Posts by mistybison

Jesse Davis said:How many times have you dealt with someone being just plain malicious toward you—you know, people who seem to have this desperate need to belittle you or provoke a reaction through lies and fabrications? To be honest, it happens to me quite frequently...
Sometimes I’ll admit, I get genuinely angry at those injustices, especially if the person acting that way ends up getting ahead while I'm left behind.
But then again, most of the time I just find myself laughing at them—it’s because I know exactly who I am and what my worth is—though, like anyone else, I still have those days where certain things just hit a little harder than they should...
What I really want to say is that if someone feels the need to tear you down, insult you, or play dirty just to reach a goal, it's usually because they are deeply unhappy with themselves and their own lives. It's particularly true for those types who try so hard to be "perfect" and please everyone; at the end of the day, they still have to go home and face their true selves, and all that hypocrisy eventually catches up to them.
What are your thoughts on all this??

Insecurity.

Only people struggling with deep insecurities resort to belittling or demeaning others.

David Vaughn75 said:Look, I already told you—God looks out for people. You're sitting here questioning how I could have believed that back in my younger days, but honestly, what else am I supposed to say?

Bottom line is, if you're looking for something real, you'll find it, because God takes care of us.

I respect your convictions, even though I don't share them. 🙂

David Vaughn75 said:There's a massive difference between being a skeptic and just being a jerk to the person you're talking to.

Personally, I figured you were smart enough to get the point I was making.
Instead, you're just throwing out mindless questions just to hear yourself talk.

That sounds way too New Age for me. I used to buy into that kind of stuff when I was nineteen, but I grew out of it a long time ago, so... 🤷

If you don't have anything actual to contribute, then don't quote me.

How do you even know he's free from fear? And how do you know he can even liberate anyone else?

Ask a psychic and find out. Pretty sure that's the only way to read someone's mind.

If you aren't able to identify a true teacher, you run the risk of falling prey to many frauds. I truly hope that doesn't happen to you. 🙂

I watched the movie right after finishing the series and all the specials I could track down. It was such a pleasant, relaxing experience. The costumes and set design are just as stunning as they were in the show.

Paul Rogers94 said:It’s fear itself that strips us of our rationality. It's what allows low-level clowns like Hitler and Stalin to manipulate millions... acting out of fear isn't rational. You can't be a rational actor while living in psychological bondage to fear. I won't argue just for the sake of arguing—I already covered that in my last post—but being fearless doesn't mean being a mindless idiot; quite the opposite. Fear is exactly what turns people into mindless idiots.
Just because someone's actions aren't driven by fear doesn't mean they'll go jumping out of a plane without a parachute.
Not being a slave to fear doesn't equate to having no brain.

Fear is a primal herd instinct—an unconscious drive for survival and continuity. It works fine for animals. However, when that herd instinct dominates a species that is supposed to be distinguished from animals by self-awareness, you end up with something that isn't fully human yet, but isn't quite an animal either. I call it "subhuman"—a transitional stage between animal and true human being. Only an individual can transcend this subhuman state to reach a true human state, where their life isn't dominated by basic animalistic herd instincts—that unconscious, animal fear. That is the only time one acts from reason rather than fear.

Acting rationally out of fear is impossible.

That applies to all emotions. They surface, overwhelm us, and only once they begin to subside can reason take the wheel, allowing us to view things objectively and respond appropriately. However, this isn't always achievable. Emotions vary in intensity and duration; sometimes they hit all at once, sometimes they are too powerful for logic to regain control quickly, and occasionally we just have an off day where our sense of reason simply vanishes. 😁

Fear is one of the most effective tools for manipulation, and it is something we must guard against. Some people handle it better than others. Some are naturally more anxious, while others are inherently bolder. Still, resisting fears that people are conditioned to feel throughout their lives is difficult. If you grow up in a society that raises you on fear, breaking free from it is no easy task.

Every new fear tends to awaken old ones, making you realize that all your fears have merely been dormant within you all along. They never truly disappeared; they were just waiting to be stirred. Therefore, the idea of "freedom from fear" is essentially an illusion.

The fact that I am not currently afraid of a pandemic doesn't mean the fear doesn't exist. It simply means my reason has determined that being afraid right now is unjustified and harmful, so it has suppressed the feeling. But if the situation shifted and people began dying all around me, that fear would emerge from its hiding place very quickly.

Paul Rogers94 said:Look, I never said any of that—not even close—but that’s how you read it, translated it, and filtered it through your own mindset.🥱

I don't agree that "fear itself is the only thing to fear." There are very real dangers out there where feeling fear is a perfectly natural response, and in those cases, one shouldn't ignore it.

Joseph Bailey41 said:Let’s switch things up for a second. Instead of just hyping each other up—which I love because we really get each other—let’s actually try to define what this whole "herd instinct" thing even means, and what a "herd" per se actually is. From what I see when I head down into the city, it doesn't look like a "herd" at all. It looks like a bunch of individual personas just wandering aimlessly, each playing their own little political game. It’s more like the chaotic movement of subatomic particles than some kind of organized super-organism.

Sure, right now they might all be sharing the same emotional state (and honestly, it's a vibe you can smell from blocks away, so I personally prefer keeping my distance), but in the grand scheme of things, it's all temporary and fleeting. If you were to ask any one of them what they're actually afraid of, they wouldn't even be able to put it into words... so by definition, this isn't fear, it's paranoia. That's why conspiracy theorists are having the time of their lives right now; they feel like pigs in mud because finally, other people are starting to "see" the Illuminati, the Masons, and whatever else they're obsessed with.

How do you teach a "herd" anything? You don't. You can't. Because a "herd" doesn't have reason, it can't remember, it can't learn, and it can't achieve insight. It doesn't even have an instinct, because that concept doesn't exist in this context; it's just a mental construct used by people who try to control others because they're lonely and empty inside. Reason—and even emotion, intuition, or instinct—is something possessed exclusively by individuals. You can only have a conversation with individuals; they are the only ones you can teach, and the only ones you can learn from. A herd (whether you call it a mass, a crowd, or just the unwashed masses) isn't a factor. It isn't a force of nature, and it isn't a conscious, active subject. It's nothing. It’s just a temporary mental illusion sustained only by "faith" in the concept itself—basically, by us accepting the terminology. It's a cheap magician's trick.

I agree. 🙂

I don't subscribe to the concept of "mob mentality" either. 😁 I believe that more people can simultaneously fall into a state of mass hysteria and panic, whether driven by actual threats or irrational fears. However, these individuals are simply united by a shared emotional state at that moment, which remains something that can be influenced on an individual level.

When this pandemic first hit, I felt a wave of panic for a few days. Every conceivable fear surfaced, all rooted in that fundamental dread of mortality, but eventually, my reason took over. I realized that my only real influence was to protect myself and others as much as possible; everything else was simply out of my hands. Dwelling on catastrophic scenarios is counterproductive because stress weakens the immune system rather than preventing illness. Since these worst-case outcomes aren't guaranteed, I decided to stop doomscrolling and choose to hope for the best. 🙂 Sometimes, I even find myself forgetting all about the pandemic.

There is an ancient, almost mystical belief that worrying ahead of time acts as a sort of protective charm, as if constant anxiety can somehow prevent misfortune from striking. In reality, worrying serves as a psychological substitute for action during times when we are actually powerless. By staying anxious, we create a false sense of agency, tricking ourselves into believing we have some measure of control over events that are entirely beyond our reach. These are merely internal illusions that do more harm than good. We must become aware of these mental patterns and strive, as much as possible, to bring them to an end.

Ultimately, it all comes down to the individual; everyone manages their fears differently. Some people even seem to thrive on them. I wouldn't be surprised if those folks who live for the thrill of an impending apocalypse are actually finding a sense of euphoria in the chaos. 😁

The constant media fearmongering certainly plays its part too. I've spoken with Americans who are genuinely hysterical over emergency measures because they’re convinced we're sliding straight into "1984." They've been so conditioned by stories of totalitarianism and communist regimes, yet most have never traveled abroad, don't speak a second language, and consume nothing but domestic media. After decades of being fed constant propaganda, there's simply no calming them down or explaining the necessity behind these measures. It's pure paranoia and hysteria. Of course, that doesn't apply to everyone—there are plenty of level-headed people who remain unaffected. So, once again, it really just comes back to the individual...

Paul Rogers94 said:Orson Welles’ radio drama sparked mass panic across the USA (1938)

Is this fear actually rational?

We see it happening every single day—someone threatens to slash your wages by a few bucks, or some politician starts fretting about Social Security funds, or whatever... and suddenly, the masses are ready to swallow any draconian law or extreme measure just to feel safe.
Whenever politicians want to pull a fast one, they start by weaponizing your sense of security and survival—hitting that primal herd instinct—and once you're rattled, they can push whatever agenda they want through.
Is that rational?
Do you really think people will agree to anything if you just convince them their existence is under threat? Regardless of whether the threat is even real...
That’s how a peaceful neighbor—a perfectly decent citizen—can snap and turn on their own, committing all those horrific things humans do to one another.
Essentially, it doesn't matter if the virus actually exists or if it's genuinely dangerous—the psychological impact is identical.

The awakened mind doesn't fall for that kind of panic. They don't go looking for reasons to be afraid; instead, they see that fear itself is what creates the reasons to be afraid.
The only thing worth fearing is fear itself.

To be fully awakened would imply ceasing to be human altogether—becoming either an overman or something non-human. Such a spirituality would essentially be an escape from the humanity we know.

If we actually reach a state where we no longer experience fear—regardless of what happens to us or the world around us—our brain chemistry would have to be fundamentally altered, triggering a ripple effect across every aspect of our existence. We can't simply rewire the core settings of a human being by picking and choosing which traits to discard. If we eliminate something as foundational as fear, we trigger a domino effect with unpredictable consequences. Is irrational fearlessness really a goal worth pursuing? What if it leads to total numbness? If we stop valuing life, we risk becoming dangerous to ourselves and everyone else.

And is that even true spirituality?

David Vaughn75 said:I explain everything to you three different ways and you still come back with the same questions 🤦

It doesn't matter if the guy is a celebrity or a complete nobody—what matters is whether he actually lives out his own BS. Your soul can sniff out who's legit. Like, look at parents who tell their kid to stay away from sugar while they're sitting there devouring a donut; those people have zero credibility, so their words don't mean squat.

Quincy:

How can you even tell if someone has actually found enlightenment and isn't just lying to you or playing you? Is it based on how smooth they talk, or the peace and compassion they radiate, or maybe all those deep thoughts and that charismatic vibe? They could even be using an aggressive, persuasive style. Honestly, all of that can be rehearsed, especially if the person is a natural performer.

The universe knows exactly what your intentions are, and it sends people your way based on that.

If you aren't looking for anything real and just want something to kill the boredom, that's exactly what you'll get—some con artist selling you smoke and mirrors.
But if you truly want to dedicate your entire life to God, the universe will send you a real teacher.

Quincy:

What does "living out your enlightenment" actually look like in practice? A Zen proverb 😁 says that before enlightenment, a man chops wood and carries water, and after enlightenment, he chops wood and carries water. You can't just watch someone and decide they're enlightened. In fact, they say only someone who's already reached that state can recognize it in someone else—though, by that point, they wouldn't really care anyway.

Personally, I prefer the idea of surrendering to God over "enlightenment," mostly because I haven't got a clue what enlightenment even is.
Someone who has surrendered is free from fear.

You can spot someone who has surrendered to God because they aren't out there trying to grab power over anyone else; their only real interest is helping other people find their own freedom.

[Beljki mode on] A child might not actually be avoiding sugar, or perhaps they say they aren't eating it just to be good. We don't know if diabetes is the real reason for the dietary restriction or if the boy is simply acting out of pure kindness. 🤔[/Beljki mode off] 🤣

One should always maintain a reasonable level of skepticism to protect oneself from various... charlatans 😁 looking to take advantage of us. 🧐

Quincy:

The universe knows your intentions and sends people to you based on them. If you aren't looking for anything serious and just want something to kill the boredom, that is exactly what you will get: some joker selling you smoke and mirrors. If you want to dedicate your entire life to God, the universe will send you a true teacher.

That sounds a bit too New Age for me. I used to believe in those kinds of ideas when I was nineteen, but I moved past that long ago... 🤷

Quincy:

I prefer the concept of surrendering to God over enlightenment, mostly because I have no idea what enlightenment even is. A person who has surrendered is freed from fear. You can recognize someone who has surrendered to God by the fact that they don't seek power over others, but instead focus solely on helping others find freedom.

How can you tell if someone is free from fear or capable of freeing others? I just heard news about a priest who was administering communion to congregants in a church—violating gathering protocols—from the same bowl. Clearly, neither he nor his followers fear the virus, believing that God protects them. Is that who you want to be? Having "blind faith" in God and walking through fire and water for your convictions?

David Vaughn75 said:There’s this perfect little Zen story.
There was this kid with diabetes who wasn't supposed to touch sugar, but he kept sneaking it anyway, landing himself in the hospital over and over. His parents spent years trying every trick in the book to make him stop, but nothing worked. Everyone in town told him the same thing, but he wouldn't listen.
Finally, they took him to a Zen master who had a quick chat with the boy, and after that, he never touched sugar again. When the parents asked the master how he managed to reach the kid, he just said, "Well, I'm a diabetic myself, so he actually listened to me."

If you’re looking for the kind of knowledge that actually frees you from suffering, you can only get it from someone who has actually found that freedom themselves. 😉

Someone preaching stuff they don't actually practice isn't going to teach anyone a damn thing.

Goodness, how can that possibly be a Zen story? Zen stories originate from an era when people didn't even know diabetes existed. 😁

Why would a child believe that man in the first place? 🤔 If he was already so skeptical toward his own family and doctors, why would he trust a complete stranger making claims? Such a gullible kid... though certainly good material for a future follower of some guru. 😁

Quincy:

If you want to acquire knowledge on how to achieve liberation from suffering, you can only receive it from someone who has achieved liberation themselves. 😉

How can you know if someone has actually attained liberation and isn't just lying to or manipulating you? Is it based on eloquent speech, the peace, compassion, and tolerance they radiate, the wise thoughts they share, their charismatic presence, or an aggressive, persuasive delivery? All of those things can be practiced, especially if the person is talented.

Quincy:

Someone who speaks about what I do not practice will teach no one anything.

What does "practicing the attained liberation" actually look like and how is it demonstrated?

A Zen proverb 😁 states that before enlightenment, a person chops wood and carries water, and after enlightenment, they still chop wood and carry water. An observer cannot determine if someone is enlightened simply by watching them. In fact, it is believed that only someone who is enlightened can recognize enlightenment in another, though to such a person, it hardly matters anymore. 🙂

David Vaughn75 said:Look, when you’re "learning" like that, there might be a tiny chance you actually pick up something useful, but honestly? The odds are astronomically low.

And please, don't lecture me—gurus have existed in Hinduism since forever.

I believe this is a long-term unhealthy religious phenomenon. It pushes the psychological regressiveness already found in religious groups to an extreme, trapping people in a perpetual illusion of security through a childish relationship with pseudo-parental figures, which ultimately prevents them from reaching full maturity and responsibility.

Seriously, why would anyone walk away from a warm, loving home where everything is perfect just to go chase some spiritual teacher?

No kid in their right mind would ever do that.

Wait, so what? You're saying hell is actually a great place and we shouldn't be scared of it, but instead we should head down there to find spirituality? That theory is a massive stretch.

To me, it just makes sense that someone passes on their own knowledge; they aren't going to pass on someone else's.

Everything I have learned up to this point was correct—for that specific moment in time.

However, reality is fluid, and what holds true now can easily change later. We shouldn't cling too tightly to any single piece of knowledge or formal study.

Knowledge is much like a Russian nesting doll; within every layer, there is another one waiting to be found, endlessly. Every small thing we discover shifts our perception, changing how we see the world and, ultimately, who we are.

There are endless ways to learn. You can study books or people, but you can also learn from every experience and every person you encounter. If you choose that path, anyone or anything—be it a person, a plant, or an animal—can become your teacher.

Of course, we are discussing spirituality here, not basic multiplication tables. 😁

It makes sense to me that someone would pass on their own knowledge rather than just repeating someone else's.

In reality, many people do exactly that—they pass along what others realized, interpreted through their own understanding. On the other hand, our collective knowledge is simply a collection of all our experiences, shaped by countless individuals and the teachers they passed their wisdom down to. We are all walking encyclopedias of information, even at a surface level, carrying knowledge that stretches back through generations.

David Vaughn75 said:In Hinduism, the spiritual guru is basically everything—the alpha and the omega. You just follow whatever they tell you to do, no questions asked.
Some folks argue that unless you have the grace of a pure servant of God, there’s zero chance of getting into the Kingdom of Heaven.
It kind of brings to mind that whole idea where Jesus says the only way to the Father is through him; it's like God only lets in the people that Jesus lets in, which ends up being the same crowd any other spiritual leader would vouch for.

Now, looking at Christianity, a priest is definitely a big deal—they’re the ones giving the directions and setting the tone—but honestly, you can get by without one if you have to.

So, what about you guys? Do you actually follow some spiritual mentor, and how much has that person actually shaped the way you live your life?

For me, learning happens naturally and spontaneously. 🙂

The film left quite a bit out...

Grace Sanders24 said:It is truly fascinating to consider that they would never have uncovered his true nature if he hadn't behaved so recklessly and been forced to vacate his apartment. 🍿

At first glance, Christie appears to be a man with a perfectly composed life, someone who merely indulges in a deviant hobby on occasion while remaining clever enough to evade detection. By the end, however, we witness his total unraveling; he abandons his career, isolates himself from everyone, grows reckless, and ultimately descends into complete ruin until he is left homeless.

Perhaps the act of killing a child had such a profound impact on him. 🤔 Is there going to be a trial? 🤔 Did his condition simply manifest in that particular way? 🤷

I finally sat down to watch the movie today, though I am still processing my thoughts on it. 🤷

The plot held my interest, even if the characters felt a bit eccentric. Given all the deception at play, I expected Christie to be sharper and more successful at covering up the murders. In contrast, Timothy seemed somewhat dim-witted. 😁

It is difficult to find the right words to describe my experience. 😳

Perhaps this kind of story would have resonated more deeply with me years ago. However, having seen so many serial killer thrillers, even with the fact that this is based on a true story, I found myself feeling rather indifferent. 🤷

Please excuse the brevity of this post; I am truly struggling to expand on my reaction. 😳

I might find more inspiration to write if others decide to join the conversation...

Melissa Stewart6 said:Haha, sure, but let’s not forget that Ant8 actually cheered on the crude insults and swearing at Flipper’s kids—or whatever that troll called himself—as a "breath of fresh air" for the site. This whole mess isn't just the result of one troll acting out; it happened because a good chunk of the community welcomed that kind of behavior, whether directly or indirectly.

So, those who hailed the insults as a refreshing change for the subforum shouldn't complain about the current state of things or the Druid topics. They got exactly what they asked for... absolute freedom.

Neither that isolated incident nor the individual responsible really matters. It isn't the first time, and it won't be the last.

Regardless of the circumstances, forum members ought to follow the rules even without moderators present, especially those who advocate for moderation in the first place.

What would happen if everyone suddenly flooded an unmoderated subforum with nonsense, only to come back here complaining that we need a moderator to threaten us into behaving! 😁

Perhaps my view is naive, but I always assumed that subforums like "Philosophy" and "Literature" would attract educated, polite people looking to exchange ideas, rather than engage in petty bickering. 😁 Apparently, I was mistaken. 😁

I am going to step away from this discussion now, as I know debates with the "Philosophy" crowd can go on indefinitely and drain every bit of energy one has, leaving one exhausted for days. 😁

Best regards to all! 👋

steelridge58 said:

mistybison Asks:
When you take a look at all that constant Druid spam, I honestly have to wonder if there’s even a single real person lurking in there. It’s truly well-deserved. Is this the right subforum for this? 😁

I honestly see this more as a Druid’s way of protesting how things are being handled on that subforum, which really ought to be receiving some high-quality moderation; he actually went as far as asking for a ban himself for that very same reason—you can clearly see those spam threads are still hanging around there even now—so it isn't quite the situation you're making it out to be. : )

It’s happened before, way back in the day, when people tried to tether spirituality directly to philosophy, but that whole experiment eventually fell apart because the connection just wouldn't hold water. Honestly, I don't see it working again, and frankly, I don't think we should even try to force them back together.

Look, it might not be the perfect fix by any stretch of the imagination, but honestly, I’d take this over a subforum with zero moderation any day of the week. I’ll be the first to admit that I used to think we could pull it off without any oversight, but experience has a funny way of proving you wrong, and it turns out my initial assumption was just plain incorrect. The reality is that most people simply aren't mature enough to handle that kind of total freedom without things going sideways.

Some people have truly reached maturity, while others are still just ripening for... well, let’s just say they aren't quite ready for prime time yet.

I’m fully behind what James Lee77 is proposing here.
If we actually decided to appoint a moderator—and honestly, I think even if we did it right now, it would be the smartest move we could make—I really believe that bringing on the Executioner would be the absolute best solution, especially since he’s got years of experience running forums under his belt and holds a degree in philosophy to boot.

He could have voiced his protest without resorting to insulting Ant8. Regardless of any disagreements, if someone truly wants a high-quality subforum, they should lead by example through their own behavior.

Actually, I believe the situation on "Philosophy" is the exact opposite. Most users behave in ways that violate the rules and create an unpleasant atmosphere. Then, once they grow tired of it—after spending days trolling or derailing every single thread—they suddenly get angry and complain about the lack of moderation. It’s the same pattern with insults: while they are the ones being offensive, everything is fine; but the moment they face pushback, they immediately cry about the low quality of the subforum.

Ultimately, subforums are a reflection of the people who inhabit them. A moderator can certainly help improve things to an extent, but I fear it might be too late here. Consequently, I am logging off the forum, just like Flying, and I hope the situation resolves itself to everyone else's satisfaction. 🙂

ruggedraven36 said:Saying someone "deserves" a subforum is just plain stupid. Who's the dictator supposed to be making that call?

Trolling isn't allowed unless you bring flowers for Mother's Day. 🙂

When you look at all that Druid spam, are you truly certain there's anyone there who actually deserves their own subforum? 😁

I really enjoyed reading the executioner. Even though they post less frequently now and mostly stick to jokes, their serious contributions were a true pleasure to read. 🙂 Years ago, I would actually head down to the New York Times just to follow the executioner's participation in various debates. 😍 😁 Not only do they have a solid background in philosophy, but they are also an exceptional debater. 👍 I also believe they have a great vision for how the "Philosophy" subforum should function—specifically, ensuring it doesn't become almost entirely dominated by social and political topics like it does today.