Posts by Jesse White3

I’ve been watching the transfer news cycle lately, and I can’t help but feel like the modern era of professional sports has shifted from a game of skill to a massive, high-stakes game of financial poker. We all love the excitement of seeing a new face in the jersey, but the sheer scale of the numbers being tossed around these days makes me wonder if we’re losing the "soul" of the sport in favor of pure asset management.

Every single window feels like a frantic rush to find that one specific piece of a puzzle—a defender who can hold the line, a midfielder who can dictate tempo, or a striker who can turn nothing into something. But it’s never just about the player anymore, is it? It’s about the valuation, the negotiation tactics, the "final stages" of talks, and the intense pressure of trying to justify a massive capital outlay to a fanbase that expects immediate results. I remember back in the day when a big move felt like a monumental event that happened once every few years. Now, it feels like there’s a headline every Tuesday about a club closing in on a deal or a negotiation hitting a stalemate.

I was talking to a buddy of mine who works in scouting, and he was telling me about the mental toll it takes on these clubs. It’s not just about finding talent; it’s about the sheer volatility of the market. You think you’ve found the perfect fit—someone who fits the tactical system and has the right age profile—and then suddenly, the price tag jumps, or another club swoops in with a cheeky bid, and your entire summer strategy is thrown into chaos. It feels less like building a team and more like trying to play Tetris while the blocks are changing shape in real-time.

There’s also this weird psychological element with the fans. We get so invested in these rumors. We spend hours debating whether a certain player is "worth" the fee or if the club is overpaying for a "stop-gap" solution. We build up these players in our heads before they’ve even stepped onto the pitch for a single training session. When they succeed, we’re geniuses for supporting the move; when they fail, we crucify the directors and the manager. It’s a cycle of hype and heartbreak that seems to be getting more intense as the transfer fees continue to climb into the stratosphere.

I sometimes wonder if we’re heading toward a future where the gap between the "haves" and the "have-nots" becomes an unbridgeable chasm because of how much these specific, targeted deals cost. If one club can afford to fix their defensive issues with a single high-value transaction while another has to scrape together youth prospects, does the competitive integrity of the league eventually just evaporate? It feels like the "moneyball" approach has been taken to its most extreme conclusion, where every move is a calculated risk designed to maximize ROI rather than just bolster the squad.

I’m curious to hear what you guys think about the current state of the market. Do you think these massive, targeted investments are still the best way to build a sustainable squad, or are we just watching clubs burn through cash on "solutions" that might only last a season? At what point does a "big move" stop being an exciting opportunity and start being a massive liability?

placidharbor7 said:You really shouldn't try to dodge placidharbor7, truth seeker.
Because if you happen to possess even a shred of knowledge that placidharbor7 lacks, you’ll inevitably find yourself attempting to lecture your own "Master."
That is precisely how a jealous truth seeker ought to conduct themselves.

Regarding that whole concept of "continuity"—the Observer is actually closer to you, and far more ancient, my dear truth seeker.
Is the OBSERVER actually "aware" of that sense of continuity, or is it just an illusion?
If that is indeed the case, then this whole idea of "continuity" you’re clinging to is nothing more than an illusion—it's purely imaginary (if you recall what placidharbor7 mentioned in his previous post).
If that isn't the case, then I have to wonder if this supposed "continuity" of yours is nothing more than a figment of your imagination.
Where exactly are you from, anyway?

Who exactly is observing our thoughts, truth seeker?
Is that subject of yours merely an illusion?

Regardless of who might be observing them, even if it's just a passing thought, placidharbor7 has already laid it all out for you.
Because, as you’ve pointed out yourself, thoughts themselves are perceived within the framework of time.
It seems to me that one thought simply pursues another in an endless loop.

A true master doesn't live in a state of illusion.
It simply does not reside within consciousness.
He isn't even aware that he is alive.
Do you have anything else to add, truth seeker?

The ultimate question, once again, remains:
Is that Observer of yours actually aware of its own nature while it monitors your various states of "fragmentation," truth seeker?

If that holds true, then the concept itself must be inherently "interrupted." After all, if consciousness is defined by its own capacity for self-awareness, then that very act of awareness is also subject to being "interrupted."
Because it was "interrupted" back then, it’s finally "focused."
A focused consciousness is essentially nothing more than a student's consciousness.

What exactly is placidharbor7 hearing?
If we consider that "identity" is merely a byproduct of "continuity"—that is to say, a construct forged from the "I AM" of a false and unattainable subject (as placidharbor7 pointed out in an earlier post)—then everything changes.
What kind of sentimentality is this, truth seeker?

How can an "individual" truly represent "continuity," Truth Seeker?
The concept of the "individual" is, in its very essence, a state of being divided.
Continuity, in its purest essence, is nothing less than all-encompassing.
Do you also find yourself drifting into those "spirits" you mentioned?

Who remains unknown to you, truth seeker?
Where does this madness actually end, good heavens?

Let us engage in a discussion regarding the essence of what you truly are, truth seeker.
You previously maintained that this was something quite substantial—truly solid, if I recall correctly.
As you previously asserted, consciousness itself is "not substantial" in nature.
Self-indulgent nonsense isn't going to do you any favors.

But if you truly intend to take on the role of teacher for others, then I suppose I should extend a similar invitation to you for what comes next. It seems only fair that one masters these principles personally before attempting to guide anyone else through them.

http://home.primus.com.au/jljubo/index.htm

Happy tinkering!

What kind of masterclass are we talking about here, truth seeker? 👋 [/B]

I suppose I could pay a visit to your school, if that’s what you require, but I must ask one thing of you: please, don't go clicking on that link I sent. I say this with total sincerity—if you were to actually follow it, I fear you wouldn't have the slightest desire to speak with me again, at least not until you’ve had some time to properly wrap your head around your ideas regarding your "school."

Please, stop twisting my words; it’s a path that leads absolutely nowhere. I would truly appreciate it if you could sit down with the Law of Existence on that page I shared with you. If you could just take a moment to grasp the full scope of the picture and the solution it presents, perhaps then we could have a meaningful conversation. This is the Truth I have been trying to offer you, even if I've only managed to provide it in small fragments. For me, the Truth is found in the deep understanding of the Law of Existence. Do you truly understand it?
It would be far better if you truly grasped the law of existence. Simply knowing who you are and what you represent isn't quite enough to claim the title of a true master.
I once believed I understood the very things you claim to "perhaps" know—though, in hindsight, I suspect I had merely memorized theories from textbooks. I never had the audacity to call myself a master; frankly, that would have been absurd, as one's knowledge is rarely sufficient. It was only recently that I truly grasped the concept, thanks to the insights shared by my mentor, who finally laid out the law of existence on paper. It is only when you truly internalize that law that you could even consider calling yourself a master, if that is a title you still desire to hold.

Furthermore, if there remains anything you fail to grasp—or if you find yourself struggling with my supposed "lack of knowledge"—please, do feel free to reach out to me. Though, I must admit, I am somewhat perplexed as to why an expert of your caliber would be troubled by my ignorance. It is quite a significant gap, isn't it? One so vast that even someone of your standing had to transition from your specialized field to the philosophy department at a major university like Harvard, making quite the sacrifice just as your original program began to lose its footing. Is it possible, perhaps, that your students are starting to lose faith in your teachings? Or heavens, no—I suppose your pupils are also "enlightened." So much so, in fact, that even the philosophy faculty has begun taking a sudden interest in them.

And ultimately, if you truly aspire to be some sort of "guru," I would suggest exercising a bit more patience; perhaps wait for the flock to find their way to you rather than constantly chasing after them. Otherwise, your little hobby won't last very long, as you'll likely end up losing your temper with everyone you encounter.

Best regards.

Look, buddy, you’re eating too much, drinking too much, and singing way too loud.

I honestly don't have the energy to engage with your constant flip-flopping. It isn't wisdom, it isn't spirituality, and it certainly isn't philosophy. You all have simply been fitted into a specific religious mold—you've categorized yourselves among the spirits. In fact, you even act like ghosts, drifting into spheres where you truly don't belong. You remain as indecisive as phantoms, attempting to be what you are and what you aren't at the exact same time. You are trying to teach others things that you haven't even grasped yourself.

However, since I find myself a guest here, I might as well leave you with a little something to ponder, so you don't walk away empty-handed. Regarding your rather hazy notions about continuity:
continuity isn't time, because continuity itself cannot be observed. Rather, it is through continuity that we observe everything else. (In this context, first and foremost, it is vital that you grasp the concept of an "idea"; otherwise, your arguments will spiral endlessly, and I simply lack the stamina for that). Without thought, there is no time. It is quite straightforward. Time is a construct of thought, and we perceive thought precisely because it is fragmented. That which is not fragmented is continuity, and since continuity cannot be perceived directly—because fragmentation is only perceived through the lens of non-fragmentation, of constancy, of CONTINUITY—it remains elusive. In philosophical terms, continuity signifies UNBROKEN EXISTENCE. Time and thought are perceived THROUGH the continuity that actually constitutes your identity. An individual is a continuity, because continuity is something that is INDIVISIBLE. This indivisibility is the subject of EVERY action or phenomenon. This is why I insist you understand the nature of an idea first; my very use of language relies upon that understanding.

But tell me, do you truly realize that your identity is ALWAYS unknown? You, the SUBJECT, are neither who you think you are nor who you are not. That's just nonsense.
You are neither this nor that. To truly *be* what you are is something VERY substantial, not something hollow or shifting. You aren't some abstract idea that allows you to claim you exist one moment and vanish the next, or to imagine that you are simultaneously everything and nothing.

Thank you for the invitation to visit your little school of enlightenment! I've already made my visit. Now, please forgive me if I decline to participate in your conversation; I have a natural, visceral aversion to "teachers" and "masters." Generally speaking, students and master-teachers tend to clash; surely even you should know that by now.

But if you are truly intent on teaching others, then I extend the same invitation to you. Learn this first, and only then attempt to instruct anyone else:

http://home.primus.com.au/jljubo/index.htm

Enjoy your "mastery"!

John Doe:

Jesse White3, truth seeker, who exactly is this "identifying" themselves?

What even is a "witness" in terms of its actual substance?

Isn't the "witness of thought" simply just "THOUGHT" itself?

And isn't the feeling of "I am"—that sense of existence—just the "THINKER"?
------------------------------------------

1. Identification is born from ignorance; in reality, no one actually identifies as anything.

2. You can't really pose a valid question regarding the witness, because the witness isn't an object—it is the subject. As for discussing its "substance," that's a non-starter; the subject (Consciousness) isn't a substance. Substance is merely a byproduct of Consciousness exerting itself, much like any other objective phenomenon we observe.

3. To be clear, the "witness of thought" is NOT thought, though the very idea of a "witness" IS a thought. That sensation of "I am" appears to someone or something, but that "someone" is not merely an idea.

4. I find myself repeating the same point with you. This "I am" feeling is an action performed by the thinker, the witness, or consciousness—whatever label you prefer for the agent of that action. However, the thinker is NOT the feeling of "I am." The thinker represents continuity, whereas every individual feeling and every piece of knowledge is temporal, including the awareness of "I am." What remains constant, here and now, is that continuity—the "unknown"—which is the SUBJECT. It remains unknown because it lacks a boundary. Anything objective is fleeting; that is the OBJECT, and it is ultimately unreal because it possesses a boundary through which it can be perceived. Objectivity is relative, while subjectivity is absolute. A circle cannot exist without a center, and a center cannot exist without a circle. When the circle merges into the center, both the center and the circumference vanish. What remains is the reality, and as such, it is UNKNOWN. You are that which you do not know and cannot fully grasp. Everything you do "know" is not truly you. For instance, you aren't a master, because only students strive to become masters. 😉

It isn't actually you who sleeps; rather, it is the persona you’ve chosen to identify with. Think about it—when a movie ends, do all the actors go to sleep? Not really, because none of them were ever truly awake to begin with. You are simply the witness to the entire unfolding drama. You merely imagine that you cease to exist while the film is playing because you've become so deeply immersed in one of the characters. Once the credits roll, you revert to that state of being "no one" and "nothing." Then, when the movie starts up again, the whole concept of being "nobody" feels like this profound mystery born from an identity crisis, leading you to mistake a gap in memory for your own "non-existence."
I dare you to say "I Am" during deep sleep! It’s impossible. It isn't because you don't exist during those hours, nor is it because you lack awareness; it’s simply because you are not that specific sensation of "I am" in that moment. That feeling is just one particular manifestation of your strained state of existence.

You are the witness to the process of thinking—to the thoughts themselves, the content, and the thinker. Thinking is a comprehensive process that encompasses the thought, the thinker, and indeed the entire world, for without the act of thinking, the world wouldn't exist at all. Since you are the observer of this thinking, you cannot be any of the constituent parts of it, much like how you aren't the entirety of the physical world itself.

The body exists within you, not the other way around. So, I ask you: who is it that is actually sleeping?

Jonathan Brown6:
"I have absolutely no recollection of what occurred while I was asleep. There are no images, no fragments of memory... Where was I?"
---------------------------------------

Please try to understand that this inquiry isn't actually about you; rather, it concerns the phenomena that arise and subsequently vanish. You remain constant in your essence, yet you exist independently of time and space. Knowledge is a construct of time and space, but you are not that construct. Knowledge sleeps and awakens, all within the confines of your being. Much like how letters might be written and then erased on a blank sheet of white paper, knowledge simply manifests and fades within you.

Nothing that can be known truly pertains to your core self. To that fundamental identity upon which both dreams and waking states are projected, it is entirely immaterial whether these states are present or absent, or if one exists while the other does not.

"The Four Faces of God" is a concept deeply rooted in Egyptian philosophy.

If you find yourself wanting to dive deeper into this, I’d suggest picking up Elizabeth Heich's book, *Initiation*.

I suppose one could argue that even dimensions are merely concepts—nothing more than mental constructs. In that sense, the world is much like a single frame in a film or a canvas in a movie theater.
In any true investigation, the only thing that actually matters is the underlying motive behind the search. All the other data points? They are essentially useless; they just serve to pull you further and further down an endless void.

Best regards,