Insanctuary 2014-03-12 11:17:31

There's no such thing as "spiritual", the same way there's no such thing of what you "see" in an everyday cloud. It's all ambiguity and desperation of your psychical insubordination conglomerating to keep the "game" going; a game of illusions, also known as "the language game" -- it exists outside, as well as within. We keep the labels coming, and we keep assuming and pretending we know of anything about this world, others or ourselves, when we blatantly have zero tools to do such. Therefore your entire "spiritual" movement is existentially flatulent and psychically desperate. If you are needing to "change", then perhaps you need to stop "changing" on the surface, and understand what you are repressing inside you. The only logical reason why you want to change, is because you're "unhappy" -- if you don't know could cause this, you're changing out of sheer futility through futility as though the only thing you've managed to live through, is futility.

Insanctuary 2014-03-12 12:37:55

If spirituality was real, then what we "see" in a cloud would be real. Others cannot see what the other sees... Spirituality isn't a " thing ", it's a " projection "; a way of communicating deep correlations between your desires and secrets. It should never be taken in a literal manner, unless the host wants to undergo deep psychical inflammation and perceptive disruption. It deceives us -- our heart, our emotions, our needs, our desires, they are all going to deceive us because we're abusing our reward system and taking our pleasure for granted. If you are someone that believes they have found the "truth", and are also happy -- it's 100% you haven't found the "truth", because the "truth" only causes despair and misery in itself -- to a trained mind, it wouldn't be consequential -- it would be natural; a part of life.

The emotions you have are as real as we make it, yes. However we can observe the effects of emotions, because what creates "emotion" is physically tangible. What creates "spiritual", is NOT physically tangible -- it's a man-made construct based on ambiguity, misinterpretation and misconstructivism.

You haven't changed, my friend. We all change, with or without our consenting to an "illusory change". It's like a kid thinking they have the "strength" to jump in the pool; to get that girl; to face their abusive parent... It's an illusion based on survival. If you are wanting to "change", then your psychical domain is under serious fire that should not be feigned by "I'm changing for the better"; if you're changing, then there's something aloof -- this means that changing isn't going to solve it, it's going to bury the problem further. This is why people live multiple lives, and end up having to lie to everyone, because from the beginning, they have been escaping themselves, just like you are.

You're not satisfied because of issues. "Changing" ourselves isn't like changing our clothes. Changing ourselves is like getting a marker and making fake fingerprints on our fingers. It's only on the surface, and it doesn't hide what is really going on beneath the surface. In the end, you'll have to realize that life wasn't about being satisfied. If it was, there would be such a thing as "forever satisfied", but that too, is an illusion to feign the cold fact: "life is never fulfilling".

Insanctuary 2014-03-12 14:49:02

The bond you have is duplicitous. Do you have any idea how often our hearts lie to us and cause utter destruction? A heart that talks is a desperate one. Why are you desperate to have an emotional bond with your projections? Are you alone? Scared? Fearful of something? Why not face it, rather than create other faces?

I'm not being bold about anything. Humans are no more complicated than the rest of the world -- in fact, the Universe is much more complicated than the human mind, and look how much of it we understand today. What you think, believe, write, how you do it, and how you respond, tells me a lot about you without any of your telling. I wrote that you weren't changing because I understand what causes people to want to change. I observe children always changing their names, their identities, their roles, their beliefs, throughout time. I also have experienced it, myself. I know what it was that drove me and them, as well as for you. You cannot hide behind "it's my life; it's my mind", I don't have to walk in your shoes or know you for more than a day, when everything that goes on in that head of yours has been a reflection of your past and a summary of your experiences -- it's all being projected into everything you do. Notice how you thought it was "amusing", that I "understood" you -- that's actually you feigning the possibility that just might as well understand you based on the small time frame of communicating. Do not under-estimate the power of analysis, my friend.

Spirituality isn't physical. You can't touch it. Nobody can. You "think" you feel it, but again, it's so ambiguous, that you'll just manage to fill in the holes with rhetoric. And even the definition of "spirituality" is leaving you with much more to desire. It's not clear, and yet it yields to clarity. It's ignorance of the "abstract" properties of the mind. Everything "spiritual", can be scientifically, psychologically and philosophically explained. Want to know something funny? Spirituality can't even demonstrate itself. It just leads to more question begging.

People change, I have stated. People "wanting" to change, is entirely different from "change". When someone "forces" change, that is not "real" change. It's an illusion; a scapegoat to feign what is truly happening inside yourself.

Insanctuary 2014-03-12 16:30:18

Think of it like this: A skyscraper. Which is more important? The part reaching for the sky, or the base? Which makes more sense? A god bigger than a universe, or an atom smaller than anything in the universe?

They are unpredictable to you, like when you first play any game, whether it be a FPS, RPG or arcade game, you do not understand it; it appears you'll never understand the game because you are not the game. However you may come across avid players that completely "own" the game, as if they were a "god" that controlled the aspects (things we never thought to control) of the game to their unimaginable ability, which is what we call "skill". The mind is really good at thinking it can't think of anything else, when there is never enough to think about. We will always come to new notions, as I will always come to new realizations on how to break people down, to the point it's becoming as easy as breaking down the basic math formulas. Now don't get me wrong, there's never a moment in my life where I feel I am better than others because I understand them more they understand themselves. The same way I don't think I am better than a math formula because I understand how to break it down.

Information isn't what you need to break me down. You have to understand what causes each reaction; you have to know if I am hiding anything that could lead to opening me up like a formula, and finally you have to understand that you are not "you", to break people down. This means if you want to understand me, or the world, you HAVE to understand yourself -- this includes your "inner monster"; something a tremendous amount of people would rather die before accepting.

If you will it, you want it. It's a desire. You are "forcing" reaction, by acting on misinformation. The same way I can go to a funeral of a dead person, to later find out the person is still alive, yet I acted on this "lie". Your "change" is a "lie". Yet it feels real when you act on it at that given time. Think of your "change" like a realization. Have you noticed that realizations wash away, and every following realization feels as "new" as the first? It's an illusion. It's the same reason why people can't stop falling back into sex, drugs, drinking and being arrogant.

Maturity isn't "change". You're just falsely making that distinction, when there are more axiomatic and reasonable distinctions to express.

Insanctuary 2014-03-13 11:24:09

It's tricky to understand; I don't blame you for misunderstanding how complex forcing "change" can be, much like forcing "love" to be more than a chemical reaction. Remember in the beginning how I explained that you can change on the surface (i.e musically), but deep down, what you did not want to face (hence the change being forced by you) is still running afoot. You may "experience" change in the sense you can be a different person than you were before, but as much as it may feel like a "new beginning", it's more like "a new house, with a secret basement where you put everything from your old house in, being locked away in darkness". Let me ask you this. If you are "coming to terms", explain to me how "changing" (literally grabbing a whole new sheet of paper, and abandoning a project made up in years) has any relevance to the problem beforehand, and will be any better in years to come (like it won't become corrupted soon enough).

People cut themselves; they think it's "positive" -- not all false positives equate to a true positive.

Your information is certainly flawed, because you have to think: What does a "new beginning" have to do with your old story? Nothing. So how is it "fixing" the problem, if it's literally another reality you are creating, while burying the other?

My information isn't flawed because I'm using the self-correcting principles of reality to argue your metaphysical misconstructions.

Insanctuary 2014-03-13 13:46:11

Let me explain something real quick: "I think therefore I am" - Descartes

Let's start with "I" -- well, there's no "I", hence why you cannot communicate yourself alone, such as "I"... I what? You'll have to refer to "I" with other constructs to express "I"; "I...am", "I... am not". As you can see, it's relatively easy to change the entire representation of meaning by simply adding the term "not", which creates a "negative position" out of a "positive position". This is similar to how you can say "there is a god", by simply putting "a", instead of "no". This came from the question "is there a god", or whatever term they used back then to express that "totality". Notice how a question (is there a god?) became what appears to be an answer (there is a god), by simply moving two words, thus demonstrating how easy it is to screw with language.

Next up, is something more deep and complex. Our thoughts are not "our" thoughts, therefore "to think" does not entail "to be". The thoughts come and go, with or without our consent. Some thoughts are on the conscious border, while other thoughts are buried deep within the subconscious. If he had control over our thoughts, then we could have argued that those thoughts are our thoughts... much like parents don't "own" their child, as they aren't truly the "parent", which is why a irresponsible, ignorant girl can get knocked up and still be a "parent", when in reality it's taking an already existing system and pretending it's ours. Thoughts are information. Information has to be gained, therefore if people want to argue their identities, then they have to explain why we are defined and influenced by our surroundings and not ourselves. Therefore thoughts are not "ours", which proves Descartes is wrong. Thinking has zero correlation to "what we are", if we are anymore than "information".

This means that I'm still correct in my assessment because my way-of-argument is realistically prone, in that I am asking you questions and allowing you to come across your own contradictions, yourself, by applying my vast knowledge of how the human mind works in relation to the non-human world. You have already shown signs of wanting to believe what you want in spite of the contrary evidence, which already tells us both that I'm not the one that is unable to grasp the cold, metallic world we live in -- it's you, my friend.

Insanctuary 2014-03-13 19:00:36

I never implied that was all there is to life, hence I have strong emotions, virtues and understanding of human relations.

The fact you responded to that, and only that, tells me you do not have the slightest clue what type of person I am.

What kind of person am I?