If you did nothing wrong, you have nothing to be offended about. Being offended is a defensive reaction of a guilty mind.

Society expects us to be offended on account of false accusations. Society gets offended if we are not offended by false accusations. I do not feel that way, nor do I expect justice from the system. Society has a guilty mind. I would not plead for justice by acting offended in any case.

A thought-exercise for those who believe the Bible (or any other scripture) is literally the word of God. How would it affect your faith if one day someone proved that the Bible is a forgery. For example, by discovering that every seventh letter of every seventh paragraph, assembled into a sequence, produces a confession of this forgery, with a further, more complex key given to decode a secondary confirmation, so it would be something that could not happen without intentional design. Would you reject your faith, or would it make no difference, and why?

This is possibly the key to understanding religion.

Authenticity of religious scripture no longer matters, insofar as the question of authenticity does not have the capacity to affect the experience of the believer. The reality structured on the basis of belief is capable of sustaining itself, via the community of believers, and this reality is authentically experienced, which makes the belief necessarily authentic in that reality, insofar as it supports reality.

I recall this segment from Mircea Eliade:

“In general it can be said that myth, as experienced by archaic societies, (1) constitutes the History of the acts of the Supernaturals; (2) that this History is considered to be absolutely true (because it is concerned with realities) and sacred (because it is the work of the Supernaturals; (3) that myth is always related to a ‘creation,’ it tells how something came into existence, or how a pattern of behaviour, an institution, a manner of working were established; this is why myths constitute the paradigms for all significant human acts; (4) that by knowing the myth one knows the ‘origin’ of thing and hence can control and manipulate them at will; this is not an ‘external,’ ‘abstract’ knowledge but a knowledge that one ‘experiences’ ritually, either by ceremonially recounting the myth or by performing the ritual for which it is the justification; (5) that in one way or another one ‘lives’ the myth, in the sense that one is seized by the sacred, exalting power of the events recollected or re-enacted.” (Eliade, Mircea. Myth and Reality. Harper & Row, 1963, 18-19)

Common beliefs define reality, and there can only be one consistent reality. All religions, cultures and ideologies want total conceptual domination, without realising that this would destroy them; if reality were cemented, definitive, no longer creatively challenged and negotiated, consciousness could not sustain itself.

Reality is continuously negotiated. It has to be negotiated, not to make it perfectly consistent (which is impossible) but to mutually sustain subjectivity, the confabulation of Self. The process of negotiation itself is the aim, which is the realisation of Self by mutual mirroring, and the external reality is an unstable byproduct.

You do not need ‘reasons’ to not believe something, but you need mighty reasons to believe something. The reasons to ‘not believe’ something is simply that the reasons to believe it are not good enough.

The popular portrayal of aliens 👽 with massive heads and skinny necks suggests a terminal vulnerability. Their bodies could not endure the 9.81 [m/s/s] Earth’s gravity, let alone an earth-quake or a bus ride.

What do our rulers want? The same as anyone who ever had everything that can be bought or taken: to be God. It is not enough to ‘dominate’ to be God; in order to be God, one must become perfect, and it pains our rulers that they are not perfect, that they cannot even conceive of what perfection would be like.

Politics is show-business backed by terrorism.

The Government is a construct of your own mind, a caricature of You that you consciously deny, thereby externalising it as a ‘real’ attachment.

The function of the NEWS is to monopolise public focus by appealing to existential anxiety, in order to define and maintain conceptual uniformity of public thought, with uniform attitudinal polarisation. The news-business is strategically factionalised thought-control.

Consider the following hypothetical scenario. A person is so preoccupied by a TV series that they cannot think of anything else but the events acted out in that series, and this is the only topic of conversation via which they can relate to other people. That person is so absorbed by the series that they regard the show as reality. This is what following ‘the news’ is like for most people.

Corporate employees are generally required to believe the news in order to keep their job, and must believe the news enthusiastically (and amplify the official messaging) in order to be promoted to any managerial position.

All Experts agree that their wellbeing is more important than your wellbeing, so please listen to the Experts;)

Yes, the experts respect you as a moral equal for ‘believing’ them. Believing the experts is so clever.

We know that autism is genetic because it is just as common among wild animals;) [Citation needed]

Consciousness has no homeland.

Birth and death of consciousness are impossible, because everything that happens is internal to consciousness, which has no outside. That which dies is not I.

Given that the premise of ‘private language’ is nonsensical, God could not have possibly said “Let there be light”. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/the-meaning-of-words