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

Edward Flores4 said: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. 🙄

silentcyclist3 said:Nice 🙂
have you written any poetry in that kind of vein?
Were the strawberries good?

slydriver17 said:I haven't. I assume they were. Wild berries are usually delicious, though I suppose that depends entirely on the palate and the brain of whoever is processing them. But then again, considering how my own brain was functioning this morning...🙂

briskraven28 said: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:It’s only natural that a person prioritizes their own happiness.
If the need for happiness doesn't find those little treasure chests, then unfulfillment sets in, followed by insecurity, and eventually, a fear of "poverty."
Fear is a massive, merciless tyrant. It won't let you just lounge on a beach in the shade of a palm tree. It forces you to move.
How do you recognize someone with fear breathing down their neck?
They scream so everyone can hear them. And any time someone turns their back, they feel it like salt in a wound. "Egocentrism."

I don't think change itself requires effort. We don't make changes because we expect the struggle of facing fear during the process; we don't do it because we expect "effort."
I’ve done plenty of stupid, hedonistic things in my life where I put in a huge amount of energy, and I didn't feel any "effort." Yet, for certain immediate decisions I used to run away from, I felt a massive amount of "effort."
We define "effort" ourselves, so we can just change the definition when it becomes necessary.
Whether we are capable of changing that definition again depends on the factors I mentioned in my previous post.

What I meant was that I’ll get crucified because I’m claiming everything I wrote is a universal truth. 🙂

Childlike spirit. A child doesn't look at the world with such a heavy dose of criticism. They don't judge based on repeated, unhappy experiences—experiences that are usually caused by the person themselves—because a child hasn't had the chance to build those kinds of patterns yet.
Children—and maybe others too—have a more direct connection to their surroundings. I guess they often notice things adults just miss.
There is also this instinctive drive in a child to develop their own virtues, though that drive gets stifled by what parents need. If you apply that to the adult world, people suppress their own virtues because of societal demands, mostly out of a fear of being alone.

The prerequisites for communication...

As my esteemed colleague Edward Flores4 mentioned, discrimination.
Given the circumstances I laid out in my previous post, I don't think it's possible to assume everyone has the same level of experience, or anything else for that matter.
Trying to bridge two different levels is like trying to crossbreed a chicken and a horse and then expecting this strange new creature to happily run around a field. 😁
Similarities—whether we realize it or not—attract one another. It seems deeply embedded in the nature of everything we see. The same principle applies to differences.
We all act accordingly. However, someone, perhaps inspired by some non-existent idea of absolute freedom, tries to force that chicken-horse combination, thinking they might discover something "the world hasn't seen" just to finally grab some attention.
Selection (which could be called DISCRIMINATION if you're being malicious) is a result of natural principles. If we recognize this, maybe we can communicate calmly and build a shared house, floor by floor.

Fear—that massive, merciless tyrant—refuses to let anyone enjoy a quiet nap under a palm tree on some sunny beach... It forces you into motion instead.
How does one spot someone who can practically feel fear breathing down their neck...?
On... Screaming... Let them all hear him. Every slight feels like salt in an open wound to this man—pure egocentrism...

I don't believe change requires much effort... if one thinks about it.

I expect to be crucified for claiming that everything I’ve written constitutes universal truth... 🙂

A child's spirit—it lacks that heavy dose of cynicism we all carry. They don't view the world through a lens of constant judgment... mostly because they haven't lived long enough to accumulate the failures that adults usually inflict upon themselves.

As my esteemed colleague Edward Flores4 puts it... Discrimination—an old story, really... though one would hope we'd have moved past such trivialities by now..
Given the circumstances I laid out previously—it’s simply unrealistic to assume everyone is operating from the same level of experience... or any other relevant baseline.
Attempting to merge two different tiers is like trying to crossbreed a chicken with a horse—and then expecting this bizarre new creature to go happily frolicking through a meadow... 😁
Similarities attract—whether we care to admit it or not—and that principle is woven into the very fabric of everything around us. The same logic applies to our differences...
We all follow the rules. And yet, someone—inspired by this mythical notion of absolute freedom—decides to try mixing chickens and horses just to see if they can uncover something the "rest of the world hasn't seen"... all in a desperate bid for attention...
Selection—if you want to call it "discrimination" for the sake of drama—is simply a consequence of natural principles. If we can just acknowledge that reality, perhaps we can actually communicate and build this house together... one floor at a time.

silentcyclist3 said:haha... I wonder which processor we're talking about here. Is it an Intel or an AMD? 🙂

briskraven28 said:I agree, but where exactly does one person's "pursuit of happiness" end and the infringement upon someone else begin? That was my point regarding egocentrism... Some people live entirely for themselves without a shred of guilt, while others—driven by their conscience—will pass up opportunities just to stay true to their principles. Then there are those who act against their own morals and suffer for it. When I brought up egocentrism, I wasn't talking about self-actualization—rather, I meant one's capacity for tolerance toward difference. It's about whether a person can step outside their own narrow "bubble" to grasp a perspective unlike their own. Why should they have to? Because, quite simply, we aren't destined to only interact with those who make life easy...

Fear—that massive, merciless tyrant—refuses to let anyone enjoy a quiet nap under a palm tree on some sunny beach... It forces you into motion instead.
How does one spot someone who can practically feel fear breathing down their neck...?
On... Screaming... Let them all hear him. Every slight feels like salt in an open wound to this man—pure egocentrism...

Here... I wrote a few brief thoughts on fear—just to ensure I'm not simply repeating myself...

I don't believe change requires much effort... if one thinks about it.

Well, I am glad you mentioned that... 😁 It’s easy to play the part when things seem to fall into place by "destiny"—even if an outsider thinks you're breaking a sweat... one doesn't truly feel the exertion when they're doing what they love, regardless of how much energy is actually spent.
Once again—we find ourselves forced to tackle tasks that we dislike, which in turn dislike us... making every single movement feel like an uphill battle.
That leads directly to this discrimination—or rather, that selection process you mentioned...

I expect to be crucified for claiming that everything I’ve written constitutes universal truth... 🙂

aaaaaa—and what exactly constitutes a universal truth?...

A child's spirit—it lacks that heavy dose of cynicism we all carry. They don't view the world through a lens of constant judgment... mostly because they haven't lived long enough to accumulate the failures that adults usually inflict upon themselves.

My parents used to tell me I was an incredibly exhausting child—mostly because there was no end to my constant questioning—which, as you can clearly see...😁
And then they looked at me like I was the crazy one—and honestly, I felt exactly the same way about them...

As my esteemed colleague Edward Flores4 puts it... Discrimination—an old story, really... though one would hope we'd have moved past such trivialities by now..
Given the circumstances I laid out previously—it’s simply unrealistic to assume everyone is operating from the same level of experience... or any other relevant baseline.
Attempting to merge two different tiers is like trying to crossbreed a chicken with a horse—and then expecting this bizarre new creature to go happily frolicking through a meadow... 😁
Similarities attract—whether we care to admit it or not—and that principle is woven into the very fabric of everything around us. The same logic applies to our differences...
We all follow the rules. And yet, someone—inspired by this mythical notion of absolute freedom—decides to try mixing chickens and horses just to see if they can uncover something the "rest of the world hasn't seen"... all in a desperate bid for attention...
Selection—if you want to call it "discrimination" for the sake of drama—is simply a consequence of natural principles. If we can just acknowledge that reality, perhaps we can actually communicate and build this house together... one floor at a time.

I agree. Then again, we aren't lucky enough to only do what we love—or only talk to people we actually "click" with—but also have to deal with those where the conversation just doesn't flow... So, what’s your take? Does tolerance for different perspectives actually grow when we're tested by people we don't mesh with, or does it just lead to mutual frustration?

briskraven28 said:I agree, but where exactly does one person's "pursuit of happiness" end and the infringement upon someone else begin? That was my point regarding egocentrism... Some people live entirely for themselves without a shred of guilt, while others—driven by their conscience—will pass up opportunities just to stay true to their principles. Then there are those who act against their own morals and suffer for it. When I brought up egocentrism, I wasn't talking about self-actualization—rather, I meant one's capacity for tolerance toward difference. It's about whether a person can step outside their own narrow "bubble" to grasp a perspective unlike their own. Why should they have to? Because, quite simply, we aren't destined to only interact with those who make life easy...

Fear—that massive, merciless tyrant—refuses to let anyone enjoy a quiet nap under a palm tree on some sunny beach... It forces you into motion instead.
How does one spot someone who can practically feel fear breathing down their neck...?
On... Screaming... Let them all hear him. Every slight feels like salt in an open wound to this man—pure egocentrism...

Here... I wrote a few brief thoughts on fear—just to ensure I'm not simply repeating myself...

I don't believe change requires much effort... if one thinks about it.

Well, I am glad you mentioned that... 😁 It’s easy to play the part when things seem to fall into place by "destiny"—even if an outsider thinks you're breaking a sweat... one doesn't truly feel the exertion when they're doing what they love, regardless of how much energy is actually spent.
Once again—we find ourselves forced to tackle tasks that we dislike, which in turn dislike us... making every single movement feel like an uphill battle.
That leads directly to this discrimination—or rather, that selection process you mentioned...

I expect to be crucified for claiming that everything I’ve written constitutes universal truth... 🙂

aaaaaa—and what exactly constitutes a universal truth?...

A child's spirit—it lacks that heavy dose of cynicism we all carry. They don't view the world through a lens of constant judgment... mostly because they haven't lived long enough to accumulate the failures that adults usually inflict upon themselves.

My parents used to tell me I was an incredibly exhausting child—mostly because there was no end to my constant questioning—which, as you can clearly see...😁
And then they looked at me like I was the crazy one—and honestly, I felt exactly the same way about them...

As my esteemed colleague Edward Flores4 puts it... Discrimination—an old story, really... though one would hope we'd have moved past such trivialities by now..
Given the circumstances I laid out previously—it’s simply unrealistic to assume everyone is operating from the same level of experience... or any other relevant baseline.
Attempting to merge two different tiers is like trying to crossbreed a chicken with a horse—and then expecting this bizarre new creature to go happily frolicking through a meadow... 😁
Similarities attract—whether we care to admit it or not—and that principle is woven into the very fabric of everything around us. The same logic applies to our differences...
We all follow the rules. And yet, someone—inspired by this mythical notion of absolute freedom—decides to try mixing chickens and horses just to see if they can uncover something the "rest of the world hasn't seen"... all in a desperate bid for attention...
Selection—if you want to call it "discrimination" for the sake of drama—is simply a consequence of natural principles. If we can just acknowledge that reality, perhaps we can actually communicate and build this house together... one floor at a time.

I agree. Then again, we aren't lucky enough to only do what we love—or only talk to people we actually "click" with—but also have to deal with those where the conversation just doesn't flow... So, what’s your take? Does tolerance for different perspectives actually grow when we're tested by people we don't mesh with, or does it just lead to mutual frustration?

briskraven28 said:I agree, but where exactly does one person's "pursuit of happiness" end and the infringement upon someone else begin? That was my point regarding egocentrism... Some people live entirely for themselves without a shred of guilt, while others—driven by their conscience—will pass up opportunities just to stay true to their principles. Then there are those who act against their own morals and suffer for it. When I brought up egocentrism, I wasn't talking about self-actualization—rather, I meant one's capacity for tolerance toward difference. It's about whether a person can step outside their own narrow "bubble" to grasp a perspective unlike their own. Why should they have to? Because, quite simply, we aren't destined to only interact with those who make life easy...

Fear—that massive, merciless tyrant—refuses to let anyone enjoy a quiet nap under a palm tree on some sunny beach... It forces you into motion instead.
How does one spot someone who can practically feel fear breathing down their neck...?
On... Screaming... Let them all hear him. Every slight feels like salt in an open wound to this man—pure egocentrism...

Here... I wrote a few brief thoughts on fear—just to ensure I'm not simply repeating myself...

I don't believe change requires much effort... if one thinks about it.

Well, I am glad you mentioned that... 😁 It’s easy to play the part when things seem to fall into place by "destiny"—even if an outsider thinks you're breaking a sweat... one doesn't truly feel the exertion when they're doing what they love, regardless of how much energy is actually spent.
Once again—we find ourselves forced to tackle tasks that we dislike, which in turn dislike us... making every single movement feel like an uphill battle.
That leads directly to this discrimination—or rather, that selection process you mentioned...

I expect to be crucified for claiming that everything I’ve written constitutes universal truth... 🙂

aaaaaa—and what exactly constitutes a universal truth?...

A child's spirit—it lacks that heavy dose of cynicism we all carry. They don't view the world through a lens of constant judgment... mostly because they haven't lived long enough to accumulate the failures that adults usually inflict upon themselves.

My parents used to tell me I was an incredibly exhausting child—mostly because there was no end to my constant questioning—which, as you can clearly see...😁
And then they looked at me like I was the crazy one—and honestly, I felt exactly the same way about them...

As my esteemed colleague Edward Flores4 puts it... Discrimination—an old story, really... though one would hope we'd have moved past such trivialities by now..
Given the circumstances I laid out previously—it’s simply unrealistic to assume everyone is operating from the same level of experience... or any other relevant baseline.
Attempting to merge two different tiers is like trying to crossbreed a chicken with a horse—and then expecting this bizarre new creature to go happily frolicking through a meadow... 😁
Similarities attract—whether we care to admit it or not—and that principle is woven into the very fabric of everything around us. The same logic applies to our differences...
We all follow the rules. And yet, someone—inspired by this mythical notion of absolute freedom—decides to try mixing chickens and horses just to see if they can uncover something the "rest of the world hasn't seen"... all in a desperate bid for attention...
Selection—if you want to call it "discrimination" for the sake of drama—is simply a consequence of natural principles. If we can just acknowledge that reality, perhaps we can actually communicate and build this house together... one floor at a time.

I agree. Then again, we aren't lucky enough to only do what we love—or only talk to people we actually "click" with—but also have to deal with those where the conversation just doesn't flow... So, what’s your take? Does tolerance for different perspectives actually grow when we're tested by people we don't mesh with, or does it just lead to mutual frustration?

silentcyclist3 said:Here is how I see it:

People keep diving into these spiritual and psychological topics. Some just do it to stir the pot, mostly because they get a kick out of provoking people who think they’re smarter than everyone else—people who claim to see things others supposedly miss.

-Then there are those searching for a kindred spirit, someone to speak their "spiritual language," just so they can feel validated while arguing with everyone else.

-And we have these self-proclaimed "spiritualists" and "scientists" who basically spend their entire lives theorizing until it reaches a point of absurdity... it honestly becomes embarrassing for them.

I get the ones who make it obvious they're just here for the attention, using vulgarity to trigger reactions. But I don't quite understand the ones who present themselves as being so level-headed, only to immediately discredit themselves by engaging in cheap bickering with "their own kind" or anyone on the "other side."

Is it possible to imagine a scenario where people discussing spirituality would simply ignore those trying to grab attention through infantile outbursts?
Would that say something about the maturity of that group?

Maybe these "spiritualists" are just stuck in this loop of fighting with "us" versus "them" because it feels more exciting than actually caring about other people's experiences.

What does the "Spirituality" PDF actually represent?

wanderingscout13 said:If you ask me, everything you’re saying holds water—even those attempts to "psychoanalyze" the people on this forum. But here’s the thing: just because 2 + 2 = 4, does that really mean we’ve unlocked every secret in the universe? Not even close!
I want to tell you that while what you're writing might be true, it's only a fragment of the whole picture. You can never, ever underestimate people. It reminds me of a time back when I was serving in the military (under the old administration). I was stationed with this kid from Washington, D.C., who desperately wanted to study electrical engineering but failed his entrance exam. A few months passed, and then one night, he told me he was going to dedicate an hour every single evening to studying so he could ace the exam next year. Knowing him—and considering how terrible our living conditions were for actual studying—I honestly didn't believe him. But he did it. Every single night, for over six months. He eventually pulled the necessary strings, made it to Washington, D.C., and passed that exam! Now, you might think that's where the story ends and he goes off to become an engineer. Sadly, it wasn't so simple. Just one week before classes were set to start, he was killed in a car accident.

That is why we have to be so careful with these kinds of judgments. Just when we feel most certain that things are exactly as we imagined them, life proves they are something else entirely.

silentcyclist3 said:It always comes down to your relationship with yourself. I guess once you sort that out, you start to actually understand other people—you see their motives and why they act the way they do. Maybe it just makes everything clearer.
So, if you need to talk, you should probably know how to handle that—knowing what to say and how to actually say it to people. I guess the issue is that people only start picking fights when they don't understand the situation. That’s really where we run into trouble.

😁
There are certain rules to life that apply to everyone. They don't care about how we perceive them. They are fixed. I guess if you realize this and act accordingly, you make things easier for yourself. Any attempt to fight against them... well, maybe it's just like tilting at windmills.

😁
It looks like you've decided to commit to this forced coexistence with people who aren't exactly welcome. I guess.
Maybe you should ask yourself why certain people seem so "unapproachable" to you in the first place.

Tolerance.
I'm a bit uneasy about what that term actually means. I guess I'm just worried about the implications.
Who are we to even think we have the right to decide what to tolerate or what not to? I guess. Maybe we just don't.
Are we like gods who let our creations slip up sometimes, thinking, "Alright kid, I don't love what you did, but I'm a good person, so I'll overlook it this once"?
Tolerance can be a ticking time bomb. Staying stuck in a state of misunderstanding just waits for a trigger to turn everything into an open conflict.

I guess a high degree of tolerance isn't really a virtue. Maybe it just shows how often you end up in situations where you fail to understand the people around you.

To answer your last question:
Yes, unfortunately, our tolerance seems to be shifting in different directions.

There are certain rules to life that apply to everyone—regardless of how one chooses to perceive them. They are immutable. If you remain aware of them and act accordingly, life becomes significantly easier; any attempt to fight against them is merely... tilting at windmills.

I see you have decided to embrace a forced coexistence with certain "undesirable" individuals... quite the choice.
Perhaps you should consider why certain people are deemed "unacceptable" for communication in the first place...

Tolerance... a concept far too rare for most.
I am somewhat uncertain about the implications of that particular term...
Who exactly are we to decide what should be tolerated and what shouldn't... if we even have that authority to begin with?

Are we essentially playing God—allowing our creations to stumble, only to step in and say, "Look, I'm not thrilled with that choice, but since I'm feeling merciful, I'll let it slide this once"...?

Tolerance is essentially a ticking time bomb—lingering at the threshold of misunderstanding until you hit the trigger that turns everything into an open conflict.

A high degree of tolerance isn't actually a virtue—it just indicates how often you find yourself in situations where you fail to understand others.

briskraven28 said:I follow your logic—mostly—and I agree with much of it, though I’m trying to dig a bit deeper into the nuance here... Understanding someone's motives doesn't necessarily mean you won't clash with them. Consider a hypothetical scenario: suppose you have a child, and heaven forbid they become a target for some predator. You might attempt to analyze why such things happen, but would you really allow yourself to remain "non-confrontational" in a situation like that?

There are certain rules to life that apply to everyone—regardless of how one chooses to perceive them. They are immutable. If you remain aware of them and act accordingly, life becomes significantly easier; any attempt to fight against them is merely... tilting at windmills.

If that’s your take—are you suggesting that in the previous scenario, you were merely tilting at windmills? Even if you were... perhaps that is simply your calling. Someone has to step up, otherwise those windmills would spread across the entire globe—leaving us to wonder what becomes of that balancing act you mentioned... Things are a bit more nuanced than that, I suppose.

I see you have decided to embrace a forced coexistence with certain "undesirable" individuals... quite the choice.
Perhaps you should consider why certain people are deemed "unacceptable" for communication in the first place...

It isn't that I find anyone difficult to talk to—not even Edward Flores4—it’s just that I lack the will—and frankly, the time—to deal with his aggressive, projective tendencies... I am simply questioning you.😁

Tolerance... a concept far too rare for most.
I am somewhat uncertain about the implications of that particular term...
Who exactly are we to decide what should be tolerated and what shouldn't... if we even have that authority to begin with?

I am not discussing tolerance in the sense you seem to imply—it feels more like you're advocating for a certain type of moral policing, which isn't my aim. There is a distinction between judging someone and simply refusing to permit their actions... In this hypothetical scenario involving a pedophile, I might not sit in judgment of him, but I certainly won't be complicit in his behavior. That is the crux of the matter...

Are we essentially playing God—allowing our creations to stumble, only to step in and say, "Look, I'm not thrilled with that choice, but since I'm feeling merciful, I'll let it slide this once"...?

Well, that would be passing judgment...

Tolerance is essentially a ticking time bomb—lingering at the threshold of misunderstanding until you hit the trigger that turns everything into an open conflict.

So, in this hypothetical scenario involving a predator—would an open conflict be better or worse than simply allowing it (in your opinion, naturally)?

A high degree of tolerance isn't actually a virtue—it just indicates how often you find yourself in situations where you fail to understand others.

There—perhaps I’ve clarified things slightly better now; tolerance (or permission) and understanding are two distinct variables... which, depending on the specific case, may diverge or overlap.

feralhound55 said: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.

silentcyclist3 said:Sorry, I just couldn't help myself after seeing how much you've twisted what she said in just a few sentences.
Creativity: 5/5! 😁

I'm quite impressed by how much you care about jademarlin26.🙂

jademarlin26 said:Regardless of Edward Flores4's defense of "me," which was unnecessary, it was clear I shouldn't bother bothering you with explanations; if you didn't catch my point the first time, perhaps you aren't meant to. I read somewhere else that your choice of phrasing was quite peculiar, so I thought we should just move on. It's trivial.

Let's proceed without fear or jealousy. After all, those peddling illusions remain my primary concern.

jademarlin26 said:Regardless of Edward Flores4's defense of "me," which was unnecessary, it was clear I shouldn't bother bothering you with explanations; if you didn't catch my point the first time, perhaps you aren't meant to. I read somewhere else that your choice of phrasing was quite peculiar, so I thought we should just move on. It's trivial.

Let's proceed without fear or jealousy. After all, those peddling illusions remain my primary concern.

Edward Flores4 said:Look, I hate being the one to kill the vibe and derail the drama here, but I didn't say anything "on behalf of anyone." I brought you two (jademarlin26 and silentcyclist3) into this strictly because you were part of the communication chain—basically, you were the ones who asked a perfectly valid question and received an absolutely brain-dead response in return.

Bringing up "advocacy" is just a cheap tactic to dodge a legitimate point; it’s an attempt to shift the spotlight away from the actual issue at hand.

To be honest, that insinuation caught me a little off guard, too—mostly because I'm not actually defending anyone here (which would be what advocacy implies), I'm just calling out the author of those nonsensical statements.

Everything I said was strictly from my own perspective. I'm just fed up with how often this community fails to call out blatant stupidity—like when someone claims that "critical thinking" is just a sign of "immaturity" or straight-up "infantilism."

It was entirely predictable that people making those kinds of claims would feel the need to rationalize my approach. When people refuse to offer an explanation, it's usually because they don't have an argument to begin with. I just feel this nagging obligation to point out the elephant in the room, especially when everyone else is pretending they don't see it.

So much for all that promised heart from the "lawyers" whose services nobody asked for—least of all the people they're supposedly representing. 😁

silentcyclist3 said:ha, ha, ha... you little troublemaker! 😁

Your example regarding the predator describes situations where you have to defend the very foundations of human dignity, which are vital for our survival as a society. In those moments, an innate instinct takes over, and it doesn't necessarily have to be linked to our level of consciousness or understanding. It's how animals react to protect their offspring. There isn't much need for philosophy there.
Of course, defending oneself and taking the necessary steps to resolve such a situation is one thing, but calling for the death penalty for some pathetic soul who has no clue what they are doing is quite another.

Yes, you're right about tilting at windmills. It's just a fact of life that we spend our lives trying to align ourselves with those windmills. No one is going to find a perfect way during their lifetime.
Finding a perfect path for this life on Earth isn't the goal; it's just the method by which we search for the path.

Balance means understanding our own flaws, not running from them, but becoming aware of them in accordance with what we've intuitively realized.
Similarly, it involves acting to defend the foundations of human dignity, which is perfectly in sync with the windmills rather than against them (that applies to the predator example).

I don't really see a massive difference between judging and not allowing something.
Not allowing something in a legal sense implies a judgment, which results in a punishment.
Legal condemnation stems from non-permission.
Even when laws haven't been written yet, people don't hesitate to use whatever means necessary to make it known that they won't permit certain things.

And that's the icing on the cake!😁
Of course, understanding and tolerance aren't the same thing. Tolerance is really just about endurance. Understanding, though... that's more about acceptance. It’s about grasping why a situation exists based on the circumstances and conditions that created it.
When tolerance and understanding overlap, I guess tolerance loses its purpose. At that point, the subject becomes exactly what it has to be. We don't necessarily have to agree with it, but even if we don't, the question of whether or not we "allow" it becomes pointless.
I mean, there are certain situations where you simply can't just permit something. But those cases are pretty obvious. Like, jumping out of a plane without a parachute is obviously going to result in death. I suppose there are exceptions, though. 😁

Your example regarding a pedophile refers to those moments where one must defend the very foundations of human dignity—things essential to our survival as a species. In such instances, an innate instinct takes over... an instinct that doesn't necessarily require conscious thought or rationalization. It's how animals react when protecting their offspring.

Yes, that is exactly what you mean about tilting at windmills. The reality is that we spend our entire lives trying to align ourselves with the wind. No one will ever find the perfect way during their lifetime.
Finding the ideal path in this life isn't the purpose itself, but rather the method by which we search for a path.

I don't see much difference between judging and disallowing.
To disallow in a legislative sense means sentencing—or punishment.
Legal condemnation is the direct result of disallowing.

When tolerance and understanding overlap, tolerance loses its meaning because the subject becomes exactly what it can only ever be.

Of course, understanding and tolerance are two entirely different animals. Tolerance is merely about endurance—putting up with something—whereas understanding involves true acceptance and grasping the context and circumstances that led to a situation in the first place.

Meaning, there are moments where refusal is necessary—situations that are quite obvious, much like how jumping out of a plane without a parachute results in certain death.

briskraven28 said:🙂

Your example regarding a pedophile refers to those moments where one must defend the very foundations of human dignity—things essential to our survival as a species. In such instances, an innate instinct takes over... an instinct that doesn't necessarily require conscious thought or rationalization. It's how animals react when protecting their offspring.

Ha, you read my mind. I was just thinking about escalating the examples, starting with that extreme case of the pedophile—but clearly, your "innate instinct" won't stop me from doing just that! 😁
Fine, then here is an instance where "innate instinct" is irrelevant: consider, for example, a Dr. Smith who "treats" his patients with prohibited substances in private practice. It doesn't affect you or your family, yet would you simply "allow" it? Of course, you understand him—you grasp his conviction in the "correctness" of his actions—but my God, even that pedophile from the first extreme example likely doesn't believe he is doing anything "wrong."

Yes, that is exactly what you mean about tilting at windmills. The reality is that we spend our entire lives trying to align ourselves with the wind. No one will ever find the perfect way during their lifetime.
Finding the ideal path in this life isn't the purpose itself, but rather the method by which we search for a path.

A path toward what... toward which goal?

I don't see much difference between judging and disallowing.
To disallow in a legislative sense means sentencing—or punishment.
Legal condemnation is the direct result of disallowing.

So, do you believe things would function better if there were no prohibitions?
You anarchist!😁

When tolerance and understanding overlap, tolerance loses its meaning because the subject becomes exactly what it can only ever be.

Very well.

Of course, understanding and tolerance are two entirely different animals. Tolerance is merely about endurance—putting up with something—whereas understanding involves true acceptance and grasping the context and circumstances that led to a situation in the first place.

In my view, tolerance often stems from being detached from the issue itself. That is why I draw such a sharp line between understanding and mere tolerance... Tolerance doesn't require comprehension; it’s more of a pre-packaged attitude toward life and its various occurrences.
Understanding implies acceptance—though even "refusal" can stem from understanding, at least in the world we find ourselves in today.
Or do you honestly believe this current state of affairs is ideal?

Meaning, there are moments where refusal is necessary—situations that are quite obvious, much like how jumping out of a plane without a parachute results in certain death.

Every situation is unique, making it difficult to predict outcomes beforehand... and without looking at the specifics—which would be generalizing, after all—it is impossible to determine what the right move would be.

briskraven28 said:🙂

Your example regarding a pedophile refers to those moments where one must defend the very foundations of human dignity—things essential to our survival as a species. In such instances, an innate instinct takes over... an instinct that doesn't necessarily require conscious thought or rationalization. It's how animals react when protecting their offspring.

Ha, you read my mind. I was just thinking about escalating the examples, starting with that extreme case of the pedophile—but clearly, your "innate instinct" won't stop me from doing just that! 😁
Fine, then here is an instance where "innate instinct" is irrelevant: consider, for example, a Dr. Smith who "treats" his patients with prohibited substances in private practice. It doesn't affect you or your family, yet would you simply "allow" it? Of course, you understand him—you grasp his conviction in the "correctness" of his actions—but my God, even that pedophile from the first extreme example likely doesn't believe he is doing anything "wrong."

Yes, that is exactly what you mean about tilting at windmills. The reality is that we spend our entire lives trying to align ourselves with the wind. No one will ever find the perfect way during their lifetime.
Finding the ideal path in this life isn't the purpose itself, but rather the method by which we search for a path.

A path toward what... toward which goal?

I don't see much difference between judging and disallowing.
To disallow in a legislative sense means sentencing—or punishment.
Legal condemnation is the direct result of disallowing.

So, do you believe things would function better if there were no prohibitions?
You anarchist!😁

When tolerance and understanding overlap, tolerance loses its meaning because the subject becomes exactly what it can only ever be.

Very well.

Of course, understanding and tolerance are two entirely different animals. Tolerance is merely about endurance—putting up with something—whereas understanding involves true acceptance and grasping the context and circumstances that led to a situation in the first place.

In my view, tolerance often stems from being detached from the issue itself. That is why I draw such a sharp line between understanding and mere tolerance... Tolerance doesn't require comprehension; it’s more of a pre-packaged attitude toward life and its various occurrences.
Understanding implies acceptance—though even "refusal" can stem from understanding, at least in the world we find ourselves in today.
Or do you honestly believe this current state of affairs is ideal?

Meaning, there are moments where refusal is necessary—situations that are quite obvious, much like how jumping out of a plane without a parachute results in certain death.

Every situation is unique, making it difficult to predict outcomes beforehand... and without looking at the specifics—which would be generalizing, after all—it is impossible to determine what the right move would be.

briskraven28 said:🙂

Your example regarding a pedophile refers to those moments where one must defend the very foundations of human dignity—things essential to our survival as a species. In such instances, an innate instinct takes over... an instinct that doesn't necessarily require conscious thought or rationalization. It's how animals react when protecting their offspring.

Ha, you read my mind. I was just thinking about escalating the examples, starting with that extreme case of the pedophile—but clearly, your "innate instinct" won't stop me from doing just that! 😁
Fine, then here is an instance where "innate instinct" is irrelevant: consider, for example, a Dr. Smith who "treats" his patients with prohibited substances in private practice. It doesn't affect you or your family, yet would you simply "allow" it? Of course, you understand him—you grasp his conviction in the "correctness" of his actions—but my God, even that pedophile from the first extreme example likely doesn't believe he is doing anything "wrong."

Yes, that is exactly what you mean about tilting at windmills. The reality is that we spend our entire lives trying to align ourselves with the wind. No one will ever find the perfect way during their lifetime.
Finding the ideal path in this life isn't the purpose itself, but rather the method by which we search for a path.

A path toward what... toward which goal?

I don't see much difference between judging and disallowing.
To disallow in a legislative sense means sentencing—or punishment.
Legal condemnation is the direct result of disallowing.

So, do you believe things would function better if there were no prohibitions?
You anarchist!😁

When tolerance and understanding overlap, tolerance loses its meaning because the subject becomes exactly what it can only ever be.

Very well.

Of course, understanding and tolerance are two entirely different animals. Tolerance is merely about endurance—putting up with something—whereas understanding involves true acceptance and grasping the context and circumstances that led to a situation in the first place.

In my view, tolerance often stems from being detached from the issue itself. That is why I draw such a sharp line between understanding and mere tolerance... Tolerance doesn't require comprehension; it’s more of a pre-packaged attitude toward life and its various occurrences.
Understanding implies acceptance—though even "refusal" can stem from understanding, at least in the world we find ourselves in today.
Or do you honestly believe this current state of affairs is ideal?

Meaning, there are moments where refusal is necessary—situations that are quite obvious, much like how jumping out of a plane without a parachute results in certain death.

Every situation is unique, making it difficult to predict outcomes beforehand... and without looking at the specifics—which would be generalizing, after all—it is impossible to determine what the right move would be.

briskraven28 said:🙂

Your example regarding a pedophile refers to those moments where one must defend the very foundations of human dignity—things essential to our survival as a species. In such instances, an innate instinct takes over... an instinct that doesn't necessarily require conscious thought or rationalization. It's how animals react when protecting their offspring.

Ha, you read my mind. I was just thinking about escalating the examples, starting with that extreme case of the pedophile—but clearly, your "innate instinct" won't stop me from doing just that! 😁
Fine, then here is an instance where "innate instinct" is irrelevant: consider, for example, a Dr. Smith who "treats" his patients with prohibited substances in private practice. It doesn't affect you or your family, yet would you simply "allow" it? Of course, you understand him—you grasp his conviction in the "correctness" of his actions—but my God, even that pedophile from the first extreme example likely doesn't believe he is doing anything "wrong."

Yes, that is exactly what you mean about tilting at windmills. The reality is that we spend our entire lives trying to align ourselves with the wind. No one will ever find the perfect way during their lifetime.
Finding the ideal path in this life isn't the purpose itself, but rather the method by which we search for a path.

A path toward what... toward which goal?

I don't see much difference between judging and disallowing.
To disallow in a legislative sense means sentencing—or punishment.
Legal condemnation is the direct result of disallowing.

So, do you believe things would function better if there were no prohibitions?
You anarchist!😁

When tolerance and understanding overlap, tolerance loses its meaning because the subject becomes exactly what it can only ever be.

Very well.

Of course, understanding and tolerance are two entirely different animals. Tolerance is merely about endurance—putting up with something—whereas understanding involves true acceptance and grasping the context and circumstances that led to a situation in the first place.

In my view, tolerance often stems from being detached from the issue itself. That is why I draw such a sharp line between understanding and mere tolerance... Tolerance doesn't require comprehension; it’s more of a pre-packaged attitude toward life and its various occurrences.
Understanding implies acceptance—though even "refusal" can stem from understanding, at least in the world we find ourselves in today.
Or do you honestly believe this current state of affairs is ideal?

Meaning, there are moments where refusal is necessary—situations that are quite obvious, much like how jumping out of a plane without a parachute results in certain death.

Every situation is unique, making it difficult to predict outcomes beforehand... and without looking at the specifics—which would be generalizing, after all—it is impossible to determine what the right move would be.

briskraven28 said:🙂

Your example regarding a pedophile refers to those moments where one must defend the very foundations of human dignity—things essential to our survival as a species. In such instances, an innate instinct takes over... an instinct that doesn't necessarily require conscious thought or rationalization. It's how animals react when protecting their offspring.

Ha, you read my mind. I was just thinking about escalating the examples, starting with that extreme case of the pedophile—but clearly, your "innate instinct" won't stop me from doing just that! 😁
Fine, then here is an instance where "innate instinct" is irrelevant: consider, for example, a Dr. Smith who "treats" his patients with prohibited substances in private practice. It doesn't affect you or your family, yet would you simply "allow" it? Of course, you understand him—you grasp his conviction in the "correctness" of his actions—but my God, even that pedophile from the first extreme example likely doesn't believe he is doing anything "wrong."

Yes, that is exactly what you mean about tilting at windmills. The reality is that we spend our entire lives trying to align ourselves with the wind. No one will ever find the perfect way during their lifetime.
Finding the ideal path in this life isn't the purpose itself, but rather the method by which we search for a path.

A path toward what... toward which goal?

I don't see much difference between judging and disallowing.
To disallow in a legislative sense means sentencing—or punishment.
Legal condemnation is the direct result of disallowing.

So, do you believe things would function better if there were no prohibitions?
You anarchist!😁

When tolerance and understanding overlap, tolerance loses its meaning because the subject becomes exactly what it can only ever be.

Very well.

Of course, understanding and tolerance are two entirely different animals. Tolerance is merely about endurance—putting up with something—whereas understanding involves true acceptance and grasping the context and circumstances that led to a situation in the first place.

In my view, tolerance often stems from being detached from the issue itself. That is why I draw such a sharp line between understanding and mere tolerance... Tolerance doesn't require comprehension; it’s more of a pre-packaged attitude toward life and its various occurrences.
Understanding implies acceptance—though even "refusal" can stem from understanding, at least in the world we find ourselves in today.
Or do you honestly believe this current state of affairs is ideal?

Meaning, there are moments where refusal is necessary—situations that are quite obvious, much like how jumping out of a plane without a parachute results in certain death.

Every situation is unique, making it difficult to predict outcomes beforehand... and without looking at the specifics—which would be generalizing, after all—it is impossible to determine what the right move would be.

Brian Foster3 said:I'll keep this short.

Everything we do is ultimately for ourselves. We never actually step outside our own egos; we're just selfish, plain and simple, and there’s no way to just grab hold of ourselves and somehow "rise above" that inherent selfishness. Even all this talk about "spirituality" on these forums is just another manifestation of an egoistic craving to be spiritual. Honestly, wanting to be spiritual is probably the most sophisticated, highly developed form of egoism there is.

True spirituality is anything that exists entirely outside the ego. Which means it's completely out of our reach and inaccessible to us. All we ever get are these tiny, fleeting glimpses through momentary flashes of love.

To truly *be* love—to put others before yourself and love them as much as you love yourself—that is the only actual spirituality. That's it. Period. But none of us are capable of it, and let's be real, none of us even want to do it. We just want to satisfy our own damn selves.