New Age spirituality: Can it actually save the planet?

Jacob Jackson50 said:Care to drop some actual examples of this "criminality"? It sounds like you're just trying to spook everyone here to drum up engagement. If you actually know something that we all need to be aware of, please, by all means, share it with the group. Let's all stay out of the underworld, shall we?

placidjackal36 said:

I don't know if anyone else is picking up on this, but there’s something about the way people talk about the Middle East lately that just feels off. It’s like we’re looking at the whole region through a distorted lens, trying to force complex, ancient geopolitical shifts into these neat little boxes that just don't fit. It reminds me of how people try to explain the complexities of the US banking system by pointing to one single interest rate hike—it’s a massive oversimplification of a much deeper, messier reality. You can't just look at one piece of the puzzle and claim you understand the entire picture. We need to stop looking for easy answers to problems that have been brewing for decades. kaže:
I find it hard to believe anyone actually hates you; it’s more likely they’re just incredibly frustrated by how you handle things. It feels like a clash of styles rather than genuine animosity. That got me thinking, though—have you ever run into something in your own life that you just couldn't wrap a scientific explanation around? Something that felt completely nonsensical or defied all logic from a purely rational standpoint?

I honestly believe this, mostly because I spend enough time scrolling through my inbox to see the patterns. My approach is just neutral and direct, which seems to rub people the wrong way. It’s because they don't want to be challenged; they're too busy clinging to their own dogmas like a security blanket. That's their thing—it's their little coping mechanism for happiness. But when you try to shake them out of it, they react exactly like a stray cat when a stranger tries to get too close to its kittens. Hissing and defensive.

Let them twist my words if they want. Honestly, just dropping a link to the full post is enough to shut them right up. It’s wild how some people walk around puffing their chests out, acting all enlightened, when all they’ve really done is pick up a few shallow buzzwords from some cheap paperback. They aren't awake; they're basically in a state of hibernation. The second you hit them with an actual fact, they start squirming like those weird plants in Harry Potter and scream, "WE are being oppressed !!!"

So, here’s the thing—this happens to me all the time. I’ll find myself thinking about someone specific, only to have them call me out of the blue or run into me later. It feels like a pattern, but honestly, it’s probably just standard statistical distribution, at least in my experience. You might think I’m full of it, but I actually made a point to track these moments. I tried to document as many instances as possible to see if there was an actual anomaly happening, and it turns out there wasn't. What you're describing is basically selective memory. When we aren't consciously focusing on it, our brains run this little mechanism that ends up skewing our judgment. It’s a very specific phenomenon, and it's actually pretty common in geriatric medicine. In some cases, it gets extreme.

Can you actually read someone’s mind—or at least figure out what they’re thinking and feeling—just by watching their body language or how they look at you? And more importantly, could you pin down my entire personality type based on just one or two short posts?

It’s wild how much happens behind the scenes before you even realize you’ve formed an opinion. Think about it: your eyes are constantly flooding your brain with a massive stream of data, but your conscious mind only catches the tip of the iceberg. It's just a tiny fraction of what's actually happening. Your brain takes that entire ocean of subconscious information—everything it’s ever stored, every subtle cue, every glance—and processes it all in the background. By the time you actually "think" something, the heavy lifting is already done. The brain just serves up a finished product to your awareness. Honestly, that organ is pretty fascinating.
Based on just one or two short posts from you, I couldn't really pin down what "type" of person you are, but the more I read, the clearer the picture becomes in my head. Of course, that doesn't mean the picture is actually true. A mental image is just the result of whatever managed to pass through your brain's internal censorship onto the web, combined with how my own brain processes those specific bits of info and spits them back out at you.
People can be drastically misread. But sometimes, you hit the nail on the head. It’s all about timing.

those are all hallmarks of seeing the "big picture" and tapping into "wavelengths"—basically, intuition.
without it, neither Tesla nor Einstein would have ever stumbled upon their breakthroughs.
and Bohr and Heisenberg talked extensively about this kind of thing...
what Einstein achieved in physics, Jung achieved in psychology.
humans can perceive things through four distinct channels.
sensory input (feeling) paired with its complement, intuition,
logic and its complement, emotion.
you need to develop them all in parallel. When the intellect hits a wall, intuition steps in; when you miss something obvious, intuition jumps the gap. Jung made a great point... that while children mostly rely on their intellect during development, they really ought to work on their feelings too. And vice versa.

But there's a catch. The problem is that the intellectual side is measurable via IQ. The other three aren't easily quantified, so mainstream science tends to ignore them. But they exist, damn it!

imagination is more important than knowledge!

Exactly! Like I’ve mentioned before, there is so much happening deep within the brain that we only experience a tiny fraction of it in our conscious awareness. Since everyone seems to be obsessed with Star Trek lately, think of it like the entire crew working behind the scenes on a starship compared to the limited data popping up on a single interface. A massive amount of processing happens in the background, and only a small slice bubbles up to the surface. That’s exactly how inventions happen. You see something, it triggers a cascade of information processing in your head, and suddenly a useful result surfaces in your consciousness.
Intuition works on that exact same principle. That's why you should never brush it off. It is a legitimate product of our biology and it carries real information. You have to approach it and analyze it rather than tossing it aside as junk—because it isn't junk.
So, it’s not quite accurate to say psychology doesn't align with intuition...

placidjackal36 said:Actually, he's nowhere near that. What you just described is the most basic essence of pantheism, and honestly, that way of thinking doesn't even square with what humanity knows about the cosmos. Einstein thought along similar lines. Sort of.
But what Simon is getting at is way beyond that.

Well, in a way, it's just a search for meaning. If you look at it as a branch of philosophy—once you strip away all those other branches dealing with world structures, ethics, or politics—it's almost like a philosophically inclined faith.
But a lot of the stuff being churned out on this forum isn't even that; it's just plain old superstition, or sometimes even straight-up scams.

placidjackal36 said:Drug abuse, insurance fraud, screwing over patients—there's plenty of it out there. I could probably rattle off a dozen more, but honestly, I try not to get too deep into it. It’s better for my own peace of mind. 🙂

jademarlin26 said:

Morgan Hernandez5 As stated by:
In your estimation, what was the primary catalyst for the collapse of ancient civilizations?
In my view, those were nothing more than "natural disasters."

It is possible, though I can only speculate. One must account for shifts occurring over tens of thousands of years to identify true patterns in climate change, rather than focusing solely on the last century. Some people seem obsessed with the impact of aerosol sprays and internal combustion engines while they ponder humanity's footprint, all while dreaming up "eco-conscious" job titles that barely exist.

To call something a Sisyphus task simply means you hold expectations that you are certain will go unfulfilled. Such expectations—any expectations, really—act as an unnecessary drag, causing the entire eternity of the present moment to be lost in the noise of an internal monologue, leaving reality as nothing more than a faded idea.

And then people actually attempt to find facts to support such an idea, treating it as if it holds any real value.

Morgan Hernandez5 As requested:
To attempt to convince someone of a particular truth and forcibly pull them from their idealized state of mind would be inherently dishonest.
I am convinced that gentlemaker6, placidjackal36, you, and I actually share the same vision, albeit from different perspectives. This is ultimately an advantage, as it allows us to assemble a more complete picture.
Ultimately, this thread wouldn't even exist if it weren't for us.

Preconceptions prevent you from seeing the full picture—one that can never be captured through mere interpolation of our limited perspectives. As long as we rely on snapshots, what we perceive will always fall short of reality. To truly grasp existence, one must open their eyes, listen intently, and silence the internal biases that serve only to discriminate. The moment you settle on a fiction, you freeze the unstoppable flow of events we all inhabit. Any conclusions drawn from such static processing are worthless when applied to a world in constant flux. They are useless when applied to something living.

To quote another member: Analysis is paralysis.

If your goal is to exist within your own little vision, then by all means, continue working on yourself, pursuing spiritual growth, and playing those various games the ego likes to play with itself. 🙂

Angela Newman33 said:Knowledge without heart is dangerous
But passion without actual skill? That’s just hard to make work in the real world

When you finally marry the two, you get wisdom—and that’s really the only way you actually start hitting your stride and reaching your full potential

Let's be real: just hoarding a massive pile of data in your head without truly grasping how it all fits together—you know, seeing the big picture, understanding the "why" behind the "what," and spotting those cause-and-effect links—is pretty much useless. It’s just a collection of facts that doesn't hold much weight (other than maybe giving your ego a little boost), and honestly, it just creates this fake illusion of being smart

nimblemaker52 said:Science doesn't recognize dogma ☕

casualmaker13 said:And you're spreading more misinformation.
The biggest scam facing patients comes from these so-called scientists and our own medical establishment, which ends up killing millions of people every year through their drugs and treatments. They just can't bring themselves to admit they're powerless against certain diseases, so instead, they run experiments on people—lying to them about being cured while actually shortening their lives.
I mean, nobody else kills that many people in a single year, not even the most hardened criminals.

casualmaker13 said:And you're spreading more misinformation.
The biggest scam facing patients comes from these so-called scientists and our own medical establishment, which ends up killing millions of people every year through their drugs and treatments. They just can't bring themselves to admit they're powerless against certain diseases, so instead, they run experiments on people—lying to them about being cured while actually shortening their lives.
I mean, nobody else kills that many people in a single year, not even the most hardened criminals.

Morgan Hernandez5 said:I guess I have a feeling you already reacted by "default," because this forum is crawling with guys like you.

I agree with you that the exclusivity I used could be dangerous.
Generalizing isn't great. You gotta stay open to every combo and every bit of info. But... those convictions you're talking about usually belong to people with low IQs and/or an inability to trust their own gut. Saying to "shut off the mind" is just another useless generalization. Why even say that? Shouldn't we be aiming for total inner balance?
If that balance is there, then every judgment (conclusion) carries more weight, because it comes
from a place of being centered. Then there aren't different "paths" or interpretations anymore, just one—mine... which I have to find, obviously, while keeping my perceptions wide open so I can grasp the various "visions" offered and draw my own conclusion. It doesn't have to be yours, but it can change, because we're open to change and we have that balance guiding us forward.
The whole thing really boils down to the fact that we aren't all on the same level, due to different psychological functions and different starting points, so I don't think you should linger or turn around to try and correct someone else's vision. (What I'm doing right now is exactly me trying to correct your visions).
Do I even have the right to do that?
Anyway, that's enough about Sisyphus.

Morgan Hernandez5 said:I guess I have a feeling you already reacted by "default," because this forum is crawling with guys like you.

I agree with you that the exclusivity I used could be dangerous.
Generalizing isn't great. You gotta stay open to every combo and every bit of info. But... those convictions you're talking about usually belong to people with low IQs and/or an inability to trust their own gut. Saying to "shut off the mind" is just another useless generalization. Why even say that? Shouldn't we be aiming for total inner balance?
If that balance is there, then every judgment (conclusion) carries more weight, because it comes
from a place of being centered. Then there aren't different "paths" or interpretations anymore, just one—mine... which I have to find, obviously, while keeping my perceptions wide open so I can grasp the various "visions" offered and draw my own conclusion. It doesn't have to be yours, but it can change, because we're open to change and we have that balance guiding us forward.
The whole thing really boils down to the fact that we aren't all on the same level, due to different psychological functions and different starting points, so I don't think you should linger or turn around to try and correct someone else's vision. (What I'm doing right now is exactly me trying to correct your visions).
Do I even have the right to do that?
Anyway, that's enough about Sisyphus.

Morgan Hernandez5 said:I guess I have a feeling you already reacted by "default," because this forum is crawling with guys like you.

I agree with you that the exclusivity I used could be dangerous.
Generalizing isn't great. You gotta stay open to every combo and every bit of info. But... those convictions you're talking about usually belong to people with low IQs and/or an inability to trust their own gut. Saying to "shut off the mind" is just another useless generalization. Why even say that? Shouldn't we be aiming for total inner balance?
If that balance is there, then every judgment (conclusion) carries more weight, because it comes
from a place of being centered. Then there aren't different "paths" or interpretations anymore, just one—mine... which I have to find, obviously, while keeping my perceptions wide open so I can grasp the various "visions" offered and draw my own conclusion. It doesn't have to be yours, but it can change, because we're open to change and we have that balance guiding us forward.
The whole thing really boils down to the fact that we aren't all on the same level, due to different psychological functions and different starting points, so I don't think you should linger or turn around to try and correct someone else's vision. (What I'm doing right now is exactly me trying to correct your visions).
Do I even have the right to do that?
Anyway, that's enough about Sisyphus.

Morgan Hernandez5 said:Intuition isn't even some brain product, really. It’s more like the brain just processes stuff that hits us from the subconscious first, and then those "lights flash" inside our heads so we actually notice it. That’s why people think it’s just a brain thing. The brain just registers it, and then—boom—we react. I guess.
There's really no point in even trying to analyze this. If they actually show up, they'll just give us the real info anyway. I guess.
The issue is we just don't recognize it yet. If you actually "train" it, those generated images turn into a legit skill. It could lead to some massive visions, I guess. Maybe.
Look, visionaries... once you actually meet one and get some real-world experience under your belt, they don't lie to you. I mean, why should we assume our logic or our physical senses—like sight or hearing—are the only things telling the truth while intuition gets sidelined? Maybe intuition is just as real. I guess. 🤷
It’s like when someone tells you that what you're looking at isn't necessarily what it seems... like you gotta squint and really overthink everything just to figure out if your eyes are actually playing tricks on you. I guess. Maybe.
So we're just saying that because we don't know her? I mean, maybe we don't even have the right to talk like that. She isn't exactly handing out half-baked solutions here.

The iceberg is rigid under the water line (the id). That part that’s half-submerged, dipping in and out of the waves? That's the superego. Everything sticking out above the surface... I guess that's the ego.
Or maybe like this: the ego is the steering wheel, the id is the engine, and the superego? That’s just the traffic signs and the rules of the road... I guess.
If you link the ID to the subconscious, I guess you could say the car won't even start without it. So, basically, your mind-as-a-steering-wheel only actually matters when the car is moving—you know, once the engine (aka intuition) kicks in.
Since there's zero direct connection to the mind, I guess you don't even need to think about it. Period.
It’d probably look something like this:
Imagine you just want to meet someone, like, no strings attached. You decide to head out—hit up a concert, some club, whatever. You're just out there, scanning the crowd, filming stuff, looking around... just waiting. Pure anticipation, I guess.
Man, honestly? Our chances were basically zero back then.
It usually happens like this—you meet someone actually interesting in some stupid, random spot. Like you’re just standing there at a CVS, stuck in a massive line, getting pissed off because some old lady is being difficult or whatever... then suddenly, the person right behind you starts talking, and maybe it turns into something.
That skill might actually come in handy sometimes. Especially during those first few meetings, you know? It helps you size someone up and figure out what they're really about right off the bat. I guess.

nimblemaker52 said:placidjackal36, my point was purely rhetorical.😉

Angela Newman33
Knowledge without empathy is dangerous
but empathy without knowledge is practically useless

When you marry those two together, you actually achieve wisdom. That’s the only point where you even begin to tap into your actual potential

Just hoarding a mountain of data in your head without any real understanding—I mean, having awareness of individual pieces but failing to see the big picture, the connections, the cause and effect--it just stays a pile of raw info that doesn't hold much real value (aside from feeding the ego, obviously), and it mostly just creates this illusion of being smart

Morgan Hernandez5 said:It basically came straight out of dogma. I mean, maybe right after Aristotle, I guess. 🤷

No matter how much they try to pretend otherwise, even looking back through history, the Church basically gave her permission to evolve. And honestly? Her influence is still massive today. Not to mention the whole mess of political maneuvering and the sheer power of money involved.
Science isn't actually free. I guess. Maybe it just feels that way sometimes, but honestly? It’s rigged.

placidjackal36;13324381.
So, the big question is how we actually save the planet. strong> says:

just calm down and focus on local action. All this global stuff is just noise.

Jacob Jackson50 said:

placidjackal36;13324381.
So, the big question is how we actually save the planet. strong> says:

just calm down and focus on local action. All this global stuff is just noise.

Okay, pick a lane here. Does "calming down" mean doing absolutely nothing?

Angela Newman33 said:Knowledge without heart is dangerous
But passion without actual skill? That’s just hard to make work in the real world

When you finally marry the two, you get wisdom—and that’s really the only way you actually start hitting your stride and reaching your full potential

Let's be real: just hoarding a massive pile of data in your head without truly grasping how it all fits together—you know, seeing the big picture, understanding the "why" behind the "what," and spotting those cause-and-effect links—is pretty much useless. It’s just a collection of facts that doesn't hold much weight (other than maybe giving your ego a little boost), and honestly, it just creates this fake illusion of being smart