What's with the "spiritual gurus" on this forum!?

silentcyclist3 said:I'm vetting the people I'll be talking to. Is that weird?
The reality is that these kinds of PDFs—stuff about spirituality, mysticism, and all that—deal with human experiences that just don't fit into a strictly scientific framework. If everything could be measured by science, I guess there wouldn't be much point in even talking about it. You’d just use mathematical logic to reach a conclusion and be done with it.
But I don't think this is really something you can just solve with math. It's not quite like that.
If you're looking for a definition, you won't find one. It just doesn't exist, I guess.
I guess there are plenty of people who just can't accept it. Their minds are constantly hunting for a definition. I suppose they're just used to trying to rationalize everything in their lives.
I see an issue here. Without acknowledging the experiential, spiritual, and intuitive side of things, I don't think a real conversation can even happen. That part of the story is often completely ignored in this PDF. To be honest, that kind of exclusion is one of the main criteria I use when deciding whether or not to engage with someone.

Then what would be the point of talking to everyone?

Forcing that "everyone talks to everyone" approach feels like a violation. Some people can spend hours talking and end up with nothing but wasted energy and frayed nerves. Others might talk for an hour and feel completely satisfied—they might even end up meeting up in person if they connected on a forum first. I guess it just doesn't work for everyone.

Look, if someone really enjoys spitting venom, mocking others, and being insulting, they can go ahead and waste their time that way. It’s entirely their choice, I guess. It has nothing to do with me.

What was my goal in starting this thread? I guess. Maybe just to get things moving.
Maybe I just wanted to shift the focus away from those seeking peace through spirituality. Instead, I wanted to look at how we react when talking to people. It happens so often. People snap way too quickly when they try to "prove" their beliefs to someone else. The result is just a contradiction of self. They end up doing the exact opposite of what they actually believe—if they even believe anything at all, I guess.

I suppose you could say spiritualists are just people who take one single slice of life and mistake it for the whole truth.

It isn't weird at all—it's actually pretty obvious—but it does fly right in the face of what you said earlier:

What really gets to me is how everyone tries to force themselves into these rigid little categories.

In one breath, you're claiming you don't categorize people, and in the next, you're saying it's perfectly fine to pick and choose who you engage with, which is, by definition, a discriminatory process.

Since you won't slot yourself into any category, deny that you're labeling or discriminating, and then dodge follow-up questions by hiding behind your "right to choose," you’re essentially opting out of any meaningful, intelligent discussion.

That whole aspect of the conversation is often completely ignored in this thread, and that kind of exclusivity is actually one of the criteria I use to decide if I want to communicate with someone.

I mean, what would even be the point of talking to just anyone?

What you’ve laid out here is basically just a description of your initial stance. You aren't looking for a debate or trying to reach new conclusions; you're strictly looking for an echo chamber—people who already agree with you so you don't have to deal with any pushback.

Sure, that's what forums are for, and it's a totally valid way to exist online. But just keep in mind that taking that stance automatically undermines the weight of your opinions, regardless of how smart or sound they actually are. Someone who cherry-picks their audience and only responds to what fits their narrative isn't a credible participant in a discussion; they're just someone seeking validation rather than trying to re-evaluate their own views.

If you had just been upfront about that from the start, you would have saved us all a lot of time.

Forcing this "everyone talks to everyone" style of debate is basically a violation.

Nobody is forcing you to do anything... you have every right to stay silent, and we have every right to interpret that silence however we see fit since you missed the chance to clarify or defend your position.
Public statements invite public scrutiny. If you aren't prepared to argue your points openly, then maybe don't put them out there in the first place. Nobody is dragging you here to post, but once you hit "submit," there's an expectation that you'll stand by what you wrote. When you don't, no matter what excuse you give, it's perfectly fair to assume your position carries zero argumentative weight.

Next time you start a thread like this, just lead with the fact that you're only interested in hearing from people who already agree with you, and there won't be any drama. If you make your intentions clear, I won't feel the need to try and talk sense into you or shove arguments down your throat. It's quite simple 😉

Edward Flores4 said:It isn't weird at all—it's actually pretty obvious—but it does fly right in the face of what you said earlier:

What really gets to me is how everyone tries to force themselves into these rigid little categories.

In one breath, you're claiming you don't categorize people, and in the next, you're saying it's perfectly fine to pick and choose who you engage with, which is, by definition, a discriminatory process.

Since you won't slot yourself into any category, deny that you're labeling or discriminating, and then dodge follow-up questions by hiding behind your "right to choose," you’re essentially opting out of any meaningful, intelligent discussion.

That whole aspect of the conversation is often completely ignored in this thread, and that kind of exclusivity is actually one of the criteria I use to decide if I want to communicate with someone.

I mean, what would even be the point of talking to just anyone?

What you’ve laid out here is basically just a description of your initial stance. You aren't looking for a debate or trying to reach new conclusions; you're strictly looking for an echo chamber—people who already agree with you so you don't have to deal with any pushback.

Sure, that's what forums are for, and it's a totally valid way to exist online. But just keep in mind that taking that stance automatically undermines the weight of your opinions, regardless of how smart or sound they actually are. Someone who cherry-picks their audience and only responds to what fits their narrative isn't a credible participant in a discussion; they're just someone seeking validation rather than trying to re-evaluate their own views.

If you had just been upfront about that from the start, you would have saved us all a lot of time.

Forcing this "everyone talks to everyone" style of debate is basically a violation.

Nobody is forcing you to do anything... you have every right to stay silent, and we have every right to interpret that silence however we see fit since you missed the chance to clarify or defend your position.
Public statements invite public scrutiny. If you aren't prepared to argue your points openly, then maybe don't put them out there in the first place. Nobody is dragging you here to post, but once you hit "submit," there's an expectation that you'll stand by what you wrote. When you don't, no matter what excuse you give, it's perfectly fair to assume your position carries zero argumentative weight.

Next time you start a thread like this, just lead with the fact that you're only interested in hearing from people who already agree with you, and there won't be any drama. If you make your intentions clear, I won't feel the need to try and talk sense into you or shove arguments down your throat. It's quite simple 😉

Are you speaking for yourself, or are you representing some group that gave you permission to speak on their behalf?
🙂 Do you see now what I meant by the drawer comment?

Choosing isn't always discrimination. I might still be happy to chat with you about something else.😉

By the way, if someone in society doesn't click with you, do you insist on communicating with them even when they clearly don't want to?

Black and white, mechanical, thin and hollow.....

I noticed that Edward Flores4 was touching on something pretty profound there—it’s one of those ideas that really makes you stop and think for a second. It reminds me a bit of how we approach psychology in the States, where we're always trying to peel back those layers of the subconscious to see what's actually driving our behavior. When you look at it through the lens of Jung's theories, everything starts to connect in this much deeper, almost architectural way. It isn't just about surface-level reactions; it's about the foundation underneath. I've always felt like understanding these patterns is a bit like trying to map out an old, winding city—you might think you know the layout, but then you turn a corner and realize there's an entire neighborhood you never even knew existed. It takes patience and a lot of deliberate reflection, but man, is it worth it when the pieces finally click into place.

silentcyclist3 said:Are you speaking for yourself, or are you representing some group that gave you permission to speak on their behalf?
🙂 Do you see now what I meant by the drawer comment?

Choosing isn't always discrimination. I might still be happy to chat with you about something else.😉

By the way, if someone in society doesn't click with you, do you insist on communicating with them even when they clearly don't want to?

Black and white, mechanical, thin and hollow.....

Honestly, nobody worth their salt is going to respect someone who relies on discriminatory rhetoric or just runs away from an actual argument. If that doesn't bother someone, then it’s pretty obvious—and I mean really obvious—that their goal wasn't actually to have a meaningful conversation in the first place. I don't need some official badge or a title to point this out; all I need is a little bit of basic logic. Look, if you actually want to engage in a debate, but instead you spend your time obstructing the flow and dodging questions or withholding solid arguments, anyone else who is genuinely interested in a real discussion is going to side with me, hands down. At the end of the day, this isn't about representing some specific group or identity—it’s simply a matter of logic and what your underlying motives are. 😉

Do you see what I was getting at with that whole "ladder" analogy now?

No, look—my categorization here is strictly a byproduct of you refusing to actually clarify your statement or back up your arguments. You’re essentially forcing my hand, pushing me to cut you out of this conversation despite the fact that I’ve made repeated efforts to avoid doing exactly that. That conclusion you're reaching? You’re the one who imposed it through your own selective way of handling the dialogue. I have absolutely nothing to do with it. 🙂

Look, making a choice doesn't have to be synonymous with discrimination—it really isn't. It’s just about deciding what fits best in the moment. Besides, I’d much rather just grab a coffee and chat with you about something else entirely anyway.😉

Think about it this way—when you’re picking between, say, five different candidates for a job, you aren't just looking at them all equally. You’re actually filtering through the group—effectively weeding out four of them—so that the "chosen" one is simply the only person you *didn't* dismiss. It’s the same logic when you sit down with a book. Your eyes hit the paper, but you’re constantly ignoring the vast amount of white space and ink patterns to "select" only those specific characters that your brain recognizes as words. That selective process is what actually allows you to read. Or even simpler: if you’re staring at a ceramic vase on a table, you aren't seeing everything in the room—you’re instinctively filtering out the empty space around it just to focus on the vase itself. Selection, at its core, is just a fancy word for what we choose to ignore.

The human mind doesn't really perceive things in a vacuum—it works almost exclusively through "contrastive comparisons." It’s all about relativity. We don't just see "big"; we see that *this* is bigger than *that*. We don't just sense "hard"; we feel that *this* is tougher than *that*. This whole discriminative nature of how we process reality has been a known factor in psychology for ages. In fact, that's exactly why most psychological assessments rely on those simple "like or dislike" frameworks. That's where you get the concepts of dominant versus repressed traits, which eventually leads us to the classic distinction between introverts and extroverts. All of this serves as the bedrock for Jung's personality typology, which maps out those 16 different character orientations. It’s actually a remarkably robust system—so much so that it isn't just confined to clinical psychology. You see it being applied everywhere from career coaching and corporate team management to customer profiling and even criminal forensics. It’s funny, because based on the very principles behind this testing, Jung actually developed the device most people know as the polygraph—or, as it’s more popularly called, the lie detector.

Look, I’m sorry if I drifted a bit off-topic there—I really didn't mean to, but I genuinely feel like you've missed the mark on this one, and I want to walk you through my reasoning. I’m not looking for a fight or trying to get into some heated back-and-forth with you; honestly, if I can just lay it out clearly and help you see where I'm coming from, we’ll both have used our time a lot more effectively than if we just spent it bickering.

By the way, if you realize someone in your social circle just isn't your vibe, do you find yourself constantly trying to force a conversation even when they clearly aren't feeling it either?

We aren't a group of people physically hanging out in the same room. Everyone comes here specifically to talk—and since it’s all through typing, it’s pretty counterintuitive (if not totally illogical) to expect people to show up if they don't actually want to engage. After all, there’s nothing else to do on a forum besides communicate.

I'm sure you get where I'm coming from, because it seems pretty self-evident to me. You probably haven't given it much thought—which is fair—but it could lead to some misconceptions, making it seem like you can be part of a forum without actually participating.

black and white, machinery, poor and hollow.....

I honestly don't follow that haiku at all... I guess you need me to break everything down for you in plain English.

Edward Flores4 said:I noticed that Edward Flores4 was touching on something pretty profound there—it’s one of those ideas that really makes you stop and think for a second. It reminds me a bit of how we approach psychology in the States, where we're always trying to peel back those layers of the subconscious to see what's actually driving our behavior. When you look at it through the lens of Jung's theories, everything starts to connect in this much deeper, almost architectural way. It isn't just about surface-level reactions; it's about the foundation underneath. I've always felt like understanding these patterns is a bit like trying to map out an old, winding city—you might think you know the layout, but then you turn a corner and realize there's an entire neighborhood you never even knew existed. It takes patience and a lot of deliberate reflection, but man, is it worth it when the pieces finally click into place.

Honestly, nobody worth their salt is going to respect someone who relies on discriminatory rhetoric or just runs away from an actual argument. If that doesn't bother someone, then it’s pretty obvious—and I mean really obvious—that their goal wasn't actually to have a meaningful conversation in the first place. I don't need some official badge or a title to point this out; all I need is a little bit of basic logic. Look, if you actually want to engage in a debate, but instead you spend your time obstructing the flow and dodging questions or withholding solid arguments, anyone else who is genuinely interested in a real discussion is going to side with me, hands down. At the end of the day, this isn't about representing some specific group or identity—it’s simply a matter of logic and what your underlying motives are. 😉

Do you see what I was getting at with that whole "ladder" analogy now?

No, look—my categorization here is strictly a byproduct of you refusing to actually clarify your statement or back up your arguments. You’re essentially forcing my hand, pushing me to cut you out of this conversation despite the fact that I’ve made repeated efforts to avoid doing exactly that. That conclusion you're reaching? You’re the one who imposed it through your own selective way of handling the dialogue. I have absolutely nothing to do with it. 🙂

Look, making a choice doesn't have to be synonymous with discrimination—it really isn't. It’s just about deciding what fits best in the moment. Besides, I’d much rather just grab a coffee and chat with you about something else entirely anyway.😉

Think about it this way—when you’re picking between, say, five different candidates for a job, you aren't just looking at them all equally. You’re actually filtering through the group—effectively weeding out four of them—so that the "chosen" one is simply the only person you *didn't* dismiss. It’s the same logic when you sit down with a book. Your eyes hit the paper, but you’re constantly ignoring the vast amount of white space and ink patterns to "select" only those specific characters that your brain recognizes as words. That selective process is what actually allows you to read. Or even simpler: if you’re staring at a ceramic vase on a table, you aren't seeing everything in the room—you’re instinctively filtering out the empty space around it just to focus on the vase itself. Selection, at its core, is just a fancy word for what we choose to ignore.

The human mind doesn't really perceive things in a vacuum—it works almost exclusively through "contrastive comparisons." It’s all about relativity. We don't just see "big"; we see that *this* is bigger than *that*. We don't just sense "hard"; we feel that *this* is tougher than *that*. This whole discriminative nature of how we process reality has been a known factor in psychology for ages. In fact, that's exactly why most psychological assessments rely on those simple "like or dislike" frameworks. That's where you get the concepts of dominant versus repressed traits, which eventually leads us to the classic distinction between introverts and extroverts. All of this serves as the bedrock for Jung's personality typology, which maps out those 16 different character orientations. It’s actually a remarkably robust system—so much so that it isn't just confined to clinical psychology. You see it being applied everywhere from career coaching and corporate team management to customer profiling and even criminal forensics. It’s funny, because based on the very principles behind this testing, Jung actually developed the device most people know as the polygraph—or, as it’s more popularly called, the lie detector.

Look, I’m sorry if I drifted a bit off-topic there—I really didn't mean to, but I genuinely feel like you've missed the mark on this one, and I want to walk you through my reasoning. I’m not looking for a fight or trying to get into some heated back-and-forth with you; honestly, if I can just lay it out clearly and help you see where I'm coming from, we’ll both have used our time a lot more effectively than if we just spent it bickering.

By the way, if you realize someone in your social circle just isn't your vibe, do you find yourself constantly trying to force a conversation even when they clearly aren't feeling it either?

We aren't a group of people physically hanging out in the same room. Everyone comes here specifically to talk—and since it’s all through typing, it’s pretty counterintuitive (if not totally illogical) to expect people to show up if they don't actually want to engage. After all, there’s nothing else to do on a forum besides communicate.

I'm sure you get where I'm coming from, because it seems pretty self-evident to me. You probably haven't given it much thought—which is fair—but it could lead to some misconceptions, making it seem like you can be part of a forum without actually participating.

black and white, machinery, poor and hollow.....

I honestly don't follow that haiku at all... I guess you need me to break everything down for you in plain English.

I understand you....

Of course I get where you're coming from—I’m speaking your language here, which is why I’m approaching this from your specific point of view. I mean, what would be the point in me trying to reach you if I wasn't using a perspective that actually makes sense to you? 😁

Anyway... I'm just glad we finally managed to see eye to eye. And hey, even if we didn't quite hit the mark this time... there will definitely be plenty of other chances for us to get on the same page. 😉

silentcyclist3 said:I'm vetting the people I'll be talking to. Is that weird?
The reality is that these kinds of PDFs—stuff about spirituality, mysticism, and all that—deal with human experiences that just don't fit into a strictly scientific framework. If everything could be measured by science, I guess there wouldn't be much point in even talking about it. You’d just use mathematical logic to reach a conclusion and be done with it.
But I don't think this is really something you can just solve with math. It's not quite like that.
If you're looking for a definition, you won't find one. It just doesn't exist, I guess.
I guess there are plenty of people who just can't accept it. Their minds are constantly hunting for a definition. I suppose they're just used to trying to rationalize everything in their lives.
I see an issue here. Without acknowledging the experiential, spiritual, and intuitive side of things, I don't think a real conversation can even happen. That part of the story is often completely ignored in this PDF. To be honest, that kind of exclusion is one of the main criteria I use when deciding whether or not to engage with someone.

Then what would be the point of talking to everyone?

Forcing that "everyone talks to everyone" approach feels like a violation. Some people can spend hours talking and end up with nothing but wasted energy and frayed nerves. Others might talk for an hour and feel completely satisfied—they might even end up meeting up in person if they connected on a forum first. I guess it just doesn't work for everyone.

Look, if someone really enjoys spitting venom, mocking others, and being insulting, they can go ahead and waste their time that way. It’s entirely their choice, I guess. It has nothing to do with me.

What was my goal in starting this thread? I guess. Maybe just to get things moving.
Maybe I just wanted to shift the focus away from those seeking peace through spirituality. Instead, I wanted to look at how we react when talking to people. It happens so often. People snap way too quickly when they try to "prove" their beliefs to someone else. The result is just a contradiction of self. They end up doing the exact opposite of what they actually believe—if they even believe anything at all, I guess.

I suppose you could say spiritualists are just people who take one single slice of life and mistake it for the whole truth.

Honestly, let them snap. Let them do whatever they want. If someone doesn't want to talk to someone else, then don't talk to them! Period. And acting contrary to your own proclaimed "beliefs"? That just proves you never really had them to begin with. Maybe you had them once and lost them, or maybe they were always a lie. Besides, why is changing your mind such a big deal? People shift their convictions every single day, whether they're willing to admit it or not.😁

silentcyclist3 said:I'm vetting the people I'll be talking to. Is that weird?
The reality is that these kinds of PDFs—stuff about spirituality, mysticism, and all that—deal with human experiences that just don't fit into a strictly scientific framework. If everything could be measured by science, I guess there wouldn't be much point in even talking about it. You’d just use mathematical logic to reach a conclusion and be done with it.
But I don't think this is really something you can just solve with math. It's not quite like that.
If you're looking for a definition, you won't find one. It just doesn't exist, I guess.
I guess there are plenty of people who just can't accept it. Their minds are constantly hunting for a definition. I suppose they're just used to trying to rationalize everything in their lives.
I see an issue here. Without acknowledging the experiential, spiritual, and intuitive side of things, I don't think a real conversation can even happen. That part of the story is often completely ignored in this PDF. To be honest, that kind of exclusion is one of the main criteria I use when deciding whether or not to engage with someone.

Then what would be the point of talking to everyone?

Forcing that "everyone talks to everyone" approach feels like a violation. Some people can spend hours talking and end up with nothing but wasted energy and frayed nerves. Others might talk for an hour and feel completely satisfied—they might even end up meeting up in person if they connected on a forum first. I guess it just doesn't work for everyone.

Look, if someone really enjoys spitting venom, mocking others, and being insulting, they can go ahead and waste their time that way. It’s entirely their choice, I guess. It has nothing to do with me.

What was my goal in starting this thread? I guess. Maybe just to get things moving.
Maybe I just wanted to shift the focus away from those seeking peace through spirituality. Instead, I wanted to look at how we react when talking to people. It happens so often. People snap way too quickly when they try to "prove" their beliefs to someone else. The result is just a contradiction of self. They end up doing the exact opposite of what they actually believe—if they even believe anything at all, I guess.

I suppose you could say spiritualists are just people who take one single slice of life and mistake it for the whole truth.

Now, this part is actually interesting. The whole phrase "higher aspects of life" is incredibly vague. Plus, it seems to me that any "higher aspect" shouldn't involve the kind of exclusivity being described here as "the only possible version of the truth."

Personally, I think there's only one truth: personal truth. Someone can find it anywhere, even in something as mundane as a head of cabbage. What I'm getting at is that the "spiritual realm" isn't some separate thing floating above life—it *is* life. As humans, we are part of this entire living system, which makes us spiritual beings by default. So, the only true sphere of spirituality is life itself. Everything about it, even the most basic, gritty, everyday stuff.😉

granitecyclist41 said:Honestly, let them snap. Let them do whatever they want. If someone doesn't want to talk to someone else, then don't talk to them! Period. And acting contrary to your own proclaimed "beliefs"? That just proves you never really had them to begin with. Maybe you had them once and lost them, or maybe they were always a lie. Besides, why is changing your mind such a big deal? People shift their convictions every single day, whether they're willing to admit it or not.😁

Now, this part is actually interesting. The whole phrase "higher aspects of life" is incredibly vague. Plus, it seems to me that any "higher aspect" shouldn't involve the kind of exclusivity being described here as "the only possible version of the truth."

Personally, I think there's only one truth: personal truth. Someone can find it anywhere, even in something as mundane as a head of cabbage. What I'm getting at is that the "spiritual realm" isn't some separate thing floating above life—it *is* life. As humans, we are part of this entire living system, which makes us spiritual beings by default. So, the only true sphere of spirituality is life itself. Everything about it, even the most basic, gritty, everyday stuff.😉

I am talking about more aspects, not higher aspects.🙂

I suppose my view is that truth is both personal and transcendent.
If we were to go deep enough into ourselves, I think we would eventually start to emerge from ourselves.

feralhound55 said:How about this: 😉

I actually did something—it just slipped past you and silentcyclist3... Someone already used the magic word: expectations... Here's one more 🙂 just so there's no misunderstanding...

Unfortunately, your grasp of maturity and criticism cannot be clarified by this post.

silentcyclist3 said:I am talking about more aspects, not higher aspects.🙂

I suppose my view is that truth is both personal and transcendent.
If we were to go deep enough into ourselves, I think we would eventually start to emerge from ourselves.

My bad!🙂

mistybison said:Just so you know! 😁 I haven't visited this section in quite a while, and I am genuinely surprised by what I see. People are starting threads about drugs and digging up ancient discussions from years ago—posts written by users who left this community ages ago. Back then, the forum felt more intimate, and there wasn't nearly as much need for the heavy-handed moderation we deal with today. In the past, debates centered on different spiritual paths, but now people just argue for the sake of arguing, with absolutely zero spirituality to be found in their posts.😁

ontheedge is right: this forum has become twisted, and we true spiritual seekers🙂 😁, must distance ourselves from this Sodom and Gomorrah.🧐

It is exactly the same in the real world; the only difference is that in reality, we conduct ourselves with culture and velvet gloves, whereas here, it is nothing more than an open fighting ring.😁

jademarlin26 said:Unfortunately, your grasp of maturity and criticism cannot be clarified by this post.

You were looking for a smiley—sorry, I guess we're just used to all those long-winded speeches that don't actually say anything... so I get why my brevity isn't cutting it for you. I definitely wasn't cut out for a career in politics.

feralhound55 said:From what I’ve noticed, every single thread is filled with the same archetypes—the theorists, the ones peddling "expert" advice, the genuine supporters, those who *think* they're brilliant, and then there are the trolls who just spit on everything without making a single actual point. You’d think spirituality and psychology circles would have fewer of those bottom-feeders, but somehow, they actually have more.

At the end of the day, everyone has the freedom to read what they want, ignore what they don't, reply to whoever they feel like, and stay silent when they don't—and we should probably extend that same courtesy to everyone else.

Look, maybe I’m just being a bit thick here, but let me try to translate what you actually said into plain English. When Ronin asked you to clarify that one point of yours—and we can circle back to her specific comment in a second—your response was basically this: you told him that unlike most people who just ramble on without ever making a point (kind of like those politicians we see on the news all the time), you prefer to use fewer words that actually carry some weight. In other words, you were essentially telling Ronin that he’s just too slow to grasp your simple, concise way of speaking.

So far, so good! Now, let's dive into the heart of this whole disagreement by taking a hard look at that bit of condensed wisdom—the kind that, frankly, silly Ronin just doesn't seem to grasp. To be honest, it caught me off guard too, but I’m really grateful you were kind enough to share it with us.

So, here’s a bit of that wisdom you were looking for—just as it was originally intended:

feralhound55 said:@jademarlin26: The OP should probably weigh in on that. My take? It’s because there's an expectation that people reading those PDFs have actually matured—so they won't "sink" to the level of nitpicking or those "infantile outbursts" Quote said, as per Ravih. Apparently, these "spiritual gurus" are expected to have conquered their egos by now.

The part I've highlighted in bold is the only bit that’s actually up for debate—everything else is just circling back to what was said earlier in the thread, specifically that post by silentcyclist3, which honestly doesn't change the core issue we're looking at here.

So, if I’m reading you correctly, your main takeaway is that "mature adults" shouldn't be expected to sink down to the level of constant nitpicking and those kinds of childish outbursts. The rest of what you said just circles back to the setting—that whole "PDF spirituality" landscape we've been discussing. Based on that, here is how I interpret your point:

So, you’re basically equating being critical with those "infantile outbursts," and then grouping it all under the umbrella of "immature" behavior. In other words—if I'm following your logic correctly—you're suggesting that a "mature adult" shouldn't really be critical at all, because you've tied being critical directly to being childish. It's like saying if someone starts questioning things, they've just regressed into a toddler tantrum.

I’ve noticed a few times now how Ronin keeps trying to dig for more clarity on that one point you made—you know, trying to get you to expand on your reasoning—but you just won't budge. You stay firm in your stance that, unlike the rest of us—who seem to be stuck in this cycle of being overly critical or maybe just a bit too analytical for our own good—you’re staying strictly non-critical, mature, and, most importantly, keeping things brief and to the point, which is a far cry from the way politicians love to ramble on forever.

It’s honestly wild to me how some people actually frame being critical as a sign of "immaturity"—as if having an analytical mind is somehow a developmental flaw. By that twisted logic, I guess you have to assume that someone lacking basic cognitive function is the pinnacle of maturity. But let’s look at the actual science here for a second. What makes someone truly incapable of critical thought isn't just a personality quirk; it’s often a literal dysfunction of the prefrontal cortex—that area sitting right behind those bumps on your forehead. That part of the brain exists for one primary reason: to run "mental simulations." It’s our internal laboratory where we perform critical thinking, weigh the consequences of our actions, predict outcomes based on what we've learned, and handle long-term planning. Every single one of those functions is inherently critical by design. They exist solely to allow us to run a sort of mental filter—a discriminatory process—so we can sift through all the noise and pick the path that actually makes sense after it has passed the "criticality test." Without that ability to evaluate, you aren't being "mature," you're just operating on autopilot.

If you’ve spent all this time convincing yourself that being critical is just some sign of immaturity—that having an analytical mind is basically a "childish phase" you need to outgrow alongside your sense of wonder—then honestly, you're doing yourself a massive disservice. It’s a strange way to look at things. To me, it feels like you're essentially choosing to bypass your own cognitive tools. Think about it this way: people with certain neurological impairments lack the capacity to perform deep, critical analysis or make complex selections. You, on the other hand, actually possess those abilities—you have the mental hardware to dissect an idea or spot a flaw—but by refusing to use them, you're effectively leveling yourself down to that same functional baseline. It's like owning a high-end MacBook but using it exclusively as a paperweight; you still have the power, but you're choosing to live as if the processing speed doesn't exist.

When you really sit back and chew on it—it’s actually pretty terrifying—because you end up stuck in this loop of "circular reasoning" that just feeds itself. It works like this: if someone tries to walk you through the actual facts using logic, common sense, and solid arguments—basically using all those critical thinking muscles we're supposed to have—your immediate reflex is to label them as "immature" or "childish" simply because they're being critical. And honestly? That reaction just serves to lock your own bias even tighter in place.

Still, I have to say, thanks for that perfect little demonstration of how a "mature" person acts when they've supposedly conquered their ego to become "spiritual." Out of all the calculated, forced attempts people make to define what spirituality actually looks like, this spontaneous little outburst of yours managed to capture the essence better than any textbook definition ever could.

Thanks for listening.

silentcyclist3 said:I'm vetting the people I'll be talking to. Is that weird?
The reality is that these kinds of PDFs—stuff about spirituality, mysticism, and all that—deal with human experiences that just don't fit into a strictly scientific framework. If everything could be measured by science, I guess there wouldn't be much point in even talking about it. You’d just use mathematical logic to reach a conclusion and be done with it.
But I don't think this is really something you can just solve with math. It's not quite like that.
If you're looking for a definition, you won't find one. It just doesn't exist, I guess.
I guess there are plenty of people who just can't accept it. Their minds are constantly hunting for a definition. I suppose they're just used to trying to rationalize everything in their lives.
I see an issue here. Without acknowledging the experiential, spiritual, and intuitive side of things, I don't think a real conversation can even happen. That part of the story is often completely ignored in this PDF. To be honest, that kind of exclusion is one of the main criteria I use when deciding whether or not to engage with someone.

Then what would be the point of talking to everyone?

Forcing that "everyone talks to everyone" approach feels like a violation. Some people can spend hours talking and end up with nothing but wasted energy and frayed nerves. Others might talk for an hour and feel completely satisfied—they might even end up meeting up in person if they connected on a forum first. I guess it just doesn't work for everyone.

Look, if someone really enjoys spitting venom, mocking others, and being insulting, they can go ahead and waste their time that way. It’s entirely their choice, I guess. It has nothing to do with me.

What was my goal in starting this thread? I guess. Maybe just to get things moving.
Maybe I just wanted to shift the focus away from those seeking peace through spirituality. Instead, I wanted to look at how we react when talking to people. It happens so often. People snap way too quickly when they try to "prove" their beliefs to someone else. The result is just a contradiction of self. They end up doing the exact opposite of what they actually believe—if they even believe anything at all, I guess.

I suppose you could say spiritualists are just people who take one single slice of life and mistake it for the whole truth.

Well said, silentcyclist3. Truly well put.
Communication based solely on analytical or mathematical logic would only work if we possessed every existing fact—meaning, if ignorance didn't exist. And if that were the case, I suspect communication itself wouldn't even be necessary. This type of communication, which excludes the "intuitive," is actually quite regressive—it’s infantile. It attempts to build a complete picture from fragments, assuming those parts represent the whole. Even though facts support it, they are incomplete without the missing pieces that one must grasp intuitively. Even modern psychology has become sensitive to this; in its attempt to define such understanding, it reaches for tangible concepts—like emotional or social intelligence—just to justify the process, though it still hasn't found a way to express it mathematically... assuming there's even a measurable unit for it.

briskraven28 said:Well said, silentcyclist3. Truly well put.
Communication based solely on analytical or mathematical logic would only work if we possessed every existing fact—meaning, if ignorance didn't exist. And if that were the case, I suspect communication itself wouldn't even be necessary. This type of communication, which excludes the "intuitive," is actually quite regressive—it’s infantile. It attempts to build a complete picture from fragments, assuming those parts represent the whole. Even though facts support it, they are incomplete without the missing pieces that one must grasp intuitively. Even modern psychology has become sensitive to this; in its attempt to define such understanding, it reaches for tangible concepts—like emotional or social intelligence—just to justify the process, though it still hasn't found a way to express it mathematically... assuming there's even a measurable unit for it.

Yeah, regarding psychology as a science—it honestly starts to feel a bit absurd, seeing how people obsessively invent names and definitions for every minor deviation from some supposed "standard."
And there's this other thing, which is maybe more interesting: the fanaticism of people who cling to tiny slivers of data from scientific studies and try to turn those crumbs into a full banquet.
The issue is, after such a feast, they always end up hungry again. So they just keep repeating the same cycle indefinitely.
I suspect any truly intelligent researcher would be much more cautious about drawing the kinds of sweeping conclusions our "internet scientists" toss around so freely.
But, like I mentioned before, the goal here doesn't seem to be actual thinking. It's more about "correcting" others and engaging in a sort of demagoguery that ultimately just feeds someone's ego while embarrassing those who look up to them.

I often think of those old Hollywood movies set in ancient times, where you'd see crowds of "preachers" shouting their wisdom in public squares. They think being louder makes them more right, but most people just walk right past them, completely ignoring the noise.

Edward Flores4 said:Look, maybe I’m just being a bit thick here, but let me try to translate what you actually said into plain English. When Ronin asked you to clarify that one point of yours—and we can circle back to her specific comment in a second—your response was basically this: you told him that unlike most people who just ramble on without ever making a point (kind of like those politicians we see on the news all the time), you prefer to use fewer words that actually carry some weight. In other words, you were essentially telling Ronin that he’s just too slow to grasp your simple, concise way of speaking.

So far, so good! Now, let's dive into the heart of this whole disagreement by taking a hard look at that bit of condensed wisdom—the kind that, frankly, silly Ronin just doesn't seem to grasp. To be honest, it caught me off guard too, but I’m really grateful you were kind enough to share it with us.

So, here’s a bit of that wisdom you were looking for—just as it was originally intended:

The part I've highlighted in bold is the only bit that’s actually up for debate—everything else is just circling back to what was said earlier in the thread, specifically that post by silentcyclist3, which honestly doesn't change the core issue we're looking at here.

So, if I’m reading you correctly, your main takeaway is that "mature adults" shouldn't be expected to sink down to the level of constant nitpicking and those kinds of childish outbursts. The rest of what you said just circles back to the setting—that whole "PDF spirituality" landscape we've been discussing. Based on that, here is how I interpret your point:

So, you’re basically equating being critical with those "infantile outbursts," and then grouping it all under the umbrella of "immature" behavior. In other words—if I'm following your logic correctly—you're suggesting that a "mature adult" shouldn't really be critical at all, because you've tied being critical directly to being childish. It's like saying if someone starts questioning things, they've just regressed into a toddler tantrum.

I’ve noticed a few times now how Ronin keeps trying to dig for more clarity on that one point you made—you know, trying to get you to expand on your reasoning—but you just won't budge. You stay firm in your stance that, unlike the rest of us—who seem to be stuck in this cycle of being overly critical or maybe just a bit too analytical for our own good—you’re staying strictly non-critical, mature, and, most importantly, keeping things brief and to the point, which is a far cry from the way politicians love to ramble on forever.

It’s honestly wild to me how some people actually frame being critical as a sign of "immaturity"—as if having an analytical mind is somehow a developmental flaw. By that twisted logic, I guess you have to assume that someone lacking basic cognitive function is the pinnacle of maturity. But let’s look at the actual science here for a second. What makes someone truly incapable of critical thought isn't just a personality quirk; it’s often a literal dysfunction of the prefrontal cortex—that area sitting right behind those bumps on your forehead. That part of the brain exists for one primary reason: to run "mental simulations." It’s our internal laboratory where we perform critical thinking, weigh the consequences of our actions, predict outcomes based on what we've learned, and handle long-term planning. Every single one of those functions is inherently critical by design. They exist solely to allow us to run a sort of mental filter—a discriminatory process—so we can sift through all the noise and pick the path that actually makes sense after it has passed the "criticality test." Without that ability to evaluate, you aren't being "mature," you're just operating on autopilot.

If you’ve spent all this time convincing yourself that being critical is just some sign of immaturity—that having an analytical mind is basically a "childish phase" you need to outgrow alongside your sense of wonder—then honestly, you're doing yourself a massive disservice. It’s a strange way to look at things. To me, it feels like you're essentially choosing to bypass your own cognitive tools. Think about it this way: people with certain neurological impairments lack the capacity to perform deep, critical analysis or make complex selections. You, on the other hand, actually possess those abilities—you have the mental hardware to dissect an idea or spot a flaw—but by refusing to use them, you're effectively leveling yourself down to that same functional baseline. It's like owning a high-end MacBook but using it exclusively as a paperweight; you still have the power, but you're choosing to live as if the processing speed doesn't exist.

When you really sit back and chew on it—it’s actually pretty terrifying—because you end up stuck in this loop of "circular reasoning" that just feeds itself. It works like this: if someone tries to walk you through the actual facts using logic, common sense, and solid arguments—basically using all those critical thinking muscles we're supposed to have—your immediate reflex is to label them as "immature" or "childish" simply because they're being critical. And honestly? That reaction just serves to lock your own bias even tighter in place.

Still, I have to say, thanks for that perfect little demonstration of how a "mature" person acts when they've supposedly conquered their ego to become "spiritual." Out of all the calculated, forced attempts people make to define what spirituality actually looks like, this spontaneous little outburst of yours managed to capture the essence better than any textbook definition ever could.

Thanks for listening.

😲

you've become a risk to your own health. 😁

It makes me think of an old acquaintance I used to grab drinks with. He was just a regular guy, we played in a band together, used to hang out... nothing serious.
About 15 years passed—maybe even more—and we ran into each other by chance and decided to meet up. It was supposed to be a relaxed, low-key drink at a local pub. But once he started using all this "expert" jargon to theorize about everything under the sun, it wasn't just awkward for me; people at the next table actually started turning around and laughing.
He couldn't help himself, either. He made sure to mention several times how much people at his job tell him what a genius he is.
I don't think I'll be grabbing a beer with him again. 😁

silentcyclist3 said:Yeah, regarding psychology as a science—it honestly starts to feel a bit absurd, seeing how people obsessively invent names and definitions for every minor deviation from some supposed "standard."
And there's this other thing, which is maybe more interesting: the fanaticism of people who cling to tiny slivers of data from scientific studies and try to turn those crumbs into a full banquet.
The issue is, after such a feast, they always end up hungry again. So they just keep repeating the same cycle indefinitely.
I suspect any truly intelligent researcher would be much more cautious about drawing the kinds of sweeping conclusions our "internet scientists" toss around so freely.
But, like I mentioned before, the goal here doesn't seem to be actual thinking. It's more about "correcting" others and engaging in a sort of demagoguery that ultimately just feeds someone's ego while embarrassing those who look up to them.

I often think of those old Hollywood movies set in ancient times, where you'd see crowds of "preachers" shouting their wisdom in public squares. They think being louder makes them more right, but most people just walk right past them, completely ignoring the noise.

This post should probably be pinned to every thread as a paradigm of common communication errors—especially that bolded section.😁
Sometimes depth overrides breadth, and instead of complementing one another, ideas merely clash. What other reasons do you see for getting stuck in these communication dead ends—of which there are many on this platform—beyond the demagoguery you mentioned? And what, in your view, drives this need for "corrections" by these self-appointed experts? 😁

briskraven28 said:This post should probably be pinned to every thread as a paradigm of common communication errors—especially that bolded section.😁
Sometimes depth overrides breadth, and instead of complementing one another, ideas merely clash. What other reasons do you see for getting stuck in these communication dead ends—of which there are many on this platform—beyond the demagoguery you mentioned? And what, in your view, drives this need for "corrections" by these self-appointed experts? 😁

The reasons for such behavior?

- fear of isolation: if forced to pick a side, people usually go with the consensus because there's strength in numbers. Nobody wants to be an outcast.

- fear of the unknown: a person will always choose a familiar situation regardless of how bad it is. People try to avoid the unknown by any means necessary.

- upbringing: the systematic crushing of a child's spirit just because of "what the neighbors might think."

- inclinations and talents: it seems obvious that people are born with certain leanings toward different skills. Not everyone is receptive to all levels of awareness or ability. Some people are tied to the ground, to stability, to logic; any sort of irrational adventure feels like losing their footing, which leads to a very uncomfortable sense of fear.
Because of that, some will gravitate toward jobs involving mechanics, machinery, or finance—anything requiring "exact" results—while others will pursue communication, art, or anything requiring improvisation and creative freedom.

experience: we all had our own preconceptions about how life works when we were kids, feeling certain our view was perfectly logical.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, things change. Our youthful logic gets dismantled by experience.
Of course, there are many types of experience, varying levels.
"Chasing The dragon"—catch the essence, the meaning, and the origin of experience. Mostly, we are passive, waiting for circumstances to force us to learn.
For some, that force comes often; for others, it comes rarely and over much longer intervals.

shortcuts: humans will always look for the quickest path to happiness. There’s nothing wrong with realizing that the most common shortcuts are actually the longest routes. The human organism depends on cycles and psycho-biological changes.
Simply put, there are times when you can handle certain things because your mind and body allow it, just as there are times when you won't succeed no matter how hard you try.

balance: in this massive macro-organism, there must be equilibrium.
- there must be those who destroy just as much as those who create.
Something as perfect as the world around us can only persist if there is a balance between creation and destruction.
That fact is painful until it is realized.
Maybe that explains why there are always at least two sides; one cannot exist without the other.

What I'm saying is a universal truth, much like the truth that the group here will likely crucify me just for bringing it up! 😁

I suppose... what's left to discuss?

silentcyclist3 said:The reasons for such behavior?

- fear of isolation: if forced to pick a side, people usually go with the consensus because there's strength in numbers. Nobody wants to be an outcast.

- fear of the unknown: a person will always choose a familiar situation regardless of how bad it is. People try to avoid the unknown by any means necessary.

- upbringing: the systematic crushing of a child's spirit just because of "what the neighbors might think."

- inclinations and talents: it seems obvious that people are born with certain leanings toward different skills. Not everyone is receptive to all levels of awareness or ability. Some people are tied to the ground, to stability, to logic; any sort of irrational adventure feels like losing their footing, which leads to a very uncomfortable sense of fear.
Because of that, some will gravitate toward jobs involving mechanics, machinery, or finance—anything requiring "exact" results—while others will pursue communication, art, or anything requiring improvisation and creative freedom.

experience: we all had our own preconceptions about how life works when we were kids, feeling certain our view was perfectly logical.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, things change. Our youthful logic gets dismantled by experience.
Of course, there are many types of experience, varying levels.
"Chasing The dragon"—catch the essence, the meaning, and the origin of experience. Mostly, we are passive, waiting for circumstances to force us to learn.
For some, that force comes often; for others, it comes rarely and over much longer intervals.

shortcuts: humans will always look for the quickest path to happiness. There’s nothing wrong with realizing that the most common shortcuts are actually the longest routes. The human organism depends on cycles and psycho-biological changes.
Simply put, there are times when you can handle certain things because your mind and body allow it, just as there are times when you won't succeed no matter how hard you try.

balance: in this massive macro-organism, there must be equilibrium.
- there must be those who destroy just as much as those who create.
Something as perfect as the world around us can only persist if there is a balance between creation and destruction.
That fact is painful until it is realized.
Maybe that explains why there are always at least two sides; one cannot exist without the other.

What I'm saying is a universal truth, much like the truth that the group here will likely crucify me just for bringing it up! 😁

I suppose... what's left to discuss?

Egocentrism—we are all essentially self-absorbed, everything else is just nuance...😁
If communication starts from a need to prove oneself or persuade others—and if both sides feel that way—then there is no actual exchange happening; people are simply hunting for validation of their own "worth."

The motivation behind why we communicate is largely baked into those elements you listed. For instance, if someone initiates contact out of a fear of loneliness or the unknown, conflict can arise because they want connection, yet their fear might prevent them from venturing into unfamiliar territory—or even talking to unfamiliar people. In spiritual circles, this is almost glaringly obvious... you see the formation of cliques—keeping "like-minded" people together—where everyone clings to their own little "dogmas," which reflects both that desire for connection (or fear of isolation) and the fear of the unknown.
After all, once you think you've found something "valuable," you feel compelled to scatter it everywhere—all while failing to realize you're just reciting empty sentences that have lost their meaning even to yourself...

Then there are our established criteria—though I would categorize that as the upbringing and experiences through which we build our filters for viewing the world. I’d call it a "grid"—thinking through a "grid"—because it takes significant effort to step back from that conditioning to consider that others are looking through entirely different "grids"... and to actually grasp a perspective born from a different framework. Ideally, we would all be free from these "grids," but as I said, that requires work...
One such grid is certainly "morality"—which is likely why you claim the "crowd will crucify you" when you try to equate creation and destruction on a single scale.

Btw, what exactly do you mean by this "childlike spirit"?
What prerequisites, in your view, are necessary for communication that actually results in an exchange and mutual enrichment—aside from perhaps this spontaneity?

silentcyclist3 said:😲

you've become a risk to your own health. 😁

It makes me think of an old acquaintance I used to grab drinks with. He was just a regular guy, we played in a band together, used to hang out... nothing serious.
About 15 years passed—maybe even more—and we ran into each other by chance and decided to meet up. It was supposed to be a relaxed, low-key drink at a local pub. But once he started using all this "expert" jargon to theorize about everything under the sun, it wasn't just awkward for me; people at the next table actually started turning around and laughing.
He couldn't help himself, either. He made sure to mention several times how much people at his job tell him what a genius he is.
I don't think I'll be grabbing a beer with him again. 😁

First off, you claim you're just being selective about who you talk to... but let's be real—that only happens when you actually have an argument to make. When it comes to throwing out provocations, suddenly you aren't being picky anymore; anyone will do, even the people you supposedly "didn't choose" for a serious discussion. 😁

That’s a pretty interesting way to frame it... or should I say, a really terrible excuse for dodging the actual point. 🙄

Thank God for this magic tool that explains exactly what we were trying to say... and for those American translations—since apparently, not everyone on this forum understands plain English and needs things translated back into their own dialect so they can finally grasp them. It’s always fascinating how someone can squeeze so much "wisdom" out of just a few sentences. Honestly, you should be a psychoanalyst if you aren't one already. 👍

Since you're clearly such an oracle, I'm curious why you can't tell the difference between being critical and just being a jerk (which, in my case, is just trashing people out of pure ego). If my refusal to spit on anyone who disagrees with me puts me in the category of the mentally incompetent, then fine—I'll happily take my place in that drawer.

Thanks for all the effort you put into overanalyzing my posts—it's impressive how you managed to project so much onto my five or six measly sentences.

As for Ronin, if he ever actually asks for an explanation, I'll give him one. I don't feel particularly obligated to explain myself to people who didn't ask. And if you happen to find a single post where I actually called the guy stupid, please, let the moderators kick me off the forum. You're the only one here using that tone, yet somehow, you're the one calling it stupid.