feralheron17 said:First off, good luck with the mod gig. I wish the same to your new team. By the way, I think the philosophy sub-forum is in a serious crisis. And yeah, you might remember me from a few posts: I think you're a solid choice for moderator. I've been on plenty of forums (many offered me mod roles, but I turned them down—I don't have the heart to lecture or ban people), and there's no debating taste: personally, I believe the more rules and bans there are based on the principle that unprovoked insults from any side are punished, the calmer the atmosphere stays. As you get older, you stop judging people by how they present themselves and start watching how they react. In places like the American South, you only have to scratch the surface to see people sink much lower than anyone would ever dream. If someone crosses me, I give it right back to them. I have to be honest about that, even if it means I cut off any chance of ever speaking to that person again. They usually end up going to the mods or...aliveparents seeking to return to their primal state: I think the vibe on American forums has shifted radically for the better since the late '90s. I’m seeing moderators on certain boards who actually do an incredible job at policing the chaos. You’re still chasing shadows, Epure. I haven't spent much time hanging out in those spaces, especially regarding philosophy topics. I took a quick look at alim's profile: nothing irritating there. He writes in that cryptic, gnomic style. If you want to read it and find value, go ahead. If not, just skip it. It’s easy to know exactly what you’re getting into without having to be cynical about it. The American Internet has everything. With all due respect to opposing views, I have to distance myself from the idea of harmlessness: there are losers, people with massive inferiority complexes, thugs, hunters of all kinds, and female masturbators who are far worse than the men—mostly because it’s beneath them, especially when they start joining the guys: I believe I have every right to say that. The Internet played a vital role in my life: chatting with the opposite sex, finding information, exchanging views with mature people ready for actual discussion... This spirituality-religion forum doesn't have to be bad. Whenever I have the time, I’ll post something useful, which most of my previous posts here already prove. Regardless, I think this subforum, with casualtiger2, his associates, and the regulars here, offers its own unique perspective. 🙂
Just being honest, direct, "insider," constructive, and coming from a good place... 👍
I want more posts like this—from anyone on the forum. 😍
goldeneagle2 said:The logic in Comanche is pretty sound, honestly. There isn't really a way to "fix" things here. People should just pick what works for them. Personally, I just stick to the first few topics at the top of the list. I glance at what Mona uploaded in those PDFs, skim through the new announcements, maybe chip in a thought here and there—and that's about it for me.
Honestly, it sucks that things turned out this way and that so many of the old guard—the good ones—hardly show up anymore. I know how hard it is to change a community like this; usually, all that effort barely moves the needle. Still, I want this place to be worth reading—not just for the veterans, but for anyone just starting their spiritual journey. I want it to be educational, engaging, and, frankly, fun. I want someone who's thinking about heading out to a bar or a club to think, "Actually, let's just check out the spiritual forum first!" 😁 And I'm willing to fight for that—for a little while, anyway—with everything I've got.
Richard Walker79 said:Well, I don't actually have those democratic rights, which is exactly why I'm telling you that using the word "drugs" isn't scientific; it's just a derogatory term. Why would we use offensive language when there's a perfectly valid scientific term like psychedelic?
Quincy:
Maybe you're one of those "drugs elevated me, thank goodness" types, but hundreds of thousands of others have been ruined by them. Similarly, I'm not banning "free speech"—after all, you have various threads, and you're free to say what you think right here. So, you're just making things up. As far as I'm concerned—the end.
Please understand that "drugs" is an insulting word. How would you react as a Christian if wine was labeled a drug and associated with addicts?
I won't even bother commenting on those hundreds of thousands who were supposedly ruined by psychedelics because that is 1000% a lie. But now I see you're talking about drugs... This is the perfect example! I am discussing psychedelics, yet you are bringing up all kinds of drugs and just creating confusion. Where is the freedom in that? And why is the topic regarding the spiritual use of cannabis closed? Why can't we specify that we are talking about psychedelics rather than just any old drug?
First off—just to be clear—this isn't a discussion about psychedelics or using them.
What democratic rights am I missing here? Most people in the United States have already voted for their representatives—who, in turn, passed the laws that govern this entire forum. As far as I’m concerned, those rules are more than enough direction for me. If you want to talk about psychedelics—and honestly, why should the word "drug" be considered offensive or unscientific when we're talking about heroin?—go for it. No one is stopping you. You’ve got at least two other threads open right now that cover that ground perfectly. As for me? I’m definitely not going to be the one to unlock a thread that my colleague already shut down. If you’re trying to spark some kind of revolution or force your views on people—basically insisting you're the only one who's right—then you've picked the wrong place to hang out. Think whatever you want and lay out your arguments, but people are going to say what they're going to say. That's just how it works. Look, if you’ve got a specific take on what defines a psychedelic versus what’s just straight-up a drug—make a dedicated thread for that. If you want to argue whether people should accept them or not, stick to those specific discussions. Don't mix the two.
Look, I think it’s great that you shared your experiences with psychedelics—really, it is—but don't expect everyone to see it through the same lens you do. People interpret things differently. I honestly think there’s a direct link here to spirituality—to the point where things like meditation, yoga, chanting mantras, or even just falling in love actually change your physiology. It really does—your body starts pumping out its own natural "happiness hormones." The whole point is that we're talking about hormones inherent to the body—things that don't wreck your nervous system, your physical health, or your psyche. Beyond that, they’re essentially just a direct byproduct of a person's own willpower, mental drive, and emotional state. In that sense, I’d have to go with what Sanja said. Quincy:
If what you're saying actually holds water, then hemp is one hell of a teacher.
Look, the whole point of being a teacher is to eventually make yourself obsolete—to get those students to a point where they’ve truly mastered the material and can fly solo without needing you anymore.
A teacher's job isn't to make students dependent on them—it's to make themselves obsolete.
So, are you actually suggesting that one of the logical outcomes of using weed for spiritual reasons is... just quitting the whole thing?
And one last thing—this isn't a thread about psychedelics. Nor is it some deep dive into global conspiracies.
Andrew Sanchez572 said:I am firmly in favor of the idea that spirituality should return to the realm of religion.
Look, spirituality exists wherever it wants to—it doesn't really care about location. It could be happening on the moon for all I care—as long as you're writing something wise, that's what matters.
Richard Walker79 said:I honestly believe psychedelic spirituality is mandatory and irreplaceable—meditation and those other practices are just human-made substitutes for psychedelics—when it comes to spiritual growth. You can think whatever you want, but reality tells a different story, and history backs me up. You’ve stated your opinion, which goes against free speech and restricts the freedom to practice spirituality; I don't think you should be using your personal views to drive your moderator decisions. Otherwise, you're just a straight-up autocrat.
Basically, using the word "drugs" is just an insulting slur used by anyone opposed to using psychedelics for spiritual purposes. You're ignoring that argument entirely.
An autocrat? Please. Take it or leave it. 😍 Didn't expect us to dive into the whole "evil moderator" vs. "righteous wolf" drama this quickly. Instead of us chasing each other around the forum later, here's my honest suggestion—go gather more than half the votes from active users who want me to retire into legend—voluntarily.
You believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe. It's fine. I'm not banning anyone's "freedom to practice spirituality." The fact that you feel spirituality *must* involve drugs is your issue—and eventually, it'll be an issue for your family, the police, or the courts. Plenty of people understand spirituality differently. So, you're in the minority, and as such, you have all the rights and responsibilities of a minority. Pure democracy.
Maybe you're one of those "drugs elevated me, thank God" types, but hundreds of thousands of others found enlightenment through something else. And for the record, I'm not banning "free speech"—you've got plenty of threads, and you're free to say what you think right here. So, stop making things up. As far as I'm concerned—the end.
Richard Walker79 said:I would kindly ask that the thread regarding "(Evil) drug use and spirituality?" be renamed to something more appropriate, as the word "drugs" carries such a negative and derogatory connotation. My suggestion: "Psychedelic spirituality."
Look, people can't possibly read everything posted here. The current title works fine for me, and there are a few reasons why. 1. My (more experienced) fellow moderator changed it. 2. I don't have any personal experience with drugs—and honestly, I'm not a big fan of using them for spiritual purposes (maybe in extreme cases, during specific developmental stages, under strict supervision, and for very select individuals) 3. It's good that this topic exists and that we're discussing it, but don't expect me to be particularly sympathetic—the damage people suffer is just too high (I've seen it firsthand in my own circle) for me to easily buy into the whole "using drugs for spiritual growth" idea—especially since some teenagers probably read this forum too. 4. In my view, there are no shortcuts on the spiritual path, and drugs aren't going to help you get there.
Edward Flores4 said:"Bringing something to the table" is such a loaded phrase... I’m not really out here making offers. Part of that is just pure laziness on my part, but the other part is this belief that everything should be exactly how it is—messy and imperfect. See, perfection is an endpoint, and once you hit the end of everything, there's nothing left to do 🙂
Honestly, after your last post, I don't feel like I have much more to contribute to the core subject. That post from Amanda Roberts21 did a stellar job of distilling the essentials. We should probably be paying attention to the ideas themselves rather than getting hung up on people's identities. If anything, that should be the "trademark" of any spiritual pursuit... don't you think?
You definitely caught onto my temperament... though I wouldn't say my fuse is short, it's more that I tend to get "hooked" on things—and yeah, you nailed it. I have plenty of patience to go around, but I don't just hand it out to anyone by default. I reserve my patience for good ideas; when it comes to people obsessing over their own identities, I usually just meet them with my own stubborn sense of self.
Looking at what you wrote, though, your vision for how moderation should work is actually quite sound, and I don't really have anything to argue with. This PDF has some genuinely solid concepts buried in there, but they're pretty deeply smothered by vanity and this constant parade of egos. I wish you nothing but luck and a massive amount of patience with the moderator duties... you're going to need it, because that "ego parade" always seems to happen right under the noses of local "dictators."
Just so we're clear, I don't expect the members or the mods to put up with my little "avatar strolls," so if I ever get banned for being a nuisance, I totally get it. I realize that letting me slide might trigger a massive protest right outside the "main office," and I know firsthand that dealing with those kinds of crowds can be a real pain in the ass. 🙂
Anyway... that's all I've got on the topic. 😁
I don't buy the lazy act. You write well and with plenty of depth. 😍 Your "philosophy" is more than enough for me.
Quincy:
Attention should be paid to ideas, not identities. That ought to be the trademark of psychedelic spirituality... right? ... This PDF has some genuinely great ideas, but they're buried pretty deep under all the fashion statements and identity parades. Good luck with the moderation—you’ll need it—because those "identity parades" always seem to happen right outside the window of local "dictators."
As for dictators, I couldn't care less. But I'm not sure just focusing on ideas is a productive way to run this forum. The reality is we only see what's typed—just fragments of thought—not the history, the context, or the intent behind them. We don't get to experience someone's emotions, their smile, their tears, or even their eyes, let alone what they've been through. Behind every username is a living, breathing person. And every person is a star in their own right. So, separating spirituality from personality—from its struggles, abilities, hopes, and fears—seems wrong to me. Even if it is the ego, it's the only tool we have to act like a small lamp, lighting up the darkness around us. So I say—let's embrace our personalities, our egos. And for those who are "above it all," well, it doesn't matter anyway. Those who get it, will get it.
Quincy:
You caught my short fuse perfectly... actually, it's not that the fuse is short, it's just that I tend to "get hooked" on things—and that's spot on. I have plenty of patience, but I don't just hand it out by default. I give my patience to ideas; I give my own stubbornness to annoying identities.
Yet, you were perfectly civil with my slightly provocative questions. 👍
Quincy:
I don't expect the members or the mods to tolerate my "avatar strolls," so if I ever get banned for it... I'll give you full credit. I know that tolerating it might trigger mass protests right outside the moderator's balcony, and I know that can be a real pain in the ass. 🙂
Anyway... staying on topic. 😁
I have zero intention of banning anyone right now—especially not high-quality contributors like you. Honestly, the thought of banning someone (or even just deleting a post) is pretty distasteful to me. We're all grown-ups here—smart people who are also into spiritual matters—so I’m sure we can just talk things out. I really hope I never have to pull that moderation lever, unless things get absolutely extreme.
Benjamin Long said:If one were to employ even a shred of logical reasoning instead of posing a question that essentially ignores the core issue—turning it into a mere rhetorical deflection through that dismissive "I don't know" at the start—one might have considered a much more productive path: - if there is indeed an issue, perhaps there is some underlying injustice regarding the entire matter.
In light of such a suspicion, wouldn't it be more appropriate to seek an impartial review of the case? Unfortunately, that isn't happening here. Your attitude toward Kenneth Peterson5 suggests you aren't even questioning the validity of his inquiry, yet you simultaneously imply this has nothing to do with the actual facts. It seems you are simply showing favoritism toward certain forum members who happen to think differently than Kenneth Peterson5, all without even bothering to look into the specifics of the case! It almost feels as though you've preemptively decided that Kenneth Peterson5's suggestions aren't worth considering. Might I ask, what exactly is your reasoning for that?
That's just not true. 1. I already said I'd get to the whole Alim thing and the stories as soon as I have a moment. 2. Honestly, I don't know, and I really don't feel like digging into why she "got hung up" on it. Sure, an injustice is a valid reason to act, but I'm not a fan of trying to fix every single bend in the Mississippi River based on every little excuse. 3. If you're expecting me to be impartial? No way. I like some people here more than others. My criteria are pretty simple: how they write and how they behave on the forum. Because of that, my likes and dislikes shift around. Besides, I already mentioned that I actually agree with some of Kenneth Peterson5's views. Right now, though, Tatyana's vibe just aligns better with what I'm trying to achieve in terms of "fixing" things around here.
Same goes for you—enough with the talk about Alim, Kenneth Peterson5, and Tatyana. Got anything to say regarding the pros and cons of the spirituality-religion forum?
Fazlija, so, you’re suggesting we actually change things up? bring in some new blood—people who are spiritual, experienced, smart, and actually lead with heart?
PS Down in my neck of the woods, folks have a rule about this—you only get a seat at the table to criticize if you a) actually believe you can do better, and b) are willing to roll up your sleeves and put in the work to make it happen.
Man, you guys are lightning fast. By the time I finish typing one post, you've already dropped three. 😠
PS Edward Flores4, you got anything to add to the actual topic? What's your angle on spirituality—what are you looking for, or what are you bringing to the table?
First off, Kenneth Peterson5—forget about any kind of organized packaging here. I have nothing but respect for Amanda Roberts21 in all her various roles; she’s a real asset to this community. Her posts—at least the ones I've managed to catch up on—are honest, sharp, logical, and actually feel human. Honestly, she’d be my top pick for a moderator, but since she says that would just ruin her precious little bit of real life she has left, it's a no-go. 😍 Regarding what you quoted from Samantha, I see your point. Then again, your observation that there's a real person behind every handle is also spot on—that's how I view writing, too (which is why I stick to this one single username across every forum I join). You might be being a bit harsh on Samantha, though. From what I can tell, his posts are high quality and he genuinely tries to keep things fair. At a quick glance, he seems a bit short-fused and prone to picking fights, but that's nothing a little common sense can't fix. I don't get why you're so hung up on Alvin and this whole situation. Once I find a spare moment, I'll read through the entire thread to give a proper opinion. Alvin's opening posts actually caught my eye, and it feels like after a few pages, people started dogpiling him—which keeps happening periodically—but I'll have to verify that. Based on the few posts I've skimmed, I'd say Alvin and his musings bring some much-needed soul to the place (just like anyone else who chooses an artistic or philosophical way to share their thoughts, provided they stay within the rules). If people don't see the point of a thread like this, or if they hate his style—the bullet points and all that—they can say so, but they shouldn't spend their time trying to sabotage the discussion. If they don't like it, they should just stop reading. It's pretty clear we have several quality members here who are actually reading and contributing great stuff.
Everything I'm saying applies to all other threads, too (though, unfortunately, I haven't quite figured out the whole "deleting posts" mechanic yet, but I'll get there). The person who starts a thread is responsible for sub-moderating it—basically "steering" the conversation and keeping it moving. Anyone trying to drift too far off-topic or turn it into a general chatroom—since we'll have a dedicated thread for that later—will be deleted.
Specifically, this means there's no room for you, Amanda Roberts21, or Samantha to get dragged into some pointless brawlover Alvin and Samantha. Likewise, I won't allow you to drag Alvin's stories into every single thread and jury-rig everyone else along with you—myself included. Unlike the moderators at ESPN (who are my gold standard), I don't have the desire or the patience to argue with users over decisions. I'll try to keep everything as transparent as possible, but once a call is made, it’s final—like a referee on the field. No replays, no video reviews.
Whoa, hold up. This isn't the "holidays and greetings" thread—though, thanks 😁, I appreciate it . I’m looking for your honest, subjective takes here—give me the deep critiques and the creative sparks alike. And don't be shy; I want at least half a page of actual substance. I'm hunting for Shiva and Vishnu (Brahme is already spoken for 😬). As bluemason3 would say—if we're short on guys, maybe throw in a Bozic...
Hey everyone, It’s been a minute since I’ve been active here—and now, out of nowhere, I’ve been tapped as a moderator. So, I’m asking you all to jump into this poll so I can get a decent pulse on where we actually stand right now. I want to hear from the old guard—the "seasoned veterans" who probably use this place as their digital fountain of youth 😉—as well as the newcomers who just joined the party. The site changes every single day, obviously, and I know "quality" is a pretty hard thing to pin down—especially on a Spirituality Forum—but I think it’s worth taking a snapshot of where we are in this little corner of the internet.
So, here are some prompts to get us started (feel free to throw in your own thoughts too): - What do you think of the forum over the last few weeks or months? - What are you actually enjoying? - What’s getting on your nerves? - How could we make this better (if it even needs it)? Basically, what’s missing? (Just trying to make sure everyone stays happy while reading or posting. 🙂)
Look, I know everyone’s going to have subjective takes—some might even be total opposites—so please, let’s avoid any heated arguments over whose opinion is "right." A cool, civil dialogue is always welcome, though.
Since I’ve posted quite a bit myself, here’s my quick, telegraphic take on how things feel to me.
I’ve only really been active here for about two years—even though I registered ages ago for one specific post, then basically went ghost. For a while, this felt like a great spot, both for the community and the topics. But lately, it feels like things have slipped a bit. Part of that was the chaos regarding where we'd host the site, part was the struggle to find permanent moderators—even though, honestly, every mod I've worked with so far has done a killer job—and part was losing some core members who really made this place what it was. It led to this weird illusion that there's some massive drama happening in real life outside of these threads. 😁 Plus, at one point, it felt like a bunch of argumentative personalities were starting to take over.
That said, over the last week or two, it feels like the spiral is finally turning back upward—both in terms of how people talk and the actual content being shared. I’d love to do whatever I can in my capacity to keep that momentum going.
I’ll be opening a dedicated thread soon specifically for moderation and direct communication.
mistybison said:Reading through your posts, I get the impression that most of you view the spiritual journey as being synonymous with personal religion. If we were to set aside faith entirely—even one's own private beliefs—could we still speak of spirituality? What would a spiritual path look like without faith? Is it even possible for such a path to exist?
Well, it all comes down to how you define spirituality. For some, maybe it’s just "self-realization." If that's the case, you don't really need a God (unless you happen to bump into one along the way—or at the end of the road). What you actually need is a certain level of trust in your own cognitive abilities—broadly speaking—your senses, your soul, your intuition. Plus, you have to trust that what those senses are picking up is actually real. A hardcore nihilist doesn't stand a chance at being spiritual—they'd logically have to just end it all—and someone who doubts everything is basically paralyzed. Beyond that, I’d say having some degree of confidence (not necessarily "faith") in the fundamental goodness of human nature isn't a bad idea either. PS Faith can be a technique—a way to reach spirituality—but very few people ever hit the intensity or clarity needed to bridge that gap into true spirituality, or whatever you want to call reaching God. Usually, though, it’s just an obstacle. It tends to be lukewarm and muddy—an emotional or mental pigeonholing into a specific camp, tradition, or folklore.
You’re right—no point wasting any more time. Since everything is finally out in the open, here it is:
1. I ZAHTEVAM, IRREVOCABLY AND IMMEDIATELY, SOLELY ON MY OWN BEHALF, THAT spirituality BREAK FREE AS AN INDEPENDENT FORUM AND END THE DOGMATIC RELIGIOUS TYRANNY IMPOSED BY THE religion FORUM.
2. IF THIS REQUEST ISN'T MET IN THE NAJKRACEM POSSIBLE TIME, I WILL PERFORM A RITUALISTIC HARAKIRI—and I'll be the one answering for the fallout.
3. I ZAHTEVAM THAT THIS REQUEST BE TREATED AS ENTIRELY SEPARATE FROM ANY OTHER USER'S DEMANDS OR SOME KIND OF SEMI-DEMOCRATIC VOTING PROCESS.
Look, I know I’m a free agent here and don't need your permission for anything—but I still wouldn't want to be "bothering" you, which, apparently, I've already done quite unintentionally.
Lawrence Robinson5, I think the contradiction you're seeing when judging people as a species comes from the assumption that we’re all operating at the exact same level of development.
Sure, maybe everyone carries a divine spark—but let's be real, not everyone is equally far along in actually tapping into that potential. At the very beginning, you've got this "amorphous" divine mass totally lost in the material world (the classic fall from grace), and at the end, you have a consciousness that has complete mastery over every level of nature.
Most of us, though? We're stuck somewhere in the middle of that evolutionary process, where the ego tends to run the show. The ego isn't inherently evil—it's just a specific, natural stepping stone on the path of growth. That said, it has this tendency to manipulate and twist our natural needs and desires. You can't really view it as just another "part of nature" the way you do (well, not unless you're being incredibly vague about it being made of "natural energy"), because the capacity for self-reflection creates a separation—an illusionary one, sure, but a very real one for us—between the self and nature.
It develops during upbringing, which means it's inevitably shaped by social conditioning. But if we tried to bypass that socialization—that whole idea of civilization—before a person was actually mature, we'd just revert to our primal roots (think feral children raised by wolves) or risk straight-up insanity.
Long story short: some people are much closer to nobility, while others are closer to pure animal instinct. Both are natural and part of the human condition, but we're all just sitting at different points on the developmental curve.