• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Void's Journey Into Silence

I feel kinda bad.

My therapist is great. He's very honest, even if some of the things he's honest about are hard to accept. "You're on a different wavelength, and people aren't going to be able to get there, and this is how it is, so what are you going to do (cuz I'm not going to "downgrade" in anyway)? You're building resentment because your needs aren't met. You're going to continue to deplete yourself in this way."

He's not wrong, but again, it feels so arrogant and elitist. Ugh.

He recommended the integral community developed by Ken Wilber... While I am familiar with the name, I was rusty on his work... I need to look into it more, but... not appearing like my cup of tea...

I think next week, in an effort to connect with my therapist more by sharing an idea I was fleshing out with a friend last night. One of the only people I am myself with. However, the idea, meant to be an example and a bullshit idea highlighting the cascade of lack of verification in some things, the universe occupying in an undimensional space so it folds in and out, effectively solving the antimony of the big bang vs the universe always existing by virtue of a different, collaborative paradox...

Idk.

One love
 
Ken Wilber does not appeal to me either. I have listened to him a bunch and while some of it resonates a lot of it also doesn’t…for me.

I liked Adyashanti and Gangaji more. I dunno…Wilber has a cult like following and he’s been fairly anti psychedelic from what I have heard.
 
I kind of dislike Ken Wilber. He seems very sure of himself. Still, his models and approach could be helpful.
If someone is into spirituality, it's better to stick with traditions. However, for psychological development, any system could be beneficial.
Take what is useful and move on ;)

Edit: I think there was a movie about the guy or something...
 
Last edited:
Voidmatrix said:
He's not wrong, but again, it feels so arrogant and elitist
Click to expand...
It's just a matter of perception. Acknowledging your differences isn't elitist, thinking they make you superior is. It's common to think that differences make you superior or inferior, but it's not necessary (nor usually warranted) to think like that. Some people force themselves to fit in and consider it an "upgrade" (albeit a fake one) on their behavior. Why not just withhold judgement on whether it's an upgrade or a downgrade, better or worse? That way you don't have to fear neither elitism nor an inferiority complex.
 
Also might not apply to you…but I have found it’s true that sometimes in life you have to meet people where they are at. You can not expect anything from someone who is not you. They exist where they exist.

I have always been one of the most stubborn people I know. I’m pretty sure I have adhd/autism or a combination of both, and I have always felt like I don’t want to move an inch to meet anyone anywhere…and I have burned so many bridges that way.

You can’t make people see what you see or feel how you feel. It’s futile and you will only burn yourself out and waste time obsessing about it if your anything like me. It’s like trying to swim against tidal waves all day long.
 
Jamie01 said:
Ken Wilber does not appeal to me either. I have listened to him a bunch and while some of it resonates a lot of it also doesn’t…for me.

I liked Adyashanti and Gangaji more. I dunno…Wilber has a cult like following and he’s been fairly anti psychedelic from what I have heard.
Click to expand...

northape said:
I kind of dislike Ken Wilber. He seems very sure of himself. Still, his models and approach could be helpful.
If someone is into spirituality, it's better to stick with traditions. However, for psychological development, any system could be beneficial.
Take what is useful and move on ;)
Click to expand...
Yeah... I'm up to something different. The whole thing seems overzealous and overconfident... and you guys see what I do and what I'm up to... philosophically, abstractly, conceptually, etc. Idk. Im anomalous.

blig-blug said:
It's just a matter of perception. Acknowledging your differences isn't elitist, thinking they make you superior is. It's common to think that differences make you superior or inferior, but it's not necessary (nor usually warranted) to think like that. Some people force themselves to fit in and consider it an "upgrade" (albeit a fake one) on their behavior. Why not just withhold judgement on whether it's an upgrade or a downgrade, better or worse? That way you don't have to fear neither elitism nor an inferiority complex.
Click to expand...
ShadedSelf said:
I feel like those kind of elitist feelings come with the inferiority crap, the whole bundle, they just manifest at different times so they feel distinct, the idea of being different itself seems kinda neutral imo.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your kindness here. My worry and feeling of elitism comes from the ways in which others highlight things about me. But I do feel some of that is connected with my sense of inferiority. Idk.

Jamie01 said:
Also might not apply to you…but I have found it’s true that sometimes in life you have to meet people where they are at. You can not expect anything from someone who is not you. They exist where they exist.

I have always been one of the most stubborn people I know. I’m pretty sure I have adhd/autism or a combination of both, and I have always felt like I don’t want to move an inch to meet anyone anywhere…and I have burned so many bridges that way.

You can’t make people see what you see or feel how you feel. It’s futile and you will only burn yourself out and waste time obsessing about it if your anything like me. It’s like trying to swim against tidal waves all day long.
Click to expand...
I appreciate the first sentence so much. There's so much you're acknowledging.

It's not so much about my expectation... though that is a factor. Simply, because of where I am, it's really hard for me to feel connected to others, though they may feel connected to me. It's hard when people want you to talk and open up to them, and when you do, they don't get it, it goes over there heads, makes them feel dumb, etc.

I'm not trying to hand hold when I need help, ya know?

I wanna take a moment to thank everyone for the love, support, and understanding, allowing me to be the enigma that I am.

One love
 
northape said:
I like that I don't get you sometimes and need to actively think. Thanks for this thread and your enigma character 🙇‍♂️
Click to expand...
Thank you. I unfortunately need the reminder it seems otherwise I assume the opposite.

@blig-blug I meant to add, I think that there may be a manner in which some people are superior to others, like the ubermench, but no one is better than anyone.

If that makes sense.

One love
 
Voidmatrix said:
@blig-blug I meant to add, I think that there may be a manner in which some people are superior to others, like the ubermench, but no one is better than anyone.

If that makes sense.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree. But I think nothing is ever just "better" in a vacuum, something (or someone, but I'd rather speak about qualities than whole persons, which I think is what you mean too with a manner) is better for something, or according to some set of values/preferences, or a desired state of affairs.
So, as humans with a multitude of (often contradictory) needs and wants, there are always tradeoffs. We need to find the way that suits us the best with the hand we have been dealt.
 
I tried listening to the audiobook version of one of Ken Wilber’s recent books and couldn’t get into it. Early in the book, he cites Jordan Peterson as a source of knowledge pertaining to the notion of religious traditions being unified at the core, which I thought was an odd choice to support that claim. Overall, the book didn’t speak to me and I didn’t finish it, though it did have some kernels of wisdom that I was able to resonate with. I can’t really picture you getting into him @Voidmatrix

Personally, I am most drawn to Vajrayana Buddhist teachers from the Kagyu and Nyingma schools.

Tenzin Palmo, Pema Chodron, Anam Thubten, Dzigar Kongtrul, Dilgo Khyentse, and Yongey Mingyur are a few of my favorites.

Tenzin Palmo is one of the first western women to have been ordained as a Buddhist monastic, and spent over a decade meditating in a Himalayan cave/shelter. She has lots of great videos on YouTube and is incredibly down to earth.

Yongey Mingyur left his position as a spiritual leader and did a multi-year wandering retreat, living as a mendicant in India and Nepal before returning to his former role. Early in his retreat, he got food poisoning and had a significant NDE, which he writes about in his book, In Love With the World, which I wholeheartedly recommend.
 
Last edited:
ommani said:
Personally, I am most drawn to Vajrayana Buddhist teachers from the Kagyu and Nyingma schools.
Click to expand...
All of Tulku Urgyen's sons are spectacular. They are like the last remnants of old Tibet.
Garchen Rinpoche is a true saint. I'd visit him if I were in the US. I know of one jnani near Arunachala.
They say that mahatmas are always around, but you need a lot of merit and maturity to meet them.
🙏
 
blig-blug said:
Particularly when other options are people like Aldous Huxley!
Click to expand...
Exactly! Aldous Huxley literally wrote a whole book on the topic.

You gotta wonder when people make those kinds of decisions… it reminds me of an article by Michael Pollan where he attributes the notion of set and setting to Andrew Weil in the 70’s, as opposed to giving proper credit to Leary and Alpert in the 60’s. Not only was that attribution inaccurate, but it was also ironic, given Weil’s role in the expulsion Leary and Alpert from Harvard.
 
northape said:
All of Tulku Urgyen's sons are spectacular. They are like the last remnants of old Tibet.
Garchen Rinpoche is a true saint. I'd visit him if I were in the US. I know of one jnani near Arunachala.
They say that mahatmas are always around, but you need a lot of merit and maturity to meet them.
🙏
Click to expand...
Indeed! Mingyur Rinpoche’s brother, Tsoknyi Rinpoche, is also great, as is their late brother, Nyima Rinpoche. I also really like the grandson of Tulku Urgyen, Phakchok Rinpoche.
 
Void, with the greatest of love for you I say this.

The only thing holding you back from the greatness you deserve... is you. It feels to me like you're still partially trapped in a mold that you didn't create for yourself.

Ditch it brother. Be the butterfly, escape the chrysalis.
 
Voidmatrix said:
My therapist is great. He's very honest, even if some of the things he's honest about are hard to accept. "You're on a different wavelength, and people aren't going to be able to get there, and this is how it is, so what are you going to do (cuz I'm not going to "downgrade" in anyway)? You're building resentment because your needs aren't met. You're going to continue to deplete yourself in this way."
Click to expand...
Voidmatrix said:
Simply, because of where I am, it's really hard for me to feel connected to others, though they may feel connected to me. It's hard when people want you to talk and open up to them, and when you do, they don't get it, it goes over there heads, makes them feel dumb, etc.
Click to expand...
There's a lot to say about this. You'll decide if it applies to you or not.

I don't think it's useful to think about it as a wavelength issue. We have many different aspects of our being, and even if we can't connect in one or two or many aspects to other people it doesn't mean we are totally unreachable. At the most basic level we all have the same needs so there will always be a chance of connecting to others.

It's true that some of us function in a different way than most people and this makes it hard to connect with others. In this case finding similar people is a gift that makes us feel ok with how we are. At the same time it's possible or even beneficial to connect to people who we feel will never get us. Of course there should still be a common ground. But even if they don't share our rich inner world it doesn't mean that we're unreachable because our inner world is primarily mental.

I see that in many instances this rich inner world develops as a coping mechanism in a child who can't find their needs met in the outer world, or even as a refuge when the outer world is hostile or perceived as hostile. This mental world can be a gift but IMO it's useful to learn to set it aside when it is not needed. This doesn't take anything away from ourselves. The usefulness of this rich inner world is often the propensity to exploration, both philosophical and experiential, that combined with the higher sensitivity results in a higher likelihood of getting insight, of self-discovery and ultimately self-transformation. Its downside is the same high sensitivity but towards negative things and hard judgement of ourselves.

So all of this can be useful but it's not needed for 100% of people in our lives to get it all. Sometimes they can't just like we can't get something of them, it's true. But if we see it as a wavelength it becomes one-dimensional, as if this rich inner world is the only thing that defines us, but it's not true. When we see that it's not true, we can start finding other aspects of ourselves through which we connect to others. The most basic one being emotions and needs that most of us share. If it's difficult to communicate our feelings we can try to translate them in a more "raw" form so that the person we're trying to communicate them will get it. It's harder to communicate our thoughts but it should be easier to communicate the corresponding feeling/emotion and this is more relevant in communication and connection.

And the last and maybe most important thing is that sometimes the first thing that's needed to connect with others is connecting with ourselves, that here means loving ourselves. And this is very difficult if we received negative feedback from a young age. But if we start doing it we start feeling safer around other people, and by breaking the defensive barrier we put on we can start communicating through feelings/emotions and the mindframe/language barriers are less relevant
 
Last edited:
CosmicRiver said:
There's a lot to say about this. You'll decide if it applies to you or not.

I don't think it's useful to think about it as a wavelength issue. We have many different aspects of our being, and even if we can't connect in one or two or many aspects to other people it doesn't mean we are totally unreachable. At the most basic level we all have the same needs so there will always be a chance of connecting to others.

It's true that some of us function in a different way than most people and this makes it hard to connect with others. In this case finding similar people is a gift that makes us feel ok with how we are. At the same time it's possible or even beneficial to connect to people who we feel will never get us. Of course there should still be a common ground. But even if they don't share our rich inner world it doesn't mean that we're unreachable because our inner world is primarily mental.

I see that in many instances this rich inner world develops as a coping mechanism in a child who can't find their needs met in the outer world, or even as a refuge when the outer world is hostile or perceived as hostile. This mental world can be a gift but IMO it's useful to learn to set it aside when it is not needed. This doesn't take anything away from ourselves. The usefulness of this rich inner world is often the propensity to exploration, both philosophical and experiential, that combined with the higher sensitivity results in a higher likelihood of getting insight, of self-discovery and ultimately self-transformation. Its downside is the same high sensitivity but towards negative things and hard judgement of ourselves.

So all of this can be useful but it's not needed for 100% of people in our lives to get it all. Sometimes they can't just like we can't get something of them, it's true. But if we see it as a wavelength it becomes one-dimensional, as if this rich inner world is the only thing that defines us, but it's not true. When we see that it's not true, we can start finding other aspects of ourselves through which we connect to others. The most basic one being emotions and needs that most of us share. If it's difficult to communicate our feelings we can try to translate them in a more "raw" form so that the person we're trying to communicate them will get it. It's harder to communicate our thoughts but it should be easier to communicate the corresponding feeling/emotion and this is more relevant in communication and connection.

And the last and maybe most important thing is that sometimes the first thing that's needed to connect with others is connecting with ourselves, that here means loving ourselves. And this is very difficult if we received negative feedback from a young age. But if we start doing it we start feeling safer around other people, and by breaking the defensive barrier we put on we can start communicating through feelings/emotions and the mindframe/language barriers are less relevant
Click to expand...
I appreciate the time and effort you put into this reply. Thank you. While I don't disagree with a lot of what you said, it's not quite fitting the track of what I feel I'm dealing with.

But, humbly, thank you.

One love
 
Back
Top Bottom