Posts by hiddenhound3

Eric Anderson7 said:In this specific case, you can see how much biology really calls the shots. At least, that's how it looks to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

A book has even been written about him. John Colapinto: "How nature sculpted him"I have been attempting to carve out some time for this for quite a while now, though it seems to evade me regardless of my efforts; I must admit, my curiosity is truly piqued.

Drew Lee7 said:Man, please. This whole distinction between gender and sex is such a joke. Calling gender roles "social constructs" or "culturally conditioned"? Total nonsense. Most of those roles are driven by biology, and everything else is just society reacting to those biological realities based on its own weird dynamics.

As far as I know, we still don't even fully understand the causes behind homosexuality, transsexuality, or being transgender, so... who actually knows?

But honestly, all these feminist theories regarding gender versus sex are just laughable.

That is hardly nonsense or feminist bluster; these are legitimate theories established by cultural and anthropological scholars.

It is an undeniable fact that fundamental biological differences influence gender roles, yet within specific cultures, eras, and circumstances, those roles can vary, whereas sex-based roles remain immutable.

Allow me to illustrate. The gender role of a man involves performing strenuous labor in the fields—which stems from the era when horticulture and agronomy first emerged, where a pregnant woman might manage solely with a hoe while the man handled the plow regardless of the epoch—and this dominance of male physical strength pushed women away from heavy agricultural tasks (an evolution that contributed to the development of patriarchy). Yet, during times of war, when men are deployed, women must step into that masculine role. This is a gender role imposed by biology but accepted by society. Thus, we see clearly how a gender role can shift from one sex to another.

Conversely, a sex-based role is unconditional; a woman can give birth, whereas a man cannot. A man cannot serve as the carrier, the birther, or the lactating parent; that is a female sex role, and it is not transferable to a man.

Do you perceive the distinction between gender and sex roles now? They are entirely real phenomena, and they are partially determined by biology. 🙂

George Morris2 said:The whole transgender situation confuses me. For instance, a man who wants to transition usually expresses that identity by wearing women's clothing, applying makeup, maybe trying to mimic female body language, and taking an interest in stereotypically feminine things.

What's confusing about all of this is that makeup, fashion, and much of that behavior are culturally conditioned. Just like how culture dictates that women make the salad at a backyard BBQ while the guy handles the grill. 🙂
Female movement differs from male movement because women have different hip structures and less muscle mass; when a man tries too hard to imitate those movements, it looks awkward and, as people often say, gay.

Some biological differences that come to mind are that a woman can become a mother, can engage in vaginal intercourse, and is generally physically weaker, which might make her less prone to resolving conflicts through violence.

Of course, I know there are neurological differences too. Even though I'm a woman, I have a "male brain"—meaning I'm better at spatial awareness, math, logic, and technical stuff. I'm not particularly interested in interpersonal drama or social circles, but those traits don't make me feel like a man; they just lead society to label me as tomboyish because I played with trucks as a kid. But again, that's culturally conditioned.

So, looking at the big picture, I don't quite get what's happening with trans people. It seems to me like they define their gender identity based on culture. A man who identifies as a woman wants to wear skirts, wear makeup, and read Cosmopolitan—he wants things shaped by culture rather than, say, wanting to be a mother.

Wouldn't it be simpler to just identify as a man who likes to dress up, rather than being a trans person trying to change your sex?

Then again, I remember feeling like a boy when I was a child simply because I preferred playing with boys' toys. 😁 If I had grown up in a more conservative town where there was heavy resistance to that, I probably would have been even more convinced that I was a boy in a girl's body.

I understand that sexual attraction to a specific gender exists regardless of culture, and that there are "male and female brains," but is gender identity itself independent of culture? Or do we build it based on our reflection in the mirror, sexual attraction, and our interests—essentially the culture we live in because society expects us to act according to our sex?

It seems to me that the fundamental biological distinction between men and women lies in our hormones, which shape us into the individuals we are—they are simply different. It is entirely possible that transgender individuals experience a genuine state of hormonal chaos, which ultimately leads to significant internal confusion.

I recall watching a television program once regarding an individual (who later identified as a 😁) who possessed all the physiological traits of a male, yet from early childhood, despite those physical characteristics, behaved like a young girl. This behavior became even more pronounced during puberty when they began pursuing boys, believing themselves to be a social outcast. By sheer coincidence, it was discovered during adolescence that they actually possessed a uterus, which clarified the entire situation. They underwent surgery and even experienced pregnancy. At the time that program was filmed, she appeared entirely as a woman; perhaps her facial features were slightly more defined, but there was no doubt about her femininity.

silentnomad23 said:hiddenhound3, you’re talking about me as if I’ve already kicked the bucket.😬 I am very much alive, and I don't plan on going anywhere until I've said my piece—and I'll likely need at least another 30 or 40 years to get through it all, regardless of what happens. My sister actually told me the other day that I wouldn't be in her thoughts for even eight minutes. Honestly, I wouldn't want to be either if it weren't a necessity.
Lawrence Bailey77, your fascination with what people think about during sex is quite something; you might as well start a new thread about what you'll be pondering once you finally get banned. It's a bit of a concave-versus-convex situation. I suppose even during sex, whether you want to or not, your mind wanders. Maybe you're wondering if you should toss the towels in the washing machine because they're getting worn out, or thinking about what's coming up in the next season of a show. Or perhaps someone deals with intrusive thoughts—like feeling an urgent need to jump up and rearrange their slippers in the hallway because if the right one isn't positioned just ahead of the left, the ground will literally swallow them whole.
I was watching those animals on the highway near Macon, Georgia. Those tiny little creatures seem almost cheerful while they're playing cards, whereas the boar looks tough and aggressive, and the bear seems to be the most melancholy of the bunch. No matter how large those bears are, they always look famished when they stretch out. But you shouldn't underestimate them; they are among the most vicious predators out there, capable of sprinting up to 50 miles/h—definitely a convex presence. Then you take a look at where his anatomy is located, and it's just this tiny little thing, looking like a small piece of penne pasta. Good grief, how does a bear manage to maintain any dignity with that?

Good grief, give me a break. 🙂

I have no intention of sharing anything just yet, and frankly, I don't plan to until I have properly laid out certain matters—a process that will likely take me another thirty or forty years, regardless of the consequences. My sister had the audacity to suggest the other day that I wouldn't last eight minutes under such pressure. If it weren't for the fact that I am compelled by necessity, I wouldn't even bother participating.

I am of the firm belief that your little corner of the world serves as a truly fascinating playground. ☕

But let us move on from discussing you; you are not the subject at hand. 🙄

silentnomad23 said:So, I was sitting there after lunch today, letting my mind wander through a rather curious thought: why does it always seem easier to be the one initiating action rather than the one receiving it?
It’s a phenomenon that goes far beyond physical intimacy; it’s deeply rooted in our psychological makeup. If I were to imagine myself navigating the world from a masculine perspective, honestly, taking charge and being the active force with one, two, or even ten people wouldn't feel like much of a struggle at all. However, looking at this through a feminine lens changes the equation entirely. When you are the one penetrating, you are essentially asserting your integrity; when you are the one being penetrated, that sense of self-integrity feels like it retreats. This is where those classic archetypes of male "dominance" and female "submissiveness" seemingly originate.
For instance, if someone wanders into my personal space—say, coming within half a meter of me—my instinctual reaction is often to push back with both hands. People usually look for an explanation because they can't quite wrap their heads around why I reacted that way (essentially, my "penetrating" stance). It got me reflecting on my own behavior and thinking about the times I have been the one in the active role—and just how many different ways people have tried to defend themselves against that.
Still, these convex and concave dynamics in life and behavior are inevitable; ultimately, they play a role in the very mechanics of reproduction. But as society evolves, we are seeing more fluid identities, which will likely lead to a generation of "moral relativists" regarding these convex-concave mental statuses.
To get straight to the point: could you envision yourselves as the opposite gender, and if so, how would you describe that experience?

(A quick note to the feminists and the chauvinists out there: please leave the moralizing at the door. We're keeping the ethics strictly to the philosophy section below.) 🙂

I believe it all comes down to perception—to our individual sensitivity and our psychological defense mechanisms. It is an undeniable fact that there are certain people who lack the capacity for balanced communication; they barge into your space, interrupting you mid-sentence (a crude form of penetration). Then there are the trolls (which applies perfectly to the wild west of the American internet), those who refuse to engage with the actual subject matter and instead choose to analyze their interlocutor. This analysis is usually amateurish and fundamentally flawed, as their "psychoanalysis" is merely a projection of their own flaws onto others. They introduce irrelevant elements, drift into nonsense and illogic, and adopt an offensive, aggressive stance. This is essentially invading someone else's territory without permission—it is reckless, malicious, and driven by a desperate need to be right rather than a pursuit of truth. It is, quite simply, a pure manifestation of the ego. 🙏

I have always appreciated your approach (even during the times we disagreed), because you respect boundaries. I have never felt contempt, disrespect, or even the slightest threat that you might cross the line of decency or politeness, even though I know I can be quite aggravating at times 🤣. I believe such behavior stems from a deep sense of self-respect and an awareness of one's own integrity. (Of course, there is a difference when one does this intentionally—approaching boundaries as a sort of game, which I find can be unnecessarily cruel).

So, how should one deal with a crude penetrator? My view is that a person does not need to bend more than they wish to, provided they can control their own concavity. Only those lacking self-control unconsciously become victims of convexity. Others provide a flat, smooth, and cold surface that acts as a mirror to the penetrator. The aggressor remains unaware that they are merely seeing themselves reflected; they continue to believe they are observing another person, which is why they project their own character deviations onto them.

In conclusion, this is a matter of immaturity, lack of awareness, and sheer stupidity (from which evil is born in a metaphysical sense). Therefore, it is best to avoid such individuals entirely—much like avoiding mindless infantry—because you can only end up hurt. Once they finally grow up and get their heads screwed on straight, they will stop acting this way. Using a "mirror" only works if you notice a glimmer of lucidity in the person, but that usually leads to shattering their narcissistic self-image, which is incredibly painful. To escape that pain, they will either flee or double down with even greater force. You are left with two options: flight or victory at any cost, regardless of the casualties or the purpose. Both paths involve adrenaline and a level of behavior that is purely animalistic.

The point of this post is this: every victim eventually finds their killer.

Oh, and I nearly forgot to mention: I don't believe this is strictly tied to gender. Men can be just as spineless as women can be incredibly bold.

Sandra Parker3 said:it honestly feels like most people are actually pretty comfortable in their own skin

I don't really want to keep repeating myself, because to me, everyone is equally (un)worthy. In fact, I think they're here to hold up a mirror to our flaws and show us that there's a little bit of them hiding inside every one of us.

I'm not sure what the point of their existence is 🤷, but I'm convinced anyone can dig up at least a tiny grain of evil within themselves
without needing any help from some massive, global Evil that ties it all together

whether we decide to nurture it or if we'll just be fascinated by finding that little speck of darkness 🤷
is mostly up to us

When we search for ourselves, we look for the good, but we end up stumbling onto things we didn't expect either, right? (And vice versa too)

but...

"We all have villains in the US, but we also have love and peace. So why not give peace a chance for once."

so, why not?

🙂

so, why not?

🙂

so, why not?

🙂
Let's stop the guesswork; you aren't in their shoes, so just be happy about that.

I am not entirely sure what the purpose of their existence even is 🤷

If they weren't necessary, they wouldn't be here.

but I am convinced that anyone can dig up at least a tiny grain of evil within themselves
and that happens without any help from the global Evil that binds it all together

That isn't the whole story. It is easy to be kind to those who are kind, but it is precisely when we face such destructive and persistent evil that our spiritual strength and humanity are truly tested. After all, we are talking about human beings, regardless of how much trash they may be.

what will we nurture, and will we be fascinated by the grain of evil we find 🤷
the choice is mostly ours

I do not believe in the possibility of choice. Not at all.

in the search for ourselves, we look for the good, yet we stumble upon things we didn't expect, don't we? (and vice versa)

I cannot speak for you, but the goal of my journey is simply the travel itself—exploration, discovery, and understanding; I am not searching for anything specific.

"We all have villains in the US, but we also have love and peace. So why not give peace a chance for once."

because humans are a corrupt race, filthy and wicked.. and peace isn't actually what interests us; rather, as I mentioned, most people are driven by profit—do you not believe me? If you doubt it, just look around you. Perhaps there is some truth to the idea that we live in a purgatory, because this certainly isn't paradise, nor is it hell itself.

I realize my line of thinking is peculiar and perhaps sounds contradictory, but I find myself drawn to paradoxes—understanding extremes, where philanthropy bleeds into misanthropy and back again. The interventions I make in this world mean nothing more than that; as an individual, I am far too weak, too small, and too insignificant to change anything. The world certainly would not look this way if I happened to be the CEO of the universe, but I am not. And since I am not the boss, I have no right to act as a judge either. I can only be an observer. I see where I stand, and from this vantage point, I have no license to participate in the dramatic narrative where the three main characters exist: the Prosecutor, the defense attorney, and the judge. I am not even a juror or a victim; I am merely the audience, drawing intimate conclusions. I believe I am much closer to objectivity the less I involve myself and the more I maintain my position as an observer. Yet, even in this grand drama of life, that is not a rewarding role, as I witness so many things but am powerless to act. To me, it feels as though most people are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time... being human is not an easy thing to navigate.🙂

Sandra Parker3 said:It seems like you’re speaking from your own personal experience, which makes it hard for me to wrap my head around why you hold such a bleak view of everything when you have such wonderful people around you. You mentioned those bright spots earlier and said you wouldn't generalize, but honestly, it feels like that's exactly what you're doing.

What I was talking about applies to all of humanity—to civilization and people in general. I’m looking at this objectively: the colonization and systematic looting of Africa, Asia, and South America, where entire populations were humiliated through cultural genocide and forced missionary work. I mean the slave trade, the exploitation of children in sweatshops for the fashion industry, and the horrors of sexual abuse and human trafficking. I’m talking about fascism, Nazism, the business of misery, and how certain groups weaponize victimhood for blackmail. I'm talking about corrupt politics that protect criminals, the black market for human organs in North Korea, the mysteries of Easter Island, and the genocide at Srebrenica—not to mention how some people still refuse to even call it a genocide. Grand and compassionate. The core principles of Western justice and global ethics—things that have been woven into the very fabric of our civilization—all point to the fact that... People have become such predatory, selfish, greedy, cold-hearted, inhuman, disgusting pieces of trash lately—nothing matters to them except their own damn profit. Total scum, honestly. Just absolute cosmic waste. Call it whatever you want...

And you actually think all that junk and space debris... They deserve way more attention than they get, mostly because they're miserable and because... They really just need some patience and a little warmth." 😕 😕

Can you really forgive someone just for being human?

I don't believe in forgiveness—I just don't see the point. I'm pretty sure I've already ranted about this somewhere else.

Look, everything I just said actually happened in our recent past, and honestly, it’s still happening right now. Do you seriously believe people are inherently good and that they only commit these kinds of monstrous atrocities because someone else's negative energy—which I assume you're implying is mine—pushed them to it? 🤷

I wasn't really aiming that at you, why would you think that?

Some people are just pure good, others are straight-up villains; there’s always that gray area in all of us where the light and the dark kind of bleed together. 😁 everything stays within the lines

but honestly, why wouldn't you make life a little easier on yourself? all it takes is a bit of patience, chilling out, not jumping to conclusions so fast, and maybe wearing that cliché smile we all know too well
and besides, how can you be so sure... maybe if you just calm down some idiot, he won't walk through his front door and ignore his wife just because she served him lukewarm soup🤷

Absolutely! These individuals are part of the very universe we inhabit, and I am firmly convinced they are far more miserable, being nothing more than products of this tragic world. It is certainly not an easy existence to be a monster. However, I find myself disinclined to dwell on the same point repeatedly; in my view, all people possess an equal measure of value—or lack thereof. In fact, I maintain the belief that they exist here specifically to mirror our own failings, serving as reminders that a small piece of them resides within each one of us.

Drew Flores3 said:Now we're moving past individual consciousness and getting into collective consciousness... who knows, maybe you'll be the one to tip the scales toward the negative side. It's funny how we all fight our own battles, yet at the same time, we're all fighting this together.

Believe me when I say that I stand firmly on the side of light; I am certainly not one of those who seeks to spread darkness. 🙂 Besides, we are living in a Kali Yuga era, and humanity has yet to experience its true golden age; currently, only exceptional individuals emerge—those brilliant flashes of brilliance I have alluded to previously.

Thomas Garcia71 said:

they deserve even more attention, honestly... because they're hurting and they really just need some patience and warmth."

I mean, I guess there's some truth to that, if you're talking about getting them actual professional help or finding a community for them. I know from experience... I once tried to show some kindness and common sense to this totally toxic, bitter person, but man, it was such a massive waste of my time and energy.
You just can't fix everything.

I understand. 🙂 I, too, do not believe in exerting influence over others; I feel I have no right to do so, and I hold a deep disdain for manipulation, even when it is disguised with good intentions. Simply offering active attention and acknowledging a person for who they truly are is sufficient. People do not undergo transformation arbitrarily, and if they do change, it is never due to external pressure. The only genuine and profound change is that which occurs organically and solely for one's own sake.

Sandra Parker3 said:Of course you’re out there repelling people and attracting them all at the same time.

Whether you realize it or not, every single thing you do—every action, every hesitation, every tiny movement or breath—radiates out there and triggers a reaction.
That’s exactly what I meant.

Even if you spend most of your time alone, you're never truly by yourself when you're out on the subway, walking down the street, or just grabbing something at the grocery store.

What kind of reaction do you actually get when you accidentally brush past someone on the sidewalk, step on a toe, ask for the time, or hand over some wrong change? You know what I mean—do people give you a decent, "human" response with a smile, or is it just... pure hostility? 🤷

So, I guess it's worth asking: how much of what you actually do—whether it’s what you say or just how you carry yourself—ends up being perceived as "good" or "bad" by others, regardless of what you actually intended? It’s kind of a heavy thought, isn't it? Have you ever really sat down and wondered about the impact you're having on the rest of humanity like that?
Just try to forget that I was actually the one asking you. 😁)

I choose my own circle, which usually just means me being by myself. Most people tend to get on my nerves, but when I actually do hang out with others, everyone’s free to act however they want. I'm not about setting rules or laying down conditions. I'm all in on this.....

I can't believe you're just swallowing everything they feed you.
You can endure just about anything, but acceptance feels less like peace and more like a shrug—like you’re just saying, "Whatever, keep going." Honestly, believing in that whole "accept everything" mantra is a massive stretch because, let's be real, don't you just want to turn around and walk away?

You don't need to go around policing everyone else's behavior; you just need to learn how to actually hold your own boundaries.

Even if... I can't believe I'm even wasting my breath on this level of stupidity. Total idiots.Honestly, the more unfiltered and direct a person is, the more I actually like them. I don't care if they're labeled "good" or "bad"—they both get the same amount of my attention, really. The wicked actually deserve even more attention, mostly because they're just miserable souls who desperately need some patience and warmth. I’ve always found that the anatomy of malice is way more interesting than the anatomy of goodness.

And that absolute piece of work is...????

That bolded part is just a mistake.
Dangerous.

Just one little thing, just one tiny detail... Is there really no room among good people for those who are struggling—those just craving a little attention, some genuine care, a bit of patience, or even just a shred of warmth?

I don't really get what you're trying to say. 😕

That was just a direct continuation of the text; I only added those line breaks to really drive home the distinction between what pushes people away and what draws them in. It’s just a trait. It’s just about people.

So, does what I do actually ripple out and show up in someone else as either good or bad?
Am I mostly a force for good or a force for evil?
I was actually part of that section where you were mostly venting about all those bad experiences, so I figured it’s worth reflecting on—not just for you, but for everyone—how much of that mess is actually our own fault.

why should we even bother reacting? 🤷

because by reacting—whether we actually do something or just sit there—we've already made our move

what is your reaction actually going to accomplish? change things for the better? change someone who just keeps doing the exact same things that drive you crazy?

our response can actually make a difference
you've never once managed to settle a spirit with nothing more than a casual, easygoing smile... have you?
i certainly have
and it could have gone differently too
well, sure... if I hadn't just sulked and instead spoke up, I might have actually shifted the whole situation

...do you really think it's right to expect people to only do what suits you? don't you find that a bit narcissistic?...

maybe selfish or just plain thoughtless??? but usually, it's totally ineffective
so that's not what I'm looking for

but just so we're clear... not expecting someone to dance to my tune doesn't mean I'm not going to react to a terrible dance😁

Every reaction is just a reflection of one's own brokenness and internal conflicts; a self-aware individual accepts and respects this because they KNOW.

I don't get it, why does a reaction necessarily have to be negative in your eyes? 🤷

Well, that specific part of your comment certainly clarifies things.

To be clear, I am not recounting any personal grievances here. I am simply stating that people can be untrustworthy, malicious, and greedy, though those are not my personal observations—as if life has somehow coddled me or the people I associate with aren't wonderful, which wouldn't be the case if they weren't my friends in the first place 😍 What I have laid out refers to the broader scope of humanity and civilization at large. I am speaking objectively about the history of continents like Africa, Asia, and South America being colonized, looted, and humiliated; the cultural genocide and missionary work forced upon indigenous populations; the slave trade; the exploitation of children in sweatshops within the fashion industry; sexual abuse and human trafficking; and ideologies like fascism or Nazism. I am also referring to the economy of suffering, the glorification of victimhood used for blackmail (such as Zionism or certain social movements), corrupt political systems that shield criminality, the black market for human flesh in North Korea, the tragedies of Easter Island, and the genocide in Srebrenica—all while great and humane American and international justice continues to deny such atrocities occurred. This is woven into the very fabric of our civilization, proving that humans are, at their core, predatory, selfish, grasping, cold, and utterly inhuman creatures driven solely by profit. Call them scum, call them filth, call them cosmic waste; name it whatever you wish.

Is a person truly capable of being forgiven simply for being human?

The events occurring in my immediate vicinity feel insignificant to me; thank God, I have never been a part of any greater crime 🙏

EDIT: Every single thing I mentioned took place in our recent history and continues to unfold today. Do you honestly believe that people are inherently good and that they are only driven to commit such monstrous acts by someone else's negative energy (which I assume you were implying was mine)? 🤷

Jose Ramirez36 said:So, what you call acceptance, I call forgiveness.

Furthermore, you suggest that finding the root cause is essential for your ability to accept others—yet, at the same time, you claim you don't seek justifications from them (though, if I may be so bold, it seems you are seeking them after all). As for this idea of a "moral vertical"—I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. And regarding attributing divine qualities to "forgiveness"... well, I find that somewhat misplaced here, as that isn't really the point of our exchange. This isn't a theological debate; it's a discussion about one's own spirituality.

That is your way of processing the world, and certainly, who am I to tell you that your method is incorrect? However, I will mention that I once operated under that same philosophy—preferring my own solitude and finding most social interactions equally irritating. But then, I began to question myself and my own perception of the things that typically vex me—realizing much of it was tied to the ego. Since then, I have moved toward understanding and accepting both myself and my surroundings; I have gradually developed a deeper insight into the complexity of human relationships and how closely they are tethered to the ego and the individual struggles of those we encounter.

When I assert that forgiveness is divine work, I am not making a religious argument; rather, I mean that true forgiveness can only be granted by those who have never erred—those who remain pure and innocent. I do not believe in human forgiveness because, as I have previously maintained, people act primarily out of self-interest. In most instances, people forgive, or merely attempt to project the image of forgiving, simply to elevate their own standing and establish themselves as a moral authority.

Furthermore, you suggest that finding the root cause of a problem is essential for you to accept it—yet, at the same time, you claim you aren't looking for justifications from others (even though you clearly are).

No, that is incorrect; as I have already stated, I hold no grudges against anyone, which means there is nothing to forgive. Seeking to understand a person is also driven by self-interest; my personal gain in this matter is my own peace and tranquility. If I comprehend human impulses and motives, it implies a sense of closeness, yet understanding should never be a prerequisite for forgiveness. If one chooses to forgive, they should do so unconditionally, rather than doing it because ___________ 😉 (imagine whatever you wish on that line)

For in my view, whenever forgiveness is invoked, an expectation gallops alongside it with equal intensity—for instance: "I forgive you now, but I hope you never do it again!" 🤣 Such things do not exist for me. Once you truly accept and understand a person (which primarily necessitates accepting and understanding oneself), you cease to have expectations. You realize that patterns will repeat because you have gained insight into that individual's character and their predictable behavior. If someone does not suit you, you simply keep your distance; if you harbor resentment only to forgive it later, you are merely revealing your own internal contradictions and personal struggles. It is only when you transcend, analyze, and accept your own issues that we can speak of genuine acceptance.

This discussion is not about religion, but about one's own spirituality.

One's "personal" spirituality does not exclude the recurring themes of God, religiosity, prayer, morality, benevolence, or grace...

Sandra Parker3 said:It’s worth taking a moment to really ask ourselves:

I often wonder just how much power or skill I actually possess... what kind of energy I’m putting out there... and to what extent I can actually draw the best qualities out of another person—you know, things like empathy, kindness, being sociable, compassion, a willingness to help, or just being cooperative... blah blah blah.

I honestly wonder how much my own actions—whether I’m speaking up or just being myself—actually end up blocking those qualities from ever coming through.

It’s not even about how much I can't stand those kinds of people—since most folks aren't actually stuck in that black-and-white mindset—it's more about how much I end up blocking out whatever good is left in a single person.
Well, look at that—it's in the second one.
Thirdly...

Everyone just does what they can or what they have to, and if they choose to go their own way... With all my fits of rage. They can live how they want; who am I to judge? 🤷

It isn't just about people losing their tempers; it’s about those specific behaviors that rub us the wrong way, even when they aren't driven by anger or any kind of emotional outburst.

Every single day we run into these little annoyances that just get under our skin, and honestly, we’ve only got two ways to handle them: we can either stay chill or just let it all go to hell.

I personally do not reject anything, nor do I attempt to attract anything specific; I simply choose my own company, which is mostly my own. Most people tend to get on my nerves, but when they are in my presence, everyone has every right to behave however they please. I do not establish rules, I set no conditions, and I accept everything absolutely. Even the more unrefined individuals—in fact, the more free and uninhibited a person is, the more I prefer them. To me, they are just as significant as those labeled "evil" or "good," and both deserve equal attention. In truth, those who act poorly often require even more attention because they are fundamentally unhappy, and dealing with them necessitates true patience and warmth. The anatomy of malice is always far more intriguing to me than the anatomy of goodness.

it is not about how many people I reject (as those with a black-and-white worldview are in the minority), but rather... to what extent I block the positive potential within a single individual,
then in another,
and then a third...

I fail to grasp the point you are trying to make. 😕

we aren't just talking about outbursts of anger, but about various behaviors that bother us which aren't necessarily reflections of rage or similar states.

On any given day, we encounter numerous minor situations that irritate us, and we have two ways to respond: calmly or destructively.

Why should one feel compelled to react at all? 🤷 What can a reaction truly accomplish? Can it improve things? Can it change a person who constantly repeats the very behaviors you find bothersome? Do you really believe it is virtuous to expect others to act solely in ways that suit your preferences? Is that not, in itself, somewhat narcissistic?

Every reaction is merely a reflection of one's own fractures and internal conflicts; a self-aware individual accepts and respects, because they KNOW.

Jose Ramirez36 said:

My focus here was intended to address more subtle issues—the kind of problems that don't quite qualify as "crimes," yet can still trigger immense stress, drive people apart, or lead to fractured relationships (all of which can stem from an inability to forgive or, conversely, from being too subservient to a bruised ego). In this light, I find myself at odds with Mr. Voltaire.

When discussing more heinous crimes, I am not necessarily asserting that Voltaire is correct, but such cases certainly invite a much deeper discussion.
Alright, fine, because based on what you just said—that "it’s not their fault, it’s just their environment"—it sounds like you're basically arguing that nobody is actually responsible for their own actions.
I’d really like to emphasize the word "responsibility" here, rather than "guilt."

Personal responsibility isn't some level playing field. It’s impossible to compare someone who grew up surrounded by trauma and toxic motives to someone raised in a healthy, spiritually grounded environment where they were actually taught values like empathy and tolerance. I know I'm just looking at two extremes here, but the point still stands. At the start, we all begin on level ground—just humans with the exact same baseline potential. We try our best to live by values like love, tolerance, empathy, and understanding, genuinely believing they're worth cultivating within ourselves—but let’s be real, the environment we grow up in and the way we're raised inevitably corrupt those ideals, more or less, as we evolve.

I honestly think personal responsibility kicks in somewhere around that same age for everyone—roughly at the same time, regardless of how you were raised or what kind of environment you grew up in.

The moment we actually realize that our actions carry consequences, that’s when we finally become responsible for every single choice we make.

People who grew up in toxic environments or just never had the right upbringing tend to lack basic empathy—it’s like they aren't even capable of taking responsibility for their own actions.

Even if you strip away their humanity, they still know exactly what they're doing and the fallout they'll cause. At the end of the day, it's their own choice.

I honestly believe our primary responsibility lies in the environment we build and the legacy we leave behind for those following us, specifically through how we shape and raise the next generation.

You’re talking about being responsible for others, but I was actually asking about personal accountability. People lean on their circumstances way too often just to dodge the consequences of their own mistakes or bad behavior.

I guess you could say this doesn't have much to do with forgiveness, but still...
What does it actually mean to forgive?
Is the ultimate goal really just to make yourself feel good?
je

Look, I’ll put it this way... instead of constantly talking about forgiveness, maybe we should focus on mindfulness—both toward ourselves and everyone else. It's more about actually accepting and understanding why people mess up in the first place.
To me, the word "forgiveness" just feels like a polite way of saying you're discarding someone—like you're erasing them or just canceling out what happened entirely. Personally, I’ve never been able to stomach that kind of logic.
I don't buy this whole idea of having sins wiped clean. You can't just erase them; you have to live with them, whether they're your own messes or someone else's. I think true peace comes from finding a way to carry that weight, not from pretending it never happened.

This thread was always more about those smaller, nagging issues—the kind that don't quite reach the level of actual crimes but still mess with your head. We’re talking about things that trigger stress, drive people apart, and leave relationships a total wreck, usually because someone's nursing a bruised ego instead of just practicing a little forgiveness. In that sense, I have to say I disagree with Voltaire.

When it comes to the most heinous crimes, I’m still not saying Voltaire is absolutely right, but there is definitely some room for debate in those kinds of situations.

It’s honestly ridiculous how people take Voltaire's words and use them to justify some of the most heinous crimes you can imagine.
If you look at things through a slightly more flexible lens, isn't every single action that ultimately triggers stress... a "crime"? 🤷

The way I see it, he’s basically saying that if you close your eyes, you're just clearing the path for more "crimes" to happen.
On this particular point, I find myself in agreement with you. "Forgiveness" might indeed be the imprecise term here, though acceptance and understanding are likely the essential first steps on the road toward it. To begin, one must attempt to understand (and accept), and then—depending entirely upon the circumstances of the "offense"—forgiveness either follows or it does not.

Consider, for instance, a scenario where Person A harms Person B. Person B might reach a level of understanding, yet if that "offense" is a recurring pattern, the likelihood of Person A being forgiven remains slim. Conversely, should Person A express genuine remorse, the probability of Person B granting forgiveness increases. In both instances, an offense occurred and understanding was sought, but the ultimate outcome of forgiveness remained contingent upon specific variables—variables that shift with every situation and depend heavily on the nature of the relationship itself—meaning we could likely debate this indefinitely without ever arriving at some universal formula or rule.

Ultimately, a more fitting title for this discussion might have been "Forgiveness vs. Understanding vs. Ego," but I suppose understanding and acceptance are so intrinsically linked to forgiveness that there was little sense in listing them separately.
This is precisely what I was implying in my previous post. The concept of forgiveness itself holds very little interest for me, as I find it somewhat hollow. It is far more vital to identify the true root of the issue, for that is the only way to ensure the problem ceases to be a problem. Once you learn to see people for who they truly are and accept them, you stop demanding justifications from them because their circumstances become clear. You simply stop placing yourself on some high moral pedestal, attempting to adjudicate matters as grand as divine forgiveness. 🙂

Jose Ramirez36 said:Lately—well, perhaps "lately" is an understatement, as this has been weighing on me for quite some time now—I have found myself feeling rather stressed. It has led me to wonder: is the fault lying with my environment, or is it simply my own internal reaction to the circumstances that trigger this tension?

It brings to mind a specific period during my high school years—a stretch of several months where I had adopted what one might call an almost relentlessly positive outlook. Back then, I held the conviction that people were fundamentally good at their core; that love, empathy, tolerance, and understanding ought to take precedence over the ego. By this, of course, I am referring primarily to our interpersonal connections. If a conflict arose, or if someone should happen to offend me—whether by design or mere accident—I would simply forgive them in that very moment and let it go.

Over time, however, I drifted away from that mindset toward something more... conventional—a state where the ego plays a far more prominent role. I didn't even notice the transition; I certainly didn't give it much thought at the time. Now, looking back after all these years, it seems to me that during that phase of constant forgiveness, I was significantly more carefree and composed. I moved through a larger social circle, and there was a certain pervasive positivity within my own mind.

One might argue that forgiveness is merely an escape from reality, given that it doesn't actually rectify the external event that caused the initial sting—that bruise to the ego, as it were. But then again, does that truly matter if the act of forgiving allows the individual to feel better and more optimistic? At least, that was certainly my experience when I lived by that particular philosophy.

I find myself curious about how others approach this. Do you weigh your relationships and friendships based on a sense of equilibrium—feeling that both parties must receive an equal measure of benefit? Or is that less important to you than minimizing the sensitivity of your ego and simply forgiving whatever causes friction?

While it is true that people can often behave like cattle, it seems unfair to generalize based on those rare instances of brilliance. As a species, humanity has largely proven itself unworthy of trust. Most individuals are driven strictly by self-interest and the pursuit of profit in whatever form it takes; those who possess genuine benevolence or consideration as part of their fundamental character are exceedingly rare, and even when they do exist, their virtues are frequently overlooked or undervalued.

I am curious to know how others view this matter. When evaluating relationships and friendships, do you weigh them based on whether both parties are receiving an equal benefit, or is that secondary to your goal of minimizing ego and simply forgiving whatever causes offense?

I have never found it necessary to measure, weigh, or trade in the currency of friendship and emotional connections. I find great interest in observing the people who pass through my life, attempting to evaluate them based on their conduct, their speech, their manners, and their body language. While I maintain a certain level of caution, I generally harbor no grudges and never demand that others offer explanations or apologies, even when they certainly deserve to. I am neither vindictive nor overly sentimental; rather, I view every situation that has the potential to hurt me as a personal test or a simple lesson. Those who cause harm to me ultimately inflict more damage upon themselves and their own karma than they ever could upon mine. I do not imbue the act of forgiveness with any romanticized or noble connotations; quite simply, everyone acts according to what they are capable of or what they must do. If a person can live with their own inner rage, who am I to sit in judgment? 🤷

fadedskipper52 said:It seems we had a bit of a misunderstanding, rukfas. Your subconscious is crying out for a sense of "release"—it needs to let go of traumas, sadness, stress, fears, and all those other abstract burdens we carry. Everything you write is essentially a reflection of yourself (just like it is for the rest of us), filtered through that deep subconscious layer. The ego then misinterprets this data, creating a desperate need to prove a reality that exists entirely outside of yourself. And what does that kind of proving lead to? It leads to a total lack of awareness regarding your own actions!

That message you sent to Miller was, to put it mildly, pretty rude. Are you really suggesting that people should treat you with absolute awe just because you have certain insights? It’s not like Miller is the one looking for adult content—which isn't inherently a bad thing—but rather, his subconscious is simply revealing who he truly is.

Everything you "see" is merely filtered through the lens of your own subconscious and personal perception. Is it not simply a reflection of who you are?

If your ego ends up taking the driver's seat, you are heading down a very dangerous path! I strongly advise you to give this some serious thought. A massive shift is on the horizon for you, isn't it? Ultimately, whether that change leads to success or disaster depends entirely on you!

Keep this in mind: everything in the world is actually perfectly fine! The reality we experience is merely a reflection of our own internal state. So, if we perceive something as "bad"—though that’s entirely relative, isn't it? It might not feel bad to everyone else—then that negativity actually resides within us. Isn't that right? We must look inward to find the answers we seek. Otherwise, the world remains in perfect harmony, and it becomes clear that it is only a matter of time before everyone else realizes the same thing!

As long as we find ourselves chasing external validation to prove our enlightenment—or any other internal state—something within us remains fundamentally out of alignment. Don't you think?

Very well articulated! I could not have said it better myself.😁

Here is how the Hermeticists describe the state of enlightenment:

ETERNAL VIGILANCE

To truly survive such an experience, one must master sleep—not merely as a symbolic concept, but in its most literal sense. Nighttime slumber can be viewed as that specific density within Matter which must be thinned out so that the inner Light might shine through, much like the Apuleian 'Sun that shines in the middle of the night.' In this way, we naturally achieve a state of 'separation' every single night, a process that philosophers strive to perfect. As I have noted previously, we cannot simply drift; we must act with intention to witness this transformation, behaving as if we are the very cause of our own becoming, rather than succumbing to diminished and weakened states of consciousness.

Julius Evola

or perhaps Corpus Hermeticum:

The body’s sleep became the soul’s lucidity; even while my eyes were closed, they beheld the Truth.

John Jones3 said:You aren't responsible for anyone—in fact, you kind of detach from everyone else; you become an observer waiting to be called upon rather than forcing yourself into the spotlight.
It was rough at first—I lost ground in every area because I couldn't handle the "enlightenment attacks"—but eventually, I adjusted.
I can say I’ve lived my whole life properly just to be enlightened, and honestly, I always was—but before those "attacks," I hit rock bottom. It’s a phase you have to pass through, I guess; everything looks bleak, you lose yourself in the daily grind, and everything feels gray, lifeless, monotonous, and boring. The world seems ugly and it's hard to be part of it—though, as they say, "the night is darkest before the dawn." Being enlightened is a state where you simply Are and nothing else—you just love your neighbor without even thinking about bad deeds, your goals are met easily, and everything you do is done with love. People sense it, so you're constantly surrounded by folks who adore you and put you on a pedestal—even if solitude would sometimes be the better move. A person who has opened their heart chakra enough to feel love as warmth in their chest is on the path. Once you master—or rather, control—all seven chakras, you're left with "levels 8 and 9." The key ones are 3, 6, and finally enlightenment at "level 9"—some claim there are 10 levels, but I don't buy that, or at least I haven't reached them yet. It isn't always wonderful being enlightened; sometimes it’s just a burden you carry, and self-doubt only intensifies—making the search for oneself feel like an impossible mission where you never quite grasp who or what you are. Still, some things are worth searching for eternally, and that's the point—you're always on the path, or as you might say, riding your own horse. I’ve received plenty of answers through visions of our existence and other invisible realms, but I still don't know who I am or where I am—maybe that's why it could be said I'm not enlightened, just like those of yours who refuse to call themselves that.👍

Indeed, that profound darkness of the soul. Bela Hamvas noted that he endured such a period for forty years, and he remains one of those individuals whom I perceive as truly enlightened and conscious.

I can never quite grasp who I am or what my purpose is, yet there are certain truths worth pursuing eternally; perhaps that pursuit itself constitutes enlightenment. One is always on the journey, or as you say, riding one's own horse. I have received many answers through visions regarding our existence and other unseen realms, but I still do not know who I am or where I stand. Perhaps that is precisely why it could be said that I am not enlightened, much like those of your circle who refuse to claim such a title for themselves.👍

I truly cannot say; perhaps the limitation lies within me, as I have never personally experienced enlightenment and therefore may lack the capacity to recognize an enlightened person. I have only encountered spontaneous flashes in the form of visions—extremely rare, yet invariably prophetic. While I still harbor doubts regarding your own enlightenment, that sense of bliss and undisturbed existence which you describe likely mirrors what you believe you have achieved. However, I advise caution, for the path is riddled with illusions and traps, filled with veils and mysteries waiting to be unveiled. I am aware of certain Buddhist monks who pursue their path toward enlightenment by walking under ascetic conditions for eleven years straight. Halfway through, they renounce food, water, and sleep; only those who survive may proceed, and very few among them ever reach the ultimate destination.

Once enlightenment is attained, there are no further objectives! Realization is the absolute and ultimate pinnacle, the sole purpose of existence. Everything else serves merely to feed the ego.

John Jones3 said:Not really—I consider myself enlightened, and I haven't "ridden" anywhere.

Modern society is exactly what you described, but global peace and stability could actually stem from mass enlightenment. Just striving and devouring spiritual books is worlds apart from actually living it—that’s where people trip up—too much reading and not enough actual work on oneself. That seems to be the core issue today.

Whew!

Look, I am genuinely happy if you truly are enlightened and if you inhabit your own essence—if that is indeed who you ARE—but I have to admit that I remain skeptical. I know plenty of people who are deeply spiritual and possess an incredibly high level of self-awareness, but they didn't reach that state simply by reading spiritual books. They achieved it through decades of active, rigorous pursuit and work. Yet, not a single one of them would ever dare to claim they are enlightened. Those are powerful individuals whose mere presence provides a sense of revitalization.

I assume this also implies that you bear responsibility for those around you who are not yet enlightened. Tell me, what does it actually feel like to be enlightened?

John Jones3 said:Enlightenment is the ultimate state of the spirit—obviously we need it, and we’re more than ready. History is full of enlightened souls who left their mark on human progress.

There are two types of people: those for whom spirituality and holiness are just subjects of study—which is incredibly common nowadays since it mostly just builds the ego rather than doing the opposite—leading to forum debates about who is at a "higher level" of development, and then there are those who actually live out their spirituality and holiness. Those are the ones who will eventually reach enlightenment.

Knowledge, wisdom, and enlightenment, above all else.

I also maintain that such enlightenment is necessary, yet I believe we are not quite prepared for it; much like you, I feel that many individuals approach this path incorrectly, though the sheer persistence they exhibit is moving and remains an absolute necessity.

However, it appears that the Age of Enlightenment failed to yield its intended fruit. One need only look around to see the destructive and apocalyptic civilization in which we currently reside—a society built upon entirely misguided and inhumane values of materialism and consumerism. It is a neurotic era, and if I may borrow the sentiment of a great American thinker, it is one characterized by cynicism toward lofty ideals, where individuals strive more to be perceived as "right" than to actually be righteous.

Slavery and witch hunts have not been eradicated; they have merely been syncopated. While the focal points and methods have shifted, the fundamental impulse to persecute and hate persists, leaving fear and demoralization to govern the world.

There are two types of people: those for whom spirituality and holiness are merely subjects of academic study—a trend that is quite prevalent today because it serves to bolster the ego rather than diminish it, leading to petty arguments even on forums about who is at a higher level of development—and then there are those who truly live their spirituality and holiness, and they will eventually achieve enlightenment.

Indeed, there are two categories of people: the enlightened and the unenlightened. Regrettably, the former constitutes a significantly smaller percentage of the population, and as for who might eventually reach enlightenment, I would not dare to make a prediction; we likely never will know.

Knowledge, wisdom, and enlightenment above all else.

Alas, there is far too much posturing on the way to getting there.

John Jones3 said:Rationalism is a theory of knowledge—a philosophical school suggesting objective reality can only be grasped through thought, built entirely on the mind, reason, and intellect.
The Enlightenment is an entirely different beast; read Zadig by Voltaire and you might actually see the distinction.

Very well, let us accept your premise, though it does little to soothe my inherent skepticism regarding the Enlightenment. While I would not describe myself as a particularly religious person—truthfully, not at all—I cannot help but wonder why the gods seem so relentlessly cruel toward the mythological enlighteners, such as Eve, Prometheus, and Lucifer. What, then, truly constitutes enlightenment? Is it something we actually require? Are we even capable of handling it?

I find myself reflecting on these questions quite frequently, yet a definitive answer remains elusive. One must ask whether the widespread availability of sacred texts has contributed to the profanation of the holy. Is true knowledge and profound insight something that can be acquired instantly, or is it a pursuit reserved for a select few who were willing to renounce worldly comforts to devote themselves to the Divine?

What, in the final analysis, has the Enlightenment actually provided us that is good? 🤷

Olivia Walker30 said:I recall reading somewhere that Voice stepped away due to a surgical procedure. That provides a bit of peace of mind. However, I feel compelled to mention that she didn't exactly show much courage by avoiding the treacherous waters of mainstream commercialism. 😁

On another note, these past few days have felt somewhat somber to me. 😍

Cosmetic surgery for vocal cords? 😁