Genius Mind

Jeffrey Ramos4 said:Why unsuccessful?
Maybe he actually enjoys that kind of work. Maybe he never had the drive or the ambition to go down any other path. And why is it bad that a man found work at a rural school? Perhaps he truly found his calling in teaching.
We once had a music teacher who was incredibly gifted—a literal musical genius—but he struggled with schizophrenia. Everyone wondered why someone so talented was working in a local school. He just told them straight up that he loves the job and loves teaching.

To the OP: you’re still young, green, and inexperienced. Focus on what you’re good at and what actually interests you, but don't keep your head stuck in the clouds. I hate to burst your bubble, but you aren't anything special, no grand persona. Not you, not me, not anyone else. Except maybe Tesla 🐔😁 What I mean is, at the end of the day, raw knowledge isn't everything; it's about how you apply your own potential in a positive direction. For yourself and for others. You can't change the entire world. You can change yourself, grow, gain experience, think, draw conclusions, and let those things lead to progress. If you want to see change, look at your own immediate surroundings. Pick a realistic goal, and if you want to make a difference, help someone using the skills and experience you have. For instance, you could get involved in your local community and volunteer.

Maybe because success isn't really "measured" from the perspective of someone who actually has a gift or a skill... and doesn't bother defining themselves or making a big deal out of what they haven't reached yet. Or maybe success is just measured by people living in tension, mostly because they lack the actual ability to pull things off. It would probably be easier, theoretically, to just redirect all that effort, time, and criticism toward finding one's own universal failure, rather than trying to define oneself on some artificial, globally accepted scale of "success"... where success is just a mold for what's needed, justified, or socially acceptable...

The "stupid" person will always try to present themselves, mask, or become... smart. Within that duality, it's no surprise when the "smart" person tries to do the exact opposite. Just an observation, testing the waters based on my own experience. Is a "stupid" person successful if they manage to convince themselves they aren't? And by that same logic, were they ever even "stupid"... if they succeeded in doing that? Is the "smart" person truly smart... if they use their intellect to negate their own intellect, trying through intellectual revisionism to not be... or to be... anything other than their predetermined idea? Are "both" sides just a tension, a drive, a level of unfulfilled self-creation... a kind of heat, an energy... that doesn't care how it's done, how much is done, or even if nothing is done at all... where just existing within these "neural storms" is enough...

The definition of "self" might just be found in the perception of its own resistance... not on some linear scale of cause and effect. Being "smart" or "stupid," in a state of being that knows everything but understands nothing... knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing... might be the only choice left within the "wide spectrum of free will." Regardless of the choice, the pressure to react, the approval or denial, the tendency... this core essence that we all can't... can't ignore... everyone here will eventually have to cross out at some point. After that crossing, everything that was—or wasn't—right, wrong, intentional, or accidental... before... maybe then, for the first time, it's all perceived and summed up... just as a faint vision of a former storm... which, according to some unknown laws of nature... entropy of everything... is now absolutely extinguished, quieted, fading... becoming a past that is never again important or even noticeable to anyone... just a fragment of an illusion of time and space...

ironrider11 said:Maybe because success isn't really "measured" from the perspective of someone who actually has a gift or a skill... and doesn't bother defining themselves or making a big deal out of what they haven't reached yet. Or maybe success is just measured by people living in tension, mostly because they lack the actual ability to pull things off. It would probably be easier, theoretically, to just redirect all that effort, time, and criticism toward finding one's own universal failure, rather than trying to define oneself on some artificial, globally accepted scale of "success"... where success is just a mold for what's needed, justified, or socially acceptable...

The "stupid" person will always try to present themselves, mask, or become... smart. Within that duality, it's no surprise when the "smart" person tries to do the exact opposite. Just an observation, testing the waters based on my own experience. Is a "stupid" person successful if they manage to convince themselves they aren't? And by that same logic, were they ever even "stupid"... if they succeeded in doing that? Is the "smart" person truly smart... if they use their intellect to negate their own intellect, trying through intellectual revisionism to not be... or to be... anything other than their predetermined idea? Are "both" sides just a tension, a drive, a level of unfulfilled self-creation... a kind of heat, an energy... that doesn't care how it's done, how much is done, or even if nothing is done at all... where just existing within these "neural storms" is enough...

The definition of "self" might just be found in the perception of its own resistance... not on some linear scale of cause and effect. Being "smart" or "stupid," in a state of being that knows everything but understands nothing... knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing... might be the only choice left within the "wide spectrum of free will." Regardless of the choice, the pressure to react, the approval or denial, the tendency... this core essence that we all can't... can't ignore... everyone here will eventually have to cross out at some point. After that crossing, everything that was—or wasn't—right, wrong, intentional, or accidental... before... maybe then, for the first time, it's all perceived and summed up... just as a faint vision of a former storm... which, according to some unknown laws of nature... entropy of everything... is now absolutely extinguished, quieted, fading... becoming a past that is never again important or even noticeable to anyone... just a fragment of an illusion of time and space...

Actually, that's exactly it. The problem with people is that they measure their own success by external factors—specifically, the reactions they get from others. We can't define ourselves from just one position, whether it's our perceived "I" or the perceived "him/her" from someone else's side. If an individual has a built personality—meaning they are secure in their goals, their virtues and flaws, the thoughts that are part of them, etc.—then the reaction of their surroundings can't destroy their view of themselves. On the other hand, without a social circle, a person can't see their mistakes or flaws, or rather, the personality markers they could use to mature and become more aware of certain parts of themselves. If they don't succeed in this environment, they'll surely succeed in another. If they aren't appreciated here, they'll be valued somewhere else. It's like that saying...Every cloud has a silver lining. If he personally views working at a small-town high school as a genuine success and a fulfillment, rather than playing grandmaster chess against Bobby Fischer, then nobody has the right to tell him he’s wrong or a failure. So, I find myself agreeing with what you wrote here, quoting: Jt might be (theoretically) easier to redirect all that effort, time, and criticism... toward searching for one's own universal (un)success, instead of trying to define oneself by wriggling around on some artificial, globally validated scale of (un)success (where success equals being useful, justified, permitted, or desirable....)....
But then there's this part you mentioned, quoting: "measured" through the perception of those living under certain tensions, in combination with a deficiency of the abilities required to achieve them
Hmmmm, interesting 😬

"Stupid." I really don't care for that word. What does it actually mean? It's such a broad, imprecise term. Someone might seem stupid to one person but not to another. Maybe he thinks he's stupid when he isn't, or maybe others think he is when he isn't. If someone is truly stupid but lives under the conviction that they are brilliant—and it isn't hurting anyone—then let them live like that 😬
But these examples feel a bit cliché and vague. What matters is the specific field where you're defined as smart or stupid, because the consequences vary wildly in terms of how much damage they do to yourself or the world around you.
However, looking back at this section, quoting: Is someone truly "smart"—really smart... if their intellect denies intellect and attempts... through intellectual revisions of the "self"... to not be.. or rather to be.. anything other than a predetermined idea?
Hmmmm, interesting again 😬

So, there's no more free will, no individuality, no sense of "self"... because everything eventually cancels itself out. We all just merge into one—becoming nothingness, insignificance, a mere memory... the human race goes bye-bye. Maybe we evolve into that. Maybe we establish a collective consciousness, or that nightmare of a virtual consciousness I mentioned once before. And there you have it: eternity. Brrr, sounds terrifying.
If everything eventually becomes just a fragment of an illusion of time and space, as you put it, then it's probably best for the "smart" people to convince themselves they are "stupid"—or better yet, to actually become stupid. Why not follow the example of someone like Epicurus and just enjoy everything life has to offer? 😬 That last part was my clumsy attempt at sarcasm, not my actual ideology, just so there's no misunderstanding.
And one thought for the road from one of the great minds 🧐

Jeffrey Ramos4 said:Actually, that's exactly it. The problem with people is that they measure their own success by external factors—specifically, the reactions they get from others. We can't define ourselves from just one position, whether it's our perceived "I" or the perceived "him/her" from someone else's side. If an individual has a built personality—meaning they are secure in their goals, their virtues and flaws, the thoughts that are part of them, etc.—then the reaction of their surroundings can't destroy their view of themselves. On the other hand, without a social circle, a person can't see their mistakes or flaws, or rather, the personality markers they could use to mature and become more aware of certain parts of themselves. If they don't succeed in this environment, they'll surely succeed in another. If they aren't appreciated here, they'll be valued somewhere else. It's like that saying...Every cloud has a silver lining. If he personally views working at a small-town high school as a genuine success and a fulfillment, rather than playing grandmaster chess against Bobby Fischer, then nobody has the right to tell him he’s wrong or a failure. So, I find myself agreeing with what you wrote here, quoting: Jt might be (theoretically) easier to redirect all that effort, time, and criticism... toward searching for one's own universal (un)success, instead of trying to define oneself by wriggling around on some artificial, globally validated scale of (un)success (where success equals being useful, justified, permitted, or desirable....)....
But then there's this part you mentioned, quoting: "measured" through the perception of those living under certain tensions, in combination with a deficiency of the abilities required to achieve them
Hmmmm, interesting 😬

"Stupid." I really don't care for that word. What does it actually mean? It's such a broad, imprecise term. Someone might seem stupid to one person but not to another. Maybe he thinks he's stupid when he isn't, or maybe others think he is when he isn't. If someone is truly stupid but lives under the conviction that they are brilliant—and it isn't hurting anyone—then let them live like that 😬
But these examples feel a bit cliché and vague. What matters is the specific field where you're defined as smart or stupid, because the consequences vary wildly in terms of how much damage they do to yourself or the world around you.
However, looking back at this section, quoting: Is someone truly "smart"—really smart... if their intellect denies intellect and attempts... through intellectual revisions of the "self"... to not be.. or rather to be.. anything other than a predetermined idea?
Hmmmm, interesting again 😬

So, there's no more free will, no individuality, no sense of "self"... because everything eventually cancels itself out. We all just merge into one—becoming nothingness, insignificance, a mere memory... the human race goes bye-bye. Maybe we evolve into that. Maybe we establish a collective consciousness, or that nightmare of a virtual consciousness I mentioned once before. And there you have it: eternity. Brrr, sounds terrifying.
If everything eventually becomes just a fragment of an illusion of time and space, as you put it, then it's probably best for the "smart" people to convince themselves they are "stupid"—or better yet, to actually become stupid. Why not follow the example of someone like Epicurus and just enjoy everything life has to offer? 😬 That last part was my clumsy attempt at sarcasm, not my actual ideology, just so there's no misunderstanding.
And one thought for the road from one of the great minds 🧐

Let me sum this up for you...

We’re all just stuck in this loop. Living in a space, a time... a reality where the whole concept of "self" is just as shaky as everything else around us. Sure, maybe a "me" exists without any outside input, but not in any way that actually matters to the world right now. Why does the global perspective matter to one person? Because trying to live in some imaginary version of existence outside the mainstream is just... well, imagination. It’s not even that different from just imagining things within the norm. Think about someone stripped of sight, sound, smell, touch... what kind of existence are they even living in? How are they any different from the rest of us—people who are convinced of their own reality—when they're living entirely outside the standard model? All this material stuff we take for granted is really just our own personal, subjective memory of what's real. A schizophrenic experiencing stimuli that aren't "available" to me... those are just symptoms of his illness. If I try to figure out how he sees "red," or if I try to visualize his red versus my red... I'll just end up with my own version of the truth. My own "lucid" conclusion. I'd probably tell myself that because of his "heightened senses," his red isn't my red. But that's just me overthinking it. Me, the color red, and my ability to sit here and analyze it all... defining ourselves through labels and differences is just something happening inside my own head. Without the senses—without the hearing, the smell, the touch that breaks into this existence—my mind would be drifting through God knows where. It would be totally disconnected from anything we call common sense, logic, or reality. With others, or without them, one way or another... it doesn't really matter. As long as it is... whatever it is. When it's gone, it's gone. Or maybe it won't be. Someone without senses might perceive "non-existence" in a way we can't even begin to wrap our heads around...

Everyone’s entitled to whatever they want. Period. Anyone else trying to tell you, convince you, or lecture you that you don't have the right to something... they're just some random person. They’re just trying to force their own little version of reality down your throat. They think because they’ve got a degree or a fancy title or "experience," they somehow know better than you. It's all just an ego trip... Trying to fit you into their narrow little worldview. People say the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but I think there's something way deeper to that than just some tired old cliché...

Smart design... this whole existence thing... it all comes down to being individual. Every single person lives inside their own little bubble—this unique, custom-made capsule that’s both a prison and a way to escape being just another face in the crowd. Without those boundaries, everything would just blur into one big mess. The only reason anything actually moves... the real engine behind it all... is because we have this primal urge to fit in. To blend, to identify, to act like we belong to some group of "others" who are just like us. But if you really look at it... a grain of sand isn't just a grain, it's part of the sand. A drop of water isn't just a drop, it's the ocean. A leaf isn't just a leaf, it's part of a branch, which is part of a tree, which is part of a massive forest growing out of a pile of dirt and water... If you strip everything down to the basics... if you break it all into its smallest parts... we're all made of the same stuff. We share everything. And once you break things down to that absolute core, you just vanish into nothingness. That weird, unmeasurable void... Spending days, months, years trying to figure out who we are or what our surroundings mean... beating ourselves up for being lazy or stuck, or patting ourselves on the back for working hard and actually achieving something... it's honestly the only thing worth holding onto. As long as possible. Thinking life is beautiful or total garbage is just a matter of perspective... how you interpret the "sameness." One moment feels huge and significant, while another feels totally useless or destructive... like just a cruel, pointless fragment of wasted time...

I don't even know what to say to you... just weird. ironrider11 says:
"Stupid"... I'm really not a fan of that word. What does it even mean? It's such a vague, overused term...

See the irony here? You hate the word, but if you actually stop to think about it, you end up questioning what the hell it even means. Who is it for? When does it apply? What’s the context? There are different shades of the same color, right? Is there anything that actually exists outside of a broad definition? Nobody likes being generalized—we all dodge those labels... but isn't everything we call "existence" just a bunch of individual reinterpretations of general ideas? Isn't all knowledge basically just one massive generalization? All these theories, opinions, and perspectives... they’re just fluid, shifting variables. They only look like solid, undeniable truths because we freeze them in a single moment in time. But as a permanent thing? They don't exist. It's all just these tiny, short-lived flashes where one person decides someone else is "smart" or "stupid"... which really just proves how impossible empathy is. We can't occupy two different worlds at once. We're stuck in our own little bubbles, trying to find logic, while the individual is just lost, trying to figure out where they even stand in the grand scheme. Science, spirituality, religion... none of it gives a real answer. None of it even gives you a starting point. Clinging to some "universal truth"—like who's smart and who's dumb—isn't exactly stupid... but it's definitely not smart either...

Jeffrey Ramos4 said:Actually, that's exactly it. The problem with people is that they measure their own success by external factors—specifically, the reactions they get from others. We can't define ourselves from just one position, whether it's our perceived "I" or the perceived "him/her" from someone else's side. If an individual has a built personality—meaning they are secure in their goals, their virtues and flaws, the thoughts that are part of them, etc.—then the reaction of their surroundings can't destroy their view of themselves. On the other hand, without a social circle, a person can't see their mistakes or flaws, or rather, the personality markers they could use to mature and become more aware of certain parts of themselves. If they don't succeed in this environment, they'll surely succeed in another. If they aren't appreciated here, they'll be valued somewhere else. It's like that saying...Every cloud has a silver lining. If he personally views working at a small-town high school as a genuine success and a fulfillment, rather than playing grandmaster chess against Bobby Fischer, then nobody has the right to tell him he’s wrong or a failure. So, I find myself agreeing with what you wrote here, quoting: Jt might be (theoretically) easier to redirect all that effort, time, and criticism... toward searching for one's own universal (un)success, instead of trying to define oneself by wriggling around on some artificial, globally validated scale of (un)success (where success equals being useful, justified, permitted, or desirable....)....
But then there's this part you mentioned, quoting: "measured" through the perception of those living under certain tensions, in combination with a deficiency of the abilities required to achieve them
Hmmmm, interesting 😬

"Stupid." I really don't care for that word. What does it actually mean? It's such a broad, imprecise term. Someone might seem stupid to one person but not to another. Maybe he thinks he's stupid when he isn't, or maybe others think he is when he isn't. If someone is truly stupid but lives under the conviction that they are brilliant—and it isn't hurting anyone—then let them live like that 😬
But these examples feel a bit cliché and vague. What matters is the specific field where you're defined as smart or stupid, because the consequences vary wildly in terms of how much damage they do to yourself or the world around you.
However, looking back at this section, quoting: Is someone truly "smart"—really smart... if their intellect denies intellect and attempts... through intellectual revisions of the "self"... to not be.. or rather to be.. anything other than a predetermined idea?
Hmmmm, interesting again 😬

So, there's no more free will, no individuality, no sense of "self"... because everything eventually cancels itself out. We all just merge into one—becoming nothingness, insignificance, a mere memory... the human race goes bye-bye. Maybe we evolve into that. Maybe we establish a collective consciousness, or that nightmare of a virtual consciousness I mentioned once before. And there you have it: eternity. Brrr, sounds terrifying.
If everything eventually becomes just a fragment of an illusion of time and space, as you put it, then it's probably best for the "smart" people to convince themselves they are "stupid"—or better yet, to actually become stupid. Why not follow the example of someone like Epicurus and just enjoy everything life has to offer? 😬 That last part was my clumsy attempt at sarcasm, not my actual ideology, just so there's no misunderstanding.
And one thought for the road from one of the great minds 🧐

Free will... the individual self... without some kind of ultimate erasure, it’s basically nothing. It only matters because of its scale. But if you're stuck inside some other structure where that scale is totally irrelevant, then your "significance" doesn't mean squat. Everything is relative. It all depends on who's watching and from what angle. No eyes, no sight. No intellect—no diversity—and the perspective becomes impossible to grasp. If you're stripped of even a fraction of your ability to perceive things, your free will gets effectively neutralized. You're forced into a predetermined path. If someone is deprived of the capacity to understand their situation, they probably wouldn't even want to change it. But since they can't see it, they don't have the freedom to choose. These tunnels of conditioning leave you with nothing but a basic yes or no. And even that choice is entirely dictated by those predefined limits...red, flat surface"..) perception/choice).... Free will is, or better yet... free will acting like relativity. Does anyone actually know—regardless of how many identical examples are logged (two different shades of red, for instance)—if what someone says, writes, records, experiences, or feels... has anything to do with how they "identically" perceive it within their own little bubble? This digital collective symbiosis... it’ll be an interesting ride, I guess... but if you look at the pessimistic side of things regarding human "spirit"... it’s a place, a space, a way of existing where no "normal" person would ever want to hang out. This whole thing with individualism and conformism over "personal identity, perception, choice..."... maybe it's the final stop before absolute chaos. One more step and we vanish. All aboard! To find yourself unaware... because inside the "dream," there's no need for dreaming, and waking up is impossible.... Just being there, steady... absolutely permanent, with no way out (even if you lose someone dear)... without having your own little corner for yourself and your own... hmm... your current, virtual self... inside this cacophony of every single thought from everyone who exists... who is allowed to move through it just like in a dream (creating the entire virtual reality by participating) via the sheer inertia of imagination..... Ugh... makes me sick..... But then again... regardless of the gag reflex... that’s just... a reflex caused by a current lack of vision, a lack of capacity to understand..... If you consider that even though it isn't obvious to me... it's extremely narrow and nothing like what it could be... there is still the possibility of consciousness evolving into the collective. But then once more... in the collective "I"... (theoretically speaking) you stop being a drop and truly become the water.. losing individuality.. and regardless of any collective understanding or feeling of oneness, of everything... being one... within everything.. there's just this urge (where does that counter-drive come from?) to be universally... fragmented, divided, separate.. just a tiny bit of "me".... The same scream, the same whining, the same repetitive trauma.... Never good. Ever. In short, "intelligent design" is always only a certain (fluid, shifting...) percentage intelligent. And it’s probably just like everything else, subject to... or just part of duality. Balancing between perfection and absolute "idiocy" ("sorry lord"... I had to riff on that...)...

I used to consider myself a genius. Or at least, that's what I told myself. Reality hit me like a ton of bricks.

quietnomad13 said:It’s almost like I’m reading my own life story here, except for the parts about conquering and reshaping the world.

Look, speaking from raw experience, let me give you this one bit of advice: study. Learn for yourself, not because someone else is breathing down your neck to do it.

Back when I was your age, I was the exact same way—I dodged books like the plague and tried to find every possible shortcut through life. Luckily, I ended up picking a solid trade in high school that actually pays the bills now.
If I had actually listened to the older folks who kept nagging me to "reach my full potential," I probably would've achieved way more than I did.

The truth is, I’m still a student today. To be honest, what really lit the fire under me was someone incredibly special to me. Being around them made me realize just how much general knowledge I was missing—stuff I either skipped over or completely blanked on during my school years.

In a pretty short amount of time since then, I’ve knocked out foreign language courses, discovered so many places and things I never even knew existed, and I’m finally diving into the classics I should have read a lifetime ago.
Don't get me wrong, I'm pulling about 10-hour shifts most days and working weekends too, so finding time to hit the books isn't exactly easy.
I’m old enough that, age-wise, I could practically be your father.

Whether you take my advice to heart—to keep learning and keep growing—is entirely up to you.

z

Ah... it is almost as if I am reading my own history.
At roughly the same age as the user who started this thread, I, too, refused to listen to anyone else.
The whole "realize your potential" lecture always struck me as rather absurd; I mean, why would I care if some stranger thought I had potential? I simply couldn't bring myself to care.
Then, years drifted by.
Now, at my current age, I have returned to university, and I am planning to start studying a new language this coming fall or winter, even though the coursework is demanding enough that it will likely consume most of my time at home.

It is exactly as you described; I find myself gravitating toward reading things I would have flatly rejected when I was half your age, and strangely, I find a certain joy in it now.
Could I have fulfilled my potential better up to this point? I suspect that I could have.
But then again, it is never truly too late... I suppose certain realizations just slowly settle into your mind as the years pass. 😁

When you throw around a term like "genius," you really ought to back it up with some actual substance.
Do you have some freakish knack for calculus? A deep understanding of physics? Or maybe you just possess the rare ability to actually think things through—unlike most people out there...
The truth is, I often end up looking like the smartest person in the room simply because people don't bother to process their own words before they open their mouths. There’s a massive amount of nonsense floating around that people spout without even realizing what they're saying. Honestly, you don't need much more than average intelligence to spot the contradictions and walk away with all the credit...

ironrider11 said:Let me sum this up for you...

We’re all just stuck in this loop. Living in a space, a time... a reality where the whole concept of "self" is just as shaky as everything else around us. Sure, maybe a "me" exists without any outside input, but not in any way that actually matters to the world right now. Why does the global perspective matter to one person? Because trying to live in some imaginary version of existence outside the mainstream is just... well, imagination. It’s not even that different from just imagining things within the norm. Think about someone stripped of sight, sound, smell, touch... what kind of existence are they even living in? How are they any different from the rest of us—people who are convinced of their own reality—when they're living entirely outside the standard model? All this material stuff we take for granted is really just our own personal, subjective memory of what's real. A schizophrenic experiencing stimuli that aren't "available" to me... those are just symptoms of his illness. If I try to figure out how he sees "red," or if I try to visualize his red versus my red... I'll just end up with my own version of the truth. My own "lucid" conclusion. I'd probably tell myself that because of his "heightened senses," his red isn't my red. But that's just me overthinking it. Me, the color red, and my ability to sit here and analyze it all... defining ourselves through labels and differences is just something happening inside my own head. Without the senses—without the hearing, the smell, the touch that breaks into this existence—my mind would be drifting through God knows where. It would be totally disconnected from anything we call common sense, logic, or reality. With others, or without them, one way or another... it doesn't really matter. As long as it is... whatever it is. When it's gone, it's gone. Or maybe it won't be. Someone without senses might perceive "non-existence" in a way we can't even begin to wrap our heads around...

Everyone’s entitled to whatever they want. Period. Anyone else trying to tell you, convince you, or lecture you that you don't have the right to something... they're just some random person. They’re just trying to force their own little version of reality down your throat. They think because they’ve got a degree or a fancy title or "experience," they somehow know better than you. It's all just an ego trip... Trying to fit you into their narrow little worldview. People say the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but I think there's something way deeper to that than just some tired old cliché...

Smart design... this whole existence thing... it all comes down to being individual. Every single person lives inside their own little bubble—this unique, custom-made capsule that’s both a prison and a way to escape being just another face in the crowd. Without those boundaries, everything would just blur into one big mess. The only reason anything actually moves... the real engine behind it all... is because we have this primal urge to fit in. To blend, to identify, to act like we belong to some group of "others" who are just like us. But if you really look at it... a grain of sand isn't just a grain, it's part of the sand. A drop of water isn't just a drop, it's the ocean. A leaf isn't just a leaf, it's part of a branch, which is part of a tree, which is part of a massive forest growing out of a pile of dirt and water... If you strip everything down to the basics... if you break it all into its smallest parts... we're all made of the same stuff. We share everything. And once you break things down to that absolute core, you just vanish into nothingness. That weird, unmeasurable void... Spending days, months, years trying to figure out who we are or what our surroundings mean... beating ourselves up for being lazy or stuck, or patting ourselves on the back for working hard and actually achieving something... it's honestly the only thing worth holding onto. As long as possible. Thinking life is beautiful or total garbage is just a matter of perspective... how you interpret the "sameness." One moment feels huge and significant, while another feels totally useless or destructive... like just a cruel, pointless fragment of wasted time...

I don't even know what to say to you... just weird. ironrider11 says:
"Stupid"... I'm really not a fan of that word. What does it even mean? It's such a vague, overused term...

See the irony here? You hate the word, but if you actually stop to think about it, you end up questioning what the hell it even means. Who is it for? When does it apply? What’s the context? There are different shades of the same color, right? Is there anything that actually exists outside of a broad definition? Nobody likes being generalized—we all dodge those labels... but isn't everything we call "existence" just a bunch of individual reinterpretations of general ideas? Isn't all knowledge basically just one massive generalization? All these theories, opinions, and perspectives... they’re just fluid, shifting variables. They only look like solid, undeniable truths because we freeze them in a single moment in time. But as a permanent thing? They don't exist. It's all just these tiny, short-lived flashes where one person decides someone else is "smart" or "stupid"... which really just proves how impossible empathy is. We can't occupy two different worlds at once. We're stuck in our own little bubbles, trying to find logic, while the individual is just lost, trying to figure out where they even stand in the grand scheme. Science, spirituality, religion... none of it gives a real answer. None of it even gives you a starting point. Clinging to some "universal truth"—like who's smart and who's dumb—isn't exactly stupid... but it's definitely not smart either...

Free will... the individual self... without some kind of ultimate erasure, it’s basically nothing. It only matters because of its scale. But if you're stuck inside some other structure where that scale is totally irrelevant, then your "significance" doesn't mean squat. Everything is relative. It all depends on who's watching and from what angle. No eyes, no sight. No intellect—no diversity—and the perspective becomes impossible to grasp. If you're stripped of even a fraction of your ability to perceive things, your free will gets effectively neutralized. You're forced into a predetermined path. If someone is deprived of the capacity to understand their situation, they probably wouldn't even want to change it. But since they can't see it, they don't have the freedom to choose. These tunnels of conditioning leave you with nothing but a basic yes or no. And even that choice is entirely dictated by those predefined limits...red, flat surface"..) perception/choice).... Free will is, or better yet... free will acting like relativity. Does anyone actually know—regardless of how many identical examples are logged (two different shades of red, for instance)—if what someone says, writes, records, experiences, or feels... has anything to do with how they "identically" perceive it within their own little bubble? This digital collective symbiosis... it’ll be an interesting ride, I guess... but if you look at the pessimistic side of things regarding human "spirit"... it’s a place, a space, a way of existing where no "normal" person would ever want to hang out. This whole thing with individualism and conformism over "personal identity, perception, choice..."... maybe it's the final stop before absolute chaos. One more step and we vanish. All aboard! To find yourself unaware... because inside the "dream," there's no need for dreaming, and waking up is impossible.... Just being there, steady... absolutely permanent, with no way out (even if you lose someone dear)... without having your own little corner for yourself and your own... hmm... your current, virtual self... inside this cacophony of every single thought from everyone who exists... who is allowed to move through it just like in a dream (creating the entire virtual reality by participating) via the sheer inertia of imagination..... Ugh... makes me sick..... But then again... regardless of the gag reflex... that’s just... a reflex caused by a current lack of vision, a lack of capacity to understand..... If you consider that even though it isn't obvious to me... it's extremely narrow and nothing like what it could be... there is still the possibility of consciousness evolving into the collective. But then once more... in the collective "I"... (theoretically speaking) you stop being a drop and truly become the water.. losing individuality.. and regardless of any collective understanding or feeling of oneness, of everything... being one... within everything.. there's just this urge (where does that counter-drive come from?) to be universally... fragmented, divided, separate.. just a tiny bit of "me".... The same scream, the same whining, the same repetitive trauma.... Never good. Ever. In short, "intelligent design" is always only a certain (fluid, shifting...) percentage intelligent. And it’s probably just like everything else, subject to... or just part of duality. Balancing between perfection and absolute "idiocy" ("sorry lord"... I had to riff on that...)...

That was quite the summary 😬

I follow your logic, really, because I’ve certainly spiraled through those same thoughts myself. But the real question is: where does this all lead? What’s the actual, practical value for an individual living their life? If you dedicate everything to this kind of deep analysis, you end up stuck—either there’s no way out, or there are too many paths, which just leads to total chaos.
For instance, what is the tangible benefit of knowing that a schizophrenic patient perceives the color red differently than you do? Maybe the only point is that it helps you grasp their perspective, allowing for better empathy. Even then, you can't fully bridge the gap because, as you noted, everyone lives within their own subjective experience (solipsism). If that's the case, then things feel incredibly deterministic and hopeless. Isn't it also true that you don't necessarily have to *fully* understand someone? Sometimes you just decide to be there for them—to choose to try and understand—and that intention alone opens the door to everything else, whether as a friend, a partner, or a mentor...
Regarding the concept of being "stupid," that's exactly why I mentioned how pointless it is to define it. Meaning shifts from person to person, and besides, who are we to judge anyone else like that? That’s where empathy starts: realizing we can't view someone else's reality through our own lens. We have to have the will to let them explain their world to us. Only then can we actually begin to see them for who they are.
But what if it were possible to reach a collective level of consciousness without losing our individuality? Imagine being able to step entirely into someone else's shoes while still remaining yourself—where your thoughts and theirs coexist. You could see red through a schizophrenic's eyes and then snap back to your own vision. Then you could actually compare the two. But that introduces a whole new set of problems. If we could maintain a collective consciousness alongside our own, it would be far too easy for people looking to exploit others. It's a dangerous territory. How do you regulate that? Imagine having the power to use a collective connection to overwrite someone's individual identity, effectively erasing who they are. 😲 These are massive ethical dilemmas. It opens the door to much deeper manipulation. 😲 Everything has its pros and cons. It’s probably no coincidence that in Star Trek, the Borg exist as a hive mind without empathy or feeling... just one collective consciousness. Totally robotic. In a way, that’s the endgame. One day, maybe robots will rule the world simply because it might be the only way a collective consciousness could exist without being manipulated by human nature. Ultimately, having emotions is a double-edged sword. 😲 And honestly, without them, there wouldn't even be sex. 😲 And who would want to give that up? 😲🤣

Jeffrey Ramos4 said:That was quite the summary 😬

I follow your logic, really, because I’ve certainly spiraled through those same thoughts myself. But the real question is: where does this all lead? What’s the actual, practical value for an individual living their life? If you dedicate everything to this kind of deep analysis, you end up stuck—either there’s no way out, or there are too many paths, which just leads to total chaos.
For instance, what is the tangible benefit of knowing that a schizophrenic patient perceives the color red differently than you do? Maybe the only point is that it helps you grasp their perspective, allowing for better empathy. Even then, you can't fully bridge the gap because, as you noted, everyone lives within their own subjective experience (solipsism). If that's the case, then things feel incredibly deterministic and hopeless. Isn't it also true that you don't necessarily have to *fully* understand someone? Sometimes you just decide to be there for them—to choose to try and understand—and that intention alone opens the door to everything else, whether as a friend, a partner, or a mentor...
Regarding the concept of being "stupid," that's exactly why I mentioned how pointless it is to define it. Meaning shifts from person to person, and besides, who are we to judge anyone else like that? That’s where empathy starts: realizing we can't view someone else's reality through our own lens. We have to have the will to let them explain their world to us. Only then can we actually begin to see them for who they are.
But what if it were possible to reach a collective level of consciousness without losing our individuality? Imagine being able to step entirely into someone else's shoes while still remaining yourself—where your thoughts and theirs coexist. You could see red through a schizophrenic's eyes and then snap back to your own vision. Then you could actually compare the two. But that introduces a whole new set of problems. If we could maintain a collective consciousness alongside our own, it would be far too easy for people looking to exploit others. It's a dangerous territory. How do you regulate that? Imagine having the power to use a collective connection to overwrite someone's individual identity, effectively erasing who they are. 😲 These are massive ethical dilemmas. It opens the door to much deeper manipulation. 😲 Everything has its pros and cons. It’s probably no coincidence that in Star Trek, the Borg exist as a hive mind without empathy or feeling... just one collective consciousness. Totally robotic. In a way, that’s the endgame. One day, maybe robots will rule the world simply because it might be the only way a collective consciousness could exist without being manipulated by human nature. Ultimately, having emotions is a double-edged sword. 😲 And honestly, without them, there wouldn't even be sex. 😲 And who would want to give that up? 😲🤣

Outside of "practicality"... chaos finally hits... it's always partial, never absolute... it can be perceived... but not fully grasped, understood, or closed off... like something that, unlike perfection (and can perfection even exist?)... is by default something we try to quiet down, degrade, devalue, turn away from, or pretend not to see... all in the name of building structure, meaning, sequence, logic, or reason... trying to force an unquestionable cause and effect. Just blindly following unknown patterns... modeling yourself to meet the expectations of some imaginary version of yourself in some imaginary tomorrow... trying to navigate correctly without at least a thin script of real instructions, practical application, purpose, or significance... It's like a second adolescence based on rebelling against the self (which, just like adults in that first adolescence, breaks everything down just to try and survive within certain constraints... just a collection of trivial inheritance... from the very people they were originally rebelling against...). Is there a third adolescence... when after the sheer force of life and its centrifugal madness... the self crumbles... and perceives that the only constant... all along... was actually just some form of revolt... against itself. And there it is, in the later, most defining years... the only spark still smoldering, keeping that magic vitality alive....
Regarding exits... within the timeframe or essence (years of accumulated density of memory/perception) of a life that can either cradle you or crush you... regardless of whether you want to fight it or just passively cling to where you are... That moment of realization happens in... at... the very place where there is no exit, in the prison (whether it's a gorgeous mansion or sewer pipe #18) that you built yourself... that moment is capable of turning into eternity. It only depends on how much attention or focus you put into measuring it, defining it, or giving it weight.... Without a personal reaction, it just dissipates... just like all those other "incredibly important or totally irrelevant" ideas within a single moment (allowed or forced by "the ether"). Free will... hmm... You aren't exactly free... except to react to ("impulses, urges, intrusive thoughts, hallucinations...".. from "the ether"..) during a given moment. Do these practical constructions actually serve you? Are they just denials of those "Epiphany" moments (which aren't always blissful)? Being practical just serves to create a buffer so that primary thoughts (from "the ether"), fears, and paranoia... don't have enough time to break through to the surface. When they do break through, you make a little noise... spend a stint in the hospital... just like any other normal illness... so you push it all down as fast as possible... and keep grinding forward... into new practicalities/victories (over your own fears). Even though you know you aren't winning any battles or wars... you're just wasting time, money, and energy... trying to prolong things. Practicality is practical... only... for its own sake.

Jeffrey Ramos4 said:That was quite the summary 😬

I follow your logic, really, because I’ve certainly spiraled through those same thoughts myself. But the real question is: where does this all lead? What’s the actual, practical value for an individual living their life? If you dedicate everything to this kind of deep analysis, you end up stuck—either there’s no way out, or there are too many paths, which just leads to total chaos.
For instance, what is the tangible benefit of knowing that a schizophrenic patient perceives the color red differently than you do? Maybe the only point is that it helps you grasp their perspective, allowing for better empathy. Even then, you can't fully bridge the gap because, as you noted, everyone lives within their own subjective experience (solipsism). If that's the case, then things feel incredibly deterministic and hopeless. Isn't it also true that you don't necessarily have to *fully* understand someone? Sometimes you just decide to be there for them—to choose to try and understand—and that intention alone opens the door to everything else, whether as a friend, a partner, or a mentor...
Regarding the concept of being "stupid," that's exactly why I mentioned how pointless it is to define it. Meaning shifts from person to person, and besides, who are we to judge anyone else like that? That’s where empathy starts: realizing we can't view someone else's reality through our own lens. We have to have the will to let them explain their world to us. Only then can we actually begin to see them for who they are.
But what if it were possible to reach a collective level of consciousness without losing our individuality? Imagine being able to step entirely into someone else's shoes while still remaining yourself—where your thoughts and theirs coexist. You could see red through a schizophrenic's eyes and then snap back to your own vision. Then you could actually compare the two. But that introduces a whole new set of problems. If we could maintain a collective consciousness alongside our own, it would be far too easy for people looking to exploit others. It's a dangerous territory. How do you regulate that? Imagine having the power to use a collective connection to overwrite someone's individual identity, effectively erasing who they are. 😲 These are massive ethical dilemmas. It opens the door to much deeper manipulation. 😲 Everything has its pros and cons. It’s probably no coincidence that in Star Trek, the Borg exist as a hive mind without empathy or feeling... just one collective consciousness. Totally robotic. In a way, that’s the endgame. One day, maybe robots will rule the world simply because it might be the only way a collective consciousness could exist without being manipulated by human nature. Ultimately, having emotions is a double-edged sword. 😲 And honestly, without them, there wouldn't even be sex. 😲 And who would want to give that up? 😲🤣

To even reach a decision... if there's any way to find "meaning" at all... it comes from de-rationalizing our own attempts to grasp things. It's almost healthy (read: superficiality/generalization) combined with that typical lack of interest in anything external that doesn't serve us personally. On a macro level, this creates a world where, through digital literacy, we can define the exact tone or shade of red (like rgba or hsla)... but still... primarily... what one person can't transmit or absorb from another—regardless of how many languages they speak or how much code they know (rgba(255,0,0,1); hsla(0/360,100%,50%,1))... is that core perception of red. It stays trapped in that individual "head." Just like that specific shade of red (rgba(255,0,0,.666)). Making the choice to be near someone, just for a moment, for an eternity, despite knowing the empirical barriers... that choice is based on one's own "complex of everythingness." Whatever it is... destructive or constructive... it just exists. It just is. There's no way (and I mean no way, imho...) to categorize it. Being aware of that, after rolling around in the "destruction" of de-rationalization, might lead to nothing more than a convenience... to simply be near someone. To have contact or touch without judging, without belittling them, without putting them on a pedestal or measuring them against yourself... just being part of the moment... for yourself and for them. A fragment of nothingness where there's no need to overthink the hopelessness...

Jeffrey Ramos4 said:That was quite the summary 😬

I follow your logic, really, because I’ve certainly spiraled through those same thoughts myself. But the real question is: where does this all lead? What’s the actual, practical value for an individual living their life? If you dedicate everything to this kind of deep analysis, you end up stuck—either there’s no way out, or there are too many paths, which just leads to total chaos.
For instance, what is the tangible benefit of knowing that a schizophrenic patient perceives the color red differently than you do? Maybe the only point is that it helps you grasp their perspective, allowing for better empathy. Even then, you can't fully bridge the gap because, as you noted, everyone lives within their own subjective experience (solipsism). If that's the case, then things feel incredibly deterministic and hopeless. Isn't it also true that you don't necessarily have to *fully* understand someone? Sometimes you just decide to be there for them—to choose to try and understand—and that intention alone opens the door to everything else, whether as a friend, a partner, or a mentor...
Regarding the concept of being "stupid," that's exactly why I mentioned how pointless it is to define it. Meaning shifts from person to person, and besides, who are we to judge anyone else like that? That’s where empathy starts: realizing we can't view someone else's reality through our own lens. We have to have the will to let them explain their world to us. Only then can we actually begin to see them for who they are.
But what if it were possible to reach a collective level of consciousness without losing our individuality? Imagine being able to step entirely into someone else's shoes while still remaining yourself—where your thoughts and theirs coexist. You could see red through a schizophrenic's eyes and then snap back to your own vision. Then you could actually compare the two. But that introduces a whole new set of problems. If we could maintain a collective consciousness alongside our own, it would be far too easy for people looking to exploit others. It's a dangerous territory. How do you regulate that? Imagine having the power to use a collective connection to overwrite someone's individual identity, effectively erasing who they are. 😲 These are massive ethical dilemmas. It opens the door to much deeper manipulation. 😲 Everything has its pros and cons. It’s probably no coincidence that in Star Trek, the Borg exist as a hive mind without empathy or feeling... just one collective consciousness. Totally robotic. In a way, that’s the endgame. One day, maybe robots will rule the world simply because it might be the only way a collective consciousness could exist without being manipulated by human nature. Ultimately, having emotions is a double-edged sword. 😲 And honestly, without them, there wouldn't even be sex. 😲 And who would want to give that up? 😲🤣

I agree with the "fullness" part... but... 🙂... why this violent (it feels like a violation) need to "understand" ("Isn't it more important to realize you don't necessarily have to fully 'understand' someone")? Rationalization often kills any real "understanding" at its most primal level. Why do we always feel the need to say something motivating or encouraging? Why is it impossible... or actually quite common to notice... that just being human—not "humanity" as a concept, just being human—is enough to connect with someone? To give and receive... without words, without deep empathy, without needing a logical reason... just the banality of being human... a look, a touch, a tear. Saying "I don't know what to tell you..." Well, nobody asked you to give a speech. And even before opening up my soul like that, I knew the reaction would be... "I don't know what I'd say to you..." I put myself out there just to test your "I don't know... driven by my little abstraction..." Neither of us actually knows... what to say to the other's "I don't know"...31>>

Jeffrey Ramos4 said:That was quite the summary 😬

I follow your logic, really, because I’ve certainly spiraled through those same thoughts myself. But the real question is: where does this all lead? What’s the actual, practical value for an individual living their life? If you dedicate everything to this kind of deep analysis, you end up stuck—either there’s no way out, or there are too many paths, which just leads to total chaos.
For instance, what is the tangible benefit of knowing that a schizophrenic patient perceives the color red differently than you do? Maybe the only point is that it helps you grasp their perspective, allowing for better empathy. Even then, you can't fully bridge the gap because, as you noted, everyone lives within their own subjective experience (solipsism). If that's the case, then things feel incredibly deterministic and hopeless. Isn't it also true that you don't necessarily have to *fully* understand someone? Sometimes you just decide to be there for them—to choose to try and understand—and that intention alone opens the door to everything else, whether as a friend, a partner, or a mentor...
Regarding the concept of being "stupid," that's exactly why I mentioned how pointless it is to define it. Meaning shifts from person to person, and besides, who are we to judge anyone else like that? That’s where empathy starts: realizing we can't view someone else's reality through our own lens. We have to have the will to let them explain their world to us. Only then can we actually begin to see them for who they are.
But what if it were possible to reach a collective level of consciousness without losing our individuality? Imagine being able to step entirely into someone else's shoes while still remaining yourself—where your thoughts and theirs coexist. You could see red through a schizophrenic's eyes and then snap back to your own vision. Then you could actually compare the two. But that introduces a whole new set of problems. If we could maintain a collective consciousness alongside our own, it would be far too easy for people looking to exploit others. It's a dangerous territory. How do you regulate that? Imagine having the power to use a collective connection to overwrite someone's individual identity, effectively erasing who they are. 😲 These are massive ethical dilemmas. It opens the door to much deeper manipulation. 😲 Everything has its pros and cons. It’s probably no coincidence that in Star Trek, the Borg exist as a hive mind without empathy or feeling... just one collective consciousness. Totally robotic. In a way, that’s the endgame. One day, maybe robots will rule the world simply because it might be the only way a collective consciousness could exist without being manipulated by human nature. Ultimately, having emotions is a double-edged sword. 😲 And honestly, without them, there wouldn't even be sex. 😲 And who would want to give that up? 😲🤣

Jeffrey, you're leaning a little too hard on that "one day" stuff and all those fancy terms like "collective, digital, universal, magically collective consciousness"... 🙂. In a true collective... there is no "other." There aren't different types of people... no hidden agendas, no secrets, no "this guy" or "that guy"... nothing is private or individual anymore. Everything happens at once, everything is one, everything is now. There's no "your" thought vs. "my" thought. All thoughts become one single thought. Individuality is dead. An aggressor wouldn't even exist, or they'd be wiped out by the sheer momentum of the majority, because a collective feels, knows, and thinks as one... it knows exactly what it wants and doesn't want. Nobody gets violated; there's no violator. Nobody is going to be unknown... unknown doesn't exist. Everyone just wants to be, to do... unknown is primacy, universality, unity. "Think about it"... you're getting way too caught up in that "one day" fantasy 🙂 Sex is just like language or writing. It's the perception of two different versions of the color red. It's the merging of two entities... whether it's surrender... or dominance/violation (even the calculated, consensual, or manipulative kind...). In a state of being where "you" (me, you, him, her, us, them...) can actually open your soul and hand over every single thought about you, about me, about everything... the way I see you (because that's still the core priority, obviously... 🙂), experience you, love you, worship you... that's already handed over to you by default. It's wide open... it's accessible. It's a reality where masks quickly become forgotten relics. Sexual animalism might be useless at a level where there are no barriers between intellects. Where there's no barrier between "you" and "me." Merging one isn't even logical. 🙂
I'm ready to ditch all that animal instinct right now... just to be a pioneer in a new model of possibility like that... SpaceMonkey...

ironrider11 said:Outside of "practicality"... chaos finally hits... it's always partial, never absolute... it can be perceived... but not fully grasped, understood, or closed off... like something that, unlike perfection (and can perfection even exist?)... is by default something we try to quiet down, degrade, devalue, turn away from, or pretend not to see... all in the name of building structure, meaning, sequence, logic, or reason... trying to force an unquestionable cause and effect. Just blindly following unknown patterns... modeling yourself to meet the expectations of some imaginary version of yourself in some imaginary tomorrow... trying to navigate correctly without at least a thin script of real instructions, practical application, purpose, or significance... It's like a second adolescence based on rebelling against the self (which, just like adults in that first adolescence, breaks everything down just to try and survive within certain constraints... just a collection of trivial inheritance... from the very people they were originally rebelling against...). Is there a third adolescence... when after the sheer force of life and its centrifugal madness... the self crumbles... and perceives that the only constant... all along... was actually just some form of revolt... against itself. And there it is, in the later, most defining years... the only spark still smoldering, keeping that magic vitality alive....
Regarding exits... within the timeframe or essence (years of accumulated density of memory/perception) of a life that can either cradle you or crush you... regardless of whether you want to fight it or just passively cling to where you are... That moment of realization happens in... at... the very place where there is no exit, in the prison (whether it's a gorgeous mansion or sewer pipe #18) that you built yourself... that moment is capable of turning into eternity. It only depends on how much attention or focus you put into measuring it, defining it, or giving it weight.... Without a personal reaction, it just dissipates... just like all those other "incredibly important or totally irrelevant" ideas within a single moment (allowed or forced by "the ether"). Free will... hmm... You aren't exactly free... except to react to ("impulses, urges, intrusive thoughts, hallucinations...".. from "the ether"..) during a given moment. Do these practical constructions actually serve you? Are they just denials of those "Epiphany" moments (which aren't always blissful)? Being practical just serves to create a buffer so that primary thoughts (from "the ether"), fears, and paranoia... don't have enough time to break through to the surface. When they do break through, you make a little noise... spend a stint in the hospital... just like any other normal illness... so you push it all down as fast as possible... and keep grinding forward... into new practicalities/victories (over your own fears). Even though you know you aren't winning any battles or wars... you're just wasting time, money, and energy... trying to prolong things. Practicality is practical... only... for its own sake.

To even reach a decision... if there's any way to find "meaning" at all... it comes from de-rationalizing our own attempts to grasp things. It's almost healthy (read: superficiality/generalization) combined with that typical lack of interest in anything external that doesn't serve us personally. On a macro level, this creates a world where, through digital literacy, we can define the exact tone or shade of red (like rgba or hsla)... but still... primarily... what one person can't transmit or absorb from another—regardless of how many languages they speak or how much code they know (rgba(255,0,0,1); hsla(0/360,100%,50%,1))... is that core perception of red. It stays trapped in that individual "head." Just like that specific shade of red (rgba(255,0,0,.666)). Making the choice to be near someone, just for a moment, for an eternity, despite knowing the empirical barriers... that choice is based on one's own "complex of everythingness." Whatever it is... destructive or constructive... it just exists. It just is. There's no way (and I mean no way, imho...) to categorize it. Being aware of that, after rolling around in the "destruction" of de-rationalization, might lead to nothing more than a convenience... to simply be near someone. To have contact or touch without judging, without belittling them, without putting them on a pedestal or measuring them against yourself... just being part of the moment... for yourself and for them. A fragment of nothingness where there's no need to overthink the hopelessness...

I agree with the "fullness" part... but... 🙂... why this violent (it feels like a violation) need to "understand" ("Isn't it more important to realize you don't necessarily have to fully 'understand' someone")? Rationalization often kills any real "understanding" at its most primal level. Why do we always feel the need to say something motivating or encouraging? Why is it impossible... or actually quite common to notice... that just being human—not "humanity" as a concept, just being human—is enough to connect with someone? To give and receive... without words, without deep empathy, without needing a logical reason... just the banality of being human... a look, a touch, a tear. Saying "I don't know what to tell you..." Well, nobody asked you to give a speech. And even before opening up my soul like that, I knew the reaction would be... "I don't know what I'd say to you..." I put myself out there just to test your "I don't know... driven by my little abstraction..." Neither of us actually knows... what to say to the other's "I don't know"...31>>

Jeffrey, you're leaning a little too hard on that "one day" stuff and all those fancy terms like "collective, digital, universal, magically collective consciousness"... 🙂. In a true collective... there is no "other." There aren't different types of people... no hidden agendas, no secrets, no "this guy" or "that guy"... nothing is private or individual anymore. Everything happens at once, everything is one, everything is now. There's no "your" thought vs. "my" thought. All thoughts become one single thought. Individuality is dead. An aggressor wouldn't even exist, or they'd be wiped out by the sheer momentum of the majority, because a collective feels, knows, and thinks as one... it knows exactly what it wants and doesn't want. Nobody gets violated; there's no violator. Nobody is going to be unknown... unknown doesn't exist. Everyone just wants to be, to do... unknown is primacy, universality, unity. "Think about it"... you're getting way too caught up in that "one day" fantasy 🙂 Sex is just like language or writing. It's the perception of two different versions of the color red. It's the merging of two entities... whether it's surrender... or dominance/violation (even the calculated, consensual, or manipulative kind...). In a state of being where "you" (me, you, him, her, us, them...) can actually open your soul and hand over every single thought about you, about me, about everything... the way I see you (because that's still the core priority, obviously... 🙂), experience you, love you, worship you... that's already handed over to you by default. It's wide open... it's accessible. It's a reality where masks quickly become forgotten relics. Sexual animalism might be useless at a level where there are no barriers between intellects. Where there's no barrier between "you" and "me." Merging one isn't even logical. 🙂
I'm ready to ditch all that animal instinct right now... just to be a pioneer in a new model of possibility like that... SpaceMonkey...

Exactly that. It’s like chaos is actually perfect because it’s so beautifully chaotic...

ironrider11 said:Outside of "practicality"... chaos finally hits... it's always partial, never absolute... it can be perceived... but not fully grasped, understood, or closed off... like something that, unlike perfection (and can perfection even exist?)... is by default something we try to quiet down, degrade, devalue, turn away from, or pretend not to see... all in the name of building structure, meaning, sequence, logic, or reason... trying to force an unquestionable cause and effect. Just blindly following unknown patterns... modeling yourself to meet the expectations of some imaginary version of yourself in some imaginary tomorrow... trying to navigate correctly without at least a thin script of real instructions, practical application, purpose, or significance... It's like a second adolescence based on rebelling against the self (which, just like adults in that first adolescence, breaks everything down just to try and survive within certain constraints... just a collection of trivial inheritance... from the very people they were originally rebelling against...). Is there a third adolescence... when after the sheer force of life and its centrifugal madness... the self crumbles... and perceives that the only constant... all along... was actually just some form of revolt... against itself. And there it is, in the later, most defining years... the only spark still smoldering, keeping that magic vitality alive....
Regarding exits... within the timeframe or essence (years of accumulated density of memory/perception) of a life that can either cradle you or crush you... regardless of whether you want to fight it or just passively cling to where you are... That moment of realization happens in... at... the very place where there is no exit, in the prison (whether it's a gorgeous mansion or sewer pipe #18) that you built yourself... that moment is capable of turning into eternity. It only depends on how much attention or focus you put into measuring it, defining it, or giving it weight.... Without a personal reaction, it just dissipates... just like all those other "incredibly important or totally irrelevant" ideas within a single moment (allowed or forced by "the ether"). Free will... hmm... You aren't exactly free... except to react to ("impulses, urges, intrusive thoughts, hallucinations...".. from "the ether"..) during a given moment. Do these practical constructions actually serve you? Are they just denials of those "Epiphany" moments (which aren't always blissful)? Being practical just serves to create a buffer so that primary thoughts (from "the ether"), fears, and paranoia... don't have enough time to break through to the surface. When they do break through, you make a little noise... spend a stint in the hospital... just like any other normal illness... so you push it all down as fast as possible... and keep grinding forward... into new practicalities/victories (over your own fears). Even though you know you aren't winning any battles or wars... you're just wasting time, money, and energy... trying to prolong things. Practicality is practical... only... for its own sake.

To even reach a decision... if there's any way to find "meaning" at all... it comes from de-rationalizing our own attempts to grasp things. It's almost healthy (read: superficiality/generalization) combined with that typical lack of interest in anything external that doesn't serve us personally. On a macro level, this creates a world where, through digital literacy, we can define the exact tone or shade of red (like rgba or hsla)... but still... primarily... what one person can't transmit or absorb from another—regardless of how many languages they speak or how much code they know (rgba(255,0,0,1); hsla(0/360,100%,50%,1))... is that core perception of red. It stays trapped in that individual "head." Just like that specific shade of red (rgba(255,0,0,.666)). Making the choice to be near someone, just for a moment, for an eternity, despite knowing the empirical barriers... that choice is based on one's own "complex of everythingness." Whatever it is... destructive or constructive... it just exists. It just is. There's no way (and I mean no way, imho...) to categorize it. Being aware of that, after rolling around in the "destruction" of de-rationalization, might lead to nothing more than a convenience... to simply be near someone. To have contact or touch without judging, without belittling them, without putting them on a pedestal or measuring them against yourself... just being part of the moment... for yourself and for them. A fragment of nothingness where there's no need to overthink the hopelessness...

I agree with the "fullness" part... but... 🙂... why this violent (it feels like a violation) need to "understand" ("Isn't it more important to realize you don't necessarily have to fully 'understand' someone")? Rationalization often kills any real "understanding" at its most primal level. Why do we always feel the need to say something motivating or encouraging? Why is it impossible... or actually quite common to notice... that just being human—not "humanity" as a concept, just being human—is enough to connect with someone? To give and receive... without words, without deep empathy, without needing a logical reason... just the banality of being human... a look, a touch, a tear. Saying "I don't know what to tell you..." Well, nobody asked you to give a speech. And even before opening up my soul like that, I knew the reaction would be... "I don't know what I'd say to you..." I put myself out there just to test your "I don't know... driven by my little abstraction..." Neither of us actually knows... what to say to the other's "I don't know"...31>>

Jeffrey, you're leaning a little too hard on that "one day" stuff and all those fancy terms like "collective, digital, universal, magically collective consciousness"... 🙂. In a true collective... there is no "other." There aren't different types of people... no hidden agendas, no secrets, no "this guy" or "that guy"... nothing is private or individual anymore. Everything happens at once, everything is one, everything is now. There's no "your" thought vs. "my" thought. All thoughts become one single thought. Individuality is dead. An aggressor wouldn't even exist, or they'd be wiped out by the sheer momentum of the majority, because a collective feels, knows, and thinks as one... it knows exactly what it wants and doesn't want. Nobody gets violated; there's no violator. Nobody is going to be unknown... unknown doesn't exist. Everyone just wants to be, to do... unknown is primacy, universality, unity. "Think about it"... you're getting way too caught up in that "one day" fantasy 🙂 Sex is just like language or writing. It's the perception of two different versions of the color red. It's the merging of two entities... whether it's surrender... or dominance/violation (even the calculated, consensual, or manipulative kind...). In a state of being where "you" (me, you, him, her, us, them...) can actually open your soul and hand over every single thought about you, about me, about everything... the way I see you (because that's still the core priority, obviously... 🙂), experience you, love you, worship you... that's already handed over to you by default. It's wide open... it's accessible. It's a reality where masks quickly become forgotten relics. Sexual animalism might be useless at a level where there are no barriers between intellects. Where there's no barrier between "you" and "me." Merging one isn't even logical. 🙂
I'm ready to ditch all that animal instinct right now... just to be a pioneer in a new model of possibility like that... SpaceMonkey...

Is it just pure revolt and nothing else? Doesn't that kind of mindset eventually spiral into extremes—depression, apathy, total confusion, or just straight-up pessimism? Why let things get so worn down? What’s actually stopping you from becoming something else... something better? I think I partially get what's holding you back, but still...

ironrider11 said:Outside of "practicality"... chaos finally hits... it's always partial, never absolute... it can be perceived... but not fully grasped, understood, or closed off... like something that, unlike perfection (and can perfection even exist?)... is by default something we try to quiet down, degrade, devalue, turn away from, or pretend not to see... all in the name of building structure, meaning, sequence, logic, or reason... trying to force an unquestionable cause and effect. Just blindly following unknown patterns... modeling yourself to meet the expectations of some imaginary version of yourself in some imaginary tomorrow... trying to navigate correctly without at least a thin script of real instructions, practical application, purpose, or significance... It's like a second adolescence based on rebelling against the self (which, just like adults in that first adolescence, breaks everything down just to try and survive within certain constraints... just a collection of trivial inheritance... from the very people they were originally rebelling against...). Is there a third adolescence... when after the sheer force of life and its centrifugal madness... the self crumbles... and perceives that the only constant... all along... was actually just some form of revolt... against itself. And there it is, in the later, most defining years... the only spark still smoldering, keeping that magic vitality alive....
Regarding exits... within the timeframe or essence (years of accumulated density of memory/perception) of a life that can either cradle you or crush you... regardless of whether you want to fight it or just passively cling to where you are... That moment of realization happens in... at... the very place where there is no exit, in the prison (whether it's a gorgeous mansion or sewer pipe #18) that you built yourself... that moment is capable of turning into eternity. It only depends on how much attention or focus you put into measuring it, defining it, or giving it weight.... Without a personal reaction, it just dissipates... just like all those other "incredibly important or totally irrelevant" ideas within a single moment (allowed or forced by "the ether"). Free will... hmm... You aren't exactly free... except to react to ("impulses, urges, intrusive thoughts, hallucinations...".. from "the ether"..) during a given moment. Do these practical constructions actually serve you? Are they just denials of those "Epiphany" moments (which aren't always blissful)? Being practical just serves to create a buffer so that primary thoughts (from "the ether"), fears, and paranoia... don't have enough time to break through to the surface. When they do break through, you make a little noise... spend a stint in the hospital... just like any other normal illness... so you push it all down as fast as possible... and keep grinding forward... into new practicalities/victories (over your own fears). Even though you know you aren't winning any battles or wars... you're just wasting time, money, and energy... trying to prolong things. Practicality is practical... only... for its own sake.

To even reach a decision... if there's any way to find "meaning" at all... it comes from de-rationalizing our own attempts to grasp things. It's almost healthy (read: superficiality/generalization) combined with that typical lack of interest in anything external that doesn't serve us personally. On a macro level, this creates a world where, through digital literacy, we can define the exact tone or shade of red (like rgba or hsla)... but still... primarily... what one person can't transmit or absorb from another—regardless of how many languages they speak or how much code they know (rgba(255,0,0,1); hsla(0/360,100%,50%,1))... is that core perception of red. It stays trapped in that individual "head." Just like that specific shade of red (rgba(255,0,0,.666)). Making the choice to be near someone, just for a moment, for an eternity, despite knowing the empirical barriers... that choice is based on one's own "complex of everythingness." Whatever it is... destructive or constructive... it just exists. It just is. There's no way (and I mean no way, imho...) to categorize it. Being aware of that, after rolling around in the "destruction" of de-rationalization, might lead to nothing more than a convenience... to simply be near someone. To have contact or touch without judging, without belittling them, without putting them on a pedestal or measuring them against yourself... just being part of the moment... for yourself and for them. A fragment of nothingness where there's no need to overthink the hopelessness...

I agree with the "fullness" part... but... 🙂... why this violent (it feels like a violation) need to "understand" ("Isn't it more important to realize you don't necessarily have to fully 'understand' someone")? Rationalization often kills any real "understanding" at its most primal level. Why do we always feel the need to say something motivating or encouraging? Why is it impossible... or actually quite common to notice... that just being human—not "humanity" as a concept, just being human—is enough to connect with someone? To give and receive... without words, without deep empathy, without needing a logical reason... just the banality of being human... a look, a touch, a tear. Saying "I don't know what to tell you..." Well, nobody asked you to give a speech. And even before opening up my soul like that, I knew the reaction would be... "I don't know what I'd say to you..." I put myself out there just to test your "I don't know... driven by my little abstraction..." Neither of us actually knows... what to say to the other's "I don't know"...31>>

Jeffrey, you're leaning a little too hard on that "one day" stuff and all those fancy terms like "collective, digital, universal, magically collective consciousness"... 🙂. In a true collective... there is no "other." There aren't different types of people... no hidden agendas, no secrets, no "this guy" or "that guy"... nothing is private or individual anymore. Everything happens at once, everything is one, everything is now. There's no "your" thought vs. "my" thought. All thoughts become one single thought. Individuality is dead. An aggressor wouldn't even exist, or they'd be wiped out by the sheer momentum of the majority, because a collective feels, knows, and thinks as one... it knows exactly what it wants and doesn't want. Nobody gets violated; there's no violator. Nobody is going to be unknown... unknown doesn't exist. Everyone just wants to be, to do... unknown is primacy, universality, unity. "Think about it"... you're getting way too caught up in that "one day" fantasy 🙂 Sex is just like language or writing. It's the perception of two different versions of the color red. It's the merging of two entities... whether it's surrender... or dominance/violation (even the calculated, consensual, or manipulative kind...). In a state of being where "you" (me, you, him, her, us, them...) can actually open your soul and hand over every single thought about you, about me, about everything... the way I see you (because that's still the core priority, obviously... 🙂), experience you, love you, worship you... that's already handed over to you by default. It's wide open... it's accessible. It's a reality where masks quickly become forgotten relics. Sexual animalism might be useless at a level where there are no barriers between intellects. Where there's no barrier between "you" and "me." Merging one isn't even logical. 🙂
I'm ready to ditch all that animal instinct right now... just to be a pioneer in a new model of possibility like that... SpaceMonkey...

Aha, he really dug his heels in...

ironrider11 said:Outside of "practicality"... chaos finally hits... it's always partial, never absolute... it can be perceived... but not fully grasped, understood, or closed off... like something that, unlike perfection (and can perfection even exist?)... is by default something we try to quiet down, degrade, devalue, turn away from, or pretend not to see... all in the name of building structure, meaning, sequence, logic, or reason... trying to force an unquestionable cause and effect. Just blindly following unknown patterns... modeling yourself to meet the expectations of some imaginary version of yourself in some imaginary tomorrow... trying to navigate correctly without at least a thin script of real instructions, practical application, purpose, or significance... It's like a second adolescence based on rebelling against the self (which, just like adults in that first adolescence, breaks everything down just to try and survive within certain constraints... just a collection of trivial inheritance... from the very people they were originally rebelling against...). Is there a third adolescence... when after the sheer force of life and its centrifugal madness... the self crumbles... and perceives that the only constant... all along... was actually just some form of revolt... against itself. And there it is, in the later, most defining years... the only spark still smoldering, keeping that magic vitality alive....
Regarding exits... within the timeframe or essence (years of accumulated density of memory/perception) of a life that can either cradle you or crush you... regardless of whether you want to fight it or just passively cling to where you are... That moment of realization happens in... at... the very place where there is no exit, in the prison (whether it's a gorgeous mansion or sewer pipe #18) that you built yourself... that moment is capable of turning into eternity. It only depends on how much attention or focus you put into measuring it, defining it, or giving it weight.... Without a personal reaction, it just dissipates... just like all those other "incredibly important or totally irrelevant" ideas within a single moment (allowed or forced by "the ether"). Free will... hmm... You aren't exactly free... except to react to ("impulses, urges, intrusive thoughts, hallucinations...".. from "the ether"..) during a given moment. Do these practical constructions actually serve you? Are they just denials of those "Epiphany" moments (which aren't always blissful)? Being practical just serves to create a buffer so that primary thoughts (from "the ether"), fears, and paranoia... don't have enough time to break through to the surface. When they do break through, you make a little noise... spend a stint in the hospital... just like any other normal illness... so you push it all down as fast as possible... and keep grinding forward... into new practicalities/victories (over your own fears). Even though you know you aren't winning any battles or wars... you're just wasting time, money, and energy... trying to prolong things. Practicality is practical... only... for its own sake.

To even reach a decision... if there's any way to find "meaning" at all... it comes from de-rationalizing our own attempts to grasp things. It's almost healthy (read: superficiality/generalization) combined with that typical lack of interest in anything external that doesn't serve us personally. On a macro level, this creates a world where, through digital literacy, we can define the exact tone or shade of red (like rgba or hsla)... but still... primarily... what one person can't transmit or absorb from another—regardless of how many languages they speak or how much code they know (rgba(255,0,0,1); hsla(0/360,100%,50%,1))... is that core perception of red. It stays trapped in that individual "head." Just like that specific shade of red (rgba(255,0,0,.666)). Making the choice to be near someone, just for a moment, for an eternity, despite knowing the empirical barriers... that choice is based on one's own "complex of everythingness." Whatever it is... destructive or constructive... it just exists. It just is. There's no way (and I mean no way, imho...) to categorize it. Being aware of that, after rolling around in the "destruction" of de-rationalization, might lead to nothing more than a convenience... to simply be near someone. To have contact or touch without judging, without belittling them, without putting them on a pedestal or measuring them against yourself... just being part of the moment... for yourself and for them. A fragment of nothingness where there's no need to overthink the hopelessness...

I agree with the "fullness" part... but... 🙂... why this violent (it feels like a violation) need to "understand" ("Isn't it more important to realize you don't necessarily have to fully 'understand' someone")? Rationalization often kills any real "understanding" at its most primal level. Why do we always feel the need to say something motivating or encouraging? Why is it impossible... or actually quite common to notice... that just being human—not "humanity" as a concept, just being human—is enough to connect with someone? To give and receive... without words, without deep empathy, without needing a logical reason... just the banality of being human... a look, a touch, a tear. Saying "I don't know what to tell you..." Well, nobody asked you to give a speech. And even before opening up my soul like that, I knew the reaction would be... "I don't know what I'd say to you..." I put myself out there just to test your "I don't know... driven by my little abstraction..." Neither of us actually knows... what to say to the other's "I don't know"...31>>

Jeffrey, you're leaning a little too hard on that "one day" stuff and all those fancy terms like "collective, digital, universal, magically collective consciousness"... 🙂. In a true collective... there is no "other." There aren't different types of people... no hidden agendas, no secrets, no "this guy" or "that guy"... nothing is private or individual anymore. Everything happens at once, everything is one, everything is now. There's no "your" thought vs. "my" thought. All thoughts become one single thought. Individuality is dead. An aggressor wouldn't even exist, or they'd be wiped out by the sheer momentum of the majority, because a collective feels, knows, and thinks as one... it knows exactly what it wants and doesn't want. Nobody gets violated; there's no violator. Nobody is going to be unknown... unknown doesn't exist. Everyone just wants to be, to do... unknown is primacy, universality, unity. "Think about it"... you're getting way too caught up in that "one day" fantasy 🙂 Sex is just like language or writing. It's the perception of two different versions of the color red. It's the merging of two entities... whether it's surrender... or dominance/violation (even the calculated, consensual, or manipulative kind...). In a state of being where "you" (me, you, him, her, us, them...) can actually open your soul and hand over every single thought about you, about me, about everything... the way I see you (because that's still the core priority, obviously... 🙂), experience you, love you, worship you... that's already handed over to you by default. It's wide open... it's accessible. It's a reality where masks quickly become forgotten relics. Sexual animalism might be useless at a level where there are no barriers between intellects. Where there's no barrier between "you" and "me." Merging one isn't even logical. 🙂
I'm ready to ditch all that animal instinct right now... just to be a pioneer in a new model of possibility like that... SpaceMonkey...

Why not just embrace those fears, the intrusive thoughts, the hallucinations, and all that? Instead of fighting them, you train them to step back—to make sure they aren't calling the shots, so your own free will can actually regain some ground... It’s a process. You go through it once, twice, three times... and every single time, you walk away knowing something deeper about who you really are. You learn how to handle them, how to master them. Eventually, you might even find yourself liking them once you understand their origins. Think about it: what happens if you actually "win" that war? If you completely wipe them out, what's left? You'd be losing a part of yourself. Sure, it might be a darker side, but it's still a part of you. As long as they aren't hurting anyone else or tearing you apart—as long as you keep them on a short leash—you’re the one in control.

ironrider11 said:Outside of "practicality"... chaos finally hits... it's always partial, never absolute... it can be perceived... but not fully grasped, understood, or closed off... like something that, unlike perfection (and can perfection even exist?)... is by default something we try to quiet down, degrade, devalue, turn away from, or pretend not to see... all in the name of building structure, meaning, sequence, logic, or reason... trying to force an unquestionable cause and effect. Just blindly following unknown patterns... modeling yourself to meet the expectations of some imaginary version of yourself in some imaginary tomorrow... trying to navigate correctly without at least a thin script of real instructions, practical application, purpose, or significance... It's like a second adolescence based on rebelling against the self (which, just like adults in that first adolescence, breaks everything down just to try and survive within certain constraints... just a collection of trivial inheritance... from the very people they were originally rebelling against...). Is there a third adolescence... when after the sheer force of life and its centrifugal madness... the self crumbles... and perceives that the only constant... all along... was actually just some form of revolt... against itself. And there it is, in the later, most defining years... the only spark still smoldering, keeping that magic vitality alive....
Regarding exits... within the timeframe or essence (years of accumulated density of memory/perception) of a life that can either cradle you or crush you... regardless of whether you want to fight it or just passively cling to where you are... That moment of realization happens in... at... the very place where there is no exit, in the prison (whether it's a gorgeous mansion or sewer pipe #18) that you built yourself... that moment is capable of turning into eternity. It only depends on how much attention or focus you put into measuring it, defining it, or giving it weight.... Without a personal reaction, it just dissipates... just like all those other "incredibly important or totally irrelevant" ideas within a single moment (allowed or forced by "the ether"). Free will... hmm... You aren't exactly free... except to react to ("impulses, urges, intrusive thoughts, hallucinations...".. from "the ether"..) during a given moment. Do these practical constructions actually serve you? Are they just denials of those "Epiphany" moments (which aren't always blissful)? Being practical just serves to create a buffer so that primary thoughts (from "the ether"), fears, and paranoia... don't have enough time to break through to the surface. When they do break through, you make a little noise... spend a stint in the hospital... just like any other normal illness... so you push it all down as fast as possible... and keep grinding forward... into new practicalities/victories (over your own fears). Even though you know you aren't winning any battles or wars... you're just wasting time, money, and energy... trying to prolong things. Practicality is practical... only... for its own sake.

To even reach a decision... if there's any way to find "meaning" at all... it comes from de-rationalizing our own attempts to grasp things. It's almost healthy (read: superficiality/generalization) combined with that typical lack of interest in anything external that doesn't serve us personally. On a macro level, this creates a world where, through digital literacy, we can define the exact tone or shade of red (like rgba or hsla)... but still... primarily... what one person can't transmit or absorb from another—regardless of how many languages they speak or how much code they know (rgba(255,0,0,1); hsla(0/360,100%,50%,1))... is that core perception of red. It stays trapped in that individual "head." Just like that specific shade of red (rgba(255,0,0,.666)). Making the choice to be near someone, just for a moment, for an eternity, despite knowing the empirical barriers... that choice is based on one's own "complex of everythingness." Whatever it is... destructive or constructive... it just exists. It just is. There's no way (and I mean no way, imho...) to categorize it. Being aware of that, after rolling around in the "destruction" of de-rationalization, might lead to nothing more than a convenience... to simply be near someone. To have contact or touch without judging, without belittling them, without putting them on a pedestal or measuring them against yourself... just being part of the moment... for yourself and for them. A fragment of nothingness where there's no need to overthink the hopelessness...

I agree with the "fullness" part... but... 🙂... why this violent (it feels like a violation) need to "understand" ("Isn't it more important to realize you don't necessarily have to fully 'understand' someone")? Rationalization often kills any real "understanding" at its most primal level. Why do we always feel the need to say something motivating or encouraging? Why is it impossible... or actually quite common to notice... that just being human—not "humanity" as a concept, just being human—is enough to connect with someone? To give and receive... without words, without deep empathy, without needing a logical reason... just the banality of being human... a look, a touch, a tear. Saying "I don't know what to tell you..." Well, nobody asked you to give a speech. And even before opening up my soul like that, I knew the reaction would be... "I don't know what I'd say to you..." I put myself out there just to test your "I don't know... driven by my little abstraction..." Neither of us actually knows... what to say to the other's "I don't know"...31>>

Jeffrey, you're leaning a little too hard on that "one day" stuff and all those fancy terms like "collective, digital, universal, magically collective consciousness"... 🙂. In a true collective... there is no "other." There aren't different types of people... no hidden agendas, no secrets, no "this guy" or "that guy"... nothing is private or individual anymore. Everything happens at once, everything is one, everything is now. There's no "your" thought vs. "my" thought. All thoughts become one single thought. Individuality is dead. An aggressor wouldn't even exist, or they'd be wiped out by the sheer momentum of the majority, because a collective feels, knows, and thinks as one... it knows exactly what it wants and doesn't want. Nobody gets violated; there's no violator. Nobody is going to be unknown... unknown doesn't exist. Everyone just wants to be, to do... unknown is primacy, universality, unity. "Think about it"... you're getting way too caught up in that "one day" fantasy 🙂 Sex is just like language or writing. It's the perception of two different versions of the color red. It's the merging of two entities... whether it's surrender... or dominance/violation (even the calculated, consensual, or manipulative kind...). In a state of being where "you" (me, you, him, her, us, them...) can actually open your soul and hand over every single thought about you, about me, about everything... the way I see you (because that's still the core priority, obviously... 🙂), experience you, love you, worship you... that's already handed over to you by default. It's wide open... it's accessible. It's a reality where masks quickly become forgotten relics. Sexual animalism might be useless at a level where there are no barriers between intellects. Where there's no barrier between "you" and "me." Merging one isn't even logical. 🙂
I'm ready to ditch all that animal instinct right now... just to be a pioneer in a new model of possibility like that... SpaceMonkey...

So, what’s the actual harm in derealization if it ends up actually helping things work out in the end?
Isn't that just another way of getting to know yourself? Honestly, derealization covers so much ground... you really have to pin down at least some part of it before you can even start defining what it actually is.
That color red... quoting you: Why this violent, almost predatory need to grasp everything? To force an understanding? "Isn't it also possible that you don't actually have to fully understand someone..." Why even bother insisting that someone else has to experience your specific shade of red? You think that’s the only way they can actually get you... or at least reach some baseline level of understanding?

I don't know. It’s hard to say for sure without more context... maybe we should just wait and see how things play out. jadelynx2 says:
I agree "completely"... or maybe not... 🙂... why this aggressive, almost predatory need to "understand" everything? Like, isn't it also okay if you don't fully grasp someone? Not everything needs to be dissected...
Maybe it’s just humanity... not necessarily being "human"... that’s enough to bridge the gap between us. To give and to receive without needing a single word. No voice, no complex empathy, no deep intellectual understanding required. Just the simple, raw essence of being human... a look, a touch, a tear shed in support...

Look, forcing an issue—or anything else—to some extreme is just wrong. We can't ever claim to fully grasp what someone else is going through. At the end of the day, the only thing that actually matters is showing up... being there for that person. Providing whatever kind of support they need in that moment... regardless of what it looks like.
Seriously, why the complete lack of empathy? Isn't empathy supposed to be a core part of being human? And I’m talking about that capacity for occasional, partial understanding of what someone else is going through... I mean, if everything just boils down to sitting across from someone, watching them cry, or listening to them vent—all while feeling absolutely nothing inside—then you’re basically just a robot. You're essentially a machine programmed to provide support without actually grasping the weight of it. It feels hollow. It actually reminds me of a movie... Makes perfect sense... Honestly, if I start breaking down the film to tie it back to this topic, I’ll probably just end up derailing the whole thread...

I suppose we’re finally getting to this topic... It feels like it was inevitable. I've been sitting on these thoughts for a while, watching everyone dance around the issue, but it's time to lay it out. There isn't much left to say that hasn't been whispered in the corners of these forums already. The reality of the situation is quite simple, really. We see the patterns emerging, the way certain players move, and yet there's this persistent refusal to acknowledge what's right in front of us. It's almost impressive, in a tragic sort of way. You look at the data, you look at how things have shifted since last year, and the conclusion becomes unavoidable. Some people want to call it a fluke. They want to believe that if they just ignore the trend, it will simply vanish. But trends don't just disappear because you close your eyes. They evolve. They settle in. And once they've taken root, trying to pull them out is a lot harder than just letting them be... jadelynx2 says:
Jeffrey Ramos4, you’re leaning a little too hard on that whole "one day" trope... and all that talk about a "collective, digital, universal, magically collective consciousness"... 🙂. In a collective that is truly a collective... there are no longer any others... who are this way or that... there are no more hidden agendas or secrets, no more "us versus them"... nothing is personal, individual, or private anymore... Everything happens at once, everything is one, everything is now. There is no such thing as my thought or your thought. All thoughts merge into a single thought. Individualism and separation simply cease to exist.

Actually, let me fix my wording. I misspoke. What I meant was, what if it were possible for only one part of consciousness to be collective, allowing some form of individuality to remain? For instance, things like war, the hunger for power, misunderstandings, aggression, and so on. If the consciousnesses of those individuals could link up into one collective whole, then all their experiences, ways of thinking, fears, etc., would merge. That collective entity would finally understand *why* certain individuals or groups push for war. From that, true empathy and genuine humanity could grow. Meanwhile, the part of consciousness that makes a person an individual would stay intact—things like personal preferences (the trivial stuff, like a favorite coffee shop), personality quirks, life goals, and so on. Basically, what if consciousness could be partitioned?

ironrider11 said:Outside of "practicality"... chaos finally hits... it's always partial, never absolute... it can be perceived... but not fully grasped, understood, or closed off... like something that, unlike perfection (and can perfection even exist?)... is by default something we try to quiet down, degrade, devalue, turn away from, or pretend not to see... all in the name of building structure, meaning, sequence, logic, or reason... trying to force an unquestionable cause and effect. Just blindly following unknown patterns... modeling yourself to meet the expectations of some imaginary version of yourself in some imaginary tomorrow... trying to navigate correctly without at least a thin script of real instructions, practical application, purpose, or significance... It's like a second adolescence based on rebelling against the self (which, just like adults in that first adolescence, breaks everything down just to try and survive within certain constraints... just a collection of trivial inheritance... from the very people they were originally rebelling against...). Is there a third adolescence... when after the sheer force of life and its centrifugal madness... the self crumbles... and perceives that the only constant... all along... was actually just some form of revolt... against itself. And there it is, in the later, most defining years... the only spark still smoldering, keeping that magic vitality alive....
Regarding exits... within the timeframe or essence (years of accumulated density of memory/perception) of a life that can either cradle you or crush you... regardless of whether you want to fight it or just passively cling to where you are... That moment of realization happens in... at... the very place where there is no exit, in the prison (whether it's a gorgeous mansion or sewer pipe #18) that you built yourself... that moment is capable of turning into eternity. It only depends on how much attention or focus you put into measuring it, defining it, or giving it weight.... Without a personal reaction, it just dissipates... just like all those other "incredibly important or totally irrelevant" ideas within a single moment (allowed or forced by "the ether"). Free will... hmm... You aren't exactly free... except to react to ("impulses, urges, intrusive thoughts, hallucinations...".. from "the ether"..) during a given moment. Do these practical constructions actually serve you? Are they just denials of those "Epiphany" moments (which aren't always blissful)? Being practical just serves to create a buffer so that primary thoughts (from "the ether"), fears, and paranoia... don't have enough time to break through to the surface. When they do break through, you make a little noise... spend a stint in the hospital... just like any other normal illness... so you push it all down as fast as possible... and keep grinding forward... into new practicalities/victories (over your own fears). Even though you know you aren't winning any battles or wars... you're just wasting time, money, and energy... trying to prolong things. Practicality is practical... only... for its own sake.

To even reach a decision... if there's any way to find "meaning" at all... it comes from de-rationalizing our own attempts to grasp things. It's almost healthy (read: superficiality/generalization) combined with that typical lack of interest in anything external that doesn't serve us personally. On a macro level, this creates a world where, through digital literacy, we can define the exact tone or shade of red (like rgba or hsla)... but still... primarily... what one person can't transmit or absorb from another—regardless of how many languages they speak or how much code they know (rgba(255,0,0,1); hsla(0/360,100%,50%,1))... is that core perception of red. It stays trapped in that individual "head." Just like that specific shade of red (rgba(255,0,0,.666)). Making the choice to be near someone, just for a moment, for an eternity, despite knowing the empirical barriers... that choice is based on one's own "complex of everythingness." Whatever it is... destructive or constructive... it just exists. It just is. There's no way (and I mean no way, imho...) to categorize it. Being aware of that, after rolling around in the "destruction" of de-rationalization, might lead to nothing more than a convenience... to simply be near someone. To have contact or touch without judging, without belittling them, without putting them on a pedestal or measuring them against yourself... just being part of the moment... for yourself and for them. A fragment of nothingness where there's no need to overthink the hopelessness...

I agree with the "fullness" part... but... 🙂... why this violent (it feels like a violation) need to "understand" ("Isn't it more important to realize you don't necessarily have to fully 'understand' someone")? Rationalization often kills any real "understanding" at its most primal level. Why do we always feel the need to say something motivating or encouraging? Why is it impossible... or actually quite common to notice... that just being human—not "humanity" as a concept, just being human—is enough to connect with someone? To give and receive... without words, without deep empathy, without needing a logical reason... just the banality of being human... a look, a touch, a tear. Saying "I don't know what to tell you..." Well, nobody asked you to give a speech. And even before opening up my soul like that, I knew the reaction would be... "I don't know what I'd say to you..." I put myself out there just to test your "I don't know... driven by my little abstraction..." Neither of us actually knows... what to say to the other's "I don't know"...31>>

Jeffrey, you're leaning a little too hard on that "one day" stuff and all those fancy terms like "collective, digital, universal, magically collective consciousness"... 🙂. In a true collective... there is no "other." There aren't different types of people... no hidden agendas, no secrets, no "this guy" or "that guy"... nothing is private or individual anymore. Everything happens at once, everything is one, everything is now. There's no "your" thought vs. "my" thought. All thoughts become one single thought. Individuality is dead. An aggressor wouldn't even exist, or they'd be wiped out by the sheer momentum of the majority, because a collective feels, knows, and thinks as one... it knows exactly what it wants and doesn't want. Nobody gets violated; there's no violator. Nobody is going to be unknown... unknown doesn't exist. Everyone just wants to be, to do... unknown is primacy, universality, unity. "Think about it"... you're getting way too caught up in that "one day" fantasy 🙂 Sex is just like language or writing. It's the perception of two different versions of the color red. It's the merging of two entities... whether it's surrender... or dominance/violation (even the calculated, consensual, or manipulative kind...). In a state of being where "you" (me, you, him, her, us, them...) can actually open your soul and hand over every single thought about you, about me, about everything... the way I see you (because that's still the core priority, obviously... 🙂), experience you, love you, worship you... that's already handed over to you by default. It's wide open... it's accessible. It's a reality where masks quickly become forgotten relics. Sexual animalism might be useless at a level where there are no barriers between intellects. Where there's no barrier between "you" and "me." Merging one isn't even logical. 🙂
I'm ready to ditch all that animal instinct right now... just to be a pioneer in a new model of possibility like that... SpaceMonkey...

But then, what is the charm of getting to know someone else if everything is collective? Take Person A meeting Person B. They have their own individuality right up until that moment. They "merge" and become one, but then what? After they outgrow the collective stage? Can that collective entity remember what it felt like when individual identity actually existed? Is it possible for them to be one during that "merger," but only in specific parts of their consciousness, allowing them to return to their individual selves later? And if, during that union, "that something" is created between them while they retain a slice of their individuality (the partial exchange of consciousness, thoughts, and feelings I mentioned earlier), then they can actually develop a relationship that sustains itself over time.
And as for sexual animality... if the folks over at the local PTA heard you say that, they’d burn you at the stake 🤣
The real question is why sexual animality matters so much. When you look at it, it seems like nothing more than a superficial, empty, momentary release of a need. With every "release," the craving for it grows even stronger. It's a drug. The effect on the brain is the same whether it's an orgasm, drugs, or alcohol... just more dopamine, please. Addiction. Where do we draw the line between pleasure and dependency? Is it just a matter of dosage?
There have already been some attempts at this kind of "merging," where the "I" and the "you" finally become one. It’s about moving past pure animal instinct. It might not be that total, 100% absolute union, but it’s on a much higher, more meaningful level than what most people settle for... which just keeps them stuck in the same old patterns.