Posts by hollowpuma762

frozengardener7 said:Camus argues that absurdity can ambush you on any street corner you turn.

Building on that, he suggests there are moments when one must simply surrender to the cold indifference of the world, all while forging purpose within the depths of one's own pulsing existence. As long as the journey continues—and it lasts a lifetime—we will find meaning. Or, to use the Camusian vernacular: Let us imagine Sisyphus happy.

Now, I am curious: how many of you have actually encountered this indifference? Or do you prefer to envision the universe as some higher consciousness that keeps a ledger not just of life's meaning, but of consciousness itself on this tiny third rock from the sun?

The urban half-ape doesn't have a concept of consciousness, let alone a higher consciousness or even Cosmic Awareness. Honestly, they don't care. Consciousness isn't for the half-ape.

For the half-ape, it's all about cheap thrills, toys, mindless grinding, mating, following orders, basic urges, isolation, and staring blankly at a TV remote while listening to whatever noise is playing.

Since they're indifferent, they lack sensibility. And since there's no sensibility, there's no vision. They can't even see when food is right in front of them. So they whine and blame everyone else right before they end up on someone's dinner plate.
Then they stop whining, because, well, the half-ape is gone.

By the way, you have a "higher consciousness" inside you.
Something you actually have to cultivate.

Higher consciousness resonates with the consciousness of the Universe.

Meaning is revealed once that higher consciousness starts resonating.

...

Ethan Gomez82 said:Sure, you're right. But do you actually have an idea as to why it turned out this way? Or perhaps, why it was always inevitable?

The planet moves in cycles, man. It goes through eras where consciousness just... fluctuates.

Right now, we're stuck in the age of idiocy. You've got these brain-dead types looking at information overload and high-tech stakes and calling it "progress," while they dismiss everything before them as "primitive" just because people didn't have iPhones or weren't basically lobotomized from birth.

https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/mo...7660-chapter-3

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_Man

https://www.britannica.com/science/p...-the-equinoxes

The numbers in those first and last links are totally off.

hiddenpuma75 said:A quick summary:

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.😁

Look, you’ve definitely spotted a real problem here, but you're blurring your terms and anthropomorphizing science.
It isn't "science" doing this; it's just certain scientists.
And honestly? Some of them aren't even like that.

hiddenpuma75 said:A quick summary:

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.😁

Again, you're anthropomorphizing a whole discipline.
Scientific disciplines don't deal with ontological questions.

That’s what interdisciplinary, multi-perspective philosophy is for—to provide the ontological interpretation of scientific findings.

The idea of "ontological defining" is just nonsense.

Real ontological insight reaches into the essential and hits a level of abstraction that's way beyond what a mere definition can touch.

steelridge58 said:It’s actually already covered in that section you just quoted.

Yeah.

True consciousness can only really begin to take shape once the thinker learns how to actually think. I honestly feel like I spend way too much time overthinking things, but I really think we need to start facing the music on this one if we want to actually make any progress. Not doing too great, honestly.
There’s a whole bunch of beasts and dragons out there just waiting for a fight.

And that’s exactly why we need to embrace some approaches that aren't exactly fun or comforting to deal with.

Some people just find it all too heavy and would much rather stay tucked away in their comfort zones, playing with their little toys and wasting time on philosophy.
Even if he tries to make it look like some massive intellectual breakthrough by throwing around names of famous philosophers, it’s really just him curating information from outside sources without actually doing any of the heavy lifting or original thinking required to process it through his own mind.

You're overthinking this, hollowpuma762.

It’s buried in some vague, chaotic circus.

steelridge58 said:It’s actually already covered in that section you just quoted.

Yeah.

True consciousness can only really begin to take shape once the thinker learns how to actually think. I honestly feel like I spend way too much time overthinking things, but I really think we need to start facing the music on this one if we want to actually make any progress. Not doing too great, honestly.
There’s a whole bunch of beasts and dragons out there just waiting for a fight.

And that’s exactly why we need to embrace some approaches that aren't exactly fun or comforting to deal with.

Some people just find it all too heavy and would much rather stay tucked away in their comfort zones, playing with their little toys and wasting time on philosophy.
Even if he tries to make it look like some massive intellectual breakthrough by throwing around names of famous philosophers, it’s really just him curating information from outside sources without actually doing any of the heavy lifting or original thinking required to process it through his own mind.

You're overthinking this, hollowpuma762.

Fine. Next time I won't waste the brainpower trying to explain things to you.

steelridge58 said:I was just being pedantic, I guess, because you were answering my question about how far off we are from "that" specific goal
and why
without first clarifying that what I had actually mentioned wasn't the goal at all.
So, my question was really directed at the actual target (?)—one that feels miles away given that we're currently stuck living in such a dysfunctional, broken, and frankly insane era and civilization, if I recall you saying so correctly.

That distinction is actually a pretty crucial part of the whole argument here.

Nope.

: )

Fine... so what's your question?

steelridge58 said:I was just being pedantic, I guess, because you were answering my question about how far off we are from "that" specific goal
and why
without first clarifying that what I had actually mentioned wasn't the goal at all.
So, my question was really directed at the actual target (?)—one that feels miles away given that we're currently stuck living in such a dysfunctional, broken, and frankly insane era and civilization, if I recall you saying so correctly.

That distinction is actually a pretty crucial part of the whole argument here.

Nope.

: )

Yeah.

Consciousness can only develop once the Thinker learns to face the bad stuff.
There are beasts and dragons out there to fight.

And you need certain approaches to handle that—approaches that aren't exactly "fun."

Anyone who finds that too much, anyone who just wants to cling to their diapers and happy little toys, is wasting their time with philosophy.
Even if they get that smug sense of achievement by quoting some philosophers, basically just hoarding information from outside sources without ever actually doing any individual work through their own inner self.

Melissa Stewart6 said:If you look at *The Science of Logic*, it’s easy enough to categorize it as philosophy—much like how anyone would label the Bible as a religious text. But when you get into works like Boehm's Aurora, the Tao, the Ching, or Nietzsche's Zarathustra... things get blurry. It’s much harder to decide if those belong in the realm of art, philosophy, or religion, since they really seem to blend all three together.

Calling something a "religious text" is just shorthand for a rigid doctrine with layers upon layers of meaning.
It's where the subject matter, the dialectics, the methodology, and the symbolism all start bleeding right into philosophy.

Melissa Stewart6 said:I personally lean toward the idea that drawing sharp lines between art, religion, and philosophy is a mistake. Just as astrophysicists search for a "theory of everything," I believe these expressions of the absolute spirit should be harmonized rather than pitted against each other. In the end, they aren't actually opposites; they only seem that way when we lack the tools to interpret them correctly.

But of course, it's wrong because philosophy inherently bleeds into both art and religion.

Ethan Gomez82 said:It isn't actually that simple to track. There are several ways to look at it.

While philosophers usually try to grasp those ultimate, permanent "Truth"s, their real success lies in dismantling the old ones—those previously held as unquestionable. Philosophy hasn't actually solved anything; instead, it has consistently demonstrated that what was once considered settled is actually wide open. From that perspective, the work of philosophy has always been fundamentally subversive, and that is precisely where its greatest value lies. That is also its future: refusing to let the world grow stagnant and calcified. To poke, prod, and question.

Man, you're just spouting nonsense when you're acting on pure impulse, but then when you actually slow down and stop rushing, you can come up with something halfway decent.

Ethan Gomez82 said:It isn't actually that simple to track. There are several ways to look at it.

While philosophers usually try to grasp those ultimate, permanent "Truth"s, their real success lies in dismantling the old ones—those previously held as unquestionable. Philosophy hasn't actually solved anything; instead, it has consistently demonstrated that what was once considered settled is actually wide open. From that perspective, the work of philosophy has always been fundamentally subversive, and that is precisely where its greatest value lies. That is also its future: refusing to let the world grow stagnant and calcified. To poke, prod, and question.

That's because philosophy isn't about solving things.

It's about developing the person who does the solving.

Ethan Gomez82 said:It isn't actually that simple to track. There are several ways to look at it.

While philosophers usually try to grasp those ultimate, permanent "Truth"s, their real success lies in dismantling the old ones—those previously held as unquestionable. Philosophy hasn't actually solved anything; instead, it has consistently demonstrated that what was once considered settled is actually wide open. From that perspective, the work of philosophy has always been fundamentally subversive, and that is precisely where its greatest value lies. That is also its future: refusing to let the world grow stagnant and calcified. To poke, prod, and question.

The work itself is developmental, while "subversion" is just what happens when the primitive bumps into the evolved. And usually, the primitive ends up undermining the evolved.

Which is exactly why it kept its distance from paradise.

Ethan Gomez82 said:It isn't actually that simple to track. There are several ways to look at it.

While philosophers usually try to grasp those ultimate, permanent "Truth"s, their real success lies in dismantling the old ones—those previously held as unquestionable. Philosophy hasn't actually solved anything; instead, it has consistently demonstrated that what was once considered settled is actually wide open. From that perspective, the work of philosophy has always been fundamentally subversive, and that is precisely where its greatest value lies. That is also its future: refusing to let the world grow stagnant and calcified. To poke, prod, and question.

In a world where Truth can be "permitted," nothing stays unchangeable.

The world is already stale.

God help philosophy.

steelridge58 said:So, I suppose you could argue that by refining our thoughts through logic—essentially by shedding light on things and making them clearer—we are actually working toward something...

Is that "something" the pursuit of actual Truth, which most would say is the ultimate goal or even the path of philosophy itself?

At the same time, these aren't merely tools; they constitute the activity itself.

It's an active process where we utilize language and reasoning as our primary instruments.

In fact, that's really the only toolkit a philosopher has at their disposal.

And honestly, that gives us a comparative edge over other sciences, since our specific methods are uniquely tied to the very subjects we're trying to tackle.

Because you're living in a retarded, corrupted, and completely insane era and civilization.

If you previously rejected what I pointed out as the core objective of philosophy
while simultaneously asking
just how far we've drifted from that ideal
or if we've completely lost our way, then your response—after denying that such a goal even exists—doesn't really hold up; what exactly is it being measured against?

Now we're just grasping at straws.
Right away.

Look, I really don't want to keep having this kind of discourse in the Philosophy section.

By the way, we've deducted 5 units of digital currency from your account due to unauthorized thoughts.

Also, take a look above.

If you want to engage philosophically, you are more than welcome to do so.

Yest.

Among other things.

steelridge58 said:So, I suppose you could argue that by refining our thoughts through logic—essentially by shedding light on things and making them clearer—we are actually working toward something...

Is that "something" the pursuit of actual Truth, which most would say is the ultimate goal or even the path of philosophy itself?

At the same time, these aren't merely tools; they constitute the activity itself.

It's an active process where we utilize language and reasoning as our primary instruments.

In fact, that's really the only toolkit a philosopher has at their disposal.

And honestly, that gives us a comparative edge over other sciences, since our specific methods are uniquely tied to the very subjects we're trying to tackle.

Because you're living in a retarded, corrupted, and completely insane era and civilization.

If you previously rejected what I pointed out as the core objective of philosophy
while simultaneously asking
just how far we've drifted from that ideal
or if we've completely lost our way, then your response—after denying that such a goal even exists—doesn't really hold up; what exactly is it being measured against?

Now we're just grasping at straws.
Right away.

Look, I really don't want to keep having this kind of discourse in the Philosophy section.

By the way, we've deducted 5 units of digital currency from your account due to unauthorized thoughts.

Also, take a look above.

If you want to engage philosophically, you are more than welcome to do so.

Yest.

And then that leads somewhere further down the line.

steelridge58 said:So, I suppose you could argue that by refining our thoughts through logic—essentially by shedding light on things and making them clearer—we are actually working toward something...

Is that "something" the pursuit of actual Truth, which most would say is the ultimate goal or even the path of philosophy itself?

At the same time, these aren't merely tools; they constitute the activity itself.

It's an active process where we utilize language and reasoning as our primary instruments.

In fact, that's really the only toolkit a philosopher has at their disposal.

And honestly, that gives us a comparative edge over other sciences, since our specific methods are uniquely tied to the very subjects we're trying to tackle.

Because you're living in a retarded, corrupted, and completely insane era and civilization.

If you previously rejected what I pointed out as the core objective of philosophy
while simultaneously asking
just how far we've drifted from that ideal
or if we've completely lost our way, then your response—after denying that such a goal even exists—doesn't really hold up; what exactly is it being measured against?

Now we're just grasping at straws.
Right away.

Look, I really don't want to keep having this kind of discourse in the Philosophy section.

By the way, we've deducted 5 units of digital currency from your account due to unauthorized thoughts.

Also, take a look above.

If you want to engage philosophically, you are more than welcome to do so.

Niye.

: )

steelridge58 said:So, I suppose you could argue that by refining our thoughts through logic—essentially by shedding light on things and making them clearer—we are actually working toward something...

Is that "something" the pursuit of actual Truth, which most would say is the ultimate goal or even the path of philosophy itself?

At the same time, these aren't merely tools; they constitute the activity itself.

It's an active process where we utilize language and reasoning as our primary instruments.

In fact, that's really the only toolkit a philosopher has at their disposal.

And honestly, that gives us a comparative edge over other sciences, since our specific methods are uniquely tied to the very subjects we're trying to tackle.

Because you're living in a retarded, corrupted, and completely insane era and civilization.

If you previously rejected what I pointed out as the core objective of philosophy
while simultaneously asking
just how far we've drifted from that ideal
or if we've completely lost our way, then your response—after denying that such a goal even exists—doesn't really hold up; what exactly is it being measured against?

Now we're just grasping at straws.
Right away.

Look, I really don't want to keep having this kind of discourse in the Philosophy section.

By the way, we've deducted 5 units of digital currency from your account due to unauthorized thoughts.

Also, take a look above.

If you want to engage philosophically, you are more than welcome to do so.

I'm not sure what you're even asking here.

steelridge58 said:So, I suppose you could argue that by refining our thoughts through logic—essentially by shedding light on things and making them clearer—we are actually working toward something...

Is that "something" the pursuit of actual Truth, which most would say is the ultimate goal or even the path of philosophy itself?

At the same time, these aren't merely tools; they constitute the activity itself.

It's an active process where we utilize language and reasoning as our primary instruments.

In fact, that's really the only toolkit a philosopher has at their disposal.

And honestly, that gives us a comparative edge over other sciences, since our specific methods are uniquely tied to the very subjects we're trying to tackle.

Because you're living in a retarded, corrupted, and completely insane era and civilization.

If you previously rejected what I pointed out as the core objective of philosophy
while simultaneously asking
just how far we've drifted from that ideal
or if we've completely lost our way, then your response—after denying that such a goal even exists—doesn't really hold up; what exactly is it being measured against?

Now we're just grasping at straws.
Right away.

Look, I really don't want to keep having this kind of discourse in the Philosophy section.

By the way, we've deducted 5 units of digital currency from your account due to unauthorized thoughts.

Also, take a look above.

If you want to engage philosophically, you are more than welcome to do so.

But this specific type of discourse is the whole point here.

steelridge58 said:So, I suppose you could argue that by refining our thoughts through logic—essentially by shedding light on things and making them clearer—we are actually working toward something...

Is that "something" the pursuit of actual Truth, which most would say is the ultimate goal or even the path of philosophy itself?

At the same time, these aren't merely tools; they constitute the activity itself.

It's an active process where we utilize language and reasoning as our primary instruments.

In fact, that's really the only toolkit a philosopher has at their disposal.

And honestly, that gives us a comparative edge over other sciences, since our specific methods are uniquely tied to the very subjects we're trying to tackle.

Because you're living in a retarded, corrupted, and completely insane era and civilization.

If you previously rejected what I pointed out as the core objective of philosophy
while simultaneously asking
just how far we've drifted from that ideal
or if we've completely lost our way, then your response—after denying that such a goal even exists—doesn't really hold up; what exactly is it being measured against?

Now we're just grasping at straws.
Right away.

Look, I really don't want to keep having this kind of discourse in the Philosophy section.

By the way, we've deducted 5 units of digital currency from your account due to unauthorized thoughts.

Also, take a look above.

If you want to engage philosophically, you are more than welcome to do so.

That’s definitely a philosophical take.

Once you actually wrap your head around the rhetorical device being used and what it's really getting at.

steelridge58 said:To build on what was just said,

Wouldn't it be so much better—and frankly, a lot healthier for a space like this—if we actually focused on cultivating the power of genuine thought?
I'm talking about a real collision of ideas.
A true exchange through meaningful dialogue.

What is the actual purpose of philosophy?
If we assume—just within the scope of this specific discussion—that the goal is to logically refine our thoughts and bring clarity to the subjects we're debating,
- then I can't help but wonder how far we've strayed from that ideal,
or how deeply we've lost our way
- and more importantly, why that's happening.

And I think that applies to the values of society at large, too.

Nope.

Those are just tools.

steelridge58 said:To build on what was just said,

Wouldn't it be so much better—and frankly, a lot healthier for a space like this—if we actually focused on cultivating the power of genuine thought?
I'm talking about a real collision of ideas.
A true exchange through meaningful dialogue.

What is the actual purpose of philosophy?
If we assume—just within the scope of this specific discussion—that the goal is to logically refine our thoughts and bring clarity to the subjects we're debating,
- then I can't help but wonder how far we've strayed from that ideal,
or how deeply we've lost our way
- and more importantly, why that's happening.

And I think that applies to the values of society at large, too.

Pretty damn far.

steelridge58 said:To build on what was just said,

Wouldn't it be so much better—and frankly, a lot healthier for a space like this—if we actually focused on cultivating the power of genuine thought?
I'm talking about a real collision of ideas.
A true exchange through meaningful dialogue.

What is the actual purpose of philosophy?
If we assume—just within the scope of this specific discussion—that the goal is to logically refine our thoughts and bring clarity to the subjects we're debating,
- then I can't help but wonder how far we've strayed from that ideal,
or how deeply we've lost our way
- and more importantly, why that's happening.

And I think that applies to the values of society at large, too.

Because you're stuck living in a retarded, corrupted, completely insane era and civilization.

Anyway, time to scramble for scraps.
Right now.

Oh, and by the way, we've debited 5 units of digital currency from your account due to unauthorized thoughts.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Look, we're just talking about whether the headline actually matches what's written... and honestly, they're saying the same thing.

As for proving things or making an argument... you can't exactly prove or debunk the idea that "Science is the only path to truth" using science itself.
It's basically just a worldview or some kind of pseudo-religion... which means the claim relies on having a specific belief system, not just raw data.

Honestly? You're just spinning your wheels trying to argue with people who have been hardwired with fanaticism.

bluemason3 said:When you lose common sense to sectarian indoctrination, you end up fantasizing about "truths" that aren't actually there.

Spot on.

And let’s not forget how you constantly troll this board with ignorant nonsense—just pure products of brainwashing, one-track minds, and neurotic little power trips.
Now this guy thinks he’s some enlightened rebel against "spirituality" just because he didn't have the same psychedelic breakthroughs while sitting in a lotus position. It’s not about character, it's just ego.

bluemason3 said:It's just Deleuzian self-defense through sloppy pseudo-philosophy.

Honestly, if you don't know your philosophy from a hole in the wall and you're already swallowing whatever ideology is being spoon-fed to you, I guess that's the kind of impression you're gonna get.

bluemason3 said:The only thing we can call objective knowledge is exact science. Everything else is just daydreaming, philosophical fluff, delusions, or general nonsense.

If science hasn't figured it out yet—meaning there isn't a solid consensus backed by hard evidence—then saying "nobody knows" is perfectly accurate. Beyond that, everything else is epistemologically shaky.

And honestly, this whole argument is a total wash.

Someone's personal take on what "counts" as knowledge—using their own subjective value system as if it were some universal yardstick for reality—doesn't hold water. They're trying to define what can or can't be known based on their own narrow view, acting like it's an objective truth when it's really just one person's opinion. You can't claim "knowledge" is just a matter of belief, because if you actually *know* something, it isn't just a belief anymore; it's fact. To suggest otherwise is just circular nonsense.
It’s completely nonsensical.

Intellectual blindness, fueled by subversive ideologies and conditioned idiocy, is a constant hurdle for both individuals and society at large.

If you've got the capacity, you'll find a way to dig deeper and figure things out.
If you don't, well, just keep swallowing whatever they shove down your throat.

David Vaughn75 said:Quote: around the forum

hollowpuma762 says: Your thread title is total nonsense—and honestly, it’s not even the first time you've pulled this—so I'm looking at two possible conclusions here: - You're just bad at judging things - You're just Operiras

How can a question be "nonsense"? I didn't even include any kind of judgment in the title

Quote:Bice.

There's no such thing as "clearing away emotions." Being emotional is part of being human, it's

That’s exactly why—because we're emotional—we actually have the potential to become the complete opposite.

Look, please, just walk me through your logic. How did you land on this idea of "cleansing oneself of emotions"? What does that even mean to you? And what's your take on that last point I made—about things having the potential to flip into their opposites?

mistybison said:No one actually knows the answer to that. Everyone is simply making assumptions.

Exactly, God is like a jukebox that grants everyone their every wish.👍

The real issue is whether one is foolish enough to wish for something trivial, which happens far more often than wishing for something wise.

There are New Age beliefs suggesting that the soul selects various bodies, lives, and experiences to facilitate learning and maturity. In this view, life is merely a dream from which the soul awakens after death, only to choose the next dream-life to acquire new wisdom. Consequently, pain, suffering, illness, and death aren't truly real, even if they feel that way while we experience them.

Of course, this belief is just as unprovable as any other.

Look, if you can't possibly know what everyone else already knows, then the whole statement is just plain nonsense.

David Vaughn75 said:Evagrius Ponticus basically argued that knowing God isn't some emotional high. He claimed that visions, voices, and all those religious "feelings" are actually just distractions from true realization. When people mistake an emotional rush for actual spiritual truth, they end up totally losing the rhythm of their inner life.

What's your take on this?

If emotions are like a river—this wild current just tossing us around left and right without any say in the matter—does that mean we aren't even in control of ourselves?
Maybe the whole point is supposed to be surrendering to God and relying solely on Him... but is that union with God meant to be quiet contemplation, a state of Nirvana, total nothingness, or just a massive explosion of feeling?

Look, your thread title makes zero sense, and honestly, it's not even the first time, so I'm left with two possible conclusions here:

- You're misinterpreting things.

- You're just messing around on this forum.

There is no such thing as "clearing away emotions." A human being is an emotional Bice by nature.

What exists are proper interpretations, assimilations, and transformations of emotion—where the feelings don't run the show, but rather the person feeling them does.

Keith Harris51 said:Alright, let’s talk about the whole ego versus spirituality thing.
Look, the feminist movement—as just another slice of subculture—isn't really the point here, much like how punk rock, political extremists, or even die-hard sports fanbases aren't the core issue...
A lot of people try to draw lines between these things, but honestly? I don't see the connection at all.
Why? Because ego and spirituality are basically baked into the very definition of being human.
You can't have a human being without an ego, any more than you can have one without some level of spirituality.
They're totally intertwined.
If you have an ego, you've got to be spiritual, and if you're spiritual, you're inevitably carrying an ego around with you.
It’s all about finding that sweet spot, that balance between the two.
I mean, how do you even wrap your head around spirituality without an ego?
It’s impossible—unless we’re talking about robots or some sci-fi cyborg nonsense.
Maybe modern culture is obsessed with turning the average Joe into some kind of "superman," but let's be real, every era has tried to play that game.
It's been happening throughout history.
There is no human being without spirituality, just like there’s no human without an ego.
It’s basic logic—if a equals b and b equals c, then a equals c.

That initial "Self" image is just a total limitation—it's this illusion of self-awareness that stalls your growth and keeps your spiritual side stuck in diapers, trapped in a tiny little crib.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... "No, I don't want to go out! I just want my juice box and my toys!"
Goo goo ga ga.

Keith Harris51 said:Alright, let’s talk about the whole ego versus spirituality thing.
Look, the feminist movement—as just another slice of subculture—isn't really the point here, much like how punk rock, political extremists, or even die-hard sports fanbases aren't the core issue...
A lot of people try to draw lines between these things, but honestly? I don't see the connection at all.
Why? Because ego and spirituality are basically baked into the very definition of being human.
You can't have a human being without an ego, any more than you can have one without some level of spirituality.
They're totally intertwined.
If you have an ego, you've got to be spiritual, and if you're spiritual, you're inevitably carrying an ego around with you.
It’s all about finding that sweet spot, that balance between the two.
I mean, how do you even wrap your head around spirituality without an ego?
It’s impossible—unless we’re talking about robots or some sci-fi cyborg nonsense.
Maybe modern culture is obsessed with turning the average Joe into some kind of "superman," but let's be real, every era has tried to play that game.
It's been happening throughout history.
There is no human being without spirituality, just like there’s no human without an ego.
It’s basic logic—if a equals b and b equals c, then a equals c.

That initial "Self" impression is just a limitation. It’s this illusion of self-awareness that actually stunts your growth, keeping your spirituality stuck in diapers, trapped in a tiny little crib.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... "No, I don't want to go out, I just want my juice box and my teddy bear."
Pathetic.

Zachary Cox69 said:What exactly is spirituality?
There’s this one Christian sect in the USA—though where else, really? Everywhere you look, people are selling some version of "spirituality"—where they catch venomous snakes with their bare hands. If you survive, you're considered spiritual. It's a bit like how the Sufi Order operates, too.
http://rs.n1info.com/Vesti/a374471/D...avangarda.html
Or take this—people actually let themselves be crucified.
Between the whipping, the nailing to crosses, seeking "death," and barefoot pilgrimages... traditions across the world can get pretty wild and interesting.
CP
An Australian man and 29 Filipinos participated this year in a traditional wooden crucifixion on Good Friday in the Philippines, reenacting the death of Jesus.

In the town of Kapitangan, four men and one woman were "crucified," while another 25 men underwent the same process in the town of Cutud, according to international news outlets. These customs—which the Catholic Church doesn't support—are meant to "cleanse the souls" of those undergoing such painful rituals.

One guy holds the record with 23 crucifixions under his belt.

These rituals have been going on in Cutud for 54 years now, and this year, thousands of tourists flocked to the region just to watch those 25 men being "crucified." To become a "Christ"—which is what they call these people—you have to wait years, often sitting on long waiting lists. The record holder is 48-year-old Ruben Enaje, who has been crucified 23 times.

After the "crucifixion," every "Christ" is taken by doctors to have their wounds checked, while others step in to carry their crosses. Some critics argue that the whole thing has turned into little more than a tourist attraction—that the actual faith and redemption have been lost in the spectacle.
Or this. Honestly, it's no wonder so many rational people struggle to believe in God when they see stuff like this.
http://arhiva.dalje.com/foto.php?id=...41&idrf=495733

If you actually want to find some semblance of spirituality, you’ll have to clear your head of all the idiotic garbage pumped out by the media first.