Objective reality. What a loaded term. Two seemingly simple words, but meaning that's so deep it's completely beyond the vast majority of people's capabilities to comprehensively comprehend.
I'm not talking about the fact that there are seemingly countless activities, skills, and bits of knowledge that anyone would be much more than eccentric to suggest one can digest in a single lifetime for any individual without advanced quantum energy arts knowledge. I'm talking about objective reality on a fundamental level. The absolute truth and cold, hard facts that remain when there is no subjective bias to cloud one's perception.
A lot of people think they know how to really think. A lot of people think they do it a lot. Perhaps nearly as many also think they do it quite well.
The thing about thinking is that it's not how much of it you do or how intensely you try to do it, it's much more about functional efficiency. If you don't do it much, you'll end up a straight up idiot. If you do it very intensely but incorrectly, you'll end up extremely anxious and/or depressed. If you only do it when you really need to, you'll end up a sheep in the herd.
You shouldn't just be thinking, you should be thinking critically.
Reasoning is the process within which one attempts to understand information given through any of the senses. Keep in mind that mental stimulation counts as a sense; the sense of general awareness.
The true process of understanding is attempting to emotionally and logically consolidate input from the external world with your internal interpretation of it. To understand something is to successfully achieve that.
Emotions are a biologically driven reaction to external and internal stimulus. They're rooted in the subconscious. They contain logic but aren't necessarily logical.
Logic is the consistent patterns that bring about your perception of reality. Pay careful attention to the fact that logic is the consistent patterns themselves, not the process of consolidating them. Consolidating them, emotionally and logically, is the very way I'm defining understanding. Being logical involves utilizing understanding in combination with logic in order to reach for truth. Understanding utilizes the consistent patterns, but the patterns don't utilize understanding. Being logical and what logic is as a concept are different things.
Thoughts and emotions aren't the same, although most people live life as if they are, simply backwards-rationalizing to give themselves the illusion of control they don't even remotely have. Emotions are the driving force behind all thought, whether you're aware of their presence consciously or not, but the thoughts themselves and the emotions that drive them are two separate things. They just happen to have a strong connection in cases where an individual is very consciously aware of them and desires to express said awareness clearly.
Some would argue with the assertion that the universe is fundamentally probabilistic. Why it's objectively the most rational stance is because although the universe can act in ways very likely or even perhaps certain to be deterministic in certain contexts, for example 1+1 is always objectively 2, at a fundamental level, the patterns that gave rise to these more static and deterministic contexts are so heavily involved with various variables that we can't possibly account for with sufficient accuracy within the scope of our awareness, given that we must always consider there are factors we don't know that we don't know about.
The people that think the universe is fundamentally deterministic live their lives with the mentality that what will happen will happen. While obsessing over things in your life that have already happened and you can no longer influence isn't going to be healthy nor productive, applying backwards-rationalizing to justify simple acceptance of the past isn't fundamentally healthy either. The same applies to obsessing over the future.
Understanding the past, contemplating the future, and active awareness of the present are all absolutely mandatory, of course in carefully balanced combination, in order for the most functionally effective state of awareness.
Perhaps it's more clear to specify then that the nature of reality, at least as it's most functionally effective to contemplate upon and attempt to adapt to in the most efficient manner, is probabilistic. The very basis of accepting the universe is fundamentally probabilistic implies accepting the possibility that it's deterministic, however, as that position leaves much to be desired as far as leading to very flexible and optimized thought processes, regardless of the true nature of reality, because it cannot ever ultimately be known to our perception to be deterministic if it is so, it's only truly objectively rational to act upon a universe that is fundamentally probabilistic.
Some of the much more intellectual individuals that I've had the pleasure of dealing with have presented me with the position that a lot, if not all, of the things I present within the scope of philopsychology are pieces of knowledge that several religious sects and their teachings already cover considerably. Of course, with the exception of the quantum energy arts.
I see the point being made and can acknowledge that a large portion of the material in the field of philopsychology that I cover in this book has in a way, depending on the mental facilities of the individual and their ability to interpret information presented to them, already been presented and explored to a considerable degree in other teachings that have already been present for quite some time.
However, philopsychology carries with it two very distinct and extremely powerful differences and factors that provide additional information, which either individually or (especially) combined, makes a drastic difference in the functional effectiveness of the teachings within the context of practical, objective application.
First of all, even if the fundamental concepts presented in philopsychology are in many aspects considerably similar to the teachings of various religious sects, an extremely notable difference is that the information is presented differently. Now, on its own and in a general sense, the information being presented differently would make philopsychology no greater than all the aforementioned teachings which only differentiate themselves from each other using that explicit and exclusive criteria. With that single factor taken into consideration exclusively, philopsychology becomes nothing more than just another distinguished school of thought, essentially a religion that is in denial of being a religion, effectively making it a considerably poor school of thought to follow given that any person being exposed to it would instantly see the blatant contradiction and question not only the intent in presenting it as such but also the integrity of the system as a whole.
The relevancy and point of interest as it pertains to the presentation of the information being different from that of any other existing school of thought is the understanding that the presentation of the information being digested is critical to the understanding of it. Because philopsychology presents all the aspects of objective reality within an entirely rationalized and objective position, it's therefore the most objectively clear and concise presentation of the given information. This means that it's most conductive to facilitating an individual's understanding of the material with no subjective biases present in the work itself, leaving only the subjective biases present in the reader's perception as a possible point of failure in effectively and completely understanding the material presented.
In short, what all other significant schools of thought have in common is that they attempt to present largely the same fundamental understandings about the nature of reality, but distinguish themselves through the differences in presentation, which is reliant on the subjective bias of those that wrote it. The interpretation of works is subjective, but the single truth of objective reality is objective. That's where philopsychology distinguishes itself among others that may seem similar.
Additionally, quantum energy arts, or at least at the highest tier level of 3, aren't taught in any other existing school of thought. Now, this may seem like quite a bold assertion to make, particularly without extensively breaking down every other school of thought known in their entirety, however the evidence present within the real world actually makes it painfully clear that it's the case.
If this information was known to any significantly sized school of thought, we'd certainly see several individuals, especially all world leaders, possessing, utilizing, and flaunting this knowledge and their resulting abilities openly.
Now, it may be argued that quantum mechanics relates to how one perceives the world and thus is literally the basis of various other teachings already.
Indeed, how you perceive the world is the foundation for how you modulate it. This, however, must be put into perspective. Because perception plays such a significant role in the way one interacts with the world, that's precisely why understanding it with complete clarity is so important. This is a detail that all other schools of thought lack with their teachings. They have far too much of a focus and assign far too much significance to many highly subjective details that intrude on objectivity. This extensive inclination towards subjective bias in the teachings is then reflected in those that follow those teachings, and especially when combined with their already present subjective bias from their active egos, is the reason why we have things like terrorists that bomb buildings in the name of their religion.
Most people in this world believe themselves to be completely mentally healthy. That's exactly how I know that most of them are delusional. There's a very significant distinction between healthy and functional. Most people aren't mentally healthy, they're just mentally functional.
If most people in the world were actually completely mentally healthy, the dogmas of the massive cults in modern times that are typically referred to as religions wouldn't be running rampant. This book would never have had to been written because refined pure bidirectional apprehension would've been taught about in schools. Politics wouldn't be a clown fiesta. A lot would be different. A lot.
True and complete mental health is achieved when one has no duality between their inner dialogue and outward beliefs. It's a state only truly achieved when one fully liberates themselves of any active ego. The state known in philopsychology as achieving a core value of refined pure bidirectional apprehension.
Completely accurate perception of objective reality comes from a complete lack of any subjective bias clouding one's perception; the end result of complete liberation from any active ego. In order to be able to grasp objective reality with complete clarity, one must be able to neutralize any internal emotional imbalances which result from past experiences, current preoccupations, and future goals and concerns. This is achieved by fully internalizing the understanding that one must weigh the past, present, and future all with exactly equal significance at any moment in time.
A key player in the way one perceives reality is the significance to which they assign the acquisition and interpretation of experiences in general. Most people see experience as either a tool or a goal, and it may vary depending on context, but they have one of those two views on experience that they consider the default, and likely the more "correct" view on its significance. This typically also applies to the significance to which they assign logic, however their default and potential for variance in that regard may differ.
This is a poor perspective to have.
Experience should be a tool and a goal. Logic should be a tool and a goal. Neglecting to consider all the facets of one's perception of reality will leave them with a perspective that can never be holistic.
But who needs to actually be healthy when you can just be functional, right?
It's been said that time heals all wounds.
Well, I'm telling you that all time really does for most people is give them the illusion that they're dealing with all their issues properly when all they're really doing is trying to ignore them as much as possible and pretty much hope they'll somehow magically go away.
Admittedly, depending on exactly what it is, it's indeed possible that simply ignoring something unpleasant or undesirable from the past may more or less render any notable significance it has in your life marginal, but not only is the essence of this mental process fundamentally unhealthy and promotes growth of active ego, it's also very obviously not even functionally effective when the context is a more major problem that you can be very certain will never randomly go away, especially if there's some kind of fixed deadline and you're aware of it.
Holding on to the past may not be healthy, but it is necessary when lessons are yet to be learned.
The subject that needs to learn the lessons may be you, or it may be another person, or perhaps even a group of people. Whatever the case may be, trying to trivially dismiss issues that unsettle you and brush them under the rug when there's at least one party involved that needs to learn something is not a good idea. Depending on the situation, if it's something pretty minor, it probably doesn't unsettle you much and you're able to find peace simply letting it go.
On the other hand, when it's something that deeply upsets you, something that eats away at your core and your very desire to live, it's a very different story. When you know you've been deeply wronged, and especially when it's the same person or group of people that have deeply wronged you that are the people trying to tell you to forget about it and move on with your life, you should never listen to those people.
Of course, after someone's used you, milked every drop of usefulness they see out of you, and given you little to nothing, or even just far less than you deserve, in return, they'll want you to forget about it and move on from the fuckery they're inflicting upon you. They'll be very eager to see that happen as fast as possible. More than that, they need it to happen. They desperately need it to happen, in fact, because otherwise, they know what's happening next. Redemption. Revenge.
Of course they want you to just take it, like you're their bitch, on this planet only to be used like a tool by those who find use in you, then tossed aside like trash once you've given them what they wanted.
When these kind of people tell you to just let it go? Someone needs to learn a lesson. Now, perhaps that person is you. Sometimes, you may be the one who's messing with the wrong person. However, unless it's clear to you that's the case, as much as they'll obviously tell you otherwise, they're the ones that need to learn a fucking lesson.
It doesn't matter how much pressure you feel. It doesn't matter how many people try to convince you to forget. You have to listen to your head and your heart very carefully, and you have to have a clear enough perception of reality to know what they're really saying.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting you start being petty and holding grudges every time someone rubs you the wrong way. In fact, what I'm getting at is far from that. What I'm saying is that before you start going down a rabbit hole, put everything into perspective. Ask yourself how much it really hurts you and what it really means for your life and future. What kind of physical, mental, and spiritual consequences, short and long-term, result from any event that deteriorates at your health to any extent, mental or physical, that concerns you. That concern is there for a reason. To teach you something. To show you something. To guide you somehow. You just need to figure out what it's trying to show you.
If someone's just being petty, it's pretty much always best to just let it go. Turn the other cheek type thing. Again, putting things into perspective is very important. You don't want to waste time and possibly put your health and/or resources, such as money and freedom, at further risk than they already perpetually are in this world we live in, especially over something that's not worth it.
However, if it's something that hits you where it really hurts, something that you know has scarred you deeply, perhaps even for life, then you must do something about it and it must be significant. You'll never be okay again otherwise.
If someone inflicts something upon you, something that makes you feel unhealthy, mentally or physically, and they inflicted that on you because they were being unhealthy, mentally or physically, that's totally not okay.
If you've had to deal with many people that have treated you in unhealthy ways and each person mercilessly left their mark, not really caring if they left you unhealthy as a result of their unhealthiness, and it effects you long-term day to day, that's not something you should ever take lying down.
Holding on to things may result in you not always having healthy thoughts. It may result in you not always taking healthy actions. But it's better than letting go of who you really are.
When something hits you deep, the person or people who hurt you haven't just damaged your health, they've deteriorated at your will to live. They've attacked a part of who you are. They've tried to take a piece of you away from yourself, a piece of you that you never intended to give away and should never have to lose. You'll never be the same again.
And it's all their fault.
An intelligent individual frequently questions the intent of those they interact with.
A genius, however, knows that frequently is not good enough.
One must always question anyone's intent in anything they do, if they hope to ever achieve acquiring a fully objectively accurate view of the most beneficial course of action to take in response to interacting with anyone else. This is because any individual that doesn't possess a core value of refined pure bidirectional apprehension has, by understanding of the nature of reality, fundamentally malicious intent in every single thing they do, whether they are aware or accepting of this fact or not.
As a result, until one has been presented with enough evidence to be absolutely certain an individual possesses a core value of refined pure bidirectional apprehension, which in order to do accurately they must first themselves possess a core value of refined pure bidirectional apprehension, they must constantly question the intent of any individual in their life in every situation, without fail, if they aim to put themselves in the best possible position in this brutally cutthroat world.
The nature of living beings (and not being limited to humans either) is founded on survival. Survival is fundamentally competitive by nature because resources are ultimately limited within the space time field. Competition lends itself to malicious intent to rise above. Therefore, it rationally makes much more sense to suggest all living beings are inclined towards malicious intent by default as a result of the nature of reality.
The reason why an individual with refined pure bidirectional apprehension as a core value doesn't fundamentally function on a drive of malicious intent is because they have learned and fully internalized how to go against their fundamental base drive that considers survival, in any and every perceived form, physically and mentally, to be of the highest ultimate priority. From a purely psychological perspective, this is the highest level of enlightenment possible.
Now, this doesn't mean by any means that they'll never participate in, or even themselves initiate, activities which involve malicious intent towards others. However, the way they operate when they do so is fundamentally different than those that don't possess this core value. They approach the angle of malicious intent from an entirely calculated, objectively rationalized and backed angle. This means they don't involve any emotions with subjective bias, and as a result, the final output of their emotional content in such situations has a far stronger impact than that of an individual that loosely flings around their emotions with subjective bias.
Any individual without a core value of refined pure bidirectional apprehension is simply utilizing objective reality as a necessary facet of feeding their emotions, as opposed to using their emotions as a facet to feed objective reality.
Simply hearing this description of what's going on underneath should allow an even only somewhat intelligent individual to be able to easily see quite clearly why the approaches an individual with refined pure bidirectional apprehension as a core value takes to situations involving having malicious intent are far more powerful than that of someone who doesn't.
In the same fashion that simply being intelligent can be used for good and bad purposes, being free from subjective bias caused by active ego (which is an entirely separate matter from any degree of being intelligent) can also be used for good and bad purposes, naturally becoming amplified in magnitude using intelligence.
Only subjective truth can ever be described by fundamentally subjective beings as tacit. Objective truth is foundationally complex in nature and requires careful evaluation.
Additionally, in order to truly appreciate anything, one must establish the subject matter in question and what can be interpreted as appreciation for it. Without establishing a love or hate position towards it, you're not appreciating it at all, simply observing.
There is no "ultimate ethos", only ultimate understanding. A truly versatile ethos would be adaptable and perpetually changing so as to not be well defined within the constraints of its own context. Extreme versatility as a primary characteristic then resolves to a focus on the foundational understanding of it.
Collaboration is a practical consequence as a part of survival, but it isn't the fundamental driving force. Even collaboration is done in order to ultimately facilitate a competitive advantage. By no means have I failed to consider that an entity doesn't necessarily have to "grow" to use more resources, and not only does that have nothing to do with the idea of only a single entity surviving in the end, it only further proves my point that resources are limited and this facilitates cutthroat competition.
Entities can support a collaborative effort with others while still maintaining a generally competitive and cutthroat attitude and lifestyle; it happens all the time in the real world. Just because a CEO takes care of their partner and possibly children, doesn't mean they can't be a shark to their client base and/or employees.
You may disagree that the subject matter attached to appreciation ultimately stems from a love or hate of the aforementioned, but that doesn't change the fact that without a firmly established attitude towards something based on a decided positive or negative view towards it, you can't form any solidified stances to do anything more than observe it. Even seriously suggesting that an established position on appreciation of subject matter can possibly have absolutely no relevance to either positive or negative emotion indicates an excessive attempt to distance yourself from your emotions in a fundamentally unhealthy way.