If a bad person knows that he/she is bad, can that person be considered bad?

  1. Too much judgment in the question. We never know enough to fairy/accurately judge anyone; even ourselves. There is terrible Karma for judging unfairly! So don’t go there!

Humans are human, and make mistakes. We don’t learn from our successes, just our mistakes; largely because making mistakes hurts and many of us try to understand why we screwed up; so we don’t make that mistake again! 

Just consider it a human being. Think of a human as someone who can do anything you could think of. This is true for all of us. I know that many humans will say: -I would never in my life do that. But still many people think back and say: -I never in my life thought I would/could do that.

You see, most humans carry both negative and positive energy. This energy manifests in thoughts, feelings, actions and words. It is we however who choose what it’s going to be. You may be forced by others and even threatened but the truth is that you can always say no regardless. It may have dire consequences for you but you choose. Some people stand up so far that they even take death before their belief/ understanding. We’ve seen a few like this throughout time like Jesus, Gandhi, Martin Luther King etc.

So, if you were to grow up in a society where lying, stealing, deception and killing were socially accepted standards then most likely you would be a person with qualities of mistrust, fear, aggression, hate, malice etc.

Now, if you grow up on the other opposite you would learn the positive traits of life. So, a person who learns, will just understand that which they are subjected to. It’s very difficult for someone who has lived in a “hell” with all negative qualities. They may have been beaten, sexually molested, forced to do things that they didn’t want to do, fights, death threats etc.

Some just give into this and continues on this path because everything seems so hopeless. Others just break down and lock themselves up in a mental cage. These people often don’t realize that there’s always a way out from this. Fear is a major factor that all human beings deal with. It’s also intentionally used to keep humans at bay.

So, don’t think of humans as “good” or “bad”. Think of humans as equals but with free will to express in what they believe in. Just be aware in the NOW because that’s what counts. Even the worst murderer can do a heroic act when you least expect it. Even your best friend could engage in something so horrible that you couldn’t dream about it. It’s all about the NOW and the choice that we make NOW. What happened in the past has no importance more than learning from an experience. A person who robbed a bank once is NOT necessarily a robber any more. Some people learn from their mistakes meanwhile others don’t.

If a person thinks of him/herself as bad then it is a self-creation and a self-belief. I always say this here: Believe in yourself because you are someone and your life is important. How you wish to live is your own choice. Basically, I say (together with others) that we have 2 basic types: The person who gives service to others and the person who gives service to self. So, compassion and love goes from the STO meanwhile greed, hate, malice goes with the STS.

So, be careful to judge. I don’t judge people but I do observe and evaluate actions and talk.

I hope this shall help you in your quest to understand both yourself and the world around you.

Help those who truly seek guidance towards a positive life because there are many who need love on our planet. Pray for love to the humanity and to Mother Nature.


If the person is aware that their actions are bad, can they be considered bad?

I don’t consider people bad, so it’s hard for me to answer, but self-awareness is, from my point of view, a blessing. That allows us to change if we want to. Which brings another dimension to the question: What does that person feel when they perceive themselves as bad? Are they happy and proud of it? Or do they feel ashamed/sad/guilty about it and want to change their lives?

One of the reasons I rarely put tags on people is that I’m usually more interested in where they want to go then where they are now… So if that person is both aware of doing actions that are bad and genuinely want to change to become a better person, are willing to put the efforts into it and are actively walking towards that goal then, from my point of view, as long as they’re doing concrete actions to become a better person, they’re a great person. It doesn’t remove them from the good/bad dilemma, it doesn’t erase their past, they might still carry the weight of all the pain they’ve created so far, just as well as those who were hurt by their actions will carry that pain in their hearts, but I would still want their effort to be recognized in some ways.

I’ll try to explain my thought process, though I think in emotions, so it’ll be a best effort… The thing is, if bad and good exist, they would need to exist in a form of scale… From good to bad (or vice versa)… So let’s say that the person is in the wrong end of the scale and walks towards becoming good… At what point, on that purely arbitrary scale, do we consider that person to be a good person? When their actions are good? More often than not, people will hold their past against them… When they’re extremely good, then…? To me, that doesn’t make any sense and worst, it doesn’t encourage people in becoming “better”. It might very well be simple-minded of me, but I like to think that were we able to recognize the huge efforts the person makes in that transformation process earlier, and encourage it by being more supportive, the society, as a whole, would gain from it.


Uh, why not? Knock yourself out. You can also take a person who doesn’t know they are bad and consider them bad.

It doesn’t make them a bad person. Only bad for you. How you consider other people is not them, it’s you. Your personal judgment of others isn’t some horrid mark and burden you put on them, which infuses their every tissue and lineament and which they then have to bear through life, dodging torch-and-pitchfork mobs. Now. It’s a little stinky bell you string around their imaginary neck, which only you can hear the tinkling of – because it’s not around their neck. The only place it is in your head.

So you’re free to consider this one bad (for you), this one good (for you), this one terrible (for you), and this one amazing. For you. You don’t even need to tack the “for you” on there. It’s impossible for your judgment to be for anyone else.

Unless you share, of course! But if someone hears and agrees in your judgment, that’s their judgment. It still doesn’t make the person a bad person. Only bad for you two.

You really only run into difficulties where you make the mistake of thinking your consideration of a person means anything at all, except to you. Your consideration doesn’t control how the other’s friends, cronies and beloveds see or find them. That person may not be bad, for them. They may be great. But once you get in the rather psychotic habit of believing your personal judgment reflects the really real reality of things, next you start to judge others who don’t share your assessments.

Which you’re also free to do! “They like a bad person, they must be a bad person.” Knock yourself out! It’s your head. Shift the furniture around and do the décor any damn way you please. It won’t make anyone else a bad person how you think of them.

How you think of them, though, could well be a reliable guide for you. In terms of how you spend your attention, energy and company. If someone’s no good for you, why would you cultivate the association? You’re free to decide what you’ll give of yourself, and to whom. There are 7.8 billion people in the world, and not one of them is owed you.

Stick to the good ones. Good for you.

Do you believe that everyone cheats given the right circumstances?

  1. Hm. Never thought about it that way. I’d say hypothetically yes. But in reality, no, because “the right circumstances” for some people would have to include things like:
  • They really want to.

That’s a pretty huge circumstance, and there are some people for whom it will never be met. Their self-image as someone who is true would have to be inconsiderable in that moment. For some people, because of what else sex means to them, no moment could be that huge.

Their existing relationship would have to be inconsiderable. This is the biggie. I’m convinced some people cheat because their existing relationship has gone bad, gone flat, gone sticky with crusted-on resentment and scaled-back give, but they don’t see how to break up. The other hasn’t given them a reason to break up, and they don’t have the guts to end it if they can’t feel the other’s fault. They’re not happy in it – but cheating is a traditional bona fide reason relationships end! Either because the offense is unforgiveable, or the ol’ “I’ve found someone else.” This new person seems to “get them” or bring things out in them like the existing person just doesn’t, or doesn’t anymore. But then…

Whatever they might have with the new person would have to be inconsiderable enough that they don’t mind beginning it with an act of fidelity. As a great friend of mind once observed, “I don’t expect fidelity from infidelity.”

Let’s face it, fidelity doesn’t mean a lot to some people, but it means immutable tons to others. They don’t want to go into something feeling they wouldn’t or couldn’t be true to this person, who in the beginning stages means quite a lot to them. Who in the beginning stages, they want to believe can continue and only grow in what they mean to them – and vice-versa. And that means being someone whose love means something. The self they bring to that exchange matters. Whether they feel like they can be true matters. It’s practically the same in a lot of peoples’ minds with whether they can be any good for someone else.

Sex doesn’t mean any more than just sex to some people (which, “just sex” may mean quite a bit!), but to some people sex not only does but has to mean more than that. To some people sex is good, but it’s only great because of what else it means.

So I would say: the most important circumstances for whether cheating can happen are right inside the person. Their attitude towards sex, towards fidelity. Their attitudes towards the person they’re with and the relationship they have. And the kind of relationship they’d want, if they were going to start something new with the new person. The kind of beginning they’d want that to be. If you think something could be good – did you ever want to give something good a bad start?

For some people, these things just aren’t really considerations. For the people in whom they are strong considerations, I would say no combination of external circumstance would make them want to become that. Someone who in their eyes can’t be true (“given the circumstances”). Or someone who would want to begin something new under such fundamentally compromised conditions.

Or someone who’d want to chicken out of stepping up to end something that was good, but has become unhappy. Someone who would end it like that, in easy and undeniable wrong, rather than just horse up and end it clean or messy as may be – because it was over. Because the time had come, and it’s better to end what’s done and begin again clean.

Needless to say, someone to whom it isn’t important that they can be true to their promises and agreements with another, true to the mutually-agreed upon shared basis of things, it probably doesn’t take much in the way of external conditions for them to cheat. Just a cost/benefit risk analysis. Let’s recognize that to some, monogamy is an artificial construct. Forced upon us by society, and not worth respecting.

On the other hand, here’s what I could never get around: the person I’m with is not an artificial construct. Their real hopes and expectations, their growing trust in me are not artificial constructs imposed by society. They’re natural constructs that come from only us two, in who we are to each other and how we give ourselves. What she and I agree in wasn’t forced on either of us. We each entered into it freely and fully, presenting ourselves as for real, as true. Are we?

Am I?

Society’s expectations don’t come into that, not to excuse nor to justify. Most of your conditions are in you, when it comes to what you’ll do.


No. I DO believe that people naturally bridle against being restrained, are mostly built to have intense loving feelings for more than one person, and will do what they must to feel alive (even bad things) on this amazing and hopefully slow trek towards death that we are all on.

When I took some classes in lie detection for my continued education in mediation and child welfare, the man running the courses said something that I will never forget:
“If someone lies to you, it is because you failed to create a comfortable enough environment to tell you the truth.”
So following that logic, if you create an environment where people can do, say, or feel what they need to, and that it is OK, there is no need to be cheat or be cheated on.

For example: I don’t worry about my wife lying or cheating or leaving me.
She can go anywhere she wants, follow what inspires her wherever it leads, sleep with whom she wants, love who she finds herself loving, and say what she needs to say, even if it isn’t terribly valid. I have this freedom too of course!

This means she does not need to lie, to leave, or to cheat to follow her heart.
Since I am not the restricted of freedom, I am able to be her guide and ally, and her mine… you would not believe how many times she has provided a bit of wisdom when my heart was leading me in crazy directions!

This holds true for monogamous couples as well.
If you can be honestly authentic and also not restrict each other’s free will, there is no need to cheat; nor to suspect cheating or deceit.

It is a very natural thing when caged people seek freedom… most humans only like the restrictions that we choose, and the feeling of being caged up or not trusted are very likely to increase cheating or other dishonest behaviors instead of reducing them.


No, not everyone, but those who won’t cheat under any circumstances are not very common, I think, and there just may be some circumstance that they have yet to encounter that would break their honesty. It’s hard to know the answer because no one has been in every possible circumstance, but still, I’ve known some people who have a belief(s), or code, or something like that, that I’m pretty sure is not just for show and that prevents them from intentionally cheating, lying, manipulating, etc. I’ve seen them (so far) stick to it for a long time, despite it causing them a lot of grief. They won’t cheat even those who would or do cheat them, so I’ve seen them be exploited on many occasions by people who see their honesty as an opportunity and feel no compunction about using it in conjunction with their own dishonesty to benefit themselves. Although I personally despise this type of abuse when I see it and feel sorry for those who will not be willingly dishonest even when it only seems to benefit those around them who are willing to be dishonest, I understand that many people really believe, or tell themselves, that they must resort to cheating for self-preservation. I also understand that people have different ideas about what is honest and what being honest demands. Some people believe that full disclosure is required to have integrity, some think as long as you don’t outright lie (i.e. hiding the truth through omission or “truthful” misdirection), you can keep your integrity, and others believe that the only thing that matters is not getting caught. Since the definition of equality, fairness, and truth will never be fully agreed on or actually upheld in practice by any large (or even small most of the time) group of people with heterogeneous interests (outside of people brainwashed into a cult like state, will there ever be a group of people with completely homogeneous interests?), and so never achieved more than partially and temporarily, there will always be cheating according to someone’s view. I personally admire people who are honest to a fault, but knowing how things are and always will be as far as I can tell, I would advise them to not advertise it if they wish to keep from despising their fellow humans and have a relatively more bearable life.

Do you know there’s a saying that the smallest deed is better than the greatest intentions?

Yeah, I do. I have heard that. Is that really how the saying is most commonly-put? I wish you’ve put quotes around it, so I could have more confidence. Big note: I understand this is not your original saying. All my remarks are addressed to the saying, and perhaps to those who’d say it earnestly – not to the question-submitter.

That’s a crap saying, you. Trite. Banal. What’s the moral? Act? “Act! Act or all is lost! Do anything, but act! Act as if all depended on it: blindly! Rashly! Act if at all, or else you have done nothing! – ACT! – ACT! For your unexpressed, un-enacted intentions avail you nil and behoove you naught! ACT! ACT SMALL.”

Act small.


That’s just kind of silly. But yes, I have definitely heard either a saying or several sayings to that exact effect. I’m sure the wording you give is a version I’ve heard, but I feel like it circulates in mildly-altered forms as well. As well, and no better.

This is not a popular saying. Not in my experience. Not frequently enough encountered to fix in form and in mind as cliché. Frankly, the saying doesn’t merit cliché status. There’s something there, you could might make something of!

But surely they could have put it better than that. Hell, I could have put it better. “The smallest deed is better than the greatest intentions”?

That’s dreck.

“Great intentions can be fit into the smallest of deeds.”

There. POW. Not the same moral, you’ll note! Mine is exhorting great intentions into not just any deeds, but even small deeds – yet deeds driven by great intentions. Yours makes as if to say “Act somehow! Act anyway, doesn’t matter!” As if “ANYTHING YOU COULD DO would be better than simply great intending.” NO. No it would not!

No. The smallest deed is not better than the greatest intention. For there is in this world swarming all around us constantly, a never-ending buzzing and buffeting storm and annoyance of small, vile deeds. Malice in a dozen, an hundred, a thousand cutting and poking and groping, pulling rips and stings! We bleed from innumerable wounds of “smallest deeds” – no. These are not better than greatest intentions, and it is very clear those are not the intentions from which they proceed. And continue to proceed, and keep coming – until now and then, once we’ve had enough bad muse, we suck up our blood back into us like Wolverine and, as all the tiny and deep gaping rents close over, we say: “SNIKT!”

And let them have it. With our greatest of intentions. Put into action.

It takes deliberation, you see. It takes even discretion. Above and into all it takes: direction. Aimed intent does not spray. It levels and steadies the finely-zeroed crosshairs, and ten shots, ten kills. Great.

Par for a well-corrected course.

Smallest deeds suck or rule entirely driving from the intentions (plus or minus interference from unassessed coincidental elements in play)The motives, the reasons which are each deed’s cause. Small deeds cannot be good or great unless these intentions are – except by the most hapless accident. If the intentions are great, fine. Greatest intentions are at least motivational practice in the right direction, and pent up within us growing more and more concentrated and pure are bound to overspill – if we keep aim on as desire grows. But to say smallest deeds no matter how intended are better than greatest intentions?

What a hapless thing to say. What a shocking confession of ethical and moral ineptitude. What a misfit sense of scale, scope, proportion and purpose are flaunted by the saying’s sawyer! As if we were all back in the 1800s, enrapt in raptures of defiance, enwrapped in flapping Romantic cloaks, towering tidily on sea swept cliff tops shaking our fists at oncoming black and billowing storms, inaudibly hoarsely booming into the gale: “The Deed is all! The Will is all! The Act is all!”

What a pose. It’s not evenenough to dignify as an “act.” That character displayed is cardboard. It’d be blown over by the freshest spring zephyr, let alone a good roaring Romantic storm.

The saying is nonsense. That smallest deed is not better, just by the fact of having been done. It’s not that you enact, but what. This smallest deed must be a better deed than inaction would have been, if it is to be called betterIt must add value to the predicament. Otherwise it is not better. It is worse.

If the intentions are terrible, that smallest deed is liable to suck. No matter how small. It is liable to be deemed (by anyone with a deemed to deem with) a mistake. It was, and should not have been done.

No wonder it never became a cliché. Who in their right mind would wear that one out?

Is selfishness the opposite of altruism?

In the sense that altruism is defined as unselfish giving, as giving without self-benefit or reward, you could say that selfishness excludes altruism.

However, it has been pointed out that altruism is often undertaken with a desire for various kinds of self-reward: some “moral reward” for being good. Karma, heaven. This is not a motive for all, but what about the social reward? The benefit to us of others seeing us as good! Surely only the most secretive and clandestine of givers can avoid this. People know us in how we give ourselves, and people perceived as giving and unselfish are known by others these ways. They are seen as good. To pretend they do not receive the benefit of this is spurious.

The clincher, though, is this: it feels good to be good, to do well. It feels rewarding. This is selfish reward – how not? It is the reward of good being, good doing. The reward of making and shaping better self.

Unless there is an altruist out there who claims good they do does not feel good, it would seem altruism is excluded entirely.

  •  So what?

So what, though? All it really proves is that the person who feels good by doing or being good has something in them that wants and rewards goodness. Some essential good nature, or personal good inclination.

What is proved in this examination is not that altruism is bad because it is selfish. It is that selfishness is essentially good. Seeking own good is good, because seeking well is good.

Selfishness is only ever bad when we seek our own good at the expense of others’ good, and we A) do not care about their risk, harm or loss caused by us. This is callousness. Or we B) actively enjoy being the cause of others’ harm or loss. This is cruelty.

Selfishness is good when we seek our own good harming no one. Selfishness is good when we seek our own good in others, in mutual good – not only because it benefits us both, but because we have discovered that the greatest part of our own good is others’ good. Selfishness is good when we seek our own good in the greater good of humanity, abstract or individual. All of this is our own good, because to be the best being we can be is our own good. Who else’s? Well, as many as we can reach and touch. As much as we can give.

  •  Bring it on home.

Circling back to altruism, we can say altruism does exist. Because the kind of selfishness described just above is not really what people call selfishness. Even though it is selfish. Even though it is most definitely, deeply and highly involved in benefit to the self. But people only tend to call it “selfishness” when it is pursued at the expense of others.

Which is just what altruism doesn’t do; seeks never to do. So it fits. There is and can be unselfish giving – in the common parlance use of what “selfishness” means.

The real essential core of what selfishness is: a seeking of own well, is no opposite of altruism. It is in fact its driving engine.

Callousness and cruelty, though: the abuse and misuse of selfishness. These could be described as antithetical to altruism. Not really opposite. Just opposed.

If I swap your pen for one exactly the same without telling you is that stealing?

“Last night somebody broke into my apartment and replaced everything with exact duplicates.” – Steven Wright

Of course it is. Of course it’s stealing. What a funny question, questioner.

A trade is a trade because both agree to it. You can show me your pen and offer a trade. If I accept the deal and we switch pens, that’s not stealing. The literal physical object which is mine, I agree to let pass out of my control and ownership voluntarily – into yours.

For you to simply take it isn’t a swap, it’s a swipe. It doesn’t matter what you replace it with. You could replace it with a bar of Spanish conquistador gold – considerable intrinsic value in materials alone, worth even more if its provenance can be established!

But that’s not your decision to make. It’s the decision of both parties. The other must agree to your taking of what’s theirs, or its theft. You don’t get to set what’s acceptable in your proposed or contemplated take of what’s theirs. They do. If they don’t agree to it, including if you don’t even consult them, it’s stealing when you take what’s theirs. None of your other munificent acts of nonsense quality – such as giving them something else on the sly – matter to the basic fact. You took what’s another’s without asking. You stole.

Now, some people don’t care – and a pen’s pretty trivial. Some will swipe a pen, use it and put it back – right in front of the person whose pen it is!

They stole, and then they gave it back. If I swipe your car and bring it back in X minutes that’s still stealing. It may not be charged as grand theft auto (joyriding, where there is no intent to permanently deprive the owner of the vehicle, is considered a lesser crime), but its unlawful taking and unlawful driving if the owner didn’t consent.

The law always has its little fiddly distinctions, and a pen is probably not going to rise to a court case. But that’s got nothing to do with whether an act is stealing. If I sneak into your backyard and steal one of your landscaping pebbles, it’s still stealing. Whether I replace it or not with one of my own pebbles, I took yours.

It’s probably too insignificant for anyone to notice, sure. Who cares? But by the same token: why call it what it’s not? Why not call it what it is? The importance assigned to a given (or rather, taken) object doesn’t change the described nature of the act. There’s really no question about that: any time you take what’s not yours without permission, that’s stealing. It doesn’t need higher considerations to “count as stealing.” All it needs is something that’s not yours, and you take it.

Unless it’s like, out in nature. Some abandoned item, belongs to no one. Out on a windswept and glorious public beach, all alone with nature – and you spot and swipe a seashell. Whelp! As long as it’s not a national park with posted signage or regulations to the effect take nothing – that’s not stealing, then. Because there’s no one you could say that seashell belongs to. It is to all appearances and due diligence, free for the taking. In the most basic sense, you did not take what’s not yours. It was yours: yours free for the taking. It belonged to no one else, and there you were.

Hey, while you’re out there on the beach, maybe you’ll see my pen! I left it there accidentally. It dropped out of my pocket, someplace along a long walk. It’s there for the taking now; it’s anyone’s. I don’t even consider it my own, anymore. Feel free to swipe it!

The magnitude of stealing.

Stealing is an act of totally-scalable magnitude. At the bottom of the scale – stealing someone’s pen or stealing their penny – probably no one may care about the theft. But if they catch you doing it, they may care about that. They’ll have learned something important about you.

You don’t even care that it is theirs. The fact this thing belongs to someone else is inconsiderable to you. No, it doesn’t matter if they see you’ve made a substitution – the point is, you didn’t even care to ask. You entitled yourself to make the swap, and whoever else’s stuff was involved did not matter. You lack a certain basic trust and respect. To you it doesn’t matter if something is someone else’s. Only if it’s “important enough” in your view. Or only if you can take it and replace it with what you consider fair – without even giving them the chance of input or approval.

In other words, you decide what’s okay to steal.

Basically: it shows you’re someone who thinks they’re the one to determine whatever they want of another’s, when all they would’ve had to do to be sure was ask.

Problem with asking? Equals lack of basic respect and trust.

Butt-obvious caveat and disclaimer:

The question was hypothetical.

I presume it was asked out of a sincere desire to know what others think about this. Good question.

No instance of “you” in my answer refers to the question-submitter. I don’t know them. I don’t know a thing about them. My use of the 2nd person singular is the indefinite you. It applies to the doer specified: the one who does the act described.

The act described is not complicated or nuanced.

What is your own reflection about the difference between fallacy and bias?

Well, fallacy is a gap in reason. It’s either a mistake or done deliberately, but the point is: you make a sustained leap, a false inference, a bad conclusion. And a lot of the time, you just shovel some emotion or invective or passion or nonsense into the gap. Maybe that nonsense was what made you leap there. Honest mistake. The nonsense convinced you. Or maybe you thought the nonsense was so convincing you’d use it as a ploy.

Doesn’t matter. The fallacy is in the absence, the lack, the gap in your reasoning. It doesn’t really matter what you hide it with – except that logicians have done yeo person’s work identifying and classifying all the most common ways to hide gaps. So if you use one of those, you’ll find not only did you not get away with it, there’s a name for the specific error you made.

Bias is much more basic. Bias is a bent, tendency, an inclination you have, either for or against something. Known bias is no problem. You know you’re inclined to this person or thing because of its proven-to-you (in experience) good. You’re liable to spot if they (or it) disappoints you. Unknown bias is the treachery. You aren’t entirely conscious of the assumptions and judgments it entails. You may be applying category bias willy-nilly to individuals who do not themselves possess the traits and properties you disdain them for! You have pre-judged them based on some category, without knowing them as individuals! This is called judgment from ignorance, and it is not reliable. It’s just that your bias has operated, without you really examining its basis against the merits of the case in front of you.

That is my own reflection on the difference between fallacy and bias. You know, it seems to me they are completely unrelated things. Fallacy occurs as a failure in an attempted process of reasoning.

Bias occurs as the product of a process of judgment. It is only maladaptive where done unconsciously, and so misapplied.

  • Cognitive biases impact us all—various forms of confirmation biases weave their way into our thinking, beliefs, and communication.

This is why intellectual humility is absolutely key. Without intellectual humility we are stumbling in the darkness. Or at least a fog-haze of our own self-deluded thinking. This makes us prone to dogmas and assumptions of all sorts and sizes.

The Biblical parable about us each having a metaphorical log inside our eyes that distorts our thinking—suggest the vital necessity of addressing this issue.

Not to mention the notion of seeing existence “through a glass darkly” is some incredible wisdom for someone who thinks in terms of trying to address cognitive biases.

I would suggest that pride and power stand at the root of cognitive biases. It’s those who fail to recognize the contingency and limits of their picture of the world that have the most problems bumping into reality—in terms of coherence to their worldview and beliefs.

How can someone believe in unearthly things they don’t tangibly know?

  1. We humans are complex being in a very complex universe and are both within the universe and infused with it. Using a very non-traditional definition of God (who has no limitations) I have a book about our being within God and infused by that essence!

    Although we are purposefully taught not to understand our proper place in this universe, if we reject enough of the false teaching intended to keep us ignorant of both who we really are and why we are here then we can quiet our noisy minds and become conscious of who we really are.

All of us can do that, but most humans accept the false teachings and refuse to properly understand what is both True and accessible to all of us! Those who become conscious, or learn how to Love unconditionally, can easily accept Cosmic Truths that go against societal falsehoods! Most of us won’t; but there is terrible Karma for accepting societal falsehoods over Cosmic Truths. In the end, those who accept falsehoods live miserable live; but blame others, not themselves!

The Cosmic Truths are available to all; but rejected by most of us!


Well, if you have an honest hard look at what you really know, it is not very different from what you believe you know, outside of tangibility. The only way you can know earthly things is via the sensory organs of the body but the mind plays trick on you because what you believe to be separate from you, at the end of a sensory experience, is not so at all. All you know is a vast accumulation of concepts learned from others and not the objects of perception per se. looking at a tree, you call it a tree and you are satisfied you know what it is but the concept tree is not the tree. Tree is just a name you were taught to use to designate that thing that has a trunk, branches and leaves [some more concepts that you have adopted because there is no way you can communicate with others otherwise]. This way you believe that that which you are seeing is real, and that which you don’t see is not. On the other hand, objectifying things you don’t see, is fantasy, which is also based on concepts learned from others. Conceptual perception which is based on borrowed information is belief. Direct experience which casts aside the hearsay, is reality.

Now look closer- give up hearsay knowledge and see what do you experience directly? Where is the image of the tree happening- it is for sure ‘in here’ not ‘there’- there is no tree without you casting your sight and attention on it. In fact you are the creator of that thing you were accustomed to call ‘tree’ and can’t imagine that it only exists because you give it attention. Renounce the hearsay knowledge for a moment and see that the only certainty you have is that of being aware/perceiving- what you perceive you don’t really know. So you can say for sure that you are aware, you are perception in which the object perceived is united with the subject that perceives is, with no separation and difference. As such you are the tree beyond the word, you are the people, the nature, the sky, the stars you are looking at.

You will never be able to understand this by relying on your mind [which is also just a concept, not supported by any evidence that exists]. Turn your attention away from the content of awareness to awareness itself, bereft of any concepts; they all come and go, in and out the field of awareness. Give up the mind and just be- being is what you are and have always been. What is born in time is time bound and it must end eventually- awareness is not of time- it has been with you all along, regardless of its transitory content. This knowledge is not ‘earthly knowledge’, it is not tangible and yet it is the truth, beyond beliefs, sensations or imagination.


There is nothing supernatural, there’s just science that we don’t know about yet.

No one has proved that “white holes” exist, but they predict that they do. It’s not faith to look at the evidence and make predictions about what we’ll find later.

The simpleton only believes what is proven. Not even Einstein knew that his space-time existed, but he predicted it. Then he “proved” it. You do have to be aware enough to predict what’s beyond that blind spot called the future.

We even predict that the future climate will be filled with apocalyptic disasters. Why can we do that? By seeing patterns.

Likewise, if we could look at patterns of organization from the still unknown foundations, then we see linear progress being preserved from equal chances of stagnation and regression that should be expected far before you and I come into frame. In other words, there could have been a hundred different outcomes rather than the one that intermeshes with the next stage of linear complexity. This shows order where none should exist.

We are far more God-like than chimp-like, too. If you don’t believe, with minute and momentary suns called thermonuclear explosions, and exploration via satellites and robots to other planets, that now we are more God-like with science and technology; then that is your religious opinion. Because what will we become in 10,000 years if we are what we are now?

Just using your five senses is not much better than an animal. We must be better than that.