What exactly is the "ego"?

Brian Foster3 said:I don't meditate. And honestly, you completely missed the point of my repetition—which I even bolded for you, by the way.

So what exactly is this "thing" I'm tripping on... what's the name of it again? You say you trip on Kabbalah... fine... but what the hell am I supposedly tripping on?!

Can't you see it yourself? 🙂 It's just empty intellectual posturing designed solely to give you that little ego boost of feeling superior by messing with everyone else's heads. ☕

Who knows where you started, but once this stops being enough for you, maybe you can go start your own little cult.😍

Let's try being logical for a second...

Say, for the sake of simplicity, there are 20 different "spiritual methods."

To "find" which one is best, you have to try all 20—otherwise, you have no idea which is actually the best, you're just falling for someone's sales pitch... right?

If there are 20 flavors of ice cream, I can only know which one is my favorite if I've tasted all 20... basic logic.

Since there are hundreds of "spiritual practices," and obviously you haven't tried them all, you're lying to us when you claim yours is the absolute best... elementary logic dictates that you are simply lying!

Comprende?

I get where you're coming from. But you're framing the argument arbitrarily and incorrectly. Look, thousands of spiritual practices can really be boiled down to three basic types: left, right, and center. Everything else is just cultural and historical window dressing with varying levels of complexity and accuracy. You realize that after spending some time searching and testing. In my case, that took ten years. Besides, I already said I found original Kabbalah to be the best method for me personally. That doesn't mean it's necessarily the best for everyone else. As they say: people learn where their heart leads them.

Unlike your "spiritual practice," which is invisible, intangible, and totally immeasurable, mathematical axioms are visible, tangible, and highly measurable. Unlike your "spiritual practice," mathematical axioms actually work in practice, DAMN IT!

They do it exactly the same way every single time, with that same damn precision, and I don't care one bit about whatever "spiritual belief" some person thinks they have while using them. They’re just self-evident, totally logical, and freaking consistent. It's because of them that a probe launched from Earth can actually nail a landing on Mars at the exact spot we planned!

You’re full of it. To even attempt a claim like that, you’d actually have to go out and test the spiritual practice in question, but it's painfully obvious you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about. You just love the sound of your own voice, hoping that your half-baked, surface-level understanding of spiritual disciplines will somehow pass for truth here, but let me tell you—it won't. If you actually bothered to dig into the original Kabbalah, you’d see for yourself that this stuff works; it’s tangible, it’s precise as a mathematical axiom, and honestly, you wouldn't believe it, but it can actually be measured.

Until you actually step up and do the work, you don't have any right to open your mouth about the truth while pretending you've got it all figured out. Go ahead and test it out for yourself instead of just sitting there acting all confident in these incredibly shallow, basic generalizations. Honestly, it just makes you look ridiculous and completely immature. ☕

You’ve even got a chance to catch this live! There’s an introductory lecture on Kabbalah happening tonight at 7:30 PM—literally less than an hour from now—so if you want to jump in, you better move fast! I can't believe people actually miss that old Justin.tv era like it was some kind of golden age, because honestly, looking back at how messy and unpolished everything was compared to what we have now, I just don't get the nostalgia!Look, if you’ve got questions, just go ahead and ask them. It’s not that complicated. 😍 Look, before you start flapping your gums, maybe try actually learning something about the original Kabbalah. When you’re just rambling on like this without any clue what you're talking about, there's zero chance we're going to have a single constructive conversation.

Look, you can talk about your "spiritual practices" all you want, but let’s be real—you can barely manage to handle your own basic daily chores, much less predict the outcome of complex physical feats like launching a probe to Mars!

Look, Kabbalah doesn't deal with the physical world at all, though if you really think about it, every single science we have basically stems from its principles...

That cult of yours isn't just a joke—it’s a total scam that doesn't provide even an ounce of actual value, and honestly, it's clearly rotted your brain so much that you can't even tell the difference between universal mathematical axioms and the exclusive, made-up nonsense your little group spews out like it's some kind of gourmet menu! ☕

You clearly don't even know what a sect is, because that word has way more layers than you're giving it credit for. Seriously, go do your own homework for once! Once you actually stumble upon the original definition, maybe—just maybe—you’ll finally wrap your head around what I meant about a mathematician blindly following axioms. But honestly, looking at how you're acting right now, you're just proving to be a total idiot who thinks they're right when they're dead wrong.

I hope you live to be a hundred years old just so you can blow every single cent you own on those overpriced seminars! 😉

The original amount isn't even being charged! Seriously, do some basic research and learn the fundamentals before you start spreading such absolute garbage online—otherwise, you’re just going to end up looking like a complete idiot.

And here’s the real kicker: why on earth would I believe that some charlatan could "unlock" or "prepare" me for something that only exists in their own head, especially when they’re charging me a fortune just to hear their delusional nonsense?!

Look, it’s not just some theoretical thing, because I’ve actually lived through it myself. Once I felt it happen, I became obsessed with finding my own way to trigger that state again... then again, if you've never had that breakthrough, I totally get why you'd think it's all a myth. But hey, what can you do?

It’s like people used to think a carriage couldn't possibly move unless there were horses pulling it. They just didn't see the engine coming.

As for the training, of course I ran tests first. If I hadn't seen actual results—if I wasn't seeing progress that actually satisfied me—I would have walked away from this whole thing a long time ago.

In other words—you can't really put a label on this whole "philosophy" of mine... right? 🙂

It’s actually pretty tough to put into words—you know, that specific feeling of trying to describe something that just isn't there. It's like trying to explain the shape of a hole or describing the silence in a room after a loud party ends; you aren't really talking about an object, you're talking about the absence of one. It’s a strange thing to try and capture, because how do you paint a picture using nothing but empty space? 😉

Quincy:

Who knows how this all started? Honestly, if you find that this isn't enough to keep you satisfied, you might just end up founding your own little cult one of these days.

I mostly end up creating these little "shamanism victim societies"—it’s funny how that works—because people who have been confronted by total idiots tend to seek out comfort among those who have dealt with the exact same nonsense. It’s a survival instinct, really. And honestly? Sometimes that shared sense of revolt just turns into a full-blown case of Stockholm syndrome.

It’s to the extent that... well, there’s a certain following involved, but they mostly lobby "against me"—or at least, that's how they see it. They operate under this belief that everything they're doing is aimed at taking me down, even if, in reality, that isn't necessarily true.

Quincy:

I hear what you're saying, and I get where you're coming from—really, I do. But I think you might be framing the issue a bit arbitrarily, almost misrepresenting the core of the matter. If you actually step back and look at the big picture, you can boil down thousands of different spiritual practices into just three fundamental categories: left-hand, right-hand, and middle-way paths.

Look, you can’t really draw a definitive conclusion until you've actually gone through and tested every single one of those thousands of options. It sounds exhausting, I know—but think about it this way: out of those 500 variations you haven't even touched yet, there could easily be two outliers that don't fit into any of our neat little categories. They might not be "left," "middle," or "right" at all. If that happens, we’re right back at square one, and honestly? You're just kidding yourself if you think you've found the answer already. ☕

Quincy:

It’s just one of those things you finally wrap your head around after spending a good chunk of time digging through the details and actually putting things to the test.

You’re just convincing yourself at this point... mostly because you haven't actually done the work! To really know what's what, you have to roll up your sleeves and try them all out for yourself. At the end of the day—and let's be honest here—claiming one thing is superior to another without ever having even tasted it is nothing more than a flat-out lie.

I honestly believe you truly believe that lie—like, you actually think it’s the truth—so when you speak, you really are being sincere in your own mind. But here’s the thing: because that whole premise is built on nothing, your performance ends up feeling fake. It’s that kind of forced sincerity that just feels totally disingenuous to everyone else watching.

Look, deep down—somewhere under the surface where you don't usually let people peek—you’re actually aware that your whole approach is built on this shaky, pretty uncertain foundation. It feels like you’re intuitively trying to pad the numbers, almost as if you're rushing to recruit more "believers" into your little "exclusive technique." It's like you're trying to use a massive crowd to make up for the fact that the actual substance just isn't there. You're essentially trying to trade quantity for credibility, hoping that if enough people follow along, nobody will notice the lack of real weight behind it all.

Because if everyone believes the exact same thing—well, that doesn't automatically make it the truth. Not by a long shot!

Quincy:

In my case, we're talking about a stretch that lasted ten whole years.

My deepest condolences to you.

Quincy:

There’s an old saying somewhere—you learn where your heart leads you.

Well, people say you learn as long as you're living... but what you just said definitely isn't one of those sayings!

What you're actually implying is that "a person only learns what their biases allow them to, and anything else—anything that doesn't resonate with their 'heart'—is simply ignored."

Anyone who claims they only learn where their heart takes them is, quite frankly, being a massive ignoramus!

Quincy:

You're just throwing shade, hoping that your little preconceived notions about spiritual practices will hold water here too. But they won't.

I’m not throwing around "my own image" or perspective... I’m working with logic, arguments, concrete knowledge, a vocabulary, and a level of informed discourse that honestly goes way beyond yours.

It’s not my "image" that needs to hold water... it’s universal logic and established facts that provide the foundation here.

In reality, I don't even have a "picture" to defend... I am simply performing a logical deconstruction of YOUR picture, and through that process, I arrive at an undeniable conclusion—your picture is illogical, practically impossible, and therefore absolutely false.

Quincy:

Until you do that, you have no right to say anything about Kabbalah while simultaneously pretending to speak the truth.

I am under no obligation to "personally test" something that is clearly inconsistent with logic and facts just to determine if it's a fraud.

When you tell me that 2 + 2 = 7... I don't need to go grab four apples and "test" whether the sum happens to be seven... it simply WON'T be!

Quincy:

Kabbalah doesn't deal with the physical world. Even though all sciences stem from Kabbalah...

And what’s the proof of that...?

Because you (as usual) are making cognitive assertions where the only foundation is your own cognition... you think it's true, so you say it's true... but that obviously isn't how it works!

Quincy:

You don't even know what a sect is. It has multiple meanings. Go look them up yourself. Once you find the original definition, maybe you'll understand what I meant by a mathematician following axioms... otherwise, you're just coming across as the fool here.

So why don't you enlighten the general public with these "extra" meanings instead of just making "cognitive" claims that they exist, telling me to go find them myself, and then concluding that I'm the stupid one? 🤣

By doing that, you're insulting my intelligence, and if you keep heading in this direction, I can't really blame you for the fallout... consider yourself warned.

Edward Flores4 said:Alright, I have a few questions here...

1) Do you typically formulate every single sentence in your head before you actually say it out loud?

Because I don't... I basically construct my sentences while I'm speaking them. For me, there isn't this separate stage of "formulating" versus "speaking," so your comparison about "stringing sentences together" is completely lost on me.🤷

2) When you say "you simply can't detach yourself"... well, can you even detach from yourself? I genuinely don't get it—if you "detach" the "you" from the "self," what exactly is left behind?

To me, that sounds like fragmentation, and honestly, that's not something I struggle with at all. I can observe myself observing the sunset... I can essentially lease my "self" out to five different "tenants," where each one plays a totally different role... BUT

that doesn't actually address the core question I posed in my original post:

Can the observer be separate from the observed? Don't they function together, like two sides of the same coin?

I’m arguing that they *are* inseparable, and even with the best intentions, I can't wrap my head around how your advice fits into that specific dilemma, so please, walk me through your logic!

Look, in case it wasn't clear, I wasn't asking for tips on "meditation." I was addressing the question of whether the observer and the observed can truly be split apart.

If your "advice" is meant to answer that specific point, then please show me exactly how it relates.

I'm going to ignore the rest of your suggestions—not because I don't value them, but simply because I didn't ask for them. It seems you took my rhetoric quite literally when it was actually intended metaphorically, so I'm taking this opportunity to clarify what I was actually getting at, what I'm truly curious about, and what the "real" question was at the heart of my opening "ballad."

Is the illusion of reaching a certain state of consciousness just an expression of feeling our own insignificance?
Maybe the problem isn't knowing your "self"... maybe. It's not our fault we're taught to try and figure out what that "I am" would even be. Dealing with this, I don't know either way.
I know, but I really don't feel like explaining it to you. Though, I'd bet anything that "you" are the one...??

Edward Flores4 said:In other words—you can't really put a label on this whole "philosophy" of mine... right? 🙂

It’s actually pretty tough to put into words—you know, that specific feeling of trying to describe something that just isn't there. It's like trying to explain the shape of a hole or describing the silence in a room after a loud party ends; you aren't really talking about an object, you're talking about the absence of one. It’s a strange thing to try and capture, because how do you paint a picture using nothing but empty space? 😉

Quincy:

Who knows how this all started? Honestly, if you find that this isn't enough to keep you satisfied, you might just end up founding your own little cult one of these days.

I mostly end up creating these little "shamanism victim societies"—it’s funny how that works—because people who have been confronted by total idiots tend to seek out comfort among those who have dealt with the exact same nonsense. It’s a survival instinct, really. And honestly? Sometimes that shared sense of revolt just turns into a full-blown case of Stockholm syndrome.

It’s to the extent that... well, there’s a certain following involved, but they mostly lobby "against me"—or at least, that's how they see it. They operate under this belief that everything they're doing is aimed at taking me down, even if, in reality, that isn't necessarily true.

Quincy:

I hear what you're saying, and I get where you're coming from—really, I do. But I think you might be framing the issue a bit arbitrarily, almost misrepresenting the core of the matter. If you actually step back and look at the big picture, you can boil down thousands of different spiritual practices into just three fundamental categories: left-hand, right-hand, and middle-way paths.

Look, you can’t really draw a definitive conclusion until you've actually gone through and tested every single one of those thousands of options. It sounds exhausting, I know—but think about it this way: out of those 500 variations you haven't even touched yet, there could easily be two outliers that don't fit into any of our neat little categories. They might not be "left," "middle," or "right" at all. If that happens, we’re right back at square one, and honestly? You're just kidding yourself if you think you've found the answer already. ☕

Quincy:

It’s just one of those things you finally wrap your head around after spending a good chunk of time digging through the details and actually putting things to the test.

You’re just convincing yourself at this point... mostly because you haven't actually done the work! To really know what's what, you have to roll up your sleeves and try them all out for yourself. At the end of the day—and let's be honest here—claiming one thing is superior to another without ever having even tasted it is nothing more than a flat-out lie.

I honestly believe you truly believe that lie—like, you actually think it’s the truth—so when you speak, you really are being sincere in your own mind. But here’s the thing: because that whole premise is built on nothing, your performance ends up feeling fake. It’s that kind of forced sincerity that just feels totally disingenuous to everyone else watching.

Look, deep down—somewhere under the surface where you don't usually let people peek—you’re actually aware that your whole approach is built on this shaky, pretty uncertain foundation. It feels like you’re intuitively trying to pad the numbers, almost as if you're rushing to recruit more "believers" into your little "exclusive technique." It's like you're trying to use a massive crowd to make up for the fact that the actual substance just isn't there. You're essentially trying to trade quantity for credibility, hoping that if enough people follow along, nobody will notice the lack of real weight behind it all.

Because if everyone believes the exact same thing—well, that doesn't automatically make it the truth. Not by a long shot!

Quincy:

In my case, we're talking about a stretch that lasted ten whole years.

My deepest condolences to you.

Quincy:

There’s an old saying somewhere—you learn where your heart leads you.

Well, people say you learn as long as you're living... but what you just said definitely isn't one of those sayings!

What you're actually implying is that "a person only learns what their biases allow them to, and anything else—anything that doesn't resonate with their 'heart'—is simply ignored."

Anyone who claims they only learn where their heart takes them is, quite frankly, being a massive ignoramus!

Quincy:

You're just throwing shade, hoping that your little preconceived notions about spiritual practices will hold water here too. But they won't.

I’m not throwing around "my own image" or perspective... I’m working with logic, arguments, concrete knowledge, a vocabulary, and a level of informed discourse that honestly goes way beyond yours.

It’s not my "image" that needs to hold water... it’s universal logic and established facts that provide the foundation here.

In reality, I don't even have a "picture" to defend... I am simply performing a logical deconstruction of YOUR picture, and through that process, I arrive at an undeniable conclusion—your picture is illogical, practically impossible, and therefore absolutely false.

Quincy:

Until you do that, you have no right to say anything about Kabbalah while simultaneously pretending to speak the truth.

I am under no obligation to "personally test" something that is clearly inconsistent with logic and facts just to determine if it's a fraud.

When you tell me that 2 + 2 = 7... I don't need to go grab four apples and "test" whether the sum happens to be seven... it simply WON'T be!

Quincy:

Kabbalah doesn't deal with the physical world. Even though all sciences stem from Kabbalah...

And what’s the proof of that...?

Because you (as usual) are making cognitive assertions where the only foundation is your own cognition... you think it's true, so you say it's true... but that obviously isn't how it works!

Quincy:

You don't even know what a sect is. It has multiple meanings. Go look them up yourself. Once you find the original definition, maybe you'll understand what I meant by a mathematician following axioms... otherwise, you're just coming across as the fool here.

So why don't you enlighten the general public with these "extra" meanings instead of just making "cognitive" claims that they exist, telling me to go find them myself, and then concluding that I'm the stupid one? 🤣

By doing that, you're insulting my intelligence, and if you keep heading in this direction, I can't really blame you for the fallout... consider yourself warned.

Oh, so you want different wording? I labeled it perfectly accurately. Your whole so-called 'contribution' to this discussion is nothing more than elementary-level deconstruction—basically, pure destruction. Beyond that, you don't even have a foundation yet. And let's be real, you're just doing this because you love the thrill of it. If you can't grasp exactly what I said and you try to reduce my precise definition of your bullshit down to "you didn't say anything," then you're honestly insulting my intelligence.

I mostly end up creating these various 'victim societies of shamanism,' because delusional fools often look for comfort among people just like them, and sometimes that rebellion turns into some kind of Stockholm syndrome...

To the point where... and this is more of a byproduct, but they mostly lobby 'against me' (meaning, they believe they're acting against me, even if they aren't necessarily right about that).

Give me a break, you just want to act all big and tough by picking on someone weaker than you. 🙄

But to reach that conclusion, you'd have to test out all several thousand of them. Because within those 500 you haven't tried, there might be two others that aren't 'leftist,' 'centrist,' or 'rightist,' which puts us right back at square one, and you'll still be lying to yourself.

You're just convincing yourself of that because you don't know any better! To actually know, you'd have to experience them all. Therefore, claiming something is better than something you haven't even tasted is just a straight-up lie.

God, the 'logical gymnastics' you're pulling here are ridiculous. 😍
Do you even hear yourself? You think it makes sense to try out thousands of spiritual paths before deciding which one fits best? That logic is absolutely brainless. Plus, it's physically impossible to pull off. By your 'universal logic,' nobody would ever find the spiritual discipline that suits them or achieve any actual spiritual progress. Go ahead, try to make that work, then come crawling back here. 😛

I believe you truly believe that lie in your heart, so you're technically being sincere, but your entire performance is just a result of an unfounded belief, making you fake in your forced sincerity.

🙂 You are seriously pathetic in how hard you're pushing this 'logic' of yours. You're stuck insisting that I act solely out of conviction, completely erasing the possibility—and the fact—that I act based on experience. It's all because you've convinced yourself that it's impossible to have experiences that provide certain proof. So you just keep drinking the same poison over and over again...

Look, if it makes you feel any better, I’ll happily admit that I haven't stumbled upon the one spiritual method that fits me perfectly, but I have found the one that works best for me right now based on what I actually know. 😛

Deep down, you clearly realize there's this massive, shaky insecurity driving your whole act, so you instinctively try to drum up a huge crowd of 'believers' for your 'exclusive technique,' thinking if you just get enough followers, people will finally take you seriously...
Because if everyone believes the same thing, it must be true—WRONG!

🤣 Wow, you're already trying to play psychoanalyst on me! Listen, that kind of talk might fly with some low-level 'spiritualists,' but to anyone who actually has real spiritual achievements, you look incredibly clumsy. You're like a little kid playing dress-up in their dad's oversized shoes, strutting around thinking they're a grown-up just to impress the kids on the playground.

My condolences!

Right back at you, Edward Flores4...

They say a person learns throughout their life... but what you just said isn't something anyone actually says!

It’s said where I come from. What you wrote basically boils down to "people only learn what their prejudices allow them to, and they simply ignore everything else that doesn't please their 'heart.'"

Anyone who only learns what makes their heart happy is nothing more than a total idiot!

You don't even grasp the basic mechanics of how a human being functions. You probably ignored them because they don't suit your little narrative. The mind is the servant of the heart. By 'heart,' I mean the sum of all human desires. The heart wants, and the mind gets to work figuring out how to make that desire happen. If you honestly think humans operate any other way, then I'd be insulting my own intelligence by even arguing with you.

I'm not peddling 'my own image'... I deal in logic, arguments, concrete knowledge, vocabulary, being informed, and a level of sophisticationthat far exceeds yours.

I don't need an 'image' to hold water... my 'water' is held up by universal logic and widely accepted facts.

You just painted your own picture, specifically highlighting the parts that make you look good. Universal logic? I know exactly where you learned that—in your own private little universe. Here’s a quick reality check for your 'universal logic': why does the universe exist? If that's too heavy for you, why does a human exist? Or a frog? Or anything at all? ☕

What "widely accepted facts"? You haven't brought up a single relevant one. I've already debunked most of your 'facts' regarding the Kabbalah...

Vocabulary? So you're slightly above average, big deal. Who cares...

Being informed? Give me a break. You're delusional. Every single bit of information you've dropped about the Kabbalah has been dead wrong. And I've already torn apart your pathetic attempts at psychoanalyzing me.

Arguments? Where?! All I see are your own projections, and they're pretty shallow at that... where's the actual experience that serves as a real foundation for an argument?

Culture and manners? You’re acting incredibly arrogant and just plain rude.

You really went all out in that bolded part, didn't you? Honestly, you're just proving my point once again—you're absolutely right about what I said. 😛

Quincy:

Look, I don't actually have a "picture" or whatever you want to call it... I’m just sitting here performing a logical deconstruction of YOUR image, and honestly, once I strip away all the nonsense, I land on one undeniable conclusion—your whole premise is completely illogical, practically impossible, and therefore an absolute lie.

Of course you have a picture... you literally just drew it yourself! I already laid out exactly why your "applied logic" is nothing more than total nonsense—it's completely absurd, fake, and fundamentally flawed.

Quincy:

Look, I’m not about to go out and waste my own damn time personally testing every single thing that doesn't add up logically or contradicts the facts just to prove it's a scam! Look, when you sit there and insist that 2 + 2 equals 7, I don't need to go out and grab four apples just to "test" if they somehow magically turn into seven... because they absolutely won't! It’s common sense, for crying out loud!

What exactly is it about Kabbalah that you think doesn't line up with logic and facts? Seriously, what part of it is bothering you so much?

Quincy:

And what exactly is the proof for that? Look, you’re doing that thing again where you just spout off these "cognitive" theories that have absolutely zero basis in reality other than the fact that they're stuck inside your own head! You honestly think because you've convinced yourself of some nonsense, that makes it a universal truth, but let me tell you—it clearly isn't!

Look, if I think one thing and you think the exact opposite, then we’re both just sitting here stuck in our own little heads, and that doesn't make either of us right. For one of us to actually be correct, someone would need to pull off some massive, undeniable breakthrough that proves everything—every single science out there—actually stems from Kabbalah or whatever else it might be. Since I haven't reached that level of genius quite yet, I can't personally swear by it; I'm just passing along what those Kabbalists have observed, though who knows if they even got it right.

Here’s what a few people I follow—and you too—have been saying about Kabbalah:

It’s honestly mind-blowing how many big-shot academics spend their entire careers obsessing over the secrets of Kabbalah, and frankly, I think they’re missing the forest for the trees most of the time! You have these massive intellectuals pouring over ancient texts like they're cracking some cosmic code, yet half of them seem to be just chasing academic clout rather than actually grasping the weight of what they're studying. It reminds me of this professor I had back in college who could quote every philosopher from Plato to Nietzsche by heart, but the second you asked him something practical about real life, his brain just totally short-circuited. It’s the same thing here—you’ve got all these heavy hitters writing endless volumes on mysticism, but sometimes I wonder if they even realize that true spiritual insight isn't something you can just package up into a tidy little dissertation and hand out at a symposium!
You wouldn't believe the garbage being pumped out lately, but apparently, there are all these big-shot academics actually trying to make sense of Kabbalah these days. It’s honestly exhausting how much energy these scholars pour into dissecting ancient mysticism like they’re just solving some math equation at Harvard, when you know deep down it’s way more intense than their little textbooks could ever capture.
It’s honestly mind-blowing how many big-shot academics spend their entire lives obsessing over Kabbalah, and frankly, most of them wouldn't know a real spiritual truth if it hit them square in the face! I was reading this massive tome the other day—one of those dense, overly complicated books you'd find in a dusty corner of the New York Public Library—and it just reminded me how much these "experts" love to overanalyze things that are meant to be felt, not dissected like a lab specimen under a microscope.

Sure, that doesn't exactly prove all science stems from Kabbalah, but it definitely shows just how serious they're being about their "application" for that position.

Quincy:

So instead of actually enlightening the general public about those "extra" meanings, you just keep making these vague "cognitive" claims that they exist, then have the nerve to tell me I should go out and find them myself, and finally wrap the whole thing up by acting like I'm some kind of idiot! 🤣 You’re honestly insulting my intelligence at this point, and frankly, if you keep heading down this same path, there isn't much I can even say to you besides consider yourself warned.

Man, it is absolutely freezing out there today! I stepped outside for two seconds and felt like I was walking straight into an industrial freezer in Chicago. Seriously, someone needs to turn up the heat on this entire planet because I am officially done with this weather. 😍

Does everyone just want everything handed to them on a silver platter these days? It’s getting ridiculous—everything is so damn difficult lately, and honestly, you can't even just look something up without hitting a wall.from wiki:

Etymologically speaking, the term "sect" actually traces back to the Latin noun *secta*—which is just a feminine version of a past participle from *sequi*, meaning "to follow." It basically refers to a "beaten path" or a specific way of doing things, which eventually evolved into describing a particular discipline or school of thought held together by certain doctrines. Nowadays, people get confused because there’s another Latin word, *secta* (from *secare*, meaning "to cut"), which makes it sound like these groups are just pieces chopped off from the main religious body. It’s funny how language works like that, especially since in places like Italy, they use the word *setta* to cover both "sect" and "cult" at once.

....

Look, if you don't change your entire attitude toward responding to my posts and stop being so incredibly destructive, I'm done talking to you. I told you right from the jump that I could sense what you were up to. This is your absolute last chance to flip the script as far as I'm concerned. If you want to talk, then prove you actually know what you're talking about by using some actual facts, decent vocabulary, and a shred of basic human decency instead of this nonsense...

Lisa Morales4 said:If you want to handle those "more important tasks here on Earth," you first have to understand who you are.

You have to meet yourself.

In order for us to be of any actual use, we need to be charged,>
but how can you ever get charged up if you don't know which batteries you need?
You have to know yourself.
And you are one of a kind.
No one in all of God's creation is quite like you: not with your specific smile, your sense of humor, your unique talents, your reactions to the world, or your particular emotions...

How can you love the God of whom you are a part if you don't recognize that tiny piece of God's Body—yourself?🙂

I’ll leave you with a poem of self-worth:

I'M SPECIAL

I'm special.
In all the world, there's nobody like me.
Since the beginning of time, there has never been another person like me.
Nobody has my smile. Nobody has my eyes, my nose, my hair, my hands, or my voice.
I'm special.

No one can be found who has my handwriting.
Nobody anywhere has my tastes in food, music, or art. No one else sees things exactly as I do.
In all of time, there's been no one who laughs like me, no one who cries like me, and what makes me laugh and cry will never provoke identical laughter and tears from anyone else, ever.
No one reacts to any situation quite the way I would.
I'm special.

I'm The only One in All of creation Who Has my set of abilities. Sure, there will always be someone who is better at one of the things I'm good at, but no one in the universe can match the unique combination of my talents, ideas, abilities, and feelings. It's like a room full of musical instruments; some might sound great on their own, but none can match the symphony created when they are all played together. I am a symphony.

Throughout all of eternity, no one will ever look, talk, walk, think, or act like me.
I'm special.

I'm rare.
And in all rarity, there is immense value. Because of that value, I don't need to try to imitate anyone else. I will embrace—yes, celebrate—my differences.
I'm special.

And I'm starting to realize it isn't an accident that I'm special.
I'm beginning to see that my Higher Power made me special for a very special purpose. He must have a job for me that no one else can perform as well as I can. Out of all the billions of applicants, only one is qualified—only one possesses the exact right combination of what it takes.
That one is me.

Because... I'm special!

Thanks for the beautiful poem. 🙂

Here is one for you in return:

THINGS TO REMEMBER

One should know that every phenomenon is an illusion and will vanish as such. The spirit has no independent existence, no "Self," and thus it should be understood that it can only be compared to empty space.
One should know that the collection of thoughts which humans call the spirit is merely a chain of cause and effect; one feeds upon the other, yet both are illusions and will eventually fade away.
One should know that suffering is hidden within our actions. For these actions, no one is responsible except the individual. And that suffering exists solely to wake a person up.

Drags-po-Iha-rje (Unknown Location) 1079-1153, a Tibetan Buddhist monk

Edward Flores4 said:Alright, I have a few questions here...

1) Do you typically formulate every single sentence in your head before you actually say it out loud?

Because I don't... I basically construct my sentences while I'm speaking them. For me, there isn't this separate stage of "formulating" versus "speaking," so your comparison about "stringing sentences together" is completely lost on me.🤷

2) When you say "you simply can't detach yourself"... well, can you even detach from yourself? I genuinely don't get it—if you "detach" the "you" from the "self," what exactly is left behind?

To me, that sounds like fragmentation, and honestly, that's not something I struggle with at all. I can observe myself observing the sunset... I can essentially lease my "self" out to five different "tenants," where each one plays a totally different role... BUT

that doesn't actually address the core question I posed in my original post:

Can the observer be separate from the observed? Don't they function together, like two sides of the same coin?

I’m arguing that they *are* inseparable, and even with the best intentions, I can't wrap my head around how your advice fits into that specific dilemma, so please, walk me through your logic!

Look, in case it wasn't clear, I wasn't asking for tips on "meditation." I was addressing the question of whether the observer and the observed can truly be split apart.

If your "advice" is meant to answer that specific point, then please show me exactly how it relates.

I'm going to ignore the rest of your suggestions—not because I don't value them, but simply because I didn't ask for them. It seems you took my rhetoric quite literally when it was actually intended metaphorically, so I'm taking this opportunity to clarify what I was actually getting at, what I'm truly curious about, and what the "real" question was at the heart of my opening "ballad."

Let's try tackling the answers in order:

1. I think you misunderstood me. I meant that when you first started talking—thinking back to those very first words you uttered as a kid—they were separate. You could say 'Mama' or 'Dada,' but you couldn't, and didn't even know how to construct a full sentence.

2. When I used the word 'detach,' I meant detaching yourself from all other content—thoughts, feelings, objects, sounds, and everything else you notice and are aware of in a given moment.

If you look a little closer at what I wrote in my last post, you'll see that I am specifically talking about how the observer and the observed are not the same thing.
We could say that without an observer, there can be no observed, and that they are inseparable during the act of observation, but any conscious observer can see that they and the observed aren't identical. Meanwhile, that observer who is unconscious and merges entirely with the content in that moment? They don't exist; they're gone.

Harold Barrett7 said:Is the illusion of reaching a certain state of consciousness just an expression of feeling our own insignificance?
Maybe the problem isn't knowing your "self"... maybe. It's not our fault we're taught to try and figure out what that "I am" would even be. Dealing with this, I don't know either way.
I know, but I really don't feel like explaining it to you. Though, I'd bet anything that "you" are the one...??

Sorry, but man... I clearly missed the point of your post entirely, so I'm honestly not sure how to even respond. 🤷

Jerry King11 said:That’s why I think the quote in florine's signature is actually pretty spot on:

It is the man I am who makes me a misanthrope. Jules Renard 👍

On the other hand, isn't "knowing oneself" just a tired cliché? It feels like a way for us to treat self-reflection and spirituality as a little hobby while completely neglecting actual empathy and looking out for others in the real world.
Maybe there's a reason people say intellect and knowledge can actually get in the way; they can inflate the ego and turn fixed opinions into deep-seated prejudices. You see it all the time with those simple, devout folks who live modest lives working the land—they often seem much closer to God than the ones who think they've mastered all the world's wisdom.

...if "finding yourself" is just another way to run away from yourself and the world (which happens a lot!), then it isn't spirituality at all, let alone true insight...
...everything else is just hypocrisy and showing off...

casualmaker13 said:Let's try tackling the answers in order:

1. I think you misunderstood me. I meant that when you first started talking—thinking back to those very first words you uttered as a kid—they were separate. You could say 'Mama' or 'Dada,' but you couldn't, and didn't even know how to construct a full sentence.

2. When I used the word 'detach,' I meant detaching yourself from all other content—thoughts, feelings, objects, sounds, and everything else you notice and are aware of in a given moment.

If you look a little closer at what I wrote in my last post, you'll see that I am specifically talking about how the observer and the observed are not the same thing.
We could say that without an observer, there can be no observed, and that they are inseparable during the act of observation, but any conscious observer can see that they and the observed aren't identical. Meanwhile, that observer who is unconscious and merges entirely with the content in that moment? They don't exist; they're gone.

Alright! Let's assume I totally missed the mark on your first post, and instead, let's just dive straight into what you described in your second one.

I've got a couple more questions for you:

1) If we agree that the "observed" can't exist without the "observer," and that the actual act of observing is the glue holding them together... then what exactly is this "I" that is capable of experiencing itself as something distinct from what it's perceiving?

From where I'm standing—and even following the logic of what you wrote above—it seems like the answer might be "thought." Thought is what exists apart from the "observed," but honestly, that feels like we're just sweeping the problem under a different rug... which leads me to my next point.

2) Is there actually a difference between a "thought" and the "thinker," or are thoughts simply the thinker themselves?

And while we're at it, I have a quick follow-up... because if we're trying to figure out if there's a real distinction between the "observer" and the "observed," the concept of thought is going to come up almost immediately.

2.1) What even *is* a thought? How and why does it happen? Can you actually use your willpower to think about absolutely nothing, or are thoughts—at least some of them—just a spontaneous reaction from the mind to changes in its environment?

---

PS: It’s really nice of you to put so much effort into staying coherent and being willing to jump into this dialogue. If you're still up for discussing this, I'm sure we'll eventually land on some concrete, and frankly quite reasonable, conclusion.

Brian Foster3 said:Oh, so you want different wording? I labeled it perfectly accurately. Your whole so-called 'contribution' to this discussion is nothing more than elementary-level deconstruction—basically, pure destruction. Beyond that, you don't even have a foundation yet. And let's be real, you're just doing this because you love the thrill of it. If you can't grasp exactly what I said and you try to reduce my precise definition of your bullshit down to "you didn't say anything," then you're honestly insulting my intelligence.

I mostly end up creating these various 'victim societies of shamanism,' because delusional fools often look for comfort among people just like them, and sometimes that rebellion turns into some kind of Stockholm syndrome...

To the point where... and this is more of a byproduct, but they mostly lobby 'against me' (meaning, they believe they're acting against me, even if they aren't necessarily right about that).

Give me a break, you just want to act all big and tough by picking on someone weaker than you. 🙄

But to reach that conclusion, you'd have to test out all several thousand of them. Because within those 500 you haven't tried, there might be two others that aren't 'leftist,' 'centrist,' or 'rightist,' which puts us right back at square one, and you'll still be lying to yourself.

You're just convincing yourself of that because you don't know any better! To actually know, you'd have to experience them all. Therefore, claiming something is better than something you haven't even tasted is just a straight-up lie.

God, the 'logical gymnastics' you're pulling here are ridiculous. 😍
Do you even hear yourself? You think it makes sense to try out thousands of spiritual paths before deciding which one fits best? That logic is absolutely brainless. Plus, it's physically impossible to pull off. By your 'universal logic,' nobody would ever find the spiritual discipline that suits them or achieve any actual spiritual progress. Go ahead, try to make that work, then come crawling back here. 😛

I believe you truly believe that lie in your heart, so you're technically being sincere, but your entire performance is just a result of an unfounded belief, making you fake in your forced sincerity.

🙂 You are seriously pathetic in how hard you're pushing this 'logic' of yours. You're stuck insisting that I act solely out of conviction, completely erasing the possibility—and the fact—that I act based on experience. It's all because you've convinced yourself that it's impossible to have experiences that provide certain proof. So you just keep drinking the same poison over and over again...

Look, if it makes you feel any better, I’ll happily admit that I haven't stumbled upon the one spiritual method that fits me perfectly, but I have found the one that works best for me right now based on what I actually know. 😛

Deep down, you clearly realize there's this massive, shaky insecurity driving your whole act, so you instinctively try to drum up a huge crowd of 'believers' for your 'exclusive technique,' thinking if you just get enough followers, people will finally take you seriously...
Because if everyone believes the same thing, it must be true—WRONG!

🤣 Wow, you're already trying to play psychoanalyst on me! Listen, that kind of talk might fly with some low-level 'spiritualists,' but to anyone who actually has real spiritual achievements, you look incredibly clumsy. You're like a little kid playing dress-up in their dad's oversized shoes, strutting around thinking they're a grown-up just to impress the kids on the playground.

My condolences!

Right back at you, Edward Flores4...

They say a person learns throughout their life... but what you just said isn't something anyone actually says!

It’s said where I come from. What you wrote basically boils down to "people only learn what their prejudices allow them to, and they simply ignore everything else that doesn't please their 'heart.'"

Anyone who only learns what makes their heart happy is nothing more than a total idiot!

You don't even grasp the basic mechanics of how a human being functions. You probably ignored them because they don't suit your little narrative. The mind is the servant of the heart. By 'heart,' I mean the sum of all human desires. The heart wants, and the mind gets to work figuring out how to make that desire happen. If you honestly think humans operate any other way, then I'd be insulting my own intelligence by even arguing with you.

I'm not peddling 'my own image'... I deal in logic, arguments, concrete knowledge, vocabulary, being informed, and a level of sophisticationthat far exceeds yours.

I don't need an 'image' to hold water... my 'water' is held up by universal logic and widely accepted facts.

You just painted your own picture, specifically highlighting the parts that make you look good. Universal logic? I know exactly where you learned that—in your own private little universe. Here’s a quick reality check for your 'universal logic': why does the universe exist? If that's too heavy for you, why does a human exist? Or a frog? Or anything at all? ☕

What "widely accepted facts"? You haven't brought up a single relevant one. I've already debunked most of your 'facts' regarding the Kabbalah...

Vocabulary? So you're slightly above average, big deal. Who cares...

Being informed? Give me a break. You're delusional. Every single bit of information you've dropped about the Kabbalah has been dead wrong. And I've already torn apart your pathetic attempts at psychoanalyzing me.

Arguments? Where?! All I see are your own projections, and they're pretty shallow at that... where's the actual experience that serves as a real foundation for an argument?

Culture and manners? You’re acting incredibly arrogant and just plain rude.

You really went all out in that bolded part, didn't you? Honestly, you're just proving my point once again—you're absolutely right about what I said. 😛

Quincy:

Look, I don't actually have a "picture" or whatever you want to call it... I’m just sitting here performing a logical deconstruction of YOUR image, and honestly, once I strip away all the nonsense, I land on one undeniable conclusion—your whole premise is completely illogical, practically impossible, and therefore an absolute lie.

Of course you have a picture... you literally just drew it yourself! I already laid out exactly why your "applied logic" is nothing more than total nonsense—it's completely absurd, fake, and fundamentally flawed.

Quincy:

Look, I’m not about to go out and waste my own damn time personally testing every single thing that doesn't add up logically or contradicts the facts just to prove it's a scam! Look, when you sit there and insist that 2 + 2 equals 7, I don't need to go out and grab four apples just to "test" if they somehow magically turn into seven... because they absolutely won't! It’s common sense, for crying out loud!

What exactly is it about Kabbalah that you think doesn't line up with logic and facts? Seriously, what part of it is bothering you so much?

Quincy:

And what exactly is the proof for that? Look, you’re doing that thing again where you just spout off these "cognitive" theories that have absolutely zero basis in reality other than the fact that they're stuck inside your own head! You honestly think because you've convinced yourself of some nonsense, that makes it a universal truth, but let me tell you—it clearly isn't!

Look, if I think one thing and you think the exact opposite, then we’re both just sitting here stuck in our own little heads, and that doesn't make either of us right. For one of us to actually be correct, someone would need to pull off some massive, undeniable breakthrough that proves everything—every single science out there—actually stems from Kabbalah or whatever else it might be. Since I haven't reached that level of genius quite yet, I can't personally swear by it; I'm just passing along what those Kabbalists have observed, though who knows if they even got it right.

Here’s what a few people I follow—and you too—have been saying about Kabbalah:

It’s honestly mind-blowing how many big-shot academics spend their entire careers obsessing over the secrets of Kabbalah, and frankly, I think they’re missing the forest for the trees most of the time! You have these massive intellectuals pouring over ancient texts like they're cracking some cosmic code, yet half of them seem to be just chasing academic clout rather than actually grasping the weight of what they're studying. It reminds me of this professor I had back in college who could quote every philosopher from Plato to Nietzsche by heart, but the second you asked him something practical about real life, his brain just totally short-circuited. It’s the same thing here—you’ve got all these heavy hitters writing endless volumes on mysticism, but sometimes I wonder if they even realize that true spiritual insight isn't something you can just package up into a tidy little dissertation and hand out at a symposium!
You wouldn't believe the garbage being pumped out lately, but apparently, there are all these big-shot academics actually trying to make sense of Kabbalah these days. It’s honestly exhausting how much energy these scholars pour into dissecting ancient mysticism like they’re just solving some math equation at Harvard, when you know deep down it’s way more intense than their little textbooks could ever capture.
It’s honestly mind-blowing how many big-shot academics spend their entire lives obsessing over Kabbalah, and frankly, most of them wouldn't know a real spiritual truth if it hit them square in the face! I was reading this massive tome the other day—one of those dense, overly complicated books you'd find in a dusty corner of the New York Public Library—and it just reminded me how much these "experts" love to overanalyze things that are meant to be felt, not dissected like a lab specimen under a microscope.

Sure, that doesn't exactly prove all science stems from Kabbalah, but it definitely shows just how serious they're being about their "application" for that position.

Quincy:

So instead of actually enlightening the general public about those "extra" meanings, you just keep making these vague "cognitive" claims that they exist, then have the nerve to tell me I should go out and find them myself, and finally wrap the whole thing up by acting like I'm some kind of idiot! 🤣 You’re honestly insulting my intelligence at this point, and frankly, if you keep heading down this same path, there isn't much I can even say to you besides consider yourself warned.

Man, it is absolutely freezing out there today! I stepped outside for two seconds and felt like I was walking straight into an industrial freezer in Chicago. Seriously, someone needs to turn up the heat on this entire planet because I am officially done with this weather. 😍

Does everyone just want everything handed to them on a silver platter these days? It’s getting ridiculous—everything is so damn difficult lately, and honestly, you can't even just look something up without hitting a wall.from wiki:

Etymologically speaking, the term "sect" actually traces back to the Latin noun *secta*—which is just a feminine version of a past participle from *sequi*, meaning "to follow." It basically refers to a "beaten path" or a specific way of doing things, which eventually evolved into describing a particular discipline or school of thought held together by certain doctrines. Nowadays, people get confused because there’s another Latin word, *secta* (from *secare*, meaning "to cut"), which makes it sound like these groups are just pieces chopped off from the main religious body. It’s funny how language works like that, especially since in places like Italy, they use the word *setta* to cover both "sect" and "cult" at once.

....

Look, if you don't change your entire attitude toward responding to my posts and stop being so incredibly destructive, I'm done talking to you. I told you right from the jump that I could sense what you were up to. This is your absolute last chance to flip the script as far as I'm concerned. If you want to talk, then prove you actually know what you're talking about by using some actual facts, decent vocabulary, and a shred of basic human decency instead of this nonsense...

It’s impossible to insult something that isn't there... honestly, you're the one claiming to have submitted to "spiritual training," which pretty clearly implies you view yourself as incapable in some way. Otherwise, you wouldn't be following an "exclusive practice" at all; you'd just approach every question through your own lens without needing to rely on the "spiritual authority" of someone you believe is more capable than you are. ☕

Quincy:

Man, it sounds like you just want to feel big and strong by picking on people weaker than you.

I’m just calling things what they are... whenever I see a falsehood, I'm going to point it out.

Quincy:

With that "universal logic" of yours, no one will ever be able to find the spiritual discipline that actually suits them best...

Now you're changing your tune... there's a massive difference between "what works best for me" and "my spiritual technique is the absolute best."

A heroin addict might find heptane works for them, but that doesn't mean heptane therapy is the "best" solution for anyone else... ideally, you shouldn't need therapy or "training" at all.

Quincy:

... nor achieve any spiritual milestones.

What kind of "spiritual milestones" are you actually hitting... seriously? Care to give us a little more detail?

Do you glow in the dark, see auras, levitate, or heal the sick just by touching them?

To me, "spiritual milestones" sounds like a fancy euphemism for mental health. From where I'm standing, enlightened people are simply mentally healthy people. And truth be told... there aren't many of them, because most people are struggling. Self-awareness is a heavy weight that only the strongest carry with ease. Most people choose to follow *something* just so they can offload that burden onto whatever they follow, hoping for some "spiritual milestone" that will finally lift the weight of self-awareness and reason off their shoulders.

Quincy:

You're being ridiculous with how hard you're pushing this "logic" of yours. You're stuck insisting that I act solely out of conviction, completely ignoring—and erasing—the possibility (and the fact) that I act based on experience.

Even a guy in a straitjacket that buttons up the back in a padded room acts out of "experience"... unfortunately, that doesn't make him any less crazy. 🤷

Quincy:

That’s just how you see it because you’ve managed to convince yourself that it's impossible to ever have an experience that provides actual, undeniable proof.

You didn't even finish your thought... evidence for what exactly?

Look, if you put your hand in a furnace, your own experience is going to be all the proof you need that fire burns—there’s just no debating that. Or, if you decide to jump out of a window on the 10th floor of a skyscraper in Chicago, life is going to give you a very immediate, very painful lesson that "landing" isn't exactly a walk in the park—in fact, it's almost certainly fatal. There's really no room for doubt when reality hits you like that.

Look, unless you actually sit down and tell me what you’ve personally proven through your own lived experience, all this chatter about how much "weight" your experience carries is pretty much just empty noise. 🤷

Quincy:

Look, if it makes you feel any better—and I really mean that—I’ve come to terms with the fact that I might never stumble upon that one singular, perfect spiritual method that fits my soul like a glove. It’s okay to admit that. Instead, I’ve just focused on finding the path that actually works for me right now, based on everything I've learned along the way. It's more about what resonates today than finding some ultimate, lifelong answer.

Well, actually, that’s exactly what they want to do—they just want to comfort me. If you had been that direct about where you stood from the jump, we wouldn't even be having this whole debate right now. ☕

Quincy:

Well, look at you—you’ve basically become my unofficial therapist now! Honestly, that kind of approach might fly with some of those "spiritual leaders" who only scratch the surface, but if you ever sat down with someone who actually has real spiritual depth, you'd probably come across as pretty out of your league.

Look, the plain truth is that you’re incredibly persistent when it comes to trying to grow the "following" for exactly what you follow. If you want proof, just look at this PDF—there are hundreds of examples right here. This isn't some vague trend or something that's just "happening"—it’s a damn fact, and your constant presence through these posts is the undeniable evidence of it.

Every single thing we do—every little action—has to have a motive behind it. And that goes for your whole "building a following" thing, too. You’ve got to have a reason, you know? Sure, you can always try to deny it or spin your own version of why you're doing it, but let's be real: the true "strength" of any group is measured by its numbers. It doesn't matter if you're talking about political movements, pop stars, or even spiritual groups—it's all the same. Whether someone is out there preaching liberal ideals, acting like a die-hard Michael Jackson superfan, or deep into studying ancient mysticism, the sheer size of the crowd is what defines its power. In a way, mass psychology works such that people actually soothe their own anxiety just by increasing their number of followers. It's almost like a safety net in numbers.

I realize that what I just said might have sounded a bit too abstract—maybe even a little out there—so I’ll be kind enough to transcribe a really interesting passage from the book "Understanding Media" for you. This specific excerpt focuses mostly on the phenomenon of money as a medium, but the logic applies perfectly to mass media as well...

There’s actually quite a bit of common ground between a massive pile of cash and a sudden flash of light—and honestly, more than you might think at first glance. In fact... It’s funny how you look at certain psychological patterns—the kind that drive people to accumulate massive amounts of wealth—and you realize they aren't just random behaviors. There’s actually a really deep, almost symbiotic connection between those specific mental frameworks and the pursuit of endless riches. It’s like watching someone try to fill a bucket with holes in it, yet they keep pouring faster and faster, thinking if they just hit a certain volume, the emptiness will finally vanish.Elias Canetti When you really dig into it, the core driving force behind any massive movement—the kind that actually shifts the needle—is this relentless, almost primal urge for rapid, unchecked growth. It’s like watching a startup in Silicon Valley during its first big break; there's this unstoppable momentum where everything just wants to expand as fast as possible without anything standing in its way. When you start looking at how power actually moves, you realize it’s almost always tied to those massive concentrations of wealth or resources—you know, that kind of concentrated capital you see in places like Wall Street or Silicon Valley. It’s just a pattern: where the money pools up in huge amounts, that’s exactly where the leverage shifts. It’s all about that same dynamic.

Massive crowds and piles of cash—it’s not just about them growing larger; there’s this underlying sense of anxiety that comes with it, too. It's that constant, nagging fear that everything might just suddenly fall apart or lose its value entirely, leaving you holding nothing but empty air. It feels like this constant, two-way tug-of-war between economic expansion and deflation—that endless cycle we're all stuck in—is exactly what’s stirring up so much unrest among the masses. It creates this deep-seated sense of unease whenever people start seeing wealth move around, and honestly, it makes perfect sense why everyone feels so restless.

I don't know how much of this transcribed snippet you'll be able to wrap your head around—it’s a bit dense—but if you ask me, the whole psychology behind herd mentality and just chasing numbers is pretty damn obvious.

Quincy:

It feels like you haven't quite grasped the basic mechanics of how a person actually functions yet—though, honestly, it’s probably because you’ve just been choosing to ignore them since they don't really align with what you care about.

Look, I wasn't the one who went around saying that "a person learns wherever their heart leads them"—though I can see the appeal of that sentiment. 🤷

Honestly, the only thing I truly refuse to engage with is ignorance itself. ☕

Quincy:

The mind is really just a servant to what the heart feels.

Absolute, monumental stupidity!

Can you actually back up that blatant nonsense with any real evidence, or is this just another one of those empty cognitive assertions?

Quincy:

When I talk about "the heart," I’m not really talking about some poetic, mushy sentiment—it's more like the total sum of everything a person actually wants out of life. It's that core collection of all our deepest desires and drives.

It’s been a long time since I’ve come across something quite this ridiculous. 🤣

I think you’ll agree that desires are really just a mental process—something we possess solely because we have minds to begin with. Their whole function is basically to act as a motor, pushing us to actually get up and do something. It’s pretty simple when you break it down: if you want to grab a drink, you first have to feel the urge to quench your thirst. If you want to start moving, you either have to desire reaching a specific destination, or at the very least, have a strong enough desire to not stay exactly where you are right now.

Since desires are essentially just mental processes—and seeing as you’re calling this whole "totality of desire" the "heart," while claiming the mind is merely its servant—your logic leads to a bit of a loop, doesn't it? If we follow that thread, you’re basically suggesting that the mind is serving itself.

When I really sit back and think about it—and I do tend to dwell on these things—it probably holds true in your case. You’ve basically become a prisoner to your own ideas... the kind that just spiraled completely out of your control. 🤷

Quincy:

If you honestly believe that humans can function any other way, then I’m really just going to have to question your intelligence at this point.

Man, you have no idea how much I just jumped out of my skin. I was genuinely spooked there for a second. 😍

Quincy:

Universal logic? Honestly, I think I know exactly where you picked that up—in your own little private universe. Since you're so confident in that "universal" way of thinking, let’s put it to the test with a quick little challenge. Why does the universe even exist in the first place? If that feels like too much to wrap your head around, how about we scale it back a bit: why does a human being exist? Or a frog? Or... well, anything at all?

Basic logic lessons tell us that:

I’ve been thinking about this lately—it’s kind of a logic puzzle, really—but if you ask a question that starts with "why?" and you can't somehow rephrase it into one or more "how?" questions, then honestly, the whole thing is pretty much pointless. It sounds a bit pedantic, I know, but hear me out—without figuring out the "how," you never actually get to bridge that gap between an action and its cause. You can't truly establish a cause-and-effect relationship if you don't understand the mechanics of how we got from point A to point B. Without the "how," the "why" just ends up floating there without any real substance to back it up.

When you ask a "why" question, you’re actually baking a few assumptions right into the premise—it’s kind of like assuming there was a blueprint drawn up before the house was even built. By asking why something happened, you're essentially implying that there was a specific intent or a driving motive behind it. It carries this unearned assumption that whatever we're looking at didn't just happen by chance, but was instead born out of some concrete, calculated reason.

Logic would suggest that if the entire universe was kicked off by some specific, calculated intention—which, let’s be honest, feels like a massive long shot—then we run into a bit of a wall. By definition, since we are just a byproduct of that original intent, there is absolutely no way for us to actually grasp or understand the true motives behind whatever force set everything in motion. It's like a tiny gear in a massive machine trying to comprehend why the engineer designed the whole engine in the first place; we're just part of the mechanism, so the "why" remains completely out of our reach.

Look, if you’re asking *how* the universe actually came to be—the mechanics of it all—then sure, logic is an incredible tool to have in your back pocket. It can help us piece together some pretty solid explanations for the cosmic machinery. But here’s the thing—and this is where people usually trip up—logic alone won't ever lead you to the "why." You can crunch all the numbers you want, but you won't find a fundamental reason for why anything exists at all. To my mind, there simply isn't a reason for human existence or the existence of the universe itself; it just is.

The universe just... exists. It simply is. 🙂

Quincy:

For any of us to actually claim we're right, we’d need to pull off some kind of massive breakthrough—something where we can clearly and undeniably see how all the sciences stem from the Kabbalah, or whatever its actual source might be. Since I haven't quite reached that level of enlightenment (not yet, anyway), I can't personally vouch for it; I'm just passing along what the Kabbalists themselves have observed. Whether that's 100% accurate is anyone's guess.

BINGO!

That's my point exactly... you're essentially operating on the assumption that someone else is on a "higher plane," and based on that FAITH, you follow their "teachings." There's absolutely no way to reliably rule out the possibility that you've been sold a bill of goods—that this "exclusive wisdom" is really just a tightly clenched fist holding absolutely nothing inside.

Given that you're fully aware of your own convictions—and the fact that you're still in that stage of hoping your beliefs turn out to be true—it's honestly a bit absurd to make claims about the supposed "effectiveness" of the Kabbalah based solely on your faith in the sincerity of the people you've chosen to follow.

And there we go... at the end of the day, we've finally hit a point of mutual understanding, so there's really no need to keep dancing around your personal beliefs.

Best regards!

Sorry, but I just don't have the bandwidth—at least not today—to jump back into those recent threads that have basically devolved into a circular shouting match and a lot of failed attempts at convincing one another... I’d much rather dive into this quoted bit, which I actually find pretty fascinating!

Ethan Johnson said:Anyone here actually self-aware enough to have a sense of their own "Self"? I’d love to hear a few thoughts from you guys. Once you start digging into your "Self," this weird phenomenon happens where the "Self" starts observing "itself." We basically have to step into the shoes of the thinker—but can the thinker actually know who they are? It's kind of like asking if a knife can cut itself, right?

This whole thing actually popped up from that other thread about "being what you are." But here, I really want to figure out if we can even talk about our "Self" in any meaningful way. Are we just a collection of our thoughts—those random ideas floating through our heads? Probably not, since thoughts just drift in and out whenever they feel like it. So, are we our bodies? Nah, because our bodies are constantly shifting, cells are swapping out, and we're all just getting older. So... what the hell is the "Self" actually?

It seems to me that it is entirely possible for a knife to cut itself—those people who are pathologically self-critical are a perfect example, aren't they?

The "SELF" is (at least in my estimation) the foundation of everything that exists as perceived by us. Without our "SELF," there is no world around us, nor anything else for that matter. Everything filters through our "SELF"; everything passes through it, and it's a struggle to bypass it.

1. Anyone here who is self-aware and has a "Self."My own "SELF" shifts constantly, and I often wonder... which "SELF" was I before? Because right now, I finally feel like *me*. Then a year or two rolls by, and I reach the exact same conclusion about my past version and how I experienced being "me."
2. Could you write a few words about yourself? Sure, I could write a whole novel, but maybe specify exactly what you're looking for.
3. When we begin to look at our "self," this phenomenon happens where the "Self" observes "itself." It's as natural as looking at your reflection in a mirror. Except, the "SELF" is tricky—it's hard to see certain parts, much like how it's difficult to see your own back in a mirror without using a second one to get the angle right.😉
4. We have to step into the role of the thinker, but can a thinker truly know themselves?They can, provided they can psychologically distance themselves—viewing their own flaws and mistakes as if they were observing their worst enemy. That’s incredibly difficult, though, and yet strangely easy if you find the right motivation.
5. Can a knife cut itself?Oh, absolutely. Not only can it cut itself, it can slice right through, which is obviously how you end up with a suicide.

jademarlin26 said:😁

One of us two is clearly delusional. The illusion lies in the belief that a distinction exists. In plain English, there is no difference.

Nevermind.

Ethan Johnson said:Anyone here actually self-aware enough to have a sense of their own "Self"? I’d love to hear a few thoughts from you guys. Once you start digging into your "Self," this weird phenomenon happens where the "Self" starts observing "itself." We basically have to step into the shoes of the thinker—but can the thinker actually know who they are? It's kind of like asking if a knife can cut itself, right?

This whole thing actually popped up from that other thread about "being what you are." But here, I really want to figure out if we can even talk about our "Self" in any meaningful way. Are we just a collection of our thoughts—those random ideas floating through our heads? Probably not, since thoughts just drift in and out whenever they feel like it. So, are we our bodies? Nah, because our bodies are constantly shifting, cells are swapping out, and we're all just getting older. So... what the hell is the "Self" actually?

If I take a second to look at my own attention, I can notice that sometimes I'm pretty focused and other times I'm totally scattered. And on the flip side, sometimes I'm super relaxed and other times I'm just wound tight.

Usually, when I'm feeling both focused and relaxed at the same time, I'd say I'm "centered" (or "feeling like myself"). But when I'm too distracted or way too tense, I feel like I'm "not really there" or "not being myself," you know?

So, I guess the ability to "(not) be who I am" mostly comes down to those qualities of attention—basically how centered or relaxed I can stay.

James Lee77 said:If I take a second to look at my own attention, I can notice that sometimes I'm pretty focused and other times I'm totally scattered. And on the flip side, sometimes I'm super relaxed and other times I'm just wound tight.

Usually, when I'm feeling both focused and relaxed at the same time, I'd say I'm "centered" (or "feeling like myself"). But when I'm too distracted or way too tense, I feel like I'm "not really there" or "not being myself," you know?

So, I guess the ability to "(not) be who I am" mostly comes down to those qualities of attention—basically how centered or relaxed I can stay.

Spot on!

Unfortunately, we don't have one perfect American English word that captures that specific type of attentiveness... that state where you're genuinely "present." It’s when your mind isn't cluttered with projections or distractions, but instead, you're pouring all your focus into the current moment—reacting spontaneously to what's happening right now, rather than just reacting based on your own preconceived notions or biases.

It's about being a conscious participant in life, instead of just sitting on the sidelines acting like a detached "observer" of your own existence. It's about being fully integrated with everything around you—staying focused and taking responsibility, but not in some isolated way, like sitting on a mountaintop or hiding in a cave... places where "responsibility" is just an abstract concept and all your attention is sucked inward toward yourself.

Yeah... you hit the nail on the head there. 🙂

Jerry King11 said:I agree, though I’d argue that by serving others, we also build ourselves up and move beyond our own narrow egos—and I don't mean using busyness as an escape from a sense of inner emptiness. Too often, even "spirituality" can become a form of self-delusion, a way for people to inflate their own importance in their own eyes.

The key to identifying our true motives and finding the right balance lies in the integrity of our actions, which helps mitigate self-deception. Practicing introspection paired with self-criticism allows you to catch yourself when you are acting out of extreme, false motivations, or compromising your values for personal ambition. That kind of self-delusion is ultimately damaging to both the individual and society at large.

You're right; spirituality isn't immune to that.

I’m just a "reflection" of God.
On some lower level, I guess I’m like a little gateway to those "higher" dimensions of reality, but honestly, it all boils down to being a mere "image" of God—or just these "independent" little fragments of consciousness that don't even realize where they came from... something like that, anyway...

When it stems from the mind, it's just your own ego. But when it flows from the void? That's where the true energy, God, unconditional love, and Truth reside.

neonscout5 said:When it stems from the mind, it's just your own ego. But when it flows from the void? That's where the true energy, God, unconditional love, and Truth reside.

But... what if this whole "I" thing is actually just my ego talking?

neonscout5 said:When it stems from the mind, it's just your own ego. But when it flows from the void? That's where the true energy, God, unconditional love, and Truth reside.

Stay wise.👍

Listen, geniuses, emptiness is just empty. So this supposed "I" that "emerges from the void" is equally hollow. No essence, no God, and certainly no truth.

I think I finally figured out how to use the quote function. 😳 A little passage from that collection of Zen koans just popped into my head:

Thi San said:
- When the dissolutions occur, everything vanishes—objects, things, even myself—until the original emptiness is restored.
Then a student steps forward and asks:
- What happens once everything dissolves into emptiness?
Thi-San addresses the student by name.
- Yes, the student replies, stepping closer.
- Please, where does the emptiness go?
- You already answered that, the master says.