So I used to have a strong belief in spirituality and the astral world but as I grew it became more difficult to define and picture. Whether any spiritual experiences were simply chemicals granting my brain such illusions. At one point believing the spiritual or astral world was actually just a high dimension only accessed when we are experiencing less physically stimulation and are enveloped in a state of absolute mental focus. Better said it can be done when asleep nearly effortlessly, but since it's not a skill to be practice we are extremely limited to the experience. Besides the other factor that humans haven't yet evolved towards such goals whether artificial evolution or natural. You could say psychedelics are the technology to practice such an experience but that is a tangent of it's own right. At this point in my life I'm not sure if our reality is simply the universe which is it's own dimension that is itself limited to laws of physicality or if this entire universe is all there is to reality. If it's the former then the astral/spiritual world seems more likely than if it was the latter; which would mean this world in front of us is really the extent of the world there is to understand.
Was that before or after you threw gangsigns at the wrong people and ended up needing cop help to let yourself be more 'safe'?
Nicholas Jones
During.
Satisfy me or don't. At least entertain me.
Isaac Murphy
Shame. Wrong time of day to catch interest in /b I guess.
Nicholas Cooper
If you want to swallow a huge redpill I recommend you read the Wes Penre papers. It'll answer all of your questions. Stay safe
Ryan Bailey
The contribution is appreciated. However I've heard of him and wanted more discussion regarding this.
Probably shouldn't have asked fellow /b users.
Samuel Murphy
Found the retard
Brandon Flores
This "reality" is but a deterministic script, you yourself "wrote" before you were born. It's not so much wrote though, as played into existence, like a giant symphony with you playing the instruments of creation. The astral world is different, eternal, blissful, and can't be easily explained with concepts or words found inside this reality. Just know that it isn't false to say that you are eternal, always have been always will be, and if it's meant to be you can experience the truth that you are it, you are this reality, be it through meditation, drugs, or other means entirely. Known words and concepts fail to apply here, so if I'd simply tell you that you are IT, you are God, you would misunderstand terribly, despite it being the truth... Another way to misunderstand this is that you are playing a mmorpg called life, in your own respective reality client, which is also yourself, in which you sometimes intersect or interact with other reality clients- but ultimately you have to experience it or wake up and remember it yourself, my words will only serve to confuse you, even if you would believe any of it.
Elijah Thomas
Found the redditor
Chase Rivera
He has studied all major religions and found out how they are connected including the new age movements. It doesn't get more simpler than his research it's over 3000 pages but if you read through them you will come full circle
Gavin Gonzalez
You should watch odd tv on YouTube
Eli Scott
>It doesn't get more simpler than his research it's over 3000 pages but
Closed tab cause I figured fellow /b wouldn't provide.
That's certainly one of the better worded responses. However this wasn't about our lack of being able to properly describe such existences but to discuss whether this universe is the limitations of our reality or if such drugs/psychedelics actually allow us to communicate with these other forms of reality. And if it is such that these existences are a part of reality and not outside of it. Such a response is mainly a subjective view that we aren't capable of entirely perceiving the astral or spiritual reality. I understand that we are far too shallow to entirely comprehend. As such a god of my life I wish to explore all such possibilities before I reach the end of my unsatisfying life.
Connor Jackson
Reading great is
Noah Bell
Concepts can not be made simple in 3000 fucking pages. Just judging off the little samples you've shared, this is some real autistic shit
Colton Price
Ground yourself my youngling
Colton Hill
Bump.
Gavin Morales
my anus
Chase Price
Your anus is something explored and inhabited. An environment where organisms thrive and from all it's raw usage and lack of maintenance. Probably not even comparable to this small universe; if it is an individual among it's own species of existences.
Angel Cook
>not sure if our reality is simply the universe which is it's own dimension that is itself limited to laws of physicality
kid, take a course or two in clear writing. at the moment you're spouting word salad.
Alexander Flores
Eligible salad.
Lucas Taylor
>Whether any spiritual experiences were simply chemicals granting my brain such illusions They were simply chemicals granting your brain such illusions.
I wish the majority of people knew how to actually use that phrase.
Unintelligible spam.
Elijah Lewis
You got through it fairly well enough. Seems appropriate enough.
Julian Davis
My parsing it does not mean it was good or "appropriate enough". It was terrible, and the average person would have problems reading or understanding it.
Nolan Rogers
The average person is an idiot. Besides that point, it was all communicated. So any other complaints not being on anything illiterate isn't as justified as to say it's not appropriate. You said unintelligible, which it is not. So I'm not wrong in saying it is eligible.
Jonathan Jenkins
>it was all communicated Poorly. It was communicated poorly. You couldn't even articulate your next sentence. >So any other complaints not being on anything illiterate isn't as justified as to say it's not appropriate Jesus. >So any other complaints not being on anything illiterate What? Any other complains not being on anything illiterate? So complaints not about illiteracy? You mean like criticism of your poorly-worded OP's content? >So any other complaints not being on anything illiterate isn't as justified So complaints regarding the content of your post >isn't as justified. For fuck's sake, it's aren't. Not isn't. Aren't. They aren't. Not they isn't. You still want to tell me that this was all eligible? Are you sure that's even the word you want to use, eligible? Not, legible? Intelligible?
>So any other complaints not being on anything illiterate isn't as justified as to say it's not appropriate >not being on anything illiterate isn't as justified as to say it's not appropriate What a trainwreck. Let me try to make that make sense. Any other complaints not involving the legibility of your posts aren't as justified or appropriate. There. You'd benefit from understanding how terrible >isn't as justified as to say it's not appropriate was. It was the most inappropriate place to have that kind of phrasing. "As to say" does not belong there. You don't "as to say" anything. You say something, as to say something.
>You said unintelligible And by God, it is nearly literally unintelligible, as opposed to being hyperbole. You are dead wrong in saying it is eligible. Because if it is, then you have to explain what it's eligible for. Is it eligible for being worded poorly? Yes.
Anthony Allen
For fucks sake, Man.
I won't go into specifics since most of that is complaining about lack of context when you clearly understood from impression of intent.
First off I wouldn't say they isn't, wouldn't use "isn't" at all. There it would be "anything illiterate is not as justified."
Eligible works, legible or otherwise would have also worked. But I wasn't saying it's perfectly typed as much as I was meaning it's readable.
"As to say" was clearly stating that it was said and it is saying as such in the context of phrase when towards what it was directed to.
Lastly, in reference to complaints. The lack of specification that errors on the actual spelling and forming of the subject in the text shouldn't be complained about when understood does not reject any other type of disagreements. Simply those of the spelling and structure are not justified if it is understood.
Brandon Cook
>I won't go into specifics since most of that is complaining about lack of context It is complaining about grammar. Not context. Exactly one sentence touches on context, and is literally just the actual mention of context as you ham-fistedly addressed it. >when you clearly understood from impression of intent I clearly understand, because I am not the average person. What you typed was painfully cumbersome and awkward. It was not grammatical, it was not "eligible". It was functionally bad.
>First off I wouldn't say they isn't >So any other complaints not being on anything illiterate isn't as justified >isn't as justified Already, you are demonstrating illiteracy. You never said, "they isn't". That was the example meant to illustrate the issue of your use of "isn't" than "aren't". Now you are arguing that you would never say the thing you said, even though you've also demonstrated that you would in fact use "isn't" when you aren't supposed to.
>Eligible works, legible or otherwise Eligible for what? Eligible, for what? >rrskfskndgkndgddg is "legible or otherwise". Even your attempt at making criteria for eligibility is backwards, assuming you even intended to do that. The word eligibility does not even mean what you think it means. You can't even say that you clearly meant to make criteria, because the way you have formatted your words is nearly unintelligible. There's too much ambiguity and alien decision making in each and every sentence.
>But I wasn't saying it's perfectly typed as much as I was meaning it's readable And I am saying that simply being made of random words, does not qualify your posts for being "readable" in the sense that you are trying to convince me of. They barely make sense. They're all over the place, they're loaded with malapropisms, they're awkward, and more.
Lucas Cook
>"As to say" was clearly stating "As to say" was the biggest offender in that entire reply. "As to say" was not clear at all. At all. "And is saying as such" does not fix that. You don't understand why that is incorrect, and it shows. There is no context where either phrase, as you used them, is appropriate or sensical.
>The lack of specification that errors on the actual spelling and forming of the subject in the text This sentence right here is terrible as well. What lack of specification, anyways? I am neatly and exactly addressing exactly what I find to be the problem, and I am providing examples. What else could you possibly demand? >lack of specification that errors on the actual spelling What do you mean? The lack of specification that errors? The lack of specification that addresses errors? The lack of specification, the error? Bad grammar?
>shouldn't be complained about when understood does not reject any other type of disagreements Bullshit. One, anyone reserves the freedom to complain about things they understand. Nothing stops them, especially not here. Two, that is a clusterfuck of a sentence. Three, bullshit, other disagreements aren't valid in light of this. Assuming that's even what you meant. >shouldn't be complained about when understood does not reject any other type of disagreements Fuck almightly, that's bad. This is not a marginal complaint at this point. You type bad. This affects your means of communication. You communicate poorly as a result. It takes an above-average person to actually understand what you're saying. That's an unnecessary amount of work for conjecture and shower thoughts. And you're continuing to add legitimacy to the matter of you not being able to use basic grammar to your advantage.
>Simply those of the spelling and structure are not justified if it is understood Wrong. Also a terrible sentence.
Alexander Jackson
>found out how they are connected including the new age movements Of course they are connected. That doesn't mean this shit isn't made up, it just means people make up the same shit everywhere.
This has turned into a preference of how to speak more than it is regarding errors in speech.
The use of "isn't" is not incorrect.
Dylan Collins
Yes it is. There is a reason as to why >they isn't is incorrect.
They, plural, is not. They is not? Her is doing? Him is did? She's doesn't?
John Clark
They isn't what was said. It was your example. There they aren't would be used. As your example made a point of. It wasn't used as such.
Landon Brown
They isn't what was said*
Chase Sanders
hey isn't is not what was said**
Connor Morales
That flaw was entirely my own stupidity, should have checked both times before sending. Better to correct myself than to be profusely overcorrected by yourself.
Oliver Diaz
I should've just asked you if the use of "isn't" are not correct. That would've been more efficient.
>It was your example And it came directly from user. user said >any other complaints not being on anything illiterate isn't as justified >any other complains >isn't as justified >complaints >isn't as justified >implying many things >using isn't You could boil that entire sentence down to >they isn't as justified and already, the problem is evident. But user wasn't done. user then said >There it would be "anything illiterate is not as justified." "Anything illiterate is not as justified". Anything illiterate, as in, any of a single thing, is not as justified. Any thing is not as justified. A thing is not as justified. A thing isn't as justified. It isn't as justified. So any other complaints not of a thing isn't as justified as to say it's not appropriate. So it isn't as justified as to say it's not appropriate.
>So they isn't as justified as to say it's not appropriate versus >So it isn't as justified as to say it's not appropriate Do you see the difference between each sentence, or do I have to profusely spell it out? It, specifically, doesn't mean user failed to communicate anything. But it's not grammatically valid.
Let's assume that "hey" meant "they", since ambiguity and clarity hasn't been enough of a problem. "They isn't" is not what was said. That's my example. There, "they aren't" would be used. As my example made a point of. It wasn't used as such.
Is that supposed to reinforce that the criticisms come from a place of preference, or acknowledge that something wasn't used where it would be used?
Lucas Stewart
As we age(roughly at the age of 8) our pineal gland starts to break down. Which in turn makes the spirit world hard to access. There are practices that allow us to prevent this decay. Many yoga practices help prevent this from occurring. TL;DR DO YOGA FAGGOT
Logan Diaz
who let this n00b near the keyboard.
Gabriel Gomez
First I'd like to say that your persistence for this and accuracy for your own consistent speech is admirable.
Second, I've regarded a couple of third parties who all said it is grammarly valid with most saying it is mildly incoherent.
Would you have preferred, "..complaints regarding illiteracy is not justified enough to claim inappropriate."?
Nolan Robinson
Incoherent in reference to the sentence as a whole not the use of the word itself.
David Butler
>complaints regarding illiteracy is not justified enough to claim inappropriate >is not justified enough to claim inappropriate >complaints >is not No. That is still making the same mistake. I would have accepted >complaints regarding illiteracy are not justified enough to claim inappropriate use
You can't just end on "inappropriate". Inappropriate, what? What is the claim about?
