Posts by hollowpuma762

feralranger said:And what exactly constitutes "rubbish" in your eyes? I suspect many would find themselves nodding along if they weren't so preoccupied with tossing such heavy words around so carelessly...

As I have already stated, an ego is not possessed by the severely mentally impaired, nor by small children before their self-awareness and personality have developed, and even those suffering from Alzheimer's lose it in the later stages...

I am speaking from my own experience interacting with people, and since you asked, I suppose you fit the description quite perfectly.

Trying to have a real conversation with a twelve-year-old's level of rhetoric is basically impossible.

So, apparently, what I wrote was "nonsense."

feralranger said:And what exactly constitutes "rubbish" in your eyes? I suspect many would find themselves nodding along if they weren't so preoccupied with tossing such heavy words around so carelessly...

As I have already stated, an ego is not possessed by the severely mentally impaired, nor by small children before their self-awareness and personality have developed, and even those suffering from Alzheimer's lose it in the later stages...

I am speaking from my own experience interacting with people, and since you asked, I suppose you fit the description quite perfectly.

Sounds like a real expert professional opinion right there.

Robert Reyes4 said:Does "groups" here mean people?
Because they probably haven't earned that kind of label.

Nah. It means a mental assembly.

Like, things humans possess internally.

Robert Reyes4 said:Does "groups" here mean people?
Because they probably haven't earned that kind of label.

https://literarydevices.net/figure-of-speech

...

Robert Reyes4 said:You’ve basically taken some spiritual teaching—heaven knows which one—and treated it like absolute truth. Just remember that's your own choice. None of this is provable, and the rest of us are free to believe something else entirely.
And yet, you’re presenting your claims as if they’re universal axioms, without even trying to make a convincing argument.

I honestly don't see the point in these endless, vague tug-of-war debates. Especially when dealing with topics involving Philosophy and Spirituality, where most people aren't even interested in discovering anything new or grasping deep concepts. Instead, they just want to vent their own little impressions. They can't stay focused on the actual principles or the logic we've been discussing for ages. Every single time someone offers an input that doesn't align perfectly with their worldview, or asks for a deeper dive, they pivot immediately to "Me vs. You." It just turns into a circular, ego-driven shouting match about who's more enlightened or right.

There’s an ignore button for a reason. No need to waste your precious energy on stuff that clearly doesn't resonate with you.

Anyone sitting around just waiting to be convinced by outsiders about what the truth is—without any desire to build their own intellectual toolkit or develop their own way of seeing things—they'll be waiting a long time before they actually see reality for what it is. Honestly? Those are the exact kind of people who are just begging to be manipulated.

Joseph Bailey41 said:Fair point. You aren't his press secretary. Then again, he isn't a spokesperson for anyone but himself and his own ego—acting like he's the smartest guy in the room. Honestly, we've seen this act so many times it's getting a bit tiresome. Can we get back to the actual topic?

Honestly, you're just spinning fairy tales again and trying to pass off your delusions as hard facts.

Joseph Bailey41 said:Exactly. It’s like the response to thousands of years of women being conditioned to be submissive. We’ve just reached our limit, honestly. If you care so much about preserving that "virtue," maybe try being the humble ones for a change. ☕

It isn't about being Egoistic; it’s just pure burnout. We are done with the mansplaining, done with being treated as second-class citizens, and done with these gods who are really just projections of individual and collective egos. It's over. That's it.

Maybe if people actually dealt with their own baggage—and the people who caused it—first, they wouldn't be so blinded by obvious biases or feel the need to engage in these endless, pointless internet shouting matches with total strangers about things that don't even matter.

feralranger said:Quote : Sul The Great

Enchantress As if I haven't heard enough today, someone just had to chime in and say: Do you truly believe that the ego serves as a fundamental obstacle to one's spiritual evolution?

Quote : Sul The Great

Betty Wells16 As stated by: It appears we are once again grappling with the sheer, unadulterated weight of an Egoistic nature.

What exactly is it that keeps us at a standstill?

I find myself suspecting that within those three mere letters...It appears we have reached that inevitable, tiresome stage where the conversation inevitably circles back to the concept of the Ego. One can hardly escape it, can one? It hangs over our modern discourse like a heavy, unwanted fog, demanding attention while offering nothing but vanity in return. I find myself wondering if we aren't all just performing a rather elaborate, exhausting dance to satisfy this insatiable internal critic. Truly, it’s enough to make one want to retreat to the most remote corner of the Himalayas just to find a moment of quietude away from such relentless self-importance.Honestly, people will swallow just about anything these days.

It would be prudent to begin by examining what that specific term actually signifies within the context of our language...
The first interpretation leans heavily into the realm of psychology, whereas the second is far more general in its application.

In the realm of psychoanalysis, one might define the psyche as that intricate structural layer of personality tasked with navigating the messy reality of our existence. It acts as the essential mediator, desperately attempting to strike some semblance of balance between our primal, impulsive drives—the id—and those rigid, morally demanding ethical standards we call the super-ego. It encompasses the cognitive and perceptual facets of consciousness, including everything from memory to the often-flawed process of decision-making; essentially, it is the ego.

The concept of a whole individual—one who is truly cognizant of their own existence and actively asserts that uniqueness when interacting with others, their environment, and even inanimate objects—is essentially the study of the self. We are talking about the intricate tapestry of the ego, the core persona, the distinct personality, and that elusive sense of self-awareness that defines us as human beings.

What exactly is the problem here, and more importantly, why on earth should anyone care?

To be acutely aware of one's own existence? Honestly, why on earth would anyone consider that "cliché"?
Possessing a distinct personality? Honestly, why on earth would anyone consider that a disadvantage?

Or perhaps we should frame it in psychological terms: the constant, exhausting struggle to strike a balance between our primal, impulsive drives and our higher moral aspirations and ethical values? And if that is the case, I find myself wondering why anyone would suggest such an endeavor is inherently flawed.

Who, exactly, is devoid of an ego? If we are being honest, the only candidates would be small children who haven't quite grasped the concept of selfhood yet, or perhaps those certain adults whose intellectual and cognitive development seems to have hit a permanent standstill before they ever achieved true self-awareness.

The concept of being Egoistic is by no means inherently negative or indicative of some deep-seated character flaw; in fact, I find it hard to imagine anyone actually desiring for their child to lack an ego entirely. After all, who would want to raise a kid without any sense of self-awareness, a distinct personality, or basic cognitive function? To deny someone an ego is essentially to wish for them to be mentally incapacitated.

It seems that certain individuals, those lacking even a modicum of intellectual depth, frequently fall into the trap of conflating the concept of the "ego" with terms like "egocentric" or "egomaniac"—labels which, as any reasonable person understands, carry a decidedly negative connotation.

The distinction between possessing a healthy, functional ego and descending into full-blown egomania is quite much like the difference between enjoying a decent meal and losing all self-control to a massive binge.

That’s pretty shallow. That "psychoanalytic sense" doesn't even touch on the concept within the context of metaphysical makeup or spiritual teachings. And let’s be real: the ego isn't what creates balance—in fact, it usually leans toward destabilization because of all those messy individual experiences, selfish interests, and egocentric projections. As for point number two? Just generalizations and banal nonsense.

"Let's just throw in everything that comes to mind that vaguely associates with the word."
It's none of those things. It isn't the "whole person," it isn't the "self," it isn't "personality," and it isn't "self-awareness." None of it. Total garbage.

feralranger said:Frankly, I cannot name a single person who lives without an ego. The ego—that essential cocktail of self-awareness, personality, and the very memories that weave together our identity—is present in every healthy individual. It is absent in small children who haven't yet developed a sense of self, and it is absent in those with severe cognitive impairments. One also loses the ego during the advanced stages of Alzheimer's or in states of extreme intoxication... though in the earlier stages, it certainly knows how to run wild...

Furthermore, I have observed a peculiar pattern: those failed "teachers" or "preachers" who rail against the ego—which, let’s be honest, is perfectly normal and human—are often nothing more than massive egomaniacs themselves. It follows a certain twisted logic, really; in order for someone to impose their own megalomaniacal whims upon others, they find it quite convenient to dismantle the perfectly healthy egos of everyone else, thereby clearing a path to spread their own egocentrism.

Even here on the forums, many of these self-proclaimed "spiritualists" and "gurus" turn out to be blatant egomaniacs—persecutors of the ego (the normal kind, belonging to others) while remaining blissfully, perhaps even willfully, unaware of their own narcissism.

Are you serious?

What's your field of study here? What kind of examples or arguments are you actually using to back up a claim like that?

In any serious school of thought, they don't talk about being "against the ego"; they talk about a state of consciousness where the ego just isn't calling the shots.

Joseph Bailey41 actually dropped something useful for once, so we might as well bend over and pick it up. It could do some good for someone out there.

Joseph Bailey41 said:I think you're right. The bigger the ego, the higher the stakes when it comes to social status and everything else. Sure, humiliating someone here or there might provide a momentary sense of balance, but most of the time, it just breeds resentment. That resentment then fuels even more inflation of the ego, creating this image of ourselves as being untouchable or invincible—like we're these unbreakable warriors who can weather any storm. I see it in myself, too; after every major setback or mess-up, I find myself dancing on the edge of a sort of secular messiah complex. And let's be honest, it isn't a healthy way to live.

Look, whether it's a minor setback or a total catastrophe, there's always this massive internal shift happening. If you actually manage to use it properly, it leads to growth. Every single mess brings its own set of lessons and keys that unlock new levels of awareness. None of this crap comes without something valuable tucked inside the package; that initial negative gut feeling is just your system reacting to the fact that the lesson being delivered is uncomfortable. It's supposed to be.

The fake psychology pushed by the mindless herd in this decaying, degenerate society tries to label what has always been known as a positive individual process as a pathology. Meanwhile, the brainwashed masses just blindly nod their way through life, looking for miracles and a messiah in the outside world while remaining totally stagnant internally, never realizing they're actually lying right where they need to be.

Robert Reyes4 said:They honestly think they own the truth. And they talk down to everyone like they're doing us a favor.

That’s just person no 2 right there—someone who lets themselves fantasize about what someone else might be thinking, makes a judgment based on that fantasy, and then drags themselves into an argument over a conclusion they pulled out of thin air.

Reality is a different beast entirely.

What’s actually real doesn't care about anyone's "monopoly on truth" or any of those little personal or ideological delusions. Perception is tied directly to character which dictates how much info you can actually take in and process. One essential part of that character is the level of consciousness we're talking about here.

People with fundamental flaws in their character? Yeah, they're going to struggle to grasp specific virtues. It’s because those virtues feel foreign to them. It’s really that simple.

Joseph Bailey41 said:I think you're right. The bigger the ego, the higher the stakes when it comes to social status and everything else. Sure, humiliating someone here or there might provide a momentary sense of balance, but most of the time, it just breeds resentment. That resentment then fuels even more inflation of the ego, creating this image of ourselves as being untouchable or invincible—like we're these unbreakable warriors who can weather any storm. I see it in myself, too; after every major setback or mess-up, I find myself dancing on the edge of a sort of secular messiah complex. And let's be honest, it isn't a healthy way to live.

Joseph Bailey41 is on a roll.

Wishful thinking is just a bunch of incoherent, banal nonsense served up in some breezy, review-style tone. It’s what happens when the Ego decides to use its brain to fantasize about its own delusions, essentially slamming its head against a wall until the day after tomorrow.

Because, let's be honest—nobody here even understands the basic concept of this thread yet.

Joseph Bailey41 said:Honestly, what you’re doing across all these threads just looks like a series of temper tantrums. Every time someone disagrees with one of your imaginary friends, you feel the need to label them as ignorant, shallow, or just plain small-minded—all because they don't buy into your little fantasy world. If you want to talk about being low-class, that’s where you should look. ☕

Work on your character a little.

Why don't you try not being so defensive about your own delusions?

It's clear person no 2 doesn't even grasp the concept of this thread.

Joseph Bailey41 said:Honestly, what you’re doing across all these threads just looks like a series of temper tantrums. Every time someone disagrees with one of your imaginary friends, you feel the need to label them as ignorant, shallow, or just plain small-minded—all because they don't buy into your little fantasy world. If you want to talk about being low-class, that’s where you should look. ☕

Work on your character a little.

Thanks for the advice. Based on that rhetoric, I can tell you've got a real knack for judging reality.

casualcanyon3 said:I’ve been spending some time reading through various threads regarding the concept of humility from a religious perspective. Some people argue that a truly humble individual should be willing to endure humiliation without complaint. Their logic is that since you already know exactly who you are deep down, nothing from the outside world—not even blatant disrespect—should have the power to shake your internal composure.

Then you have others, like a certain priest I read, who claim that humility is essentially just the realization that every good thing within us stems from God, while every single flaw is entirely our own fault.

Just think about that for a second. According to this, none of your virtues, none of your strength, and none of your drive to be a better person than some higher power is actually a credit to your own character; it’s all just a gift. Meanwhile, every mistake and every dark impulse? That’s all on you.

It is a profoundly perverse way to strip a human being of their dignity, regardless of which version of this ideology you subscribe to.

It's just pure nonsense. It’s what happens when a mind gets lazy and takes everything literally, letting bias cloud every thought until someone starts swinging at windmills they built themselves out of sheer stupidity.

When they say "credit to your character and the desire to be better," they mean things coming "from above."

The idea is that when you build up that character—that part of you that does good—you're basically just aligning yourself with "the Almighty" based on an impulse sent down from Him.

But when people act like idiots and systematically smash their heads against a wall, that’s on the person carrying the head. No amount of tantrums or finger-pointing is going to change the fact that they're doing it to themselves.
Real change only comes from working on yourself from the inside out.

Joseph Bailey41 said:I don't really see that as being humble; I just see it as being a decent human being. To me, true humility is watching someone act arrogant and refuse to take responsibility, yet staying silent because you don't want to cause a scene, and then trying to justify that silence by calling it "modesty," "tolerance," or "wisdom."

My relationship with God feels pretty similar to that—you look at how messy the world is, but you don't dare stand up to the boss because you don't want to get stuck in that one department nobody wants, so you start telling yourself fairy tales about how the problem is actually your own fault and you just need to adapt to make things work. Honestly, it was much easier for me to just say "I'm not a believer" than to get lost in those kinds of mental gymnastics.

If you're sitting there thinking the "world isn't quite organized the way it should be," honestly? You’re missing the forest for the trees. You clearly don't have a handle on how things actually work. It’s just a basic misunderstanding of the physical realm and how much of it is being shoved around by the human environment we've built.

It’s such a tiny, insignificant little slice of the world. Just a speck.

Joseph Bailey41 said:I don't really see that as being humble; I just see it as being a decent human being. To me, true humility is watching someone act arrogant and refuse to take responsibility, yet staying silent because you don't want to cause a scene, and then trying to justify that silence by calling it "modesty," "tolerance," or "wisdom."

My relationship with God feels pretty similar to that—you look at how messy the world is, but you don't dare stand up to the boss because you don't want to get stuck in that one department nobody wants, so you start telling yourself fairy tales about how the problem is actually your own fault and you just need to adapt to make things work. Honestly, it was much easier for me to just say "I'm not a believer" than to get lost in those kinds of mental gymnastics.

Look, since that whole corner of the world that’s supposedly "unregulated" was built entirely by human hands and human mistakes, common sense tells you one thing: pointing the finger at some faceless "boss" just doesn't hold water. It's nonsense.

When things get easy, there’s this massive, almost unconscious slide toward making everything incredibly shallow. It’s like people just lose interest in anything with actual substance. You end up with this endless cycle where you aren't even choosing between quality options anymore—you're just picking between different flavors of mediocrity. It’s the path of least resistance, sure, but let’s be honest: that road doesn't actually lead anywhere worth going.

casualcanyon3 said:Good God, the sheer arrogance on display here is staggering. It’s all wrapped up in this tiresome, sanctimonious veneer of being a "neutral media outlet"—as if by constantly insisting, "I am not important here," they can somehow mask their own massive ego while masquerading as a vessel for universal truths.
Look, I’ve already laid out my position on how I interpret humility, and I stand by it. To me, this concept isn't some vague, airy-fairy sentiment; it functions quite specifically. It means that:

I am simply addressing the question posed in the opening post—offering my own particular reflections on the matter, which, given the nature of this subject, is exactly what was requested.

To be perfectly clear, I didn't frame this topic around any specific religious doctrine—be it Christian, Muslim, or otherwise—so there’s really no reason for me to harbor any preconceived notions toward a particular definition of humility.

Prejudices are almost always anchored to a specific, supposedly objective reality, but they tend to shatter the moment you gain any true insight into the underlying truth. That’s exactly right. Let’s get one thing straight about the current state of affairs. You’re down there trying to liken this entire discussion to some trivial debate over an apple, but you’re missing the fundamental logic. An apple is a physical reality; its existence is an objective fact that no amount of arguing can somehow negate. I might have my own personal biases regarding how an apple tastes, sure, but that doesn't mean I'm going to sit here and argue whether I'm experiencing an apple or a pear. That would be absurd. Humility is... The concept.Spiritual teachings shift and morph depending on where you land on the map or which specific culture you’re immersed in, and that’s true whether we are discussing a deeply personal realization or a structured theological doctrine. It begs the question: who exactly granted you the authority to act as the sole gatekeeper of a universal concept like humility? To suggest there is a single, objective standard is a fallacy; in reality, any individual interpretation is nothing more than a personal bias. I fail to see where you derived the notion that anyone here holds some kind of monopoly on the truth.

Quincy:

It becomes entirely logical when there isn't even a shred of humility left to allow one to actually listen and give any serious thought to the matter. It’s one of those absurd, circular realities where the predator becomes the prey, and the whole system just eats itself alive. It’s the ultimate picture of chaos—the fish biting its own tail. What is even the point of studying this subject if you don't grasp these fundamentals? Without them, you might as well be staring at a wall, completely lost and utterly clueless about what's actually going on.

You come to quote me on this subject, yet at the very first hint of my own personal interpretation, you immediately reveal just how little you care about what I’ve actually written or even what I fundamentally believe. You attempt to trivialize my words by resorting to these tired metaphors about taking things too literally—as if that somehow justifies your blatant refusal to engage with my actual point. You aren't even trying to mask your condescension; in fact, you’re hovering right on the edge of being outright insulting. It is a complete lack of respect in a conversation, yet you somehow still have the audacity to expect some level of humility from me. Not happening. I suppose you don't think you matter enough for that, do you?

To is, quite frankly, an absolute eyesore to me.

If you truly cared about anyone actually learning anything—and if you were genuinely as indifferent to your own role in this as you claim to be—you wouldn't be wasting your breath addressing people who clearly possess zero emotional intelligence and even less basic respect for the art of conversation. The brand of humility you’re preaching here, and the kind of subservient attitude you seem perfectly fine with, isn't just misguided; it is deeply insulting. To be blunt, it borders on hypocrisy. No sane, mentally healthy person should ever be expected to settle for such a pathetic display of "humility."

Quincy:

It really doesn't matter. Who? Whatever he claims, I'm certainly not sitting here acting like my own importance matters in all of this.

Don't you dare lie to me.

Quincy:

This discussion centers on a concept pulled straight from spiritual teachings regarding the fundamental state of one's character, though it requires a certain amount of context to truly grasp its underlying significance.

The discussion kicks off with a single question:

What are your actual thoughts on the concept of humility?

Who exactly gave you the authority to think you can just stroll in here and insult someone’s perspective, let alone dismiss it as if it holds no weight at all?

Quincy:

If that truth remains missing—whether it’s due to sheer ignorance or a stubborn refusal to see things clearly—then people inevitably try to bridge that gap with pure fantasy. It’s a pathetic sort of compensation. They mistake their own delusions for reality, convinced that what they perceive in their own minds is somehow synonymous with the actual state of the world, when in truth, their subjective whims couldn't be further from the cold, hard facts.

What I experience is my own reality, and this path I’m walking is mine alone. Only an arrogant blind fool would dare look at someone else's life journey—without having the slightest clue what it actually entails, nor possessing any genuine interest in the truth of it—and have the audacity to dismiss it all as mere fantasy.

Quincy:

If someone actually sets out to grasp the true essence of something—to understand it exactly as it was intended and to find some genuine, practical purpose within it—they will inevitably pour every ounce of their energy into uncovering its real meaning. To whom it may concern, clinging stubbornly to one's own delusions is nothing more than a tedious exercise in futility, especially when there are far more productive avenues available to grasp in a situation like this. It is quite frankly elementary.

Where on earth do you get the idea that I automatically fail to grasp a concept simply because I refuse to agree with it? Honestly, it’s a tired assumption. I have spent considerable time reading the writings of various clergy members regarding the virtue of humility, and quite frankly, I find much of it to be an absolute affront to human dignity.

Quincy:

When you say "your self," you are attempting to interpret a concept born from an entirely different era, a different language, and a completely distinct state of consciousness. You are trying to force it into a modern dialect that feels familiar to you, essentially decoding it based on how the terms sound in our current tongue. In doing so, you are filtering everything through our present sociological landscape—interpreting it through those immediate, reflexive associations shaped by a society conditioned to be deeply suspicious of anything resembling modern "religion" or the inevitable abuse of authority.

And why is it so vital to you that I interpret this—within the very structure and phonetics of the terminology itself—exactly according to your own rigid specifications? For what possible reason? Why does it matter so much to you that I label a specific concept in one particular way, especially when we are operating within a temporal and linguistic context that suggests such a definition doesn't even align with how I actually perceive it, let alone how I strive to live my life? I am genuinely curious to know.

Quincy:

He’s completely misinterpreting him, plain and simple.

Your contributions to this thread serve as nothing less than a definitive testament to my own interpretation—and believe me, I am reading it perfectly.

Quincy:

... The subject at hand—apples. It’s a deceptively simple topic, isn't it? Most people will glance at a fruit bowl and see nothing more than a snack, but if you look closer, there is an entire history of cultivation and commerce woven into every bite. Whether we are discussing the commercial giants like Apple Inc. dominating our digital lives or the humble orchards dotting the landscape of Washington state, the apple remains a symbol of both simplicity and immense complexity. I find myself wondering how many of us actually stop to consider the sheer scale of the industry behind such a common staple. To me, the very concept of an apple conjures the image of something left to rot beneath the tree. It’s a messy, unvarnished reality, but that’s exactly what I mean by it. It signifies that I possess a self—a core identity that isn't polished or performative, but something grounded and undeniably real. Let’s be honest: apples just aren't all they're cracked up to be.

At the very least, try to make an actual effort to distinguish between what I am actually saying and whatever distorted version of my words you’ve conjured up in your own head. You possess such a staggering level of arrogance in the way you communicate that the true art form here is simply managing to maintain even a shred of patience with you.

It just drains all your energy and focus right when you need it most for hitting the weights.

Seriously, this is such a perfect example for this thread.

I don't even know where to start with this one. Honestly? It’s just exhausting. You see these things happening, you read the news, and you think, "Surely, they can't be serious." But then, yep. They are. It’s like we’re living through some kind of slow-motion train wreck that everyone is pretending is just a standard Tuesday. I was reading what hollowpuma762 had to say earlier, and honestly, I couldn't agree more. It’s all just noise. Constant, grinding noise. We spend so much energy arguing about the details while the whole foundation is basically made of wet cardboard. It’s cynical, sure, but someone has to say it. Everything feels increasingly performative, like we're all just playing parts in a play that stopped being funny decades ago. Anyway, my rant is over. I need more coffee. Or maybe a nap. Probably both.

Frank Allen70 said:Let’s clear the air here, because I see a lot of people throwing around all sorts of theories. I’m going to use certain concepts that I hope are broad enough to be easily grasped.

The path of the left hand is the path of materialism.
The path of the right hand is the path of spirituality.

A materialist will eventually realize that even after they have "sold their soul to the devil," they still possess a sense of self—allowing them to translate all those material events into a different form, thereby catching the thread of spirituality and constructing their own reality.

On the other hand, a spiritual seeker will come to view their creative capacity as their sole function. Yet, at some point, they too must "sell their soul to the devil"—in the sense that they must find the courage to actually start living that material life they desire, rather than constantly renouncing it in favor of mere mental projections.

Both paths are distinct, yet both lead in the same direction, expressed by the koan: "God's right hand knows not what the left hand is doing." One hand represents power (regardless of how much an ascetic or a non-materialist might try to flatter themselves), but together, the two hands represent potential—the potential to realize oneself without movement, to know the self without a mirror. Both hands are simply two sides of the same mirror. In fact, there is no mirror at all. Anyone who fails to transcend this paradox through direct experience will be destroyed by the very power that initially seemed so uniquely theirs. Whether it is a slow decline or a sudden end, destruction is inevitable because such a person serves no purpose, and nature loves to recycle—because only nature holds true power. A human being can merely be a part of it; to imagine one could rule over it is simply foolish. In nature, there is no government and no regulation. There is only choice and intention. Everything else is simply whatever nature dictates. Every act of defiance carries its own consequence—one must weigh every action carefully and never dismiss either hand.

To understand both paths is to be enlightened. To walk both paths is to truly live. This isn't something you grasp through reading; it is something realized only through experience. Those who are not enlightened will never be able to recognize one who is. To the blind, both the light and the darkness are the same—to a blind man, nothing possesses brilliance. What I am writing here is just one description among many. The goal of all such descriptions is to halt division—both internal and external.

Maybe one day, when the rest of these loose cannons finally wrap their heads around what generalization actually means—when they grasp how they trivialize everything or fall headfirst into pure wishful thinking—they might actually learn to stop spouting such absolute garbage.

And some people? They’re actually going to look past the whole "left vs. right" nonsense and try to find a third way. A real alternative.

casualcanyon3 said:I don't hold any "prejudices" against the concept; rather, I am interpreting it through my own lens, just as I described. Furthermore, I refuse to bow down to the "authority" of some "official" spiritual dogma attempting to lecture me on humility, especially when I find myself fundamentally at odds with how that "official" doctrine presents itself.

You seem convinced that disagreement is synonymous with ignorance—or worse, arrogance.
To me, it isn't. To me, it’s simply called having a backbone.

Yes, the problem clearly lies elsewhere. 👍

Aha... so you aren't actually holding any prejudices? You just took my interpretation out of context and decided to pass judgment on it. Real classy.

Look, you don't need anyone else to step in and explain things to you. You already get it. It is what it is. Period.
And honestly? That’s 100% spot on. I mean, you're absolutely right about that. I don't even know where to start with this one. It’s just... it's a lot. I've been staring at my screen for twenty minutes trying to find the right words, but everything feels too small for how massive this actually is. Honestly? I’m exhausted just thinking about it. There's this sense of overwhelming weight, like we're all just circling a drain we can't see. It's messy, it's complicated, and frankly, it's kind of ridiculous how much energy we spend worrying about things that feel fundamentally broken from the jump. My head is spinning. Just... yeah. That's where I'm at. So, that's how she read into it? Yeah... yeah, that's just wrong. Total miss.

casualcanyon3 said:I don't hold any "prejudices" against the concept; rather, I am interpreting it through my own lens, just as I described. Furthermore, I refuse to bow down to the "authority" of some "official" spiritual dogma attempting to lecture me on humility, especially when I find myself fundamentally at odds with how that "official" doctrine presents itself.

You seem convinced that disagreement is synonymous with ignorance—or worse, arrogance.
To me, it isn't. To me, it’s simply called having a backbone.

Yes, the problem clearly lies elsewhere. 👍

It’s all perfectly logical—really—as long as you don't have any of that pesky "humility" left to actually listen or weigh things out.
It’s just one big, messy cycle, isn't it? A dog chasing its own tail, or like they say, one fish biting the tail of another. Everything just circles back on itself in this endless, exhausting loop.

What’s even the point of learning this stuff? Honestly, without it, you're just sitting there with nothing but empty air in your head.

casualcanyon3 said:I don't hold any "prejudices" against the concept; rather, I am interpreting it through my own lens, just as I described. Furthermore, I refuse to bow down to the "authority" of some "official" spiritual dogma attempting to lecture me on humility, especially when I find myself fundamentally at odds with how that "official" doctrine presents itself.

You seem convinced that disagreement is synonymous with ignorance—or worse, arrogance.
To me, it isn't. To me, it’s simply called having a backbone.

Yes, the problem clearly lies elsewhere. 👍

Whatever. It doesn't matter. Who? Look, I’m not even claiming to be the center of this universe here. Honestly. This whole topic is digging into some deep spiritual concepts regarding the state of one's character—it actually requires a bit of context and some actual sense if you want to wrap your head around what's being said.

If that’s missing—whether it’s because someone just doesn't know any better or they're too damn stubborn to admit it—then they start making stuff up just to fill the gaps. It's pure fantasy. They mistake whatever they've cooked up in their own heads for actual reality, but let me tell you, what "you" think is true and what's actually happening in the real world? Those two things aren't even in the same zip code.

Look, if someone actually sets out to wrap their head around something—I mean, really dive in because they think there’s a practical point to it, some kind of actual utility—they’re going to put in the work. They’ll grind. They'll sweat it out just to figure out what the hell it all means.
Look, if you want to be stubborn and cling to your little fantasies, fine. Go ahead. But honestly? It’s pretty much the only option left when you can't wrap your head around doing anything actually useful in a situation like this. It's as simple as that.

Your whole "self" thing? Honestly, you’re just taking a concept from some ancient teaching—something from a completely different era, a totally different language, and a state of consciousness we can barely wrap our heads around—and trying to force it into a translation that makes sense to you today. You're basically interpreting it based on how the words sound in English, filtered through our current social mess and those knee-jerk reactions we all have toward modern "religion" and the inevitable abuse of authority. It's just a reaction to being conditioned by everything around us and that deep-seated distrust of anyone claiming to hold the reins.

And he’s totally misreading him. Just completely missing the point.

...

Apples. That’s the topic. Just... apples. Honestly, I don't even know where to start with this one. It's such a mundane thing to fixate on, isn't it? But here we are.
To me, the whole idea of an apple just brings to mind those rotten ones left to rot on the ground under the tree. It’s messy. It's real. And honestly? That's how I see myself.
Apples? Honestly, they just aren't all that.

...

casualcanyon3 said:Having an opinion doesn't mean you lack the will to study, to seek guidance, or to actually think critically. You've simply taken your entire interpretation of my stance, my ego, and my worldview, and projected it onto me based entirely on your own preconceived notions.

You might want to dial back the arrogance when it comes to your "spiritual insights."

So, you're calling me biased and arrogant? That’s rich coming from someone who’s judging an out-of-context concept based entirely on their own preconceived notions—and then acting all high and mighty when someone calls them out on it.

And we're talking about a concept that is literally designed to strip away that exact kind of arrogance.

But sure, let's keep pretending the problem lies somewhere else. It's always someone else's fault, right?

...

Joseph Bailey41 said:Meanwhile, your comments feel more like things being expelled from a different part of the body when someone loses control of their bowels. ☕

And honestly, that's just one of many reasons why I feel such deep disgust toward this concept pushed by those patriarchal, monotheistic religions.

Honestly, anyone who hasn't spent enough time reading the actual Philosophy department archives might think this whole rhetorical circus—this attempt at a magazine-style breakdown of the ego and the pot/lid game—is some original brainchild of the author. Instead, it's just a blatant carbon copy of my own posts and my analogy about uncontrolled guts spewing stupidity straight from the brain.

Joseph Bailey41 said:Meanwhile, your comments feel more like things being expelled from a different part of the body when someone loses control of their bowels. ☕

And honestly, that's just one of many reasons why I feel such deep disgust toward this concept pushed by those patriarchal, monotheistic religions.

Look, if we focused more on actual education and less on the ego, we'd realize this concept is cross-cultural. It's woven into almost every serious discipline aimed at consciousness development. It isn't just some niche byproduct of what the uneducated mistake for "monotheistic patriarchal religion" thanks to recent ideological propaganda.

If you're lucky enough to find some sense along the way, you might actually grasp why it works this way—and maybe then that feeling of disgust toward your own windmills will finally fade.

Now, for those of you who aren't constantly tripping over your own ego or pride—people who actually get what we're talking about here—Joseph Bailey41 offered to show us just how shallow and stupid things get when the ego takes the wheel and stops listening to what's actually happening in the mind.

In those moments, reality gets twisted into whatever shape makes the observer feel good, basically just manufacturing illusions. That’s why "humility" matters. It keeps your head from spinning out and keeps your mind from being suffocated by all that ego nonsense.

It’s not about being submissive, though. Not at all. It’s more like a stage of emotional maturity, a sign of actual character development defined by the relationship between sebe and the world, which ultimately dictates how you deal with the world.

Joseph Bailey41 said:You missed the point. He acts as that teacher whose definitions you have to accept if you want to make any spiritual progress. 🧐

Go kneel on some gravel as punishment. ☕

It’s eating away at my ego like a bad habit.

Look, it’s fine.
Some people get way too high on their own supply, falling in love with their own mental projections until they hit a wall, while others just... don't. They move on.

The endless, exhausting tug-of-war over the "meaning" of theological or philosophical concepts—concepts that are basically just words wrapped up and translated into another language to begin with... It’s pointless. People just grab whatever word suits their specific bias, pulling things completely out of context in their own language, without any guidance, zero education, and absolutely no desire to actually learn anything. It's just noise.

casualcanyon3 said:What you’re describing is what I personally call modesty. To me, being "humble" feels like a total loss of dignity. You don't have to surrender your self-respect just to understand, acknowledge, or learn from something superior. You don't need to grovel—which is exactly what humility feels like to me—just to show respect.

Look, it doesn't matter what you think, or what kind of labels you want to slap on things.
Nobody sat down and designed a spiritual doctrine specifically to fit your local slang, let alone your personal vocabulary. A serious school of thought isn't going to bend itself just to cater to you. If anything, it's the other way around if you actually want to learn something. A lot of these terms are archaic for a reason, and banging your head against the literal definition of a word isn't exactly a productive way to spend your time.

When someone passes a concept down to you, you interpret it the way they teach it—not how you feel like it should be. Otherwise, you're just indulging in fantasies and tossing away the essential truths sitting right under your nose, turning the whole thing into a game of broken telephone. People on these forums just post whatever comes to mind without any context, so there's this constant tendency to play philosopher based on the first random thought that pops into your head.
A priest (or anyone actually worth listening to about this stuff) puts these things into clear context. They use real-life examples. Has anyone here actually suggested that "humility" means a loss of dignity in this context?

casualcanyon3 said:Elevating humility to the status of a virtue is nothing more than the most pedestrian attempt to rationalize one's own spiritual frailty and inherent masochism. To me, it sounds like someone trying to dress up a personal perversion as some higher, more noble calling just to lend themselves a shred of credibility. Frankly, I find seeing a submissive, "humble" individual to be utterly repulsive. It reaches a point where I feel a genuine impulse to give them a kick in the teeth. Figuratively speaking, of course.

The problem is that the local dialect makes you think of "humiliation."

But the actual concept has nothing to do with that.

Ditch that word for a second and just try to imagine a state of consciousness where you perceive, practice, and "listen" from a place of superiority. You know, the exact opposite of an ego trip or narcissism.

That specific aspect of consciousness? That’s a character virtue.

hiddenhound3 said:There isn't much to understand here, really. 😁

Actually, there's plenty to get when you realize what character actually is and how it dictates a person's capacity and limits. Especially when we're talking about metaphysical development.