1. Around 11:30 tonight, I finally decided to sit down and watch this movie—the one everyone expects to sweep the Oscars (at least, that was my thought earlier tonight). I figured, why not? Let me experience an Oscar winner for the very first time on the actual night they hand out the awards.
2. One friend had already warned me that the film was absolute garbage. 😲🤔🤔
3. Honestly, I barely made it past the 25-minute mark before it became unwatchable. I actually ended up turning it off. I tried speeding through some scenes toward the end just to see if it improved, but it all felt like mindless chaos and unnecessary filler.
4. I have to admit, I’ve never actually walked away from a movie in my entire life!! 🤔
5. Can someone please help me understand how a film like this is considered so good? How on earth did it win an Oscar?
You can find all of her books here for free.🙏 😲 (Which is just more proof that God exists and truly cares about spreading the revolutionary work and message of Bernadette Roberts 😁 )
In addition to the ones Brian Young76 mentioned, I highly recommend this collection of essays:
Essays on The Christian Contemplative Journey (2007) (I actually received a hand-bound copy of this directly from Bernadette via mail.)
In those essays, Bernadette spends about 40 pages deconstructing non-dualism (Advaita) proving that those idealistic dreamers—including poor hiddenpuma75—have wasted their spiritual energy and hopes on a contradictory, idealistic Advaita metaphysics.
Bernadette demonstrates that this Indian muddle meant for "self-proclaimed intellectuals" (non-dualism, Advaita) is nothing more than a pompous, failing enterprise filled with shocking statements that evaporate when they touch reality, much like clouds vanishing in the sun.😲
It’s very similar to other bombastic, bankrupt concepts that completely fall apart when faced with actual truth: - Communism, - Psychoanalysis, - The entire political machine of the Democrats and Republicans, - The legal system and justice in America, - Psychology and similar pseudo-intellectual nonsense, much like what Joseph Bailey41 talks about,
--The sanitary totalitarianism of the COVID era and all the little fairy tales surrounding the virus spun by people like Seroš, Bezbožinović, and that clown Papak,
And finally, the ultimate failure:
- bluemason3's spiritual quest and his intellectual autobiography,
- How I found meaning after my failed spiritual romance with Sai Baba by falling in love with Stipa Miočić and the UFC. 😂
So, after those first 30 pages, we hit a section from pages 161 to 174 that dives deep into analyzing and clarifying terms like
PERSON VS INDIVIDUAL.
It covers concepts such as the self, the soul, and the logos.
Then, things get really heavy—we’re moving into the heavyweight division here.😁
What does it actually mean to be Christ? (I'm not talking about Jesus as just a historical figure) We look at the distinction between Jesus and Christ.
What exactly is the Hypostatic union?
And so on, and so forth.
To wrap it up, Bernadette Roberts says this toward the end, and I'll quote her directly:
The truth is simply unbelievable,🙏 ,and hiddenpuma75, bluemason3, krena, Dragan, and Paul Rogers94 haven't the slightest clue, even if they think they do.''
9. Just to give you a little perspective on how much we actually know—and yes, I'm including both hiddenpuma75 and Beljki here 😁
10. Let's take a single term: "person."
11. Most of you reading this probably feel pretty confident that you know exactly what that word means. You think it's as straightforward as knowing what a cow is, or what a Republican or a Pentagon official like Seroš or Bezbožinović represents.
12. But over the course of about 30 pages (roughly 130 to 160), B. Roberts explains just how murky this concept really is.
13. The first "minor" issue is that the word "person" doesn't even exist in the Bible.😲
14. The second issue? Neither Beljki, nor hiddenpuma75, nor any of us truly grasp the distinction between a "person" and an "individual." According to B. Roberts, the difference is as vast as night and day. They are two entirely different realities.😲🤔
15. You likely don't even realize why the Greeks rejected the concept of the "persona."
16. To put it simply, a person isn't quite what a human being is, nor is it what our Lord God is.🤔
17. So, within those 30 pages, we get this massive, multi-dimensional analysis spanning philosophy, psychology, theology, and mysticism regarding the term "person."
18. The whole concept of the "person" is essentially a Christian innovation.
19. Honestly, I don't know any more about this than you do, my dear friends reading this.
20. I suspect that to truly digest those 30 pages on the nature of a person, you'd need to study it like a grueling university final. Those pages are absolutely packed with erudition, weaving together various disciplines and the insights of scholars throughout history.
21. But I am certain of one thing.
Compared to the sheer depth, intellectual weight, quality, and unmistakable essence found in the life and writings of Bernadette Roberts, our forum posts—mine, yours, and even Beljki's—feel a bit like mere straw.🙏
Brian Young76 said:I was wondering if anyone here has had a chance to dive into the latest book by B. Roberts, *the Real Christ*, and if you'd be willing to share some of your thoughts on it? I’ve actually tried picking it up about four or five times now, but honestly, every single time I started, I found myself getting stuck because it felt just a bit too... well, tedious, rambling, and unnecessarily convoluted for my taste. However, about a month ago, I decided to give it one more shot, and I’ve just reached the quarter-way mark when suddenly—everything clicked. It has become absolutely fascinating and, in my opinion, quite revolutionary. From a modern perspective, her interpretation of Christ is incredibly striking, especially since she constantly weaves in quotes from those prominent Christian figures from the first five centuries—whom she refers to as the Fathers of the Church—to back up her own insights.
What I find even more inspiring, though, are the parallels—some of them feel almost identical at certain points—between her interpretations in this book and the teachings found in *A Course in Miracles*.
Hmmmmmm...... 🤔
1. I actually received the book directly from my Aunt Bernadette from the USA😲 while it was still a privately bound manuscript. Now, it's available on Amazon as a standard book.
2. She actually took it to the post office herself—bless her heart for dealing with my ignorance—so I keep her signature on the envelope like a little relic or a cherished memory.🙏
3. They say you should read a book at the same pace and for as long as it took to write it.
4. B. Roberts mentions she spent five years writing this book at a Christian hermitage she calls her second home (the Camadolese Hermitage, out in Big Sur, California).
5. I find myself agreeing with one reviewer who brilliantly compared both the book and the author to Einstein. Essentially, what Einstein is to physics, B. Roberts is to theology.
6. I've had the book for maybe 5, 6, or 7 years now, reading it on and off and underlining quite a lot.
7. I haven't actually finished the whole thing yet, nor have I truly immersed myself in it deeply... (Much like how I approached the book *I Am That*, for instance).
8. Regardless, this book serves as a humbling reminder of how little I actually know, even though I modestly consider myself quite knowledgeable—perhaps even more so than our official forum commentator, Beljkija - Puhovski 😁 (who has unfortunately wasted so much precious time watching and commenting on, and moderating, boxing matches and those clumsy little brawls 👎
Brian Young76 said:I just wanted to check in for a moment.
For the last three days, I’ve been receiving these internal messages, almost like prompts, about how to express God through mathematical notation. It isn't even that I'm actively seeking this out, or forcing myself to focus on it, or even dwelling on my own ego—though, I suppose, at one point the sheer implication of what this might mean flashed through my mind for a second... it's just that these messages seem to arrive on their own. I've started writing things down, so I guess we'll just have to see where this leads, though I suspect the whole process is going to take a little bit longer than expected. 😁
Yesterday, I had this sudden, spontaneous urge to make an excuse to my family, acting as if I were just stepping out for a quick pack of cigarettes, when really, there was something else weighing on me. 😬
What was that term again? Tatamata? Tathagata? 🤷 😁
It feels to me like the source of those messages might be stuck in the 19th century 😁 and hasn't quite caught up with the modern work of the legendary mathematician Kurt Gödel, who actually provided a mathematical proof for the existence of God. 😲
So, don't waste your time trying to reinvent the wheel here. 🙂
In the Philosophy Lounge chat, the moderator rustydrifter10 added an intro in red font—which was later switched to gray—stating:
The chat isn't a substitute for the dedicated Coronavirus Epidemic megathread on the Philosophy board.
Her logic was basically that since we have a massive PDF document on the coronavirus on the forum, we should stick to discussing it there.
Personally, I find that explanation pretty weak and honestly a little bizarre. If we followed that kind of logic, we wouldn't be allowed to talk about anything in the chat at all:
politics, because we have huge political threads sports, given how many sports topics we have sex, since that’s apparently "unbecoming" for philosophers, and we have our specific lifestyle threads😁 economics, because we have the economics PDF history, because we have historical discussion threads parenting, because we have those dedicated parenting boards spirituality psychology beer, because we have the gastronomy section ...not to mention just checking in on one another, since we have the "Coffee & Hangout" thread for that.
... ...
Besides, it feels a bit unfair coming from rustydrifter10, who doesn't even write about the coronavirus herself. It seems like she's just irritated by it and is banning everyone else from talking about it freely! It feels like someone is trying to impose their own personal preferences on the rest of the community.
The chat is meant to be a lounge where free-thinking people can talk about whatever they want. So why shouldn't that include the coronavirus?🤔
This thread is essentially split into two parts: a poll for everyone here, and my own two grievances.
1) My first complaint concerns what I see as unfair censorship by a moderator named Volver, who decided to ban any discussion regarding the coronavirus on the philosophy chat.
2) The second part of my grievance is about the fact that when I actually tried to bring this topic up in the chat, my question was deleted and I was slapped with a two-day ban from the forum.
3) Through this poll, I’d love to see what the community thinks—and specifically what our "self-governing philosophy enthusiasts" have to say—about this decision.
Science has reached a historical crossroads, choosing the path of hard-boiled materialism, empiricism, and scientific reductionism.
It has essentially turned its back on philosophy, treating it with disdain and avoiding it altogether. Science rejected philosophy and idealism in favor of pure materialism. You can see this pattern clearly in about 80% of the posts by Belkija, and you can feel that same vibe throughout the Natural Science forums. The truth is, science doesn't actually know what matter is, nor does it care to define it. Science lacks an ontological definition for both matter and energy, and frankly, it isn't interested in finding one. There is a blind, unproven faith that matter is everything and that random chance creates all—that is the "God" of science. This reveals a deeply religious element within science that the "Belkija followers" seem completely oblivious to. Yesterday, I made quite a point regarding spirituality, suggesting that Belkija STEM has essentially become a new sect 😲, especially after they abandoned the previous sect that deceived them.
There is also a subtle underlying idea here that deserves its own dedicated thread. It all boils down to this one crucial sentence.
Science requires mathematics, but mathematics has no need for science.😉 Every ounce of success science has achieved is owed to mathematics!
However, mathematics isn't a science because it doesn't rely on science —meaning it doesn't depend on empiricism (experimentation) or sensory perception. 😉
Without mathematics, science would be stuck at the level of alchemy.
In any case, I’m going to move this over and expand on it in the thread I started regarding the limits of science.
But for now, I’ve got to run, just like our colleague mravac88.😁
Eric Newman75 said:Why "startling"? Well, if you're looking at sheer breadth of knowledge, I guess you could argue it. Still, The Stagirite feels more cohesive to me. No matter what you pick up—his Nicomachean Ethics, Politics, Rhetoric, Poetics—it all traces back to those principles laid out in his Metaphysics. Every single work reflects the whole system. Purpose, motion, the golden mean, matter, form, entelechy (from his De Anima writings); it’s all interconnected. Every facet of human action is structured to fit perfectly into the framework. And it all follows a strict logic.
Sure, there’s some nonsense in there—mainly when it comes to scientific accuracy—but you can forgive him for that. Even so, he’s incredibly persuasive.
I’m a bit pressed for time right now, but given how fast this conversation is moving, I’ll keep my response brief and admittedly a little surface-level.
The reason it's surprising to claim that Leibniz is one of the two greatest polymath geniuses is precisely because he remains the most underrated and misunderstood figure in that entire Hall of Fame.
Once I started diving deeper into Leibniz's work, I began to notice just how strange the paths to "global intellectual fame" can be.
For instance, the big question is why Newton became "more famous" and carries more weight in history than Leibniz, even if Leibniz was actually the "greater and more versatile genius." After looking into this quite closely, I think I’ve found the answer.
I could give you the distilled version in just three sentences, but that feels bizarre and pedagogically lazy—kind of like a parent trying to spoon-feed a perfectly healthy adult. Instead, we really ought to study the history of ideas, Leibniz's life and works, and the evolution of science and philosophy ourselves to truly grasp this. We need to learn how to cook and eat on our own without having our hands held.
Eric Newman75 said:Aha. So, this "indivisible unit" that some people call a number, others see as an idea, and still others view as an atom—which he famously calls a monad—just magically popped into his head out of nowhere?
If he was familiar with the atomists and Plato, there's no question about it. And if you throw Pythagoras and Euclid into that mix? I'd bet my life on it.
Look, let's not get bogged down in the weeds over the differences between atoms and monads in the middle of the night.
Besides, I'm not quite following your point here. What are you actually trying to get at?
Of course Leibniz studied Plato and Pythagoras; anyone with his intellect would have. But nobody else managed to distill all that existing knowledge and apply it so multidimensionally across mathematics, logic, philosophy, and science.
That's why people call him one of the last true polymaths—because in this day and age, achieving that kind of breadth is practically impossible.
Your critique feels a bit misplaced. It’s a bit like saying Einstein's work isn't original or revolutionary just because Newton defined classical mechanics before him. 🙄
Or like claiming a modern poet isn't original simply because they use words that already exist in the English language.
6) Some scholars argue that Leibniz's greatest contribution—the true measure of his genius—lies in his grasp of the ontological significance of zero. 😲
Since the Greeks didn't even have a concept of zero, your suggestion that he was just copying from the Greeks is totally off base.
It’s worth noting that about 19 out of 20 people on these forums don't actually distinguish between the number zero and the philosophical concept of "nothingness," which probably deserves its own discussion thread. But really, how can one dive into that without facing those deep philosophical objections? You know: being accused of opening too many threads, spamming, attacking people's credibility, splitting long essays into multiple parts, and so on... 🤔
7) After Leibniz, we entered the era of the "Specialist"—those experts who, quite humorously yet satirically, seem to know everything about one tiny niche while knowing absolutely nothing about anything else.
8) Bertrand Russell praises him immensely, arguing that Leibniz laid the groundwork for modern German Idealism, which eventually culminated in Hegel. Russell suggests that it took the modern era to truly appreciate Leibniz's magnitude; previous generations simply couldn't wrap their heads around how far ahead of his time his ideas actually were.
9) Generally speaking, I believe a person's "strength" and "greatness" should be measured by how much they broke away from their contemporaries and how vital their ideas remain long after they've passed.
10) And finally, something a bit cliché, but still interesting and telling:
To me, it feels somewhat pedantic and futile to try and weigh one genius against another or compare thinkers from different eras. However, if you play around with various IQ calculations using different methods and lists, you will consistently find the name Leibniz right there in the top ten.😉
Eric Newman75 Asks: A LeibnizLook, it isn't like he was just copying everything from the Greeks he mentioned. Far from it—he certainly didn't have all the answers, nor did he explain everything perfectly. Science back then was lightyears, maybe thousands of times less developed than what we have now. The reality is that a modern person simply can't know everything; our only real option is to specialize. We've moved so far into such extreme breadth and depth that it's overwhelming. Honestly, you’d need several lifetimes just to truly master a single field. Even something like mathematics would be an impossible feat.
Leibniz definitely deserves his own dedicated thread. One day, once I’ve managed to get my head around the complexities, I hope to finally open one up—God willing.
To kick things off, I think it’s only fair to mention that people call Leibniz "the last man who knew everything" for a very good reason. 😲
Here are a few arguments to support that point:
The American philosopher Francis Bowen makes a bold and rather surprising claim:
"Aside from Aristotle, I honestly think Leibniz was the greatest. The most comprehensive genius to ever walk this earth.. '' 😲
4. To be honest, I’m struggling to decide which other thinker made such an invaluable contribution across so many vital fields. It's a tough call. The ways in which the human spirit manifests itself...
Mathematics, logic, philosophy, and science.
5. Even if he hadn't accomplished a single other thing in his entire life besides sharing the glory of inventing calculus with Newton, he would still be immortal. Come on now, let’s be real—it’s Leibniz’s method, not Newton’s, that actually stuck around and remains the standard we use today. 😉
I hear you, but let's just take it one step at a time. I’ve been spending quite a bit of time reading and discussing Tegmark’s book, mostly in private sessions with my old friend Sigmund. He’s always had this insatiable appetite for staying ahead of the curve, so he’s been eager to dive into these latest intellectual breakthroughs before they even hit the mainstream.
He asked me to handle the heavy lifting on this one, so I put my head down, did the translation, handled the writing, and finally delivered exactly what he was looking for.
Sigmund said:So, what’s the verdict from Tegmark and Parsi? Come on, give us a quick digest! Since you love to boast about introducing us to the latest intellectual trends—rather than just adding another hardcover to your bookshelf—it’s probably about time you actually put those words into action. And if you could do it with a little bit of class, that would be great.
To all you young seekers out there, if you head over to page 17 of this thread, I highly recommend diving into those brilliant, deep-dive posts by hiddenpuma75 regarding Tegmark (starting from entry #323). Just follow the lead of Minerva and the owl in hiddenpuma75's avatar—think of it as your little intellectual compass to guide the way.
I have to admit, I’ve lost a bit of that spark lately. It’s hard to stay enthusiastic when certain folks on here keep telling me my philosophical deep dives are nothing more than aimless rambling. 😲 Honestly, if only hiddenpuma75 would finally stop spinning their wheels, maybe we’d actually see some real progress in philosophy.
I have to admit, I’m feeling a little bit out of my depth here, but I wanted to weigh in on this. Looking at how everything is unfolding, it feels like we’re all just trying to make sense of a very complex puzzle. Sometimes it seems like we're chasing moving targets, doesn't it? I’ve been thinking about the implications of these recent shifts, and while there's plenty of debate, I can't help but wonder if we're overlooking the most obvious path forward. It’s easy to get caught up in the technicalities, but at the end of the day, we need clarity. I'd love to hear what the rest of you think—am I totally off base here, or is anyone else feeling this same sense of uncertainty?
Sandra Murphy33 said:To me, philosophy feels like the only true force capable of bridging the gap between people, fostering genuine understanding through a shared pursuit of objective truth—regardless of their background, identity, gender, race, or creed. Its strength and necessity lie in its universality, even in its perceived "coldness"—which is one of those common criticisms leveled against Hegel, for instance. Logical reasoning is an inherent capacity within every human being; even if someone hasn't quite tapped into it yet, it’s a skill that can always be cultivated.
Philosophy has the potential to unite us in a collective, creative thought process in the very places where religion tends to drive us apart. For this reason, at least from my perspective, philosophy represents a more perfect expression of the so-called absolute spirit than religion (which can often, and frequently is, manipulative) or even art (which remains open to endless, subjective interpretations).
I have nothing but respect for philosophy, but I believe there is something "stronger," something far more universal, and something undeniably accurate and verifiable. It is the queen—if not the king—of everything. In essence, it is 😲 God 🙏
The absolute foundation of all things is mathematics 🙏
Or, to put it bluntly.
Numbers possess a precision that words simply can't match.
0100001111000111111
In other words. Philosophy is, as Nietzsche suggested, merely a DESCRIPTION (a labeling) of the world rather than an explanation of it.
So, following the logic of Sherlock Holmes, once we eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth:
MATHEMATICS IS THE EXPLANATION😲
Nothing else holds the answers to everything.😲
I’m actually putting together a discussion on this topic. I want to explore the evolving idea that this entire existence is essentially a programmed simulation—that it is fundamentally mathematical.😲
We should start the journey with Pythagoras, travel through the ideas of the last man who truly knew everything—Leibniz—and then see where else the path leads...
Even if my generalization is imperfect, it doesn't change the fact that you always seem to misread me when you try to psychoanalyze me.😁
The bottom line is that I have absolutely no clue what your private life looks like or what secrets lie within your heart 😍 , just as you have no idea about mine, yet you still venture to make guesses—and so far, you've been wrong every single time. 😁
Another thing: I certainly wasn't suggesting that you are "correct" in thinking that "STEM alone" 🙂 is the only valid path for everyone else. 😁
That might be true for you, given how far you've traveled on that road.
Judging by the way you write now, you are either completely unaware, or you are simply too stubborn to admit the ontological and epistemological limits of the compass we call SCIENCE (STEM).
It seems you've reached a stage where you've essentially turned STEM into your new religion—a little sect 😲.
Based on the emotional attachment and pride you're displaying, it's obvious from an airplane. 😉
I personally know at least five people, mostly wealthy individuals, who—between the ages of 40 and 43—decided to take the exact opposite path from yours. They walked away from STEM, from business, and from the External world, choosing instead to follow in your footsteps toward India or an internal "Quest for the miraculous." 😉
Are we going to label them foolish because they didn't consult you? And should we assume you're the only smart one simply because you're stuck in this STEM phase? 😁
As long as you're stuck in the middle of a landfill, you aren't actually aware of the trash. You don't need more junk; you need a change in perspective. Building a solid epistemology doesn't require millions of books. You can read a million volumes without ever developing a shred of actual understanding.
It wasn't that bluemason3 rejected cults or avoided extremism, as you’re implying. It was about leaning into better, more scientific sources and, more importantly, sound methodologies.
The other factor is just life. Unconscious existential needs, social pressures, and general circumstances often drive our interests and choices much more than "knowledge" ever does.
It’s a classic misunderstanding. You’ve read my words quite differently than I intended. If you look at the methodology of what I actually said—and try to see it from a positive angle—you'll realize you missed my point entirely.
I wasn't talking about cult behavior at all. Any mention of a sect was just one small part of the journey, and frankly, irrelevant to my broader point. My observation holds true whether you were ever involved with a group (like Sai Baba's followers) or if you had been doing all this solo at home.
What I meant was generally speaking that you spent perhaps 15 or 20 years searching and exploring. Let's call it a search for the INNER REALITY—that "spiritual realization" 🙄
And through that process, you matured and learned from your mistakes and setbacks.
But let's not forget: you certainly HAD SUCCESSES AND ACHIEVEMENTS along the way. 🙂
Regardless, you eventually entered a new phase of life where you "moved on" from "spirituality" to dedicate yourself to something else. Let's call it STEM and the exploration of the External "material world."
So, what I was really trying to say is that you experienced a metamorphosis; the whole "sect" thing is secondary to that transformation.
I’d really suggest that Brian Young76 looks into downloading books for free rather than buying them from FMW.😁
If bluemason3 spent fifteen years wandering aimlessly through India while his parents sat at home wondering what on earth was going to become of their eccentric son,
and if 🙂hiddenpuma75 went a bit overboard by amassing a library of 2,800 books, 😵then there's absolutely no reason for him to repeat our specific mistakes.😁
That said, bluemason3 and I have certainly learned a few things along the way—much like the brilliant William Blake once observed:
3) Beyond that, there’s this concept of "academic hoarding"—just piling up facts about other people's hard work and achievements that we usually get from a college degree.
On that rather petty level, you have our friend bluemason3, who decided to enroll in university at 37. 😁 He's playing catch-up, trying to make up for those 15 years he spent wandering around India, all just so his ego can finally feel some sense of importance or fulfillment. 😁
4) Then, there is Knowledge with a capital K. Let's call it wisdom, or perhaps Introspection—which is how the greatest philosopher of all time, FMW, describes it.
bluemason3 said:Hoarding junk is still just hoarding junk, not gaining wisdom 😁
I agree, but with one major caveat.
1) It would be pretty foolish for a beginner reading this to jump to the conclusion that—
Well, since that scholarly commentator bluemason3 suggested that buying books and reading is all a waste of time, I’ll play along with a bit of clever sarcasm:
I won't bother buying or reading any books at all. I'll save my time and money instead. I'll have plenty of freedom to indulge in flashy distractions like boxing and sports, or maybe head out on a hunting trip.
After all, it doesn't really matter, because as the wise Paul Rogers94 so aptly puts it, it's ALL THE SAME.😁
2) In all seriousness, I maintain that every seeker has to walk their own path—the same path we've all trodden, including bluemason3😛. You can spend fifteen years searching and reading, only to eventually realize you were being misled by the idea that books are the destination. In reality, the answers were always within us; the books were merely signposts along the way. 😲
