Old souls vs. young souls

Quentin Tarantino

Robert Diaz2 As I have previously observed—and I tend to be quite certain about these matters—there is an underlying truth here that most people seem to overlook in their haste to reach a conclusion. It isn't merely about the surface level of the argument; rather, it is about the structural integrity of the logic being presented. One must look closer. What Nancy Wilson2 suggested holds some weight—it really does. People tend to rush into relationships out of pure, unadulterated fear. There is the dread of being alone, the terror of mortality, and everything in between. It becomes a desperate flight into various distractions, all just to avoid having to confront those truths directly. Love is, as any rational observer understands, nothing more than a series of chemical reactions firing within the brain. It is, quite frankly, the ultimate glitch in the Matrix—a grand illusion designed to manufacture hype and lead humanity straight into a state of voluntary servitude. This is precisely why our entire culture—from Hollywood blockbusters to the top of the Billboard charts—is so relentlessly saturated with themes of romance and affection. There is this pervasive, systemic pressure everywhere you look to conform to the standard model of being in a relationship or tied down in marriage.

Good heavens—it appears there are actually people in this corner of the internet who perceive the world through the same lens I do. 🙏 But let’s be clear—not everyone possesses the insight to grasp the situation, nor does everyone have the vision to see things for what they truly are.

Elizabeth Castillo87, you hit the nail on the head—it is precisely the clergy and the religious types who have taken this concept and inflated it through sheer mystification and romanticism. It isn't just Hollywood, poets, or philosophers either. I recall an old debate I had with Camelot where I made the exact same point that Robert Diaz2 just raised; his response was to suggest I wasn't quite right in the head and should perhaps seek professional help. He leaned heavily into that nonsense about love being a fire in the soul, dew upon the face, or even having Jesus himself residing within a person. We are still dealing with that same brand of absurdity today. I have also heard the notion that love is simply the conscious presence of the self—which is actually a rather elegant thought—but it stems from conscious experiences where the organism is fully relaxed. We know for a fact that oxytocin can be released during such states, which explains those intense feelings of love that certain meditators happen to experience.

Reality is a fickle thing—it encompasses everything that actually exists—and this pervasive notion that "everything is love" is nothing more than a hollow declaration used to justify even the atrocities committed by Hitler. If we accept the premise that love is the sum total of all existence, then we are forced into some rather grim conclusions. Is love found in a man rotting away in his own suffering? Is the act of shooting an innocent child in the head considered an act of love? If one insists that everything is love, and that the entirety of reality is composed of it, then yes—hate becomes love, the deepest depths of depression become love, and even the act of suicide becomes the ultimate expression of love, simply because love is supposedly everything and within everything.

Everything stems from the inherent nature and subsequent impact of those emotional states—it isn't just poetic fluff. It’s a documented phenomenon, really; people don't just say the sky looks more vibrant when you're in love without having a reason. But just because things may appear that way—it doesn't mean they actually are. People tend to take that specific term—which, if you look at the name itself, carries this almost sanctified, hollow glow—and stretch its definition to cover just about anything. It’s a bit much, frankly. While poetic, romantic, or abstract language might serve a purpose in art, it is fundamentally ill-suited for describing objective reality. Such phrasing is meant for subjective experiences—those fleeting, deeply personal perceptions that belong to the individual alone. Just because your heart rate spikes from an adrenaline rush doesn't mean love originates in the chest; biology doesn't care about our metaphors. But then again, people misinterpret just about everything, usually twisting facts to fit whatever narrative suits them best. This single point of contention opens up far too many unnecessary debates and endless, circular definitions.

Quentin Tarantino

Elizabeth Castillo87 said:I mean, I kind of find myself nodding along with Nancy Wilson2 on this one—there’s no such thing as "old souls" versus "young souls." It’s really just about where you sit on the consciousness scale. If we’re all fundamentally one big entity in the end, then we’ve gotta be the same age, right? I know, I know... but isn't time itself just a relative concept anyway? Once you move past this rigid 3D perception we're stuck in, the whole idea of aging probably becomes totally irrelevant.

When people speak of the "oldness of the soul," they are almost certainly referring to maturity. Yet, maturity isn't a byproduct of age—not necessarily. It is more accurately a result of experience and, more importantly, how we choose to react to those experiences. That said, if someone is older, one might assume they have accumulated more life lessons—essentially, more time spent carving the raw wood of character into a "perfect" shape. We all possess distinct personalities shaped by varying degrees of pressure; some were molded harshly, others more gently, some extensively, others barely at all. There are simply too many nuances and individual variations to make any sense of categorizing people.

Robert Diaz2 said:I think what Nancy Wilson2 was getting at actually makes a lot of sense. I guess people jump into relationships mostly because they're just plain terrified. It's that deep-seated fear of being alone, or even the fear of death, honestly. Most people just end up chasing all these different distractions just so they don't have to face those heavy thoughts at all.

I mean, let’s be real—love is basically just a chemical reaction happening in your brain. It feels like the ultimate glitch in the Matrix, right? Like, the system uses it to build this massive hype, which ultimately just traps people in a cycle of dependency. That's probably why every single movie and song out there is absolutely saturated with romance and love stories. There's this constant, overwhelming pressure everywhere to be in a relationship or tied down in a marriage.

But you're describing love as nothing more than some organic trope found in cheap drugstore paperbacks or cheesy soap operas on TV...
That isn't really love! Sure, maybe there's a tiny glimmer of actual affection in there sometimes, but what you're talking about is just what love *isn't*—it's selfish lust and raw sexuality. Once that initial physical spark fades and your interest shifts to someone else or some other object, you're left with just brain chemistry stripped of any real tolerance or deep understanding.😉

Nancy Wilson2 said:Quentin Tarantino

Robert Diaz2 As I have previously observed—and I tend to be quite certain about these matters—there is an underlying truth here that most people seem to overlook in their haste to reach a conclusion. It isn't merely about the surface level of the argument; rather, it is about the structural integrity of the logic being presented. One must look closer. What Nancy Wilson2 suggested holds some weight—it really does. People tend to rush into relationships out of pure, unadulterated fear. There is the dread of being alone, the terror of mortality, and everything in between. It becomes a desperate flight into various distractions, all just to avoid having to confront those truths directly. Love is, as any rational observer understands, nothing more than a series of chemical reactions firing within the brain. It is, quite frankly, the ultimate glitch in the Matrix—a grand illusion designed to manufacture hype and lead humanity straight into a state of voluntary servitude. This is precisely why our entire culture—from Hollywood blockbusters to the top of the Billboard charts—is so relentlessly saturated with themes of romance and affection. There is this pervasive, systemic pressure everywhere you look to conform to the standard model of being in a relationship or tied down in marriage.

Good heavens—it appears there are actually people in this corner of the internet who perceive the world through the same lens I do. 🙏 But let’s be clear—not everyone possesses the insight to grasp the situation, nor does everyone have the vision to see things for what they truly are.

Elizabeth Castillo87, you hit the nail on the head—it is precisely the clergy and the religious types who have taken this concept and inflated it through sheer mystification and romanticism. It isn't just Hollywood, poets, or philosophers either. I recall an old debate I had with Camelot where I made the exact same point that Robert Diaz2 just raised; his response was to suggest I wasn't quite right in the head and should perhaps seek professional help. He leaned heavily into that nonsense about love being a fire in the soul, dew upon the face, or even having Jesus himself residing within a person. We are still dealing with that same brand of absurdity today. I have also heard the notion that love is simply the conscious presence of the self—which is actually a rather elegant thought—but it stems from conscious experiences where the organism is fully relaxed. We know for a fact that oxytocin can be released during such states, which explains those intense feelings of love that certain meditators happen to experience.

Reality is a fickle thing—it encompasses everything that actually exists—and this pervasive notion that "everything is love" is nothing more than a hollow declaration used to justify even the atrocities committed by Hitler. If we accept the premise that love is the sum total of all existence, then we are forced into some rather grim conclusions. Is love found in a man rotting away in his own suffering? Is the act of shooting an innocent child in the head considered an act of love? If one insists that everything is love, and that the entirety of reality is composed of it, then yes—hate becomes love, the deepest depths of depression become love, and even the act of suicide becomes the ultimate expression of love, simply because love is supposedly everything and within everything.

Everything stems from the inherent nature and subsequent impact of those emotional states—it isn't just poetic fluff. It’s a documented phenomenon, really; people don't just say the sky looks more vibrant when you're in love without having a reason. But just because things may appear that way—it doesn't mean they actually are. People tend to take that specific term—which, if you look at the name itself, carries this almost sanctified, hollow glow—and stretch its definition to cover just about anything. It’s a bit much, frankly. While poetic, romantic, or abstract language might serve a purpose in art, it is fundamentally ill-suited for describing objective reality. Such phrasing is meant for subjective experiences—those fleeting, deeply personal perceptions that belong to the individual alone. Just because your heart rate spikes from an adrenaline rush doesn't mean love originates in the chest; biology doesn't care about our metaphors. But then again, people misinterpret just about everything, usually twisting facts to fit whatever narrative suits them best. This single point of contention opens up far too many unnecessary debates and endless, circular definitions.

Quentin Tarantino

When people speak of the "oldness of the soul," they are almost certainly referring to maturity. Yet, maturity isn't a byproduct of age—not necessarily. It is more accurately a result of experience and, more importantly, how we choose to react to those experiences. That said, if someone is older, one might assume they have accumulated more life lessons—essentially, more time spent carving the raw wood of character into a "perfect" shape. We all possess distinct personalities shaped by varying degrees of pressure; some were molded harshly, others more gently, some extensively, others barely at all. There are simply too many nuances and individual variations to make any sense of categorizing people.

I think you're looking at this through such an ego-driven lens—you basically assume anyone thinking differently is just being delusional!
When you're stuck in that mindset, it's impossible to come up with any truly objective conclusions.

Quentin Tarantino

nimblewolf11 said:But you're describing love as nothing more than some organic trope found in cheap drugstore paperbacks or cheesy soap operas on TV...
That isn't really love! Sure, maybe there's a tiny glimmer of actual affection in there sometimes, but what you're talking about is just what love *isn't*—it's selfish lust and raw sexuality. Once that initial physical spark fades and your interest shifts to someone else or some other object, you're left with just brain chemistry stripped of any real tolerance or deep understanding.😉

The original essence of the word "love"—what it truly meant back in the day and what it actually represents—is one thing entirely. But then there is this other issue: the very concept of the word "sacred." It is quite another matter altogether that we find ourselves bristling at the idea of such nonsense being labeled as such.

Quentin Tarantino

nimblewolf11 said:I think you're looking at this through such an ego-driven lens—you basically assume anyone thinking differently is just being delusional!
When you're stuck in that mindset, it's impossible to come up with any truly objective conclusions.

We all possess an ego—it’s a fundamental part of being human, really—and frankly, it is nothing more than a natural byproduct of our evolutionary trajectory, specifically the development of the brain and consciousness. It is a gift of individual self-awareness; I have mine, you have yours, and everyone else does too, so let’s not make it an issue. Quite frankly, I have zero interest in anyone attempting to psychoanalyze me or dictating to me who I am.

Oh, and I almost forgot to mention—she claimed that everyone knows this, but my only intention was to correct her and point out that not everyone possesses that particular perspective. Where exactly are you coming from when you claim I’m merely driven by an ego? That reaction—that specific judgment—is actually psychologically "worse" than being ego-driven; it’s the act of placing oneself above another, at least based on how it was phrased. But honestly, it’s hard to escape our own nature. We all operate on that same level of ego—it’s just where we live. We are who we are, having evolved from whatever we evolved from, shaped by the forces that shaped us... you know what I mean. This whole concept of egoism, and much of the behavior people attribute to it, is labeled as "morally wrong," but morality itself is a concept known only to a select few living beings—and frankly, the universe (or God) couldn't care less about it. You can see that in the fact that the vast majority of species that have ever existed are now dead—99%, to be precise—wiped out by volcanoes, earthquakes, asteroids, and so on. So, uh... what else can I say? No big deal. I apologize if I came across as behaving that way; I only said it because it felt like the civilized thing to do. And since the ultimate goal of spirituality is to become one with God, let's aim to become something that makes the left side of the cosmic egg ache with its disregard for morality and ego. Of course, that means reaching a level where we realize none of this should be taken too seriously. Let's just be happy and laugh. 😁

Robert Diaz2 said:I think what Nancy Wilson2 was getting at actually makes a lot of sense. I guess people jump into relationships mostly because they're just plain terrified. It's that deep-seated fear of being alone, or even the fear of death, honestly. Most people just end up chasing all these different distractions just so they don't have to face those heavy thoughts at all.

I mean, let’s be real—love is basically just a chemical reaction happening in your brain. It feels like the ultimate glitch in the Matrix, right? Like, the system uses it to build this massive hype, which ultimately just traps people in a cycle of dependency. That's probably why every single movie and song out there is absolutely saturated with romance and love stories. There's this constant, overwhelming pressure everywhere to be in a relationship or tied down in a marriage.

Luckily, not everyone falls for it. 😍

So, sticking to the theme here...

The Return

Who knows? (Not a soul—nobody actually knows anything,
Knowledge is a fragile thing!)
Maybe a spark of truth hit me,
Or maybe it's just dreams.
Love might still find its way to us,
That's what I'm saying,
But I haven't decided if I even want it,
Or if I don't.

In the endless, churning sea of life,
Where things fade and surge,
People collide and regroup again,
Like raindrops meeting once more—
And when eternity drifts along its starlit path,
Through a vast, lonely void,
The same lips could meet again
In a single kiss.

Maybe one night you'll show up,
beautiful in blue,
Never realizing you were the light
That haunted my long-lost days,
And here I am, writing these weird rhymes
With a heart full of you,
Oh, I won't know if my longing is real,
Or even your name!

If, in that moment, the soul
Leans in to listen,
It will drown out all reason
With a voice certain and clear;
Under the glow of evening lamps, we'll steal a glance
Like total strangers,
Never realizing how tightly we're bound
By those old, familiar chains.

But time keeps moving, time keeps rolling
Like the sun in its orbit,
Bringing back everything we've known:
The joy and the heartache alike.
Eyes will close, hands will find their way,
And the heart will leap—
As we blindly follow the footsteps
Of the lives we used to lead.

Who knows? (Not a soul—nobody actually knows anything.
Knowledge is a fragile thing!)
Maybe a spark of truth hit me,
Or maybe it's just dreams.
Love might still find its way to us,
Find its way—that's what I'm saying,
But I haven't decided if I even want it,
Or if I don't.

Nancy Wilson2 said:Quentin Tarantino

Robert Diaz2 As I have previously observed—and I tend to be quite certain about these matters—there is an underlying truth here that most people seem to overlook in their haste to reach a conclusion. It isn't merely about the surface level of the argument; rather, it is about the structural integrity of the logic being presented. One must look closer. What Nancy Wilson2 suggested holds some weight—it really does. People tend to rush into relationships out of pure, unadulterated fear. There is the dread of being alone, the terror of mortality, and everything in between. It becomes a desperate flight into various distractions, all just to avoid having to confront those truths directly. Love is, as any rational observer understands, nothing more than a series of chemical reactions firing within the brain. It is, quite frankly, the ultimate glitch in the Matrix—a grand illusion designed to manufacture hype and lead humanity straight into a state of voluntary servitude. This is precisely why our entire culture—from Hollywood blockbusters to the top of the Billboard charts—is so relentlessly saturated with themes of romance and affection. There is this pervasive, systemic pressure everywhere you look to conform to the standard model of being in a relationship or tied down in marriage.

Good heavens—it appears there are actually people in this corner of the internet who perceive the world through the same lens I do. 🙏 But let’s be clear—not everyone possesses the insight to grasp the situation, nor does everyone have the vision to see things for what they truly are.

Elizabeth Castillo87, you hit the nail on the head—it is precisely the clergy and the religious types who have taken this concept and inflated it through sheer mystification and romanticism. It isn't just Hollywood, poets, or philosophers either. I recall an old debate I had with Camelot where I made the exact same point that Robert Diaz2 just raised; his response was to suggest I wasn't quite right in the head and should perhaps seek professional help. He leaned heavily into that nonsense about love being a fire in the soul, dew upon the face, or even having Jesus himself residing within a person. We are still dealing with that same brand of absurdity today. I have also heard the notion that love is simply the conscious presence of the self—which is actually a rather elegant thought—but it stems from conscious experiences where the organism is fully relaxed. We know for a fact that oxytocin can be released during such states, which explains those intense feelings of love that certain meditators happen to experience.

Reality is a fickle thing—it encompasses everything that actually exists—and this pervasive notion that "everything is love" is nothing more than a hollow declaration used to justify even the atrocities committed by Hitler. If we accept the premise that love is the sum total of all existence, then we are forced into some rather grim conclusions. Is love found in a man rotting away in his own suffering? Is the act of shooting an innocent child in the head considered an act of love? If one insists that everything is love, and that the entirety of reality is composed of it, then yes—hate becomes love, the deepest depths of depression become love, and even the act of suicide becomes the ultimate expression of love, simply because love is supposedly everything and within everything.

Everything stems from the inherent nature and subsequent impact of those emotional states—it isn't just poetic fluff. It’s a documented phenomenon, really; people don't just say the sky looks more vibrant when you're in love without having a reason. But just because things may appear that way—it doesn't mean they actually are. People tend to take that specific term—which, if you look at the name itself, carries this almost sanctified, hollow glow—and stretch its definition to cover just about anything. It’s a bit much, frankly. While poetic, romantic, or abstract language might serve a purpose in art, it is fundamentally ill-suited for describing objective reality. Such phrasing is meant for subjective experiences—those fleeting, deeply personal perceptions that belong to the individual alone. Just because your heart rate spikes from an adrenaline rush doesn't mean love originates in the chest; biology doesn't care about our metaphors. But then again, people misinterpret just about everything, usually twisting facts to fit whatever narrative suits them best. This single point of contention opens up far too many unnecessary debates and endless, circular definitions.

Quentin Tarantino

When people speak of the "oldness of the soul," they are almost certainly referring to maturity. Yet, maturity isn't a byproduct of age—not necessarily. It is more accurately a result of experience and, more importantly, how we choose to react to those experiences. That said, if someone is older, one might assume they have accumulated more life lessons—essentially, more time spent carving the raw wood of character into a "perfect" shape. We all possess distinct personalities shaped by varying degrees of pressure; some were molded harshly, others more gently, some extensively, others barely at all. There are simply too many nuances and individual variations to make any sense of categorizing people.

So, you’re mostly talking about being infatuated rather than actually loving someone.
What happens when two people move past that initial rush? Does that mean there's no more racing hearts or butterflies or any of that other crap?
What about when friends love each other?
Or when parents love a kid who treats them like absolute garbage, but they still love them anyway? Or when someone actually donates a kidney to another person? Is that all just brain chemistry? Are we just being driven by chemicals to give a lady a kidney or jump under a subway train to save someone's life or, I don't know, forgive someone for the worst possible things they've ever done?

Morgan Bishop4 said:So, you’re mostly talking about being infatuated rather than actually loving someone.
What happens when two people move past that initial rush? Does that mean there's no more racing hearts or butterflies or any of that other crap?
What about when friends love each other?
Or when parents love a kid who treats them like absolute garbage, but they still love them anyway? Or when someone actually donates a kidney to another person? Is that all just brain chemistry? Are we just being driven by chemicals to give a lady a kidney or jump under a subway train to save someone's life or, I don't know, forgive someone for the worst possible things they've ever done?

My previous example regarding infatuation was intended to illustrate its role as the early stage of romantic love—it is merely a component of the whole. Once that phase passes, we enter a period of deep attachment, which is primarily driven by oxytocin. It is a significantly more complex phenomenon; a multitude of factors interact within what we collectively label "love."

Platonic love is a form of interpersonal relationship rooted in trust, care, and connection. Attachment is a fundamental element of human affection and exists within all serious relationships. Parental love, meanwhile, is pure attachment and instinct.

As for the act of donating a kidney or similar sacrifices—that isn't "love" itself, but rather an action that can be motivated by many different reasons, including love.

Regarding the question of whether this is *only* chemistry—of course not. Chemistry—specifically various neurotransmitters—influences or creates these states; at the very least, it contributes heavily to the emotional conditions that subsequently dictate the body's actions and decisions. This entire process emerges from a complex system of mind and body—conscious and unconscious, mental and chemical, and even electric in nature—where every factor influences the others in endless combinations. All of these elements converge to create the phenomena we experience. What I have outlined here is a broader, and therefore more accurate, picture, though it wouldn't be incorrect to say that emotions possess a physical foundation. And... yes, that would be it.

nimblewolf11 said:But you're describing love as nothing more than some organic trope found in cheap drugstore paperbacks or cheesy soap operas on TV...
That isn't really love! Sure, maybe there's a tiny glimmer of actual affection in there sometimes, but what you're talking about is just what love *isn't*—it's selfish lust and raw sexuality. Once that initial physical spark fades and your interest shifts to someone else or some other object, you're left with just brain chemistry stripped of any real tolerance or deep understanding.😉

Yeah, I guess when that passion fades, people either move on to something else or they actually build a more mature relationship. But honestly, in both scenarios, you're still dealing with intense emotions and attachments—which is exactly the kind of stuff those "old souls" we're talking about are trying to dodge.

I’m actually posting on this thread and that other one about soulmates at the same time, and I’m starting to lose track of which is which since they're becoming pretty much the same thing anyway. 😁

casualtiger2 said:Luckily, not everyone falls for it. 😍

So, sticking to the theme here...

The Return

Who knows? (Not a soul—nobody actually knows anything,
Knowledge is a fragile thing!)
Maybe a spark of truth hit me,
Or maybe it's just dreams.
Love might still find its way to us,
That's what I'm saying,
But I haven't decided if I even want it,
Or if I don't.

In the endless, churning sea of life,
Where things fade and surge,
People collide and regroup again,
Like raindrops meeting once more—
And when eternity drifts along its starlit path,
Through a vast, lonely void,
The same lips could meet again
In a single kiss.

Maybe one night you'll show up,
beautiful in blue,
Never realizing you were the light
That haunted my long-lost days,
And here I am, writing these weird rhymes
With a heart full of you,
Oh, I won't know if my longing is real,
Or even your name!

If, in that moment, the soul
Leans in to listen,
It will drown out all reason
With a voice certain and clear;
Under the glow of evening lamps, we'll steal a glance
Like total strangers,
Never realizing how tightly we're bound
By those old, familiar chains.

But time keeps moving, time keeps rolling
Like the sun in its orbit,
Bringing back everything we've known:
The joy and the heartache alike.
Eyes will close, hands will find their way,
And the heart will leap—
As we blindly follow the footsteps
Of the lives we used to lead.

Who knows? (Not a soul—nobody actually knows anything.
Knowledge is a fragile thing!)
Maybe a spark of truth hit me,
Or maybe it's just dreams.
Love might still find its way to us,
Find its way—that's what I'm saying,
But I haven't decided if I even want it,
Or if I don't.

I guess it just comes down to personal preference, really. Everyone's got their own path to walk and their own lessons to learn. 🙂

Nancy Wilson2 said:Quentin Tarantino

The original essence of the word "love"—what it truly meant back in the day and what it actually represents—is one thing entirely. But then there is this other issue: the very concept of the word "sacred." It is quite another matter altogether that we find ourselves bristling at the idea of such nonsense being labeled as such.

Quentin Tarantino

We all possess an ego—it’s a fundamental part of being human, really—and frankly, it is nothing more than a natural byproduct of our evolutionary trajectory, specifically the development of the brain and consciousness. It is a gift of individual self-awareness; I have mine, you have yours, and everyone else does too, so let’s not make it an issue. Quite frankly, I have zero interest in anyone attempting to psychoanalyze me or dictating to me who I am.

Oh, and I almost forgot to mention—she claimed that everyone knows this, but my only intention was to correct her and point out that not everyone possesses that particular perspective. Where exactly are you coming from when you claim I’m merely driven by an ego? That reaction—that specific judgment—is actually psychologically "worse" than being ego-driven; it’s the act of placing oneself above another, at least based on how it was phrased. But honestly, it’s hard to escape our own nature. We all operate on that same level of ego—it’s just where we live. We are who we are, having evolved from whatever we evolved from, shaped by the forces that shaped us... you know what I mean. This whole concept of egoism, and much of the behavior people attribute to it, is labeled as "morally wrong," but morality itself is a concept known only to a select few living beings—and frankly, the universe (or God) couldn't care less about it. You can see that in the fact that the vast majority of species that have ever existed are now dead—99%, to be precise—wiped out by volcanoes, earthquakes, asteroids, and so on. So, uh... what else can I say? No big deal. I apologize if I came across as behaving that way; I only said it because it felt like the civilized thing to do. And since the ultimate goal of spirituality is to become one with God, let's aim to become something that makes the left side of the cosmic egg ache with its disregard for morality and ego. Of course, that means reaching a level where we realize none of this should be taken too seriously. Let's just be happy and laugh. 😁

Real love? That kind of affection is sold on street corners in the middle of the night, or found in random backroads and cornfields for pennies. Anything else that claims to be "love" while acting selfishly has absolutely nothing to do with it!

I’m talking about the kind of love that gets pushed to the fringes of life—just like life itself. You won't find that kind of raw connection in religious sanctity or those fancy types of shrines.

We all have egos, right? It's totally natural—honestly, it's a part of the divine because it exists as a byproduct of our brain and consciousness evolving. It's a gift of conscious individuality! I have mine, you have yours, everyone else has theirs, so what? I really don't need someone performing a psychological autopsy on me or telling me who I am.

It’s really just about observation.

Having an ego as a protective mechanism during early stages of development isn't the issue. The real trouble starts when we begin building ourselves up around it and identifying too closely with it...

And yeah, I almost forgot to mention. She claimed that "everyone knows this," and I just wanted to correct her and point out that not everyone sees things through that lens. So where does that leave you? On what basis did you decide I'm "heavily conditioned by ego"? Because that reaction itself—trying to act superior to someone else—is actually psychologically even "worse" than being ego-conditioned, at least based on how it was written.

What "superiority"?! If that were actually the case, I’d seriously have a massive problem.
That's the last thing anyone needs, and honestly, it's something nobody wants at all.
When I feel the urge to point something out to someone, I almost never single myself out from the context. I've actually made it a habit to put myself in the same boat—or even a worse one! For instance, in my split-second thoughts, I can be incredibly, brutally self-critical. I used to hate that self-reflection, but nowadays I can actually laugh at myself because I've accepted that that sensitive little part of me isn't actually "me."

But you know what? It's hard to run away from our nature. At some level, we're all stuck with this ego... living the lives we live. We are who we are, having evolved from what we evolved from, shaped by whatever shaped us before... you know what I mean? Egoism and all that behavior people pin on the ego is often labeled "morally bad," but morality is something known by only a few living beings—and frankly, the universe/God doesn't give a tiny bit of a damn about it (you can tell by the fact that 99% of species that ever lived are dead due to volcanoes, earthquakes, asteroids, etc... so, yeah... no big deal). Sorry if I came off that way; I'm just trying to be polite. Since the whole goal of spirituality is becoming one with the divine, let's aim for something that makes the concept of "morality vs. ego" look totally irrelevant. Let's just reach a level where we realize none of this should be taken too seriously. Let's just be happy and laugh!😁

I’ve gotta say, I’m pretty much on board with that first impression! If you take a quick peek at my recent posts about religion and all that alternative stuff—well, they're mostly just me messing around. Or, if you want to call it something a bit more "sophisticated," let's go with playful banter.😉

Robert Diaz2 said:Yeah, I guess when that passion fades, people either move on to something else or they actually build a more mature relationship. But honestly, in both scenarios, you're still dealing with intense emotions and attachments—which is exactly the kind of stuff those "old souls" we're talking about are trying to dodge.

I’m actually posting on this thread and that other one about soulmates at the same time, and I’m starting to lose track of which is which since they're becoming pretty much the same thing anyway. 😁

I think when people talk about being an "old soul," they’re really just talking about emotional maturity—or a lack thereof, depending on how you look at it.

I actually think you hit the nail on the head here. In most relationships, you eventually run into that territory of partner dependency and attachment (and honestly? It kind of creeps me out!). I don't know... if there's a genuine romantic bond that isn't rooted in fear, then great! But if a couple is only together because they're terrified of being alone? Well, that's just a recipe for disaster—it'll create way more drama than if those two people were just living their lives solo.

I'm posting on this thread and that other one about soulmates at the same time, and I'm starting to lose track of which is which since they're becoming so similar! 😁

I haven't been following that thread, but I'll definitely go take a peek.

Robert Diaz2 said:This part is totally spot on. Yeah, we're here for the experience, and we should definitely make use of everything this level of existence has to offer, but I guess you have to look at it as using a tool—something useful and constructive to help you reach a goal—rather than getting stuck to it. 🙂

As for why attachment is bad? Honestly, it seems like pure logic to me. If you're white-knuckling your way through life and clinging onto things so tightly, how are you supposed to actually move forward? You just end up hoarding and hoarding stuff that you've already outgrown, and then there's just no room left for anything new to come in. Minimalism is the key, I think.

My own logic is that whether you attach yourself or not is irrelevant, because in the end, we all die, which serves as the ultimate "detachment."

Jacob Sanchez7 said:Old souls at the end of a career. It’s almost like watching how stars burn out.

No.

I’ll lean on an Alan Watts parable here:
Life is like falling off a cliff. You’re born at the summit, only for the doctor to toss you straight into the abyss. And while you're plummeting, you spot a rock. You grab onto it with everything you've got. Suddenly, that rock becomes your entire universe. You lose sight of the horizon, the sky, everything else—because you're too busy clutching that damn rock.
You’re going to fall regardless. Whether you're clinging to the rock or not is beside the point. But let’s be clear: the quality of that experience changes entirely if you’re white-knuckling it. If you aren't tethered to the stone, you gain the freedom to actually experience the rock, without being trapped by everything else happening around you.

I have no idea where you're getting this "one soul" concept from. (Though, let's be honest—we’ve already moved past the whole attachment phase.)

Non-attachment isn't about being incapable of experiencing things. It’s actually the opposite. It’s about having more freedom to choose those experiences because you finally have a clear perspective once you stop clinging to them.

The water in the glass is clear. But once you drop some instant coffee in there, you’ve effectively fused the water to the coffee; at that point, the water isn't just clear anymore—it *is* the coffee.

Anything else?

😁

If they are being born, does that imply that souls must die?

I will employ a parable by Alan Watts:
Life is akin to falling off a cliff. You are born at the summit, and then the doctor throws you down. As you descend, you spot a rock and grab onto it with everything you've got; suddenly, that rock becomes your entire universe, and you lose sight of everything else because you are so preoccupied with the stone.
However, you are going to hit the ground whether you cling to that rock or not; the only difference is that the quality of your experience will be vastly different depending on whether you are tethered to that stone. If you aren't clinging to the rock, you still have the freedom to experience the stone, but you aren't necessarily trapped by it.

A murky parable.

If you grab the rock, you will experience the rock, regardless of whether you intended to be tethered to it or not.

Non-attachment doesn't preclude the possibility of experiencing something; it simply offers greater freedom in choosing that very experience, because you maintain a much clearer perspective when you aren't bound to an object.

Water in a glass is clear. Once you stir Nescafe into it, you have tied the water to the coffee; at that point, the water is no longer clear—it has become the coffee.

Therein lies the distinction. In my view, if one does not attach oneself, one cannot truly live through the experience. Since we are physical beings, attachment is the only thing that can actually influence our experience.

The water isn't just "coffee-flavored" water; it is simply coffee. 😁

rustymaker5 said:But yeah, it’s true—all souls were created simultaneously, just like everything else happens in one singular, eternal "now." It's just incredibly difficult for us to wrap our heads around that because we're trapped in these rigid categories of space and time, which is why this is the only way we can even attempt to talk about it...
I mean, how am I supposed to fully grasp or accept the idea that there are several versions of rustymaker5 existing across different worlds and different planes of reality, all while being "me"... and not just that I am that one soul, but that I am simultaneously—along with all of you, everyone else here—a single soul that is, in essence, one with what we call absolute energy, or the creator, or God? 🤷

And as for why getting attached to the material world is seen as a problem? That’s just another category we use to navigate life at this level, since nothing is inherently good or bad; things just *are*, based entirely on how we perceive and experience them...
How we see things depends on how much we identify with our physical selves—how much we've forgotten that we are actually a soul inhabiting a body just to gather the specific experiences we're looking for.
It’s like an actor getting so lost in a role that they completely forget they aren't the character, but are just playing them...

As for this whole concept of "young" versus "old" souls, I think we’ve just adapted that language to fit the relativity of the world we inhabit, because the fact remains that babies seem to have a much closer connection to their spiritual nature (though they eventually lose it), so you could argue they represent those "younger" souls. But honestly, I think we categorize them that way mostly based on how much awareness they have regarding their own spiritual essence...🤷

But why would we ever need to forget that we are souls in the first place?

Perhaps this amnesia is intentional, a necessary step to allow us to fully immerse ourselves in this world.

Ryan Wilson2 said:My own logic is that whether you attach yourself or not is irrelevant, because in the end, we all die, which serves as the ultimate "detachment."

Maybe tell that to those earthbound spirits who are stuck here just because they're caught up in their feelings. I guess they didn't get the memo. 😁

On one hand, you have these hollow voids of unresolved emotions that serve as nothing more than feeding grounds for the various entities lurking in the lower astral planes; on the other, there is the soul, which relentlessly strives toward even greater heights...🧐

😉

Ryan Wilson2 said:On one hand, you have these hollow voids of unresolved emotions that serve as nothing more than feeding grounds for the various entities lurking in the lower astral planes; on the other, there is the soul, which relentlessly strives toward even greater heights...🧐

😉

Fair enough if that's how you see it. 🙂 From what I've gathered through my own stuff, even those leftover bits need to be integrated back into the whole self by actually working through the issues. I mean, why would all those "emotional shells" even be looking for help in the first place? I don't know, maybe I'm just totally losing my mind and misinterpreting everything 😁

I think we might be drifting away from the main topic here. ☕

I am genuinely at a loss here.

Is it not the case that emotions are merely a byproduct of our attachment to this earthly existence? Once we reach the realization that we are souls—that we are, in essence, beyond the physical—shouldn't all such attachments simply vanish?

Honestly, you spiritualists are impossible to pin down; no matter how I approach the argument, you always find a way to slip through the cracks.😁

Hmm... I don't really buy into the whole idea of the soul having an age. Especially not those mathematical laws people try to use to actually count them up.
I suspect the soul is tied to the body and the process of individual reincarnation, so it probably just dies when the body does. Maybe there's some room for debate regarding the longevity of the spirit, though.

Actually... I was just thinking that this sounds like something out of a Raman text.. 😁😲

Ryan Wilson2 said:I am genuinely at a loss here.

Is it not the case that emotions are merely a byproduct of our attachment to this earthly existence? Once we reach the realization that we are souls—that we are, in essence, beyond the physical—shouldn't all such attachments simply vanish?

Honestly, you spiritualists are impossible to pin down; no matter how I approach the argument, you always find a way to slip through the cracks.😁

Yep, it’s enough to drive anyone crazy. But honestly, it feels like it's harder for us. We're the ones who actually have to live inside these messy, complicated heads of ours. 😁

Regarding that whole attachment thing... how can there be no attachment? I still feel like I've got ancestors hovering around me because they refuse to move on until they see everything's settled. That’s what emotional attachment looks like to me. There's no such thing as peace, even after you pass. "Rest in peace"... yeah, maybe someday. 😁