4 posts shown.
coastalfalcon61, thanks for the thorough breakdown.
Intellectually, I follow your logic, and this isn't exactly my first encounter with this kind of information. Realizations like these tend to trigger a certain discomfort—though, if I’m being honest, there’s also a deep curiosity from my rational side, which just wants a clear, unambiguous confirmation of what we’re actually dealing with here.
It still leaves me with this heavy sensation, and that nagging question of why we have to struggle through all of this just to exist on a planet like this one. I know I won't find an answer right now, at least not while I'm stuck in this standard "clueless phase" where most people seem to reside.
Unfortunately, I haven't been putting enough effort or time into the "consciousness phase," so for the time being, I'm just left wading through the mental mud.
coastalfalcon61 As stated by:
Maybe the person who set up this "external installation" intends to let individuals break free through their own grit and effort. But make no mistake—they’ll be the first to lash out at anyone attempting to dismantle those installations for someone else. It’s easy to look the other way when a single chicken escapes the coop; one bird missing doesn't change the bottom line. However, if one chicken starts opening the gate for everyone else, that isn't going to go unnoticed, and there will certainly be consequences.
coastalfalcon61 said:Conversation can be a useful tool, provided a person can actually control it. If they can't, the tool kind of takes over and goes haywire.
It’s almost like imagining a power drill that refuses to shut off—one that keeps spinning at max speed, and after it finishes the job it was meant to do, it just keeps drilling into every wall it can reach. I think most normal people deal with this kind of verbal struggle. Once they finish saying what they intended to say, they just keep talking to themselves inside their heads until they fall asleep.
While that internal dialogue is running, all your mental resources are tied up in it, which means you can't use them for true free will or conscious perception.
Talking, both externally and internally, triggers thoughts. Those thoughts trigger emotions, and those emotions drive our actions. Most people have almost no influence over this chain reaction. To actually act with genuine free will, one has to break the link between thought, emotion, and action. The first step is usually silence—starting with the outside world because that's easier, and then moving inward. An additional complication is that the intellect can't function without internal speech, and most Americans are deeply identified with their rational minds. Over time, you lose any chance for direct insight and end up forced to perceive the world solely through logic. If you think the intellect is inherently good, just remember that a purely rational person is the one who designs weapons and goes to war. The atomic bomb or the machine gun are products of pure reason.
Furthermore, there is something beyond the individual that listens. It doesn't just hear what is spoken aloud, but also the internal monologue, and it responds by creating circumstances that might not necessarily benefit the speaker if they lack true willpower.
Once, and if, a person reaches a level of free and conscious will, conversation (and the intellect) becomes a useful tool once again—something you can simply switch off once its job is done. At that point, it stops generating endless unnecessary thoughts and doesn't drain resources on constant emotions and actions. When you achieve that stillness and consciously choose a single thought, all those freed-up resources become available to it. That's when a thought gains real power and becomes a law or an intention.
Solitude creates the right environment to free up your perception. It also makes it easier to quiet the internal chatter since there is no one to talk to. This makes it simpler to turn your attention toward the inner component of speech and gradually dial it down.
Interacting with others consumes energy. When you do something for someone, say something to them, or otherwise affect them, you are essentially giving away a piece of your personalized energy. The same goes for how others affect you. These interactions add new elements to your mental inventory, taking up space that could be better used if a person had free, conscious will to decide what stays part of their core identity. At the end of the day, I think every person should try to clear out that new inventory and discard the "energy" picked up from others; otherwise, over time, you just become a messy blend of everyone else's parts rather than your own. Don't forget about the lack of awareness, will, and energy, which, when combined with all these external influences, can turn a person into a trash can where everyone throws whatever they want, even though they were naturally meant to be a container for something useful. After a while, the inside gets so cluttered with junk that it becomes impossible to clean out, mostly because even the shovel you'd use to clean it is buried somewhere deep under the mess.
Regarding this whole idea of resisting what is good... I suppose if free will doesn't actually exist, then there isn't really a choice to be made about whether to resist or to accept things. Most people probably don't have that kind of agency anyway, and it seems to me that when someone does something bad, it isn't even them doing it, but rather some sort of process working through them—sort of like how trash decomposes in a bin labeled "the mind." And if you ask me, the thing that triggers and keeps that whole cycle going is speech, or conversation... which then leads directly to our thoughts, our emotions, and eventually our actions.
And about what you mentioned, that everyone is free to agree or disagree... I think the irony is that almost nobody actually possesses that freedom, mostly because they lack true will, genuine consciousness, or any usable energy. Instead of having freedom, they just have a mind full of mental clutter, and the gases produced by all that decaying junk basically dictate what a person chooses to agree with or reject... in a metaphorical sense, of course.
I appreciate the way you break things down. Could you expand on what you actually mean when you say "the one who set up a one-sided installation" and that "there is something beyond man that listens"?
I’ve been scrolling through some Canadian news sites lately, following the chatter about whether they might actually put us on a blacklist—it's spiraling into a complete mess.
One of the biggest complaints from local commentators regarding their government's utter lack of ethics involves the real estate holdings of those running the country. For instance, Jelka Kacin owns a house on Manhattan, yet she’s right there reporting on decisions involving America. I'd bet my life there are other officials with similar setups.
It really makes you wonder: how can someone sitting at the very top of the state administration hold property in a foreign country and still claim to be objective when dealing with relations between their home nation and the place where they own land?
Would this have even been allowed 50 or 100 years ago?
Isn't this just a blatant conflict of interest?
The movie starts with a genuinely compelling concept, but ultimately falls victim to that typically shallow, mainstream American execution.
What most Americans—and frankly, anyone raised in a modern, advanced society living in an urban environment—fail to grasp is how completely unrealistic it is to depict the lives of seven people living in a tent or a cabin deep in the woods. The lifestyle they lead, specifically their level of cleanliness, organization, and the dedicated time they carve out for education and learning foreign languages, would be impossible without a constant influx of outside capital. Yet, the film tries to tell us they’re struggling, making ends meet just by selling birdhouses...
Hunting deer with nothing but a knife? Give me a break. Sitting peacefully around a campfire at night reading books while ignoring the endless swarm of mosquitoes? Please.
But let's just gloss over those "minor" logical fallacies for a moment...
The final 15 minutes were entirely unnecessary. Why on earth are we digging up a corpse from a grave that, after all this time, looks like it's in perfect condition?
I would have preferred an ending where the kids stay with their grandparents, and the father returns to the forest alone to live out his days by the fire with a glass of wine, remembering his wife. It’s always interesting how these kinds of movies rely on wealthy grandparents stepping in to save the day.