacities.

When someone attempts to deny or suppress the ego, they are effectively trying to forcibly strip away the parts of their own nature—or perhaps even their very humanity—that they find inconvenient.

That whole "I am who I am" sentiment only truly holds water when you view a person as a complete entity, warts and all; it loses its meaning if you only focus on some "spiritual," abstract, or idealized mental construct where personality is expected to die off or be humbled.

This is why I’ve always found that non-dualistic rhetoric that Western spiritualists have been peddling for ages to be somewhat hollow. Their concept of "the absolute" or total unity feels strangely exclusive, almost fascist in its own way, because it seems to embrace nothing but emptiness while showing zero tolerance for diversity or our fundamental human nature. To many practitioners, this "unity" represents a state of mind where all differences are extinguished—a place of pure stasis and stillness. It’s a sort of comfortable numbness.

Spirituality often finds itself at odds with our basic nature. You rarely encounter spiritual literature that speaks positively about the ego, even in those schools of thought that claim to see personality or uniqueness as raw material for transformation. Even there, the ego is implicitly disapproved of, if not outright loathed; it's treated as something that simply needs to be discarded.

As the years go by, I don't just see how misguided and irrational this stance is, I also see the damaging fallout from such beliefs. For those chasing non-duality, suppressing personal struggles is incredibly convenient. It’s a seductive trap: the teaching suggests that your achievements, your feelings, or your earthly reality don't actually matter as much as the mere fact that you "ARE." As if that fact were ever up for debate or somehow insignificant. 🙂 However, forcing this mindset through the lens of "oneness" is deeply problematic. People struggling with various issues will often—consciously or not—leverage this potential for self-deception to deny their actual problems and avoid seeking help. In many ways, "unity" becomes a convenient code word for passive aggression.

Just like in the quote below. 😁

Paul Rogers94 said:Very well—as if you were merely interpreting your own reflection: a timid persona using arrogance to mask deep-seated insecurity, reducing everything to shallow metrics that measure nothing at all—someone whose life's peak is sniffing chamomile tea. Perhaps a little humility might actually do some good in your life once in a while.

No, it wouldn't. I am absolutely certain of that. You can keep your projections to yourself, since I have no business with them. You have your path, I have mine; you have your standards, I have mine. Or, to put it bluntly—get lost. ☕

Melissa Stewart6 said:You doing okay there?
I’m no official spokesperson for Omen, but I didn't get the impression he said, "Women have to be submissive while men don't."

Fair point. You aren't his press secretary. Then again, he isn't a spokesperson for anyone but himself and his own ego—acting like he's the smartest guy in the room. Honestly, we've seen this act so many times it's getting a bit tiresome. Can we get back to the actual topic?

Jamie Davis9 said:I’m not entirely certain on the specifics, but if I recall correctly, there’s a significant number of registered Catholics in this part of the country, isn't there?

And look, I might come across as completely clueless here, but I don't even know where you're located.
In my neck of the woods, you can barely find seasonal workers, let alone someone who would swear an oath on Capital.

Where I'm from, we deal with a whole different kind of curse, which might mean we aren't actually that far apart after all. 🤣

Melissa Stewart6 said:Not really. Maybe just a reaction to what people call mansplaining?

Exactly. It’s like the response to thousands of years of women being conditioned to be submissive. We’ve just reached our limit, honestly. If you care so much about preserving that "virtue," maybe try being the humble ones for a change. ☕

It isn't about being Egoistic; it’s just pure burnout. We are done with the mansplaining, done with being treated as second-class citizens, and done with these gods who are really just projections of individual and collective egos. It's over. That's it.

Melissa Stewart6 said:I see the ego primarily as a construct. If you perceive it that way, you don't even have to fight it because the whole concept feels unreal to you.
Looking at this thread, it seems a few users have teamed up to wage war against the very idea of humility.
They claim humility is twisted and perverse, arguing that we should always walk with our heads held high.
But since everything in life is dialectical and moves through opposites, it's possible to be truly proud only if you are also humble... otherwise, you're just left with egoism—nothing but empty noise and shouting.

You definitely caught onto the fact that it was mostly women making those comments. Have you ever stopped to wonder why that might be?