Who watches the watchmen?

Edward Flores4 said:Look... control is essentially manipulation—it's this conscious process where you try to steer some subject around.

Observation, on the other hand, isn't this forced, manipulative effort. It's more like a physical reaction to a change in your environment—something that happens naturally without us having to step in and force it.

So, observing and controlling are two completely different animals. Control is an action, while observation is a reaction. An action requires a subject, which means you end up with two subjects: the one doing the controlling and the one being controlled! Observation is just you—the single subject—reacting to an external shift (which isn't a subject at all).

Which brings me to this... honestly, your question doesn't really hold water, and it seems like you haven't quite grasped what the actual issue with the "controller" is.

Trying to "control yourself" is a bit like practicing voluntary schizophrenia. People with schizophrenia don't choose their state, but "controllers" do it intentionally—they actually believe they're doing something productive, thinking they're "working on themselves." 🙂

Heh, wait a second! If that external change is happening, then it's an OBJECT, my dear Truth-Seeker. And on the flip side, you can really only call that thing of yours a SUBJECT if there's actual self-awareness involved. And that’s where things get messy! See, self-awareness is simultaneously about judging and being judged; it's about personalization and that whole "ego" concept—which is really just one big, heavy word for MAYER. Now, if you want to believe we can escape from MAYER in little bits and pieces here and there, then sure, you'll be a beginner forever!

placidharbor7 said:Heh, wait a second! If that external change is happening, then it's an OBJECT, my dear Truth-Seeker. And on the flip side, you can really only call that thing of yours a SUBJECT if there's actual self-awareness involved. And that’s where things get messy! See, self-awareness is simultaneously about judging and being judged; it's about personalization and that whole "ego" concept—which is really just one big, heavy word for MAYER. Now, if you want to believe we can escape from MAYER in little bits and pieces here and there, then sure, you'll be a beginner forever!

Listen, you pint-sized spiritual guru with a nasty streak... if you haven't managed to come up with a single coherent point by now, there’s really no need to start puffing out your chest just to prove something to me—trying to peddle your brand of mysticism like some street psychic reading palms at a carnival.

External change is indeed an object, sure, but you didn't create it—unlike that "controlled" entity, which is nothing more than a figment of your own imagination. Being able to witness change simply means being perceptive, but thinking you can actually "control" someone else is pure schizophrenia, and from the looks of it, you've got plenty of experience with that. External changes just reflect back on us; we don't manufacture them for our own amusement, unlike how you amuse yourself playing the "Jack of all trades."

And this is where your overblown spiritual fog starts to turn into a total mess, because you're tossing out concepts that fall way outside your own field of understanding—all while being deeply convinced that nobody will notice. You’re insanely persistent, repeating the exact same patterns unconsciously, hoping against hope that maybe, just this once, the outcome will somehow turn out better than usual. 🙄

On the other hand, you can only call that thing a SUBJECT if it possesses self-awareness.

Oh, so you'll be the one to tell me when I'm allowed to call the subject of control a "subject"? And what exactly does the subject of our actions need to have—aside from actually being the subject of our actions—to earn that title? 🤣

one BIG word—MAYER.

wow... I have never heard that bit about MAYER before!!! That is a completely new concept to me... thanks for introducing me to such a rare and absolutely fascinating construct.

Got any more "revelations" for us, Inspector Sherlock? ☕

Peter Phillips32 said:Look, ladies, of course it's possible, because those were just declarative statements in the first post.

What we’re really looking at here is Jiddu Krishnamurti’s whole observation about how trying to micromanage yourself—your thoughts, your moods, all that stuff—isn't actually the way to go; instead, you're supposed to just be this impartial observer. See, when you start trying to police your own brain, you run straight into that old dilemma: "Who watches the watchmen". When he was reading sections of his books, he’d toss that question out at his audience, and since they couldn't wrap their heads around an answer, they just swallowed his ideas whole as if they were absolute gospel. Instead of nudging people toward their own deep dives and independent thinking, he basically pushes his own perspectives as these untouchable truths.

Since everyone knows there isn't just one single road to reaching a destination, I’m going to take a crack at answering his question myself, and I'm honestly curious if anyone else has some different takes on it so maybe we can collectively stumble upon some alternative answers.

What exactly do you and he mean when you talk about "controlling"? I guess I’m wondering what that process actually looks like in practice—is it a specific action, or more of a continuous thing? And how does it actually differ from just observing? Maybe there's a fine line there that I'm missing.

Jeremy Alvarez5 said:What exactly do you and he mean when you talk about "controlling"? I guess I’m wondering what that process actually looks like in practice—is it a specific action, or more of a continuous thing? And how does it actually differ from just observing? Maybe there's a fine line there that I'm missing.

Control is just the illusion that you can somehow influence the outcome of your own actions—or anyone else's.

But let’s be real: that’s a total fantasy. Only the goddess/God is truly in control.

Amy Long9 said:🤣 ... why "awakened" though?

Because they're fueled by marzipan.😂

Charles Diaz56 said:Because they're fueled by marzipan.😂

Man, what would I even do without you, you absolute lunatic.😛

Edward Flores4 said:Listen, you pint-sized spiritual guru with a nasty streak... if you haven't managed to come up with a single coherent point by now, there’s really no need to start puffing out your chest just to prove something to me—trying to peddle your brand of mysticism like some street psychic reading palms at a carnival.

External change is indeed an object, sure, but you didn't create it—unlike that "controlled" entity, which is nothing more than a figment of your own imagination. Being able to witness change simply means being perceptive, but thinking you can actually "control" someone else is pure schizophrenia, and from the looks of it, you've got plenty of experience with that. External changes just reflect back on us; we don't manufacture them for our own amusement, unlike how you amuse yourself playing the "Jack of all trades."

And this is where your overblown spiritual fog starts to turn into a total mess, because you're tossing out concepts that fall way outside your own field of understanding—all while being deeply convinced that nobody will notice. You’re insanely persistent, repeating the exact same patterns unconsciously, hoping against hope that maybe, just this once, the outcome will somehow turn out better than usual. 🙄

On the other hand, you can only call that thing a SUBJECT if it possesses self-awareness.

Oh, so you'll be the one to tell me when I'm allowed to call the subject of control a "subject"? And what exactly does the subject of our actions need to have—aside from actually being the subject of our actions—to earn that title? 🤣

one BIG word—MAYER.

wow... I have never heard that bit about MAYER before!!! That is a completely new concept to me... thanks for introducing me to such a rare and absolutely fascinating construct.

Got any more "revelations" for us, Inspector Sherlock? ☕

I truly believe that any "external change"—and I mean any external shift at all—is created and made possible solely by your own "self." If you find yourself doubting what placidharbor7 is saying, then why not try to debunk his claim? Go ahead, try to prove the existence of an objective reality! (Yes, really!)😂

Edward Flores4 said:Listen, you pint-sized spiritual guru with a nasty streak... if you haven't managed to come up with a single coherent point by now, there’s really no need to start puffing out your chest just to prove something to me—trying to peddle your brand of mysticism like some street psychic reading palms at a carnival.

External change is indeed an object, sure, but you didn't create it—unlike that "controlled" entity, which is nothing more than a figment of your own imagination. Being able to witness change simply means being perceptive, but thinking you can actually "control" someone else is pure schizophrenia, and from the looks of it, you've got plenty of experience with that. External changes just reflect back on us; we don't manufacture them for our own amusement, unlike how you amuse yourself playing the "Jack of all trades."

And this is where your overblown spiritual fog starts to turn into a total mess, because you're tossing out concepts that fall way outside your own field of understanding—all while being deeply convinced that nobody will notice. You’re insanely persistent, repeating the exact same patterns unconsciously, hoping against hope that maybe, just this once, the outcome will somehow turn out better than usual. 🙄

On the other hand, you can only call that thing a SUBJECT if it possesses self-awareness.

Oh, so you'll be the one to tell me when I'm allowed to call the subject of control a "subject"? And what exactly does the subject of our actions need to have—aside from actually being the subject of our actions—to earn that title? 🤣

one BIG word—MAYER.

wow... I have never heard that bit about MAYER before!!! That is a completely new concept to me... thanks for introducing me to such a rare and absolutely fascinating construct.

Got any more "revelations" for us, Inspector Sherlock? ☕

Just what kind of wild entity is your imagination actually building all this stuff from?🤣

Edward Flores4 said:Listen, you pint-sized spiritual guru with a nasty streak... if you haven't managed to come up with a single coherent point by now, there’s really no need to start puffing out your chest just to prove something to me—trying to peddle your brand of mysticism like some street psychic reading palms at a carnival.

External change is indeed an object, sure, but you didn't create it—unlike that "controlled" entity, which is nothing more than a figment of your own imagination. Being able to witness change simply means being perceptive, but thinking you can actually "control" someone else is pure schizophrenia, and from the looks of it, you've got plenty of experience with that. External changes just reflect back on us; we don't manufacture them for our own amusement, unlike how you amuse yourself playing the "Jack of all trades."

And this is where your overblown spiritual fog starts to turn into a total mess, because you're tossing out concepts that fall way outside your own field of understanding—all while being deeply convinced that nobody will notice. You’re insanely persistent, repeating the exact same patterns unconsciously, hoping against hope that maybe, just this once, the outcome will somehow turn out better than usual. 🙄

On the other hand, you can only call that thing a SUBJECT if it possesses self-awareness.

Oh, so you'll be the one to tell me when I'm allowed to call the subject of control a "subject"? And what exactly does the subject of our actions need to have—aside from actually being the subject of our actions—to earn that title? 🤣

one BIG word—MAYER.

wow... I have never heard that bit about MAYER before!!! That is a completely new concept to me... thanks for introducing me to such a rare and absolutely fascinating construct.

Got any more "revelations" for us, Inspector Sherlock? ☕

Is "perceptive" anything more than just my own personal point of view? Honestly, can the "self" ever truly be objective? I mean, what’s even the point of relying on your own subjective "perception" if it's always filtered through your own lens?😍

What are you even getting so worked up about? Seriously, why all the drama?😠 You came here ready to learn, and trust me—you’re going to walk away with plenty!😁
So, placidharbor7 showed up here acting like he’s some kind of ultimate expert, even going so far as to introduce himself that way! Meanwhile, you went ahead and called yourself Edward Flores4. Honestly, it feels a little shady—it really makes you wonder about your sense of self, doesn't it?🤷🤣😲

Shouldn't placidharbor7 be some calm figure who actually respects us for who we are... instead of forcing his teachings on us when he should just wait for us to come to him?
Because, in my opinion, a master should know there’s no point in trying to teach someone who doesn't even want to learn. If you don't respect the people you're trying to mentor, then don't go calling yourself a master. Who are you going to teach peace and freedom to if you don't possess them yourself? It doesn't matter how "correct" your truth might be.

Peter Phillips32 said:Look, ladies, of course it's possible, because those were just declarative statements in the first post.

What we’re really looking at here is Jiddu Krishnamurti’s whole observation about how trying to micromanage yourself—your thoughts, your moods, all that stuff—isn't actually the way to go; instead, you're supposed to just be this impartial observer. See, when you start trying to police your own brain, you run straight into that old dilemma: "Who watches the watchmen". When he was reading sections of his books, he’d toss that question out at his audience, and since they couldn't wrap their heads around an answer, they just swallowed his ideas whole as if they were absolute gospel. Instead of nudging people toward their own deep dives and independent thinking, he basically pushes his own perspectives as these untouchable truths.

Since everyone knows there isn't just one single road to reaching a destination, I’m going to take a crack at answering his question myself, and I'm honestly curious if anyone else has some different takes on it so maybe we can collectively stumble upon some alternative answers.

As far as I can tell, this isn't actually about trying to control someone else or observing an outside object. It’s really about self-mastery—controlling yourself and observing your own inner workings, your own consciousness. If that isn't the case, then you can just disregard my entire argument.

Edward Flores4 said:Look... control is essentially manipulation—it's this conscious process where you try to steer some subject around.

Observation, on the other hand, isn't this forced, manipulative effort. It's more like a physical reaction to a change in your environment—something that happens naturally without us having to step in and force it.

So, observing and controlling are two completely different animals. Control is an action, while observation is a reaction. An action requires a subject, which means you end up with two subjects: the one doing the controlling and the one being controlled! Observation is just you—the single subject—reacting to an external shift (which isn't a subject at all).

Which brings me to this... honestly, your question doesn't really hold water, and it seems like you haven't quite grasped what the actual issue with the "controller" is.

Trying to "control yourself" is a bit like practicing voluntary schizophrenia. People with schizophrenia don't choose their state, but "controllers" do it intentionally—they actually believe they're doing something productive, thinking they're "working on themselves." 🙂

I’m not going to get bogged down in debating what counts as an action versus a reaction—it’s honestly beside the point. The real issue is that when you try to step into the role of a controller or even just an observer, you still remain a subject. And a subject is only truly a subject if they possess self-awareness, or as placidharbor7 would put it:

placidharbor7 said:Heh, wait a second! If that external change is happening, then it's an OBJECT, my dear Truth-Seeker. And on the flip side, you can really only call that thing of yours a SUBJECT if there's actual self-awareness involved. And that’s where things get messy! See, self-awareness is simultaneously about judging and being judged; it's about personalization and that whole "ego" concept—which is really just one big, heavy word for MAYER. Now, if you want to believe we can escape from MAYER in little bits and pieces here and there, then sure, you'll be a beginner forever!

Moving from being the one in control to simply being an observer is where you actually make progress—you aren't actively meddling in the process anymore, yet you still remain a subject with all those qualities placidharbor7 pointed out. The ultimate goal is to become the thing being observed; to dissolve that duality between the observer and the observed. I'm curious if Krishnamurti was the one who originally wrote that. I think I'll dig through some of his texts to find out.

placidharbor7 — I’m taking this opportunity to speak up. I’ve been reading through quite a few of your posts lately, and honestly? I’m pretty disappointed. If you really are some enlightened being—as you seem to suggest—then you certainly picked a terrible spokesperson. Your delivery is uninspired, your expression lacks any real depth, and ultimately, it feels incredibly immature—hardly the mark of true mastery. You clearly have potential, in my humble opinion, but then again, who am I to judge? Still, I suppose there’s actually something to be learned from Edward Flores4...😁

One ought to keep the beast on a leash. And occasionally, one should offer it a bit of praise. It isn't exactly profound wisdom, but it certainly isn't without merit.🙂

Jeffrey Gray4 said:Shouldn't placidharbor7 be some calm figure who actually respects us for who we are... instead of forcing his teachings on us when he should just wait for us to come to him?
Because, in my opinion, a master should know there’s no point in trying to teach someone who doesn't even want to learn. If you don't respect the people you're trying to mentor, then don't go calling yourself a master. Who are you going to teach peace and freedom to if you don't possess them yourself? It doesn't matter how "correct" your truth might be.

What kind of "force" are we talking about here? placidharbor7 is simply standing up for the Truth with everything he's got! He has to share what he knows—I mean, if you were in his shoes, wouldn't you do the exact same thing?

Michael Anderson2 said:As far as I can tell, this isn't actually about trying to control someone else or observing an outside object. It’s really about self-mastery—controlling yourself and observing your own inner workings, your own consciousness. If that isn't the case, then you can just disregard my entire argument.

I’m not going to get bogged down in debating what counts as an action versus a reaction—it’s honestly beside the point. The real issue is that when you try to step into the role of a controller or even just an observer, you still remain a subject. And a subject is only truly a subject if they possess self-awareness, or as placidharbor7 would put it:

Moving from being the one in control to simply being an observer is where you actually make progress—you aren't actively meddling in the process anymore, yet you still remain a subject with all those qualities placidharbor7 pointed out. The ultimate goal is to become the thing being observed; to dissolve that duality between the observer and the observed. I'm curious if Krishnamurti was the one who originally wrote that. I think I'll dig through some of his texts to find out.

placidharbor7 — I’m taking this opportunity to speak up. I’ve been reading through quite a few of your posts lately, and honestly? I’m pretty disappointed. If you really are some enlightened being—as you seem to suggest—then you certainly picked a terrible spokesperson. Your delivery is uninspired, your expression lacks any real depth, and ultimately, it feels incredibly immature—hardly the mark of true mastery. You clearly have potential, in my humble opinion, but then again, who am I to judge? Still, I suppose there’s actually something to be learned from Edward Flores4...😁

Haha! "Who am I to judge?"🙄And that's, if I do say so myself, "based on my own humble estimation!"🤣But still!😁

Don't even sweat it when it comes to placidharbor7—if he’s actually telling the truth, you probably wouldn't even recognize it if it hit you in the face! But if he isn't? Well, then you can just stick with Edward Flores4 and the rest of that crowd.

placidharbor7 said:Haha! "Who am I to judge?"🙄And that's, if I do say so myself, "based on my own humble estimation!"🤣But still!😁

Don't even sweat it when it comes to placidharbor7—if he’s actually telling the truth, you probably wouldn't even recognize it if it hit you in the face! But if he isn't? Well, then you can just stick with Edward Flores4 and the rest of that crowd.

See, you're already making progress! 👍

I would have appreciated it if you’d actually addressed my take on the topic at hand, rather than just circling back to your own little ego trip. Ego? Coming from someone supposedly enlightened? Or did you just run out of things to say?

placidharbor7 said:I truly believe that any "external change"—and I mean any external shift at all—is created and made possible solely by your own "self." If you find yourself doubting what placidharbor7 is saying, then why not try to debunk his claim? Go ahead, try to prove the existence of an objective reality! (Yes, really!)😂

Just what kind of wild entity is your imagination actually building all this stuff from?🤣

Is "perceptive" anything more than just my own personal point of view? Honestly, can the "self" ever truly be objective? I mean, what’s even the point of relying on your own subjective "perception" if it's always filtered through your own lens?😍

What are you even getting so worked up about? Seriously, why all the drama?😠 You came here ready to learn, and trust me—you’re going to walk away with plenty!😁
So, placidharbor7 showed up here acting like he’s some kind of ultimate expert, even going so far as to introduce himself that way! Meanwhile, you went ahead and called yourself Edward Flores4. Honestly, it feels a little shady—it really makes you wonder about your sense of self, doesn't it?🤷🤣😲

Why don't you take that whole idea of the 'self,' shove it right up your backside, and then subjectively perceive it as a 'given reality.'

Honestly, what’s even the point of having a brain if you aren't going to actually use it!?

Michael Anderson2 said:See, you're already making progress! 👍

I would have appreciated it if you’d actually addressed my take on the topic at hand, rather than just circling back to your own little ego trip. Ego? Coming from someone supposedly enlightened? Or did you just run out of things to say?

How is that hard to grasp?

The thing is, this guy operates on a very specific communication frequency—one where the prerequisite is that you have to view him as some kind of guru, someone whose every word is gospel. Once you accept that premise, everything he says becomes absolute fact.

But, of course, if you don't play along with that dynamic, our resident "expert" at the camp always has three or four canned, condescending phrases ready to go—designed specifically to discredit anyone who doubts him while simultaneously shielding his massive ego.

If you take a moment to dig through the older posts from placidharbor7, you'll see the pattern clearly: the man has churned out thousands of entries, basically just recycling the same five sentences in different orders. Every other post ends with a nod to a "truth seeker," and nearly every single one features him talking about himself in the third person.

For a lot of people, "spirituality" acts as a convenient hiding spot—a way to wrap their personal complexes in a layer of spiritual ambition. They seem to think that because spirituality is supposedly so ethereal, their fabrications can somehow dodge any attempt at logic or real criticism.

Unfortunately for them, anyone with a bit of common sense can spot a "smoke merchant" from a mile away, even when they're using more subtle, mystical smoke, much like the spiritual illusions being spun by our grand "master" placidharbor7. ☕

placidharbor7 said:Heh, wait a second! If that external change is happening, then it's an OBJECT, my dear Truth-Seeker. And on the flip side, you can really only call that thing of yours a SUBJECT if there's actual self-awareness involved. And that’s where things get messy! See, self-awareness is simultaneously about judging and being judged; it's about personalization and that whole "ego" concept—which is really just one big, heavy word for MAYER. Now, if you want to believe we can escape from MAYER in little bits and pieces here and there, then sure, you'll be a beginner forever!

But progress toward what, exactly?

The distinction between "active" and "passive" is really just a wash. A subject is always defined by its own inherent principles, even when those principles aren't being loudly or aggressively acted upon. Besides, isn't "passive" observation an impossibility? The "self" never truly goes to sleep!

Because of that, trying to "lose duality" on your own terms is just a non-starter. That kind of dissolution only happens when external forces take over, wouldn't you agree, truth seeker?

Edward Flores4 said:How is that hard to grasp?

The thing is, this guy operates on a very specific communication frequency—one where the prerequisite is that you have to view him as some kind of guru, someone whose every word is gospel. Once you accept that premise, everything he says becomes absolute fact.

But, of course, if you don't play along with that dynamic, our resident "expert" at the camp always has three or four canned, condescending phrases ready to go—designed specifically to discredit anyone who doubts him while simultaneously shielding his massive ego.

If you take a moment to dig through the older posts from placidharbor7, you'll see the pattern clearly: the man has churned out thousands of entries, basically just recycling the same five sentences in different orders. Every other post ends with a nod to a "truth seeker," and nearly every single one features him talking about himself in the third person.

For a lot of people, "spirituality" acts as a convenient hiding spot—a way to wrap their personal complexes in a layer of spiritual ambition. They seem to think that because spirituality is supposedly so ethereal, their fabrications can somehow dodge any attempt at logic or real criticism.

Unfortunately for them, anyone with a bit of common sense can spot a "smoke merchant" from a mile away, even when they're using more subtle, mystical smoke, much like the spiritual illusions being spun by our grand "master" placidharbor7. ☕

Your whole argument just highlights your total inability to handle placidharbor7's "insights" and your own personality flaws.
Come on, man, just get back to your usual nonsense and pointless debating.

You’re moving toward One, toward Truth, toward liberation from Maya, and toward the dissolution of duality.

But why would dissolving duality be possible solely through "forces outside of myself"? If those forces are external, wouldn't the One just be another illusion?

placidharbor7 said:What kind of "force" are we talking about here? placidharbor7 is simply standing up for the Truth with everything he's got! He has to share what he knows—I mean, if you were in his shoes, wouldn't you do the exact same thing?

Why defend her? Isn't it enough that she brings you happiness...
Spirituality isn't about finding one single path that works for everyone. It's about finding the specific path that feels right for each individual.
We don't all have to walk the same road to reach the same destination...
If you've found a path that brings you joy, take it and don't look back. Stop looking for companions to walk your street if they aren't interested. What looks beautiful to you might actually trigger fear or resentment in someone else.
It’s not a crime to offer a path to someone who is searching, but it is a crime to demand they walk yours.
If you want to defend your truth, then defend it by showing that no one has the right to take it from you... because at the end of the day, you’re the master of nothing but your own life.

placidharbor7 said:Your whole argument just highlights your total inability to handle placidharbor7's "insights" and your own personality flaws.
Come on, man, just get back to your usual nonsense and pointless debating.

Honestly, your bizarre way of judging other people's personalities is just a mirror reflecting your own fractured psyche—the parts you’ve tried to sweep under the rug of your own ego, all while desperately hoping you can actually believe your own hype.

Please, feel free to keep flooding the forums with these empty posts—just moving the goalposts from one side to the other, talking about yourself in the third person, and acting like the entire world is bowing down to your "magnificent" persona.

Once you finally hit that 10,000-post milestone, I’ll personally hand you a diploma—it’ll be official proof of your sheer incompetence. 😉