On Being and its components

Sigmund said:Physical things are determined Beings, whereas particles and energy simply aren't.

There’s really just one single Being. Everything else is just an expression, an experience, a manifestation of that one thing.
🙂

Matthew Evans said:There’s really just one single Being. Everything else is just an expression, an experience, a manifestation of that one thing.
🙂

Yes, I am inclined to agree.
The rest are just fragmented pieces.
However, how do you explain why certain expressions, manifestations, or experiences are so saturated with evil that they effectively harm both the individual and the whole?
What if something like human disease is an example of this?

Andrew Hayes8 said:Yes, I am inclined to agree.
The rest are just fragmented pieces.
However, how do you explain why certain expressions, manifestations, or experiences are so saturated with evil that they effectively harm both the individual and the whole?
What if something like human disease is an example of this?

A Being, when viewed as an absolute—since an absolute is essentially its own "whole"—is fundamentally incapable of being harmed. The only kind of "harm" that actually exists is what manifests as a lived experience. So, really, you can only "damage" the quality of a single experience. But even that isn't true damage; it’s just the potential of Idea and Choice unfolding through a "negative" manifestation from Unconscious Corp.

Look, when a Being faces the sensation of being "harmed," and they start feeling like someone else’s actions—or even just the very framework that defines them as a subject—have turned them into a "victim," it tells you something specific. It’s a sign that the Being is first and foremost Self-unaware. Beyond that, it shows they lack an understanding of the underlying principles and the actual mechanics by which Self-Being constructs its own experience.

So, if I’m feeling like a "victim" right now, it’s just a sign that I’m hitting the realization phase of an initial Idea. Here’s how it works: you start with a pure intention or a soul-level plan, you distort that intention, and then you mistake that distortion for reality itself. That twist in the original Idea manifests as nothing but negativity or negation in our actual experience. The only way we manage to warp an intention is by fully identifying with the subject. When we go all-in on the subject, our Will and our attention get sucked into that central point—into the subject's own reason. From there, everything else—every object, every event—is perceived as being "outside" of us. It becomes something external to our intellect, something that either serves our pleasure or poses a direct threat to our existence. In this state, a Being doesn't actually have the freedom of Idea and Choice regarding the possibilities life throws at them. Instead, they fall into a sort of Unconscious Corp state, merely reacting to whatever motive hits them the hardest. We call that "necessity," but it's really just a lack of perspective. At the same time, every report of an action taken in this little drama gets processed through that centralized mind. The subject takes those reports, filters them through their specific mental framework, and generates reactions designed to justify their interpretation of the whole process. In this headspace, a Being becomes purely emotional. As long as the projection aligns with their existing beliefs, they feel fine. But the moment the balance shifts—the moment they start fearing for their own survival—something that was once a close friend can instantly turn into a blood enemy.

When you look at an action report within a projection, you always end up facing the Being. It doesn't matter where that Being decides to set up its Center. But here’s the thing: that report only hits you as a "feeling" when the Being positions its center *above* the subject-object relationship projection. Now, don't confuse this with basic emotions. Emotions can be positive or negative, sure, but their purpose is different. Typical emotionality is just a defense mechanism—it's the mind trying to shield the Being from the "outside world" when things get uncomfortable. This feeling isn't about protection. Its sole purpose is to act as an instant red flag. When a negative feeling arises, it's a signal that the projection of the intended soul has become distorted. It means the Being has fallen headfirst into its own projection, identifying so deeply with the subject of the action that the distinction is lost. Once that happens, free choice is effectively dead.

In that scenario, the Being instantly pulls itself out of the subject position. It looks down at the entire subject-object projection from above—viewing it all as a single result of its own Idea and Choice. This shift drags the individual back into a state of consciousness where, within a timeless existence, they can actually make a new, conscious choice. A conscious choice is one where you understand the consequences; it’s the kind of manifestation where the Being feels a sense of harmony with everything else in existence. Any choice that results in chaos, or causes "harm" to someone or something, suggests that the Being has fallen into a deep sleep. It means those core ethical values—the ones an individual always carries within themselves—have been forgotten or suppressed. In their place, new values have been installed. These aren't true values; they are just logical conclusions built without any Absolute Knowledge present in the individual's Consciousness. They exist solely to serve the systems of belief that rule over a Being stuck in that lower state.

Andrew Hayes8 said:Yes, I am inclined to agree.
The rest are just fragmented pieces.
However, how do you explain why certain expressions, manifestations, or experiences are so saturated with evil that they effectively harm both the individual and the whole?
What if something like human disease is an example of this?

Illness is just what happens after an Unconscious Corp makes a choice—specifically, a long string of them. It’s a disruption in the balance of the body's energy field. These disruptions come from blockages, and those blockages? They’re just fear manifesting at a cellular level. But here’s the thing: just as sickness builds itself up, it can be dismantled. To get rid of illness, you have to focus on BALANCING THE ENERGY FIELD. Instead of chasing symptoms, you should have a routine for balancing that field—essentially, maintaining HEALTH. Balancing keeps the system running at its peak. When the body is operating optimally, energy flows through it without hitting any walls. That’s when a person feels Healthy; they don't feel their "physicality" as a burden, but rather use it as a seamless tool to interact with the world around them.

Pain, for instance, isn't actually a disease. I'm talking about initial pain. Pain is designed to be an alarm—a signal that a Being needs to instinctively trigger a period of BALANCING. It's a sign that a blockage has formed. It’s also a sign that we’ve neglected our energy field, perhaps for a long time or maybe never at all. It means our thoughts have convinced our cells that their survival is under threat. Fear is an active architect of these blockages; it tries to protect an isolated cell, but instead of shielding it, it causes the cell to withdraw from the rest of the organism. By choosing to shut down, it kills the natural flow of energy. When energy can't find its natural path from point A to point B, it tries to force an alternative route, creating a conflict between two energy directions—and that conflict is the pain itself. In that moment, the "person" needs to drop everything and immediately move toward balance. Balancing the energy field is true healing. Healing, by its very definition, is the process of returning closed cells to an open state. Through this balancing, cells that lost faith in the organism as a whole regain that lost trust. This "convincing" process takes anywhere from thirty seconds to a few minutes, and the results are measurable in terms of HEALTH. We'll get to that later.

Andrew Hayes8 said:Yes, I am inclined to agree.
The rest are just fragmented pieces.
However, how do you explain why certain expressions, manifestations, or experiences are so saturated with evil that they effectively harm both the individual and the whole?
What if something like human disease is an example of this?

The concept of 'good versus evil' is just what happens when you try to judge a single phenomenon by splitting its values apart. In this light, evil emerges as the byproduct of an Unconscious Corp choice—it’s how a Being tries to satisfy the belief systems dictated by its current level of awareness. Any division into good and evil is already a distortion of the truth regarding existence and creation. The reality is that even when the initial intent is warped during manifestation, it creates a polarized feeling. This unconsciously pushes us to label anything that supports our survival and individual preservation as 'good,' while labeling anything that threatens our existence or challenges our current set of beliefs as 'evil.' In such a Self-unaware state, a Being grants itself permission to do whatever it takes, justifying it through a primal drive for self-preservation fueled entirely by fear and the need to appease the convictions ruling its mind.

But if you step back and look at the full spectrum of information involved in any single moment of an individual's reality, it becomes obvious that a crime can't actually happen without two fundamental elements: the tyrant and the victim. A 'tyrant' can't exist unless there is someone on the other side of the action who is equally driven to experience being the 'victim.' If humanity, as a collective mass, simply stopped unconsciously demanding the experience of being a victim, tyrants would shrink significantly in their ability to manifest. If we completely erased the need for the victim experience... there wouldn't be any tyrants left on Earth or among people. Of course, that's a utopia. Achieving that kind of reality requires constant, total awareness—total alertness—of the Self and everything participating in the formation of every single moment. As far as the average 'human' is concerned, the Being hasn't yet matured enough to overcome the obstacles standing in the way of full self-realization and the harmony of free expression.

Could you please clarify what harmony and balance actually mean to you?
In other words, what constitutes absolute harmony and balance for you?

Matthew Evans As stated by:
I exist as a solitary Being.Everything else is simply a collection of his expressions, his lived experiences, and his various manifestations.
🙂

It appears that Sigmund has yet to provide an explanation as to why God cannot be considered a Being. ☕

Matthew Evans said:The concept of 'good versus evil' is just what happens when you try to judge a single phenomenon by splitting its values apart. In this light, evil emerges as the byproduct of an Unconscious Corp choice—it’s how a Being tries to satisfy the belief systems dictated by its current level of awareness. Any division into good and evil is already a distortion of the truth regarding existence and creation. The reality is that even when the initial intent is warped during manifestation, it creates a polarized feeling. This unconsciously pushes us to label anything that supports our survival and individual preservation as 'good,' while labeling anything that threatens our existence or challenges our current set of beliefs as 'evil.' In such a Self-unaware state, a Being grants itself permission to do whatever it takes, justifying it through a primal drive for self-preservation fueled entirely by fear and the need to appease the convictions ruling its mind.

But if you step back and look at the full spectrum of information involved in any single moment of an individual's reality, it becomes obvious that a crime can't actually happen without two fundamental elements: the tyrant and the victim. A 'tyrant' can't exist unless there is someone on the other side of the action who is equally driven to experience being the 'victim.' If humanity, as a collective mass, simply stopped unconsciously demanding the experience of being a victim, tyrants would shrink significantly in their ability to manifest. If we completely erased the need for the victim experience... there wouldn't be any tyrants left on Earth or among people. Of course, that's a utopia. Achieving that kind of reality requires constant, total awareness—total alertness—of the Self and everything participating in the formation of every single moment. As far as the average 'human' is concerned, the Being hasn't yet matured enough to overcome the obstacles standing in the way of full self-realization and the harmony of free expression.

If we’re going by that logic—why don't we try looking at it this way instead:
A tyrant can't truly become a tyrant until there is a part of their own personality that craves the experience of being a victim just as intensely as the desire to dominate.
Why not just consolidate everything into one single person—the personality of the potential tyrant?

I mean, we see it all the time in real life where a tyrant or a criminal portrays themselves as the victim, and honestly, let's just assume they actually feel that way.

I’m definitely not trying to 'amnesty' a criminal for their actions by suggesting that there has to be some "Other" out there who is Unconscious Corp enough to want to be a victim just to make the dynamic work. That doesn't hold water for me, except maybe in those weird, specific contexts where the whole tyrant-victim connection is just down to how you choose to interpret it.

urbanwalker72 said:

Matthew Evans As stated by:
I exist as a solitary Being.Everything else is simply a collection of his expressions, his lived experiences, and his various manifestations.
🙂

It appears that Sigmund has yet to provide an explanation as to why God cannot be considered a Being. ☕

He actually went over all of that yesterday in a different thread.

urbanwalker72 said:

Matthew Evans As stated by:
I exist as a solitary Being.Everything else is simply a collection of his expressions, his lived experiences, and his various manifestations.
🙂

It appears that Sigmund has yet to provide an explanation as to why God cannot be considered a Being. ☕

Is it Non-Being, or is it God? 🤔

urbanwalker72 said:

Matthew Evans As stated by:
I exist as a solitary Being.Everything else is simply a collection of his expressions, his lived experiences, and his various manifestations.
🙂

It appears that Sigmund has yet to provide an explanation as to why God cannot be considered a Being. ☕

No version of Sigmund holds any authority over that Knowledge, over the truth. From what I’ve observed, he just deals in the history of philosophy rather than TRUTH—which can only be found by turning the attention of the absolute Being back toward itself, toward Self-Being.

Non-Being doesn't exist; it’s a complete delusion. Non-Being would just be a logical fantasy cooked up by a Being that has identified itself entirely with its own manifestation and thought, therefore drawing logical conclusions about existence (about Self-Being) from within that manifestation. Most people mistake that manifestation for "being," which has nothing to do with the truth. The very term "Being" is just shorthand for the act of existing—for existence as an unchanging, absolute, inconceivable "something," the essence of what is.

Being is singular and absolute, while its expressions—CREATIONS—are many and exist only relatively. They are derived forms, shapes cast from that foundation (which we could call Bill), or more precisely: projected relationships stemming from Consciousness (the spirit of the absolute) via Knowledge-of-Self-absolute.

steelridge58 said:If we’re going by that logic—why don't we try looking at it this way instead:
A tyrant can't truly become a tyrant until there is a part of their own personality that craves the experience of being a victim just as intensely as the desire to dominate.
Why not just consolidate everything into one single person—the personality of the potential tyrant?

I mean, we see it all the time in real life where a tyrant or a criminal portrays themselves as the victim, and honestly, let's just assume they actually feel that way.

I’m definitely not trying to 'amnesty' a criminal for their actions by suggesting that there has to be some "Other" out there who is Unconscious Corp enough to want to be a victim just to make the dynamic work. That doesn't hold water for me, except maybe in those weird, specific contexts where the whole tyrant-victim connection is just down to how you choose to interpret it.

No, that doesn't track. My mistake. That specific persona seeking out the experience of tyranny can't simultaneously be the same persona seeking the experience of being the victim—unless we're talking about someone with a death wish or a masochist. In relation to that "other side" of the personality, they can only desire to experience "tyranny over themselves" through that other part, which is really just the experience of being the "victim," not the "tyrant."

steelridge58 said:If we’re going by that logic—why don't we try looking at it this way instead:
A tyrant can't truly become a tyrant until there is a part of their own personality that craves the experience of being a victim just as intensely as the desire to dominate.
Why not just consolidate everything into one single person—the personality of the potential tyrant?

I mean, we see it all the time in real life where a tyrant or a criminal portrays themselves as the victim, and honestly, let's just assume they actually feel that way.

I’m definitely not trying to 'amnesty' a criminal for their actions by suggesting that there has to be some "Other" out there who is Unconscious Corp enough to want to be a victim just to make the dynamic work. That doesn't hold water for me, except maybe in those weird, specific contexts where the whole tyrant-victim connection is just down to how you choose to interpret it.

It's impossible.
A single individual within the universe can't be exercising tyranny over someone else while simultaneously experiencing their own victimization in that same exchange of intent. If they did, they wouldn't be able to function as the tyrant because they wouldn't feel like the victim. You're either one or the other in that specific interaction.

Essentially, a tyrant can't step into that role until the universe responds to their intent by presenting an equivalent intent in another person—someone who wants to play the "victim." They enable each other's manifestation, allowing them to realize their own intentions and experiences. The tyrant's intent is clear, but the actual experience of tyranny requires the presence of a "victim" in their reality. That victim serves as the object through which this reality manifests, acting as the vehicle for the tyrant's intention and realization. By recognizing the "victim," the tyrant only ever realizes what he, as the tyrant, is NOT. That persona, acting as the tyrant, IS NOT the victim.

steelridge58 said:If we’re going by that logic—why don't we try looking at it this way instead:
A tyrant can't truly become a tyrant until there is a part of their own personality that craves the experience of being a victim just as intensely as the desire to dominate.
Why not just consolidate everything into one single person—the personality of the potential tyrant?

I mean, we see it all the time in real life where a tyrant or a criminal portrays themselves as the victim, and honestly, let's just assume they actually feel that way.

I’m definitely not trying to 'amnesty' a criminal for their actions by suggesting that there has to be some "Other" out there who is Unconscious Corp enough to want to be a victim just to make the dynamic work. That doesn't hold water for me, except maybe in those weird, specific contexts where the whole tyrant-victim connection is just down to how you choose to interpret it.

The image someone projects to the public and the truth behind that projection aren't the same thing. 🙂

urbanwalker72 said:

Matthew Evans As stated by:
I exist as a solitary Being.Everything else is simply a collection of his expressions, his lived experiences, and his various manifestations.
🙂

It appears that Sigmund has yet to provide an explanation as to why God cannot be considered a Being. ☕

Sigmund can't explain it because he lacks the lived experience to back it up. For him to actually prove it, 'Sigmund' would have to stop being 'Sigmund.' He’d have to quit identifying as an individual expression of the absolute, return to Self (the absolute), and only through that direct relationship—where his own will and attention meet the content of the absolute (Self), the spirit of the absolute (Consciousness)—could he finally uncover the truth within the Being he claims doesn't exist.

Every negation is just a byproduct of logical deduction. Why? Because any subject always perceives what the object-subject is NOT; they perceive the objects of their own mental representations.

So, claiming that Non-Being exists is nothing more than a hollow negation of whatever your mind projects onto itself. And your mind projects a representation of what you THINK you are. Therefore, that thing you think you are—which you, as the one experiencing the thought through reason, represent as reality, as existing, as being... well, that's Being.

Claiming Non-Being exists is just a consequence of identifying with the subject of your own representation and observing what that subject presents to you. The subject can only claim that something like Non-Being exists as a negation of being because, in trying to logically explain to itself what the object-subject IS, it reaches the only logically valid conclusion possible: the Subject is the observer of 'being,' and therefore, as the observer—as absolute existence—must be the negation of whatever the object of its perception is (being). By denying that illusion of being, the subject essentially confirms to itself that it, as absolute existence, must be its negation: Non-Being. It's a total negation of an objectified, subjective representation.

Of course, this has zero to do with truth. It has everything to do with logic, which is notoriously bad at handling absolute truths. 🙂

Matthew Evans said:No version of Sigmund holds any authority over that Knowledge, over the truth. From what I’ve observed, he just deals in the history of philosophy rather than TRUTH—which can only be found by turning the attention of the absolute Being back toward itself, toward Self-Being.

Non-Being doesn't exist; it’s a complete delusion. Non-Being would just be a logical fantasy cooked up by a Being that has identified itself entirely with its own manifestation and thought, therefore drawing logical conclusions about existence (about Self-Being) from within that manifestation. Most people mistake that manifestation for "being," which has nothing to do with the truth. The very term "Being" is just shorthand for the act of existing—for existence as an unchanging, absolute, inconceivable "something," the essence of what is.

Being is singular and absolute, while its expressions—CREATIONS—are many and exist only relatively. They are derived forms, shapes cast from that foundation (which we could call Bill), or more precisely: projected relationships stemming from Consciousness (the spirit of the absolute) via Knowledge-of-Self-absolute.

Honestly, shouldn't these kinds of autistic monologues belong on some niche PDF file or a personal blog instead of here?

You could swap out "Sigmund" for any other random guy on this forum, and change "he's just obsessed with the history of philosophy" to whatever that guy's specific argument happens to be, because apparently, this user's word is basically the Word of God.

Peter Phillips32 said:Honestly, shouldn't these kinds of autistic monologues belong on some niche PDF file or a personal blog instead of here?

You could swap out "Sigmund" for any other random guy on this forum, and change "he's just obsessed with the history of philosophy" to whatever that guy's specific argument happens to be, because apparently, this user's word is basically the Word of God.

So, I could go ahead and say, "Wow, look how brilliant this guy is." But I won't. Instead, I’ll just say this: take your opinions and shove them back into whatever mental boxes you’ve built for yourself. You can try to force my writing into those same little molds if you want, but let me save you the trouble—it’s never going to fit.
Don't waste your breath. You’re better off just looking out for yourself. Honestly—and I'm still pretty new to this place—if you're the one running the show here, deciding who gets to speak and which sub-forum they belong in, then I might as well pack my bags and head for the exit right now.

I’ve already attempted to find an answer to the question I’m about to pose, but I haven't come close to finding clarity, let alone a definitive response.

The subject at hand is the nature of being and its constituent parts, so perhaps there is some luck to be found here.

It seems worth noting that I am currently in my fifties. Over the course of these five decades, both my physical body and my mind have undergone constant transformation. I have studied, I have lived, and I have accumulated experiences; life itself has reshaped me.

And yet, despite all that change, I am left with the impression that I am still that same wide-eyed, curious child, watching this magnificent and magical world unfold. To put it more precisely, I have this sensation that there is one specific part of me—a core part—that represents the true *me*, which has remained virtually untouched by the passage of these fifty years.

I am curious to know if any other members here share this same feeling, or this same sense of self.

Matthew Evans said:No version of Sigmund holds any authority over that Knowledge, over the truth. From what I’ve observed, he just deals in the history of philosophy rather than TRUTH—which can only be found by turning the attention of the absolute Being back toward itself, toward Self-Being.

Non-Being doesn't exist; it’s a complete delusion. Non-Being would just be a logical fantasy cooked up by a Being that has identified itself entirely with its own manifestation and thought, therefore drawing logical conclusions about existence (about Self-Being) from within that manifestation. Most people mistake that manifestation for "being," which has nothing to do with the truth. The very term "Being" is just shorthand for the act of existing—for existence as an unchanging, absolute, inconceivable "something," the essence of what is.

Being is singular and absolute, while its expressions—CREATIONS—are many and exist only relatively. They are derived forms, shapes cast from that foundation (which we could call Bill), or more precisely: projected relationships stemming from Consciousness (the spirit of the absolute) via Knowledge-of-Self-absolute.

You really should have suggested that Quincy just cut his own hand off. 😲

Because there’s this story...

The legend goes that in the final years of his life, Bodhidharam was visited by
Shen-kuang (Hui-ko, known in the West as Yeka, 486-593), who was a renowned Confucian
scholar of that era, quite proud of his mastery of Buddhist teachings and the prestige
he commanded. When he asked about Bodhidharmin's teachings, this enlightened man, sensing
his pride and how wrapped up he was in himself, didn't say a single word. Hui-ko
stood before Bodhidharam for several days in total, freezing silence.
Meanwhile, the snow began to fall. Once Hui-ko realized that Bodhidharma
was ignoring him, and in order to grab his attention and prove his hunger for true knowledge,
he drew a sword, sliced off his own left hand, and offered it to Bodhidharma as a sign
of his profound sincerity. Only then did Bodhidharma finally ask him:
"What is it you want?"
He replied: "My only desire is that you, teacher, out of your infinite
mercy, would open the doors to the treasure..."
Bodhidharma answered: "Incomparable truth is only achieved through long,
arduous practice. Why would you, with your shallow mind and ego-driven heart,
beg me for the true path and endure the struggle?"
Hui-ko said: "I cannot find peace of soul. Please, calm my soul."
"Lay your soul before me, and I will calm it."
"But when I search for my soul, I cannot find it."
"There!" Bodhidharma interrupted, "your soul is calmed."
At that moment, Hui-ko attained enlightenment, and after Bodhidharma passed away, he became
the next patriarch of the Zen tradition.

Sam Martinez9 said:It isn't just the Word of God; 99 percent of people are always right. Or at least, they act like it.

I think it comes down to upbringing. It reminds me of this TV show—I think it's called *The Speaker*—where high school students are split into two groups, given a topic, and they try to defend their position better than the opposing group does.

It’s the exact same story here on this forum—especially when religious topics come up. You’ve got the atheists on one side and the believers on the other, both dug in deep within their own trenches, just *firing* away with their arguments.

And it goes on like that for years. Users cycle through—some leave, some show up—but the arguments? They never change. Even though they’re hollowed out and have been debunked a thousand times over.

It really ought to be different. We should be working together, pooling our logic and arguments from both sides to actually reach the truth. But honestly? As a society, we aren't quite mature enough for that kind of communication yet.

It’s true. A lot of people are just talking nonsense—it's all weak stuff! 😁

And you know what? It’s all because of a damn flag:

Once, two Zen monks were arguing about why a flag was fluttering. One had this theory that wind is a dead thing—something inanimate—so it couldn't possibly cause a flag to flutter. The other guy viewed the wind as a living force. Their guardian eventually stepped in to end the debate: it isn't the flag fluttering, and it isn't the wind fluttering. It is your mind that is fluttering.
The logic we inherited from our primitive ancestors is great if you want to make artisanal cheese in Vermont. But that same logic is a complete failure when you try to interpret the microworld (or even the macrocosm of the universe).

And things will stay this way until we finally burn our own scriptures:

That monk used to carry around a massive pile of manuscripts everywhere—full of his own commentary, diagrams, descriptions, and theological debates. Then one day, he arrived at an inn, but he was completely broke. The woman running the place told him he’d have to sleep in the straw in the stable. He got hungry, so he asked her for something to eat. She gave him some tea and some cookies. Instead of paying cash, he offered her a lecture. The woman just looked at him and said, "So, you're some kind of specialist in diamond-hard intellect, huh? That teaching which says our present mind is incomprehensible, our past mind is elusive, and our future mind is undefined. Well, tell me: with which mind did you drink the tea and eat those cookies?" He just stood there like a total idiot, unable to give an answer. Legend has it that after that, he threw all his manuscripts into the fire and never studied another thing again.

Sam Martinez9 said:It should have been different. We should have sat down together, hashed it out through debate, weighing the arguments from both sides until we landed on the actual truth. But honestly? We aren't mature enough for that kind of communication yet.

What you’re suggesting just doesn't work—and honestly, you've already admitted that yourself by saying we weren't born together. Since we didn't share a birth (and even if we had), our paths haven't been identical. Our experiences aren't the same. Some people spent their lives stacking up wealth, others are still grinding to get there, and some have spent their years accumulating knowledge through trial and error. Then there are people like me, who did all that, only to add one specific experience to the tally—something that fundamentally rewrites the meaning of everything else. That experience—if you can even call it that—is the total redirection of attention back to the Absolute-Self.

Leading up to my return, I felt this intuitive preparation taking hold. It was like portions of Knowledge were just pouring directly into my spirit. The more I realized exactly *how* it was happening, the more frequently it occurred—until eventually, it just became my baseline. It stayed that way, a steady routine, right up until the moment I finally let go. I dropped the logic, shut off the intellect, and merged my spirit with the Absolute-Self. To put it plainly, I experienced what most people spend their whole lives trying to describe as being "Self-God."

No, it isn’t some kind of delusion. Before that moment, even though my spirit was flooded with intuitive insights, I couldn't even wrap my head around what it actually meant. Then, the intellect just... evaporated. I was left alone with my Self. But in that solitude, strangely enough, you aren't actually alone. In fact, it’s more than that—you aren't just a lonely individual; you are the entire container and everything contained within the One. It doesn't feel like isolation. It feels like absolute self-fulfillment. As long as the rational mind stays out of the way—as long as the Being's attention remains fixed on the content of the Absolute-Self—everything that exists becomes crystal clear to itself. It couldn't be any sharper. The essence of everything has finally revealed itself to the Self.

Look, this Being—the One, the only one—is what religion and the masses call God, which is why I framed it that way above. Personally, I call it Will, the Absolute, the Being, or the being-that-is. It could be "the one who is," or some qualitative plurality, or whatever else you want to throw at it. At the end of the day, I know deep down that none of those labels actually change anything about its essence. It remains itself, regardless of the name. 🙂

.

By turning my attention back inward to the human self, I’ve embraced the spirit of creation and the Absolute Knowledge held within it. But here’s the thing: my intellect just can't wrap itself around what that actually looks like. It's impossible to grasp the whole thing in one single moment—not for me, and honestly, not for anyone else either. Yet, despite that mental wall, the Absolute Knowledge remains accessible to me, and I can shape it into words whenever I choose.

That’s why I say what you’re suggesting just isn't doable—not that you don't see it, but it's an impossibility. We weren't born at the exact same moment, nor were we born as the same spirit. Because of that, our perceptions and our grasp of self-existence and being aren't going to match up. You can't exactly walk up to some guy and explain that he has the capacity to know everything any other person has ever known. He’s an individual. He’s got a spirit that belongs only to him. He lacks the lived experience required to actually verify your claims, even if you were standing right there. So, I’m left doing what I feel called to do within that Absolute-Self connection. It’s something I only really grasped after returning to the Self: I give what I know. Period. I don't care who judges how I give, when they judge, or if they even wrap their heads around what I’m talking about. But, since I’m still "alive"—meaning Being is active and present within me—I can engage with everyone I meet here, in this moment. I can listen to their questions and try to offer explanations that feel familiar to them. Still, after doing this every single day for seven or eight years, I’ve realized something: it is impossible to explain something that feels obvious to me to someone whose level of consciousness simply isn't high enough to catch it. Now, that isn't a dig at people with a "lower level of consciousness." It has nothing to do with comparing my value to theirs. It’s just a fact. Some individuals are quite "young" in terms of their cycles of incarnation. Their spirit hasn't accumulated enough Absolute Knowledge to create a foundation where they can easily build upon or integrate new truths into their Self-Being. Another individual might be more seasoned; they've been through the necessary school of life and already possess a massive degree of that Knowledge within them.

Look, this has absolutely nothing to do with IQ. You can have a genius-level IQ, but if you lack the "life experience"—the incarnations—needed to accumulate the right amount of realized Absolute-Self Knowledge, it doesn't matter. Think of it this way: the width of your "consciousness circle," or a specific level of awareness, doesn't dictate its "height." It doesn't change where that consciousness sits within the grand hierarchy of the Being-universe. That’s why we see such a massive spectrum of consciousness among Americans; we aren't all operating at the same stage of experience or incarnation. We haven't all gone through the same cycles required to grasp and truly understand what we think we know.

Understanding alone isn't going to land you at the highest state of existence, but it certainly makes whatever you *do* understand much more useful.

At the end of the day, we all just act according to what our current level of consciousness allows us to do. It follows, then, that those sitting at higher levels have to possess a deeper understanding of those at lower ones. This is exactly why rising in consciousness strips away prejudice; it forces you to become more compassionate.

Matthew Evans said:What you’re suggesting just doesn't work—and honestly, you've already admitted that yourself by saying we weren't born together. Since we didn't share a birth (and even if we had), our paths haven't been identical. Our experiences aren't the same. Some people spent their lives stacking up wealth, others are still grinding to get there, and some have spent their years accumulating knowledge through trial and error. Then there are people like me, who did all that, only to add one specific experience to the tally—something that fundamentally rewrites the meaning of everything else. That experience—if you can even call it that—is the total redirection of attention back to the Absolute-Self.

Leading up to my return, I felt this intuitive preparation taking hold. It was like portions of Knowledge were just pouring directly into my spirit. The more I realized exactly *how* it was happening, the more frequently it occurred—until eventually, it just became my baseline. It stayed that way, a steady routine, right up until the moment I finally let go. I dropped the logic, shut off the intellect, and merged my spirit with the Absolute-Self. To put it plainly, I experienced what most people spend their whole lives trying to describe as being "Self-God."

No, it isn’t some kind of delusion. Before that moment, even though my spirit was flooded with intuitive insights, I couldn't even wrap my head around what it actually meant. Then, the intellect just... evaporated. I was left alone with my Self. But in that solitude, strangely enough, you aren't actually alone. In fact, it’s more than that—you aren't just a lonely individual; you are the entire container and everything contained within the One. It doesn't feel like isolation. It feels like absolute self-fulfillment. As long as the rational mind stays out of the way—as long as the Being's attention remains fixed on the content of the Absolute-Self—everything that exists becomes crystal clear to itself. It couldn't be any sharper. The essence of everything has finally revealed itself to the Self.

Look, this Being—the One, the only one—is what religion and the masses call God, which is why I framed it that way above. Personally, I call it Will, the Absolute, the Being, or the being-that-is. It could be "the one who is," or some qualitative plurality, or whatever else you want to throw at it. At the end of the day, I know deep down that none of those labels actually change anything about its essence. It remains itself, regardless of the name. 🙂

.

By turning my attention back inward to the human self, I’ve embraced the spirit of creation and the Absolute Knowledge held within it. But here’s the thing: my intellect just can't wrap itself around what that actually looks like. It's impossible to grasp the whole thing in one single moment—not for me, and honestly, not for anyone else either. Yet, despite that mental wall, the Absolute Knowledge remains accessible to me, and I can shape it into words whenever I choose.

That’s why I say what you’re suggesting just isn't doable—not that you don't see it, but it's an impossibility. We weren't born at the exact same moment, nor were we born as the same spirit. Because of that, our perceptions and our grasp of self-existence and being aren't going to match up. You can't exactly walk up to some guy and explain that he has the capacity to know everything any other person has ever known. He’s an individual. He’s got a spirit that belongs only to him. He lacks the lived experience required to actually verify your claims, even if you were standing right there. So, I’m left doing what I feel called to do within that Absolute-Self connection. It’s something I only really grasped after returning to the Self: I give what I know. Period. I don't care who judges how I give, when they judge, or if they even wrap their heads around what I’m talking about. But, since I’m still "alive"—meaning Being is active and present within me—I can engage with everyone I meet here, in this moment. I can listen to their questions and try to offer explanations that feel familiar to them. Still, after doing this every single day for seven or eight years, I’ve realized something: it is impossible to explain something that feels obvious to me to someone whose level of consciousness simply isn't high enough to catch it. Now, that isn't a dig at people with a "lower level of consciousness." It has nothing to do with comparing my value to theirs. It’s just a fact. Some individuals are quite "young" in terms of their cycles of incarnation. Their spirit hasn't accumulated enough Absolute Knowledge to create a foundation where they can easily build upon or integrate new truths into their Self-Being. Another individual might be more seasoned; they've been through the necessary school of life and already possess a massive degree of that Knowledge within them.

Look, this has absolutely nothing to do with IQ. You can have a genius-level IQ, but if you lack the "life experience"—the incarnations—needed to accumulate the right amount of realized Absolute-Self Knowledge, it doesn't matter. Think of it this way: the width of your "consciousness circle," or a specific level of awareness, doesn't dictate its "height." It doesn't change where that consciousness sits within the grand hierarchy of the Being-universe. That’s why we see such a massive spectrum of consciousness among Americans; we aren't all operating at the same stage of experience or incarnation. We haven't all gone through the same cycles required to grasp and truly understand what we think we know.

Understanding alone isn't going to land you at the highest state of existence, but it certainly makes whatever you *do* understand much more useful.

At the end of the day, we all just act according to what our current level of consciousness allows us to do. It follows, then, that those sitting at higher levels have to possess a deeper understanding of those at lower ones. This is exactly why rising in consciousness strips away prejudice; it forces you to become more compassionate.

And just what kind of mental prep work goes into that? I mean, how exactly do you prepare yourself so those little portions of knowledge can actually sink into your spirit without just bouncing right off? ?? 🤔

If that was simply its own inherent essence, then we’re looking at a gift from Nature. Or, if you prefer the language of the faithful—as they often do when trying to make sense of the inexplicable—you could call it a gift from God, or perhaps Divine Providence.

Benjamin Taylor6 said:
And just what kind of mental prep work goes into that? I mean, how exactly do you prepare yourself so those little portions of knowledge can actually sink into your spirit without just bouncing right off? ?? 🤔

If that was simply its own inherent essence, then we’re looking at a gift from Nature. Or, if you prefer the language of the faithful—as they often do when trying to make sense of the inexplicable—you could call it a gift from God, or perhaps Divine Providence.

The preparation was simple, but it was intentional.

Back during that phase, I had this driving, almost obsessive need to figure out "who I am." I started cultivating that curiosity through things I did while taking breaks from my painting—I’m a painter by trade. Every day, I’d head out for a coffee, but eventually, I decided that instead of just sitting there, I’d listen to the same old repetitive chatter with the usual crowd and just... observe. I’d peek inward into the self. That’s what I was doing at the coffee shop. I’d find a spot, usually somewhere quiet where the sun could warm my back without blinding me or burning. I’d sit there, nearly every single day, lay out a pen and paper, close my eyes, relax, and just soak up the sun until I was completely loose. It was a kind of meditation right there in the middle of a Starbucks or a local diner—a specific way of meditating that felt right to the self, something I’d also do in my studio during breaks. Once I hit that state of no-thought, that total stillness, I’d stay there as long as necessary. Then, the second a thought surfaced in my mind, I’d start writing. I did my writing exclusively in coffee shops.

I’d jot down that first word, and I wouldn't even think about the second; I’d just recognize it as it emerged in my mind and instinctively line it up after the first, and so on, until it became clear that some kind of story was flowing out of me. While writing, I’d naturally grasp the meaning of what was already intuitively known within my spirit, and I’d just keep letting it flow into order. Usually, by the time I took the last sip of coffee and that brief little story wrapped up, I’d put a period on it.

Every story, every poem, carried its own message—something that spoke unerringly of Consciousness. Not my individual consciousness, which most people call "human consciousness," but Consciousness as the Source of all Knowledge, as the Truth.

So, the preparation was conscious and deliberate, though I had no clue what answers or insights would be left behind. The preparation itself was really just a gradual opening of the spirit toward the spirit of the absolute, so that at the moment I was sufficiently ready, my spirit could merge with the spirit of the absolute. At that point, the self vanished from the attention of the being, and the absolute became "visible" to the self. I didn't experience the enlightenment of the absolute in a coffee shop; it caught me off guard in bed, at home. Still, it happened as the direct result of all that disciplined preparation I had been doing.

Matthew Evans said:What you’re suggesting just doesn't work—and honestly, you've already admitted that yourself by saying we weren't born together. Since we didn't share a birth (and even if we had), our paths haven't been identical. Our experiences aren't the same. Some people spent their lives stacking up wealth, others are still grinding to get there, and some have spent their years accumulating knowledge through trial and error. Then there are people like me, who did all that, only to add one specific experience to the tally—something that fundamentally rewrites the meaning of everything else. That experience—if you can even call it that—is the total redirection of attention back to the Absolute-Self.

Leading up to my return, I felt this intuitive preparation taking hold. It was like portions of Knowledge were just pouring directly into my spirit. The more I realized exactly *how* it was happening, the more frequently it occurred—until eventually, it just became my baseline. It stayed that way, a steady routine, right up until the moment I finally let go. I dropped the logic, shut off the intellect, and merged my spirit with the Absolute-Self. To put it plainly, I experienced what most people spend their whole lives trying to describe as being "Self-God."

No, it isn’t some kind of delusion. Before that moment, even though my spirit was flooded with intuitive insights, I couldn't even wrap my head around what it actually meant. Then, the intellect just... evaporated. I was left alone with my Self. But in that solitude, strangely enough, you aren't actually alone. In fact, it’s more than that—you aren't just a lonely individual; you are the entire container and everything contained within the One. It doesn't feel like isolation. It feels like absolute self-fulfillment. As long as the rational mind stays out of the way—as long as the Being's attention remains fixed on the content of the Absolute-Self—everything that exists becomes crystal clear to itself. It couldn't be any sharper. The essence of everything has finally revealed itself to the Self.

Look, this Being—the One, the only one—is what religion and the masses call God, which is why I framed it that way above. Personally, I call it Will, the Absolute, the Being, or the being-that-is. It could be "the one who is," or some qualitative plurality, or whatever else you want to throw at it. At the end of the day, I know deep down that none of those labels actually change anything about its essence. It remains itself, regardless of the name. 🙂

.

By turning my attention back inward to the human self, I’ve embraced the spirit of creation and the Absolute Knowledge held within it. But here’s the thing: my intellect just can't wrap itself around what that actually looks like. It's impossible to grasp the whole thing in one single moment—not for me, and honestly, not for anyone else either. Yet, despite that mental wall, the Absolute Knowledge remains accessible to me, and I can shape it into words whenever I choose.

That’s why I say what you’re suggesting just isn't doable—not that you don't see it, but it's an impossibility. We weren't born at the exact same moment, nor were we born as the same spirit. Because of that, our perceptions and our grasp of self-existence and being aren't going to match up. You can't exactly walk up to some guy and explain that he has the capacity to know everything any other person has ever known. He’s an individual. He’s got a spirit that belongs only to him. He lacks the lived experience required to actually verify your claims, even if you were standing right there. So, I’m left doing what I feel called to do within that Absolute-Self connection. It’s something I only really grasped after returning to the Self: I give what I know. Period. I don't care who judges how I give, when they judge, or if they even wrap their heads around what I’m talking about. But, since I’m still "alive"—meaning Being is active and present within me—I can engage with everyone I meet here, in this moment. I can listen to their questions and try to offer explanations that feel familiar to them. Still, after doing this every single day for seven or eight years, I’ve realized something: it is impossible to explain something that feels obvious to me to someone whose level of consciousness simply isn't high enough to catch it. Now, that isn't a dig at people with a "lower level of consciousness." It has nothing to do with comparing my value to theirs. It’s just a fact. Some individuals are quite "young" in terms of their cycles of incarnation. Their spirit hasn't accumulated enough Absolute Knowledge to create a foundation where they can easily build upon or integrate new truths into their Self-Being. Another individual might be more seasoned; they've been through the necessary school of life and already possess a massive degree of that Knowledge within them.

Look, this has absolutely nothing to do with IQ. You can have a genius-level IQ, but if you lack the "life experience"—the incarnations—needed to accumulate the right amount of realized Absolute-Self Knowledge, it doesn't matter. Think of it this way: the width of your "consciousness circle," or a specific level of awareness, doesn't dictate its "height." It doesn't change where that consciousness sits within the grand hierarchy of the Being-universe. That’s why we see such a massive spectrum of consciousness among Americans; we aren't all operating at the same stage of experience or incarnation. We haven't all gone through the same cycles required to grasp and truly understand what we think we know.

Understanding alone isn't going to land you at the highest state of existence, but it certainly makes whatever you *do* understand much more useful.

At the end of the day, we all just act according to what our current level of consciousness allows us to do. It follows, then, that those sitting at higher levels have to possess a deeper understanding of those at lower ones. This is exactly why rising in consciousness strips away prejudice; it forces you to become more compassionate.

I think you missed my point.

It’s really about the methodology by which we acquire knowledge and understand the world. Broadly speaking, there are two ways we learn: we either learn independently, or we learn through the mediation of others.

Learning via others can be subdivided even further—learning from authority figures or teachers, learning alongside friends and peers, or even learning *from* someone, where they serve as the subject of your study...

Now, regarding what I was getting at earlier—we can categorize learning through others into two distinct modes: using conflict as a tool, or using cooperation as a tool.

Conflict as a tool is far more prevalent. I mentioned the example of a televised political debate, where two sides clash and essentially *fight* one another using nothing but arguments.

Cooperation, on the other hand, is what you see in scientific research teams or collaborative professional environments.

In my view, cooperative learning is of a much higher quality than learning through conflict, yet conflict remains the dominant method. This forum is living proof of that; ninety-nine percent of what is written here can be reduced to conflict (using arguments, words, quotes, etc.), while perhaps only one percent truly represents cooperation.

The reason for this is quite simple: humanity is still at an evolutionary stage where conflict tends to outpace cooperation. So many global issues are still *settled* through warfare rather than through diplomacy and agreement.

I am a firm believer that this is shifting—that we will see a gradual decrease in friction across all fields and a rise in collaboration.

Warfare will eventually vanish, both in terms of physical combat and verbal aggression. Our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will look back on our era as a barbaric age, much like we look back on the state of the world two thousand years ago.