Refining The Way We Think
You can edit text on your website by double clicking on a text box on your website. Alternatively, when you select a text box a settings menu will appear. Selecting 'Edit Text' from this menu will also allow you to edit the text within this text box. Remember to keep your wording friendly, approachable and easy to understand as if you were talking to your customer


When we come across the most ridiculous things on the web, things like the so called ”ascension”, (which is by the way nothing but the ultimate escapism intrinsic in the christian ”rapture” revisited in a modern, ”new age”, way), or other delusional nonsenses like the ”galactic federation of light”, the ”flat-Earth/theories” of nowadays and so on,
and also, ”back on Earth”, back to reality with the whole kaleidoscopic circus of the usual modern propaganda generated by the commercialism of nowadays, by the activities of the politicians, the mass media, the trends and fashions and all the rest of it, then one should detect how there is a space that comes into being, a psychological space that takes place between the whole machinery of the psyche and the propagandist elements that psyche is facing.
That space is so often stuffed by psychological drugs, the sum of such drugs is called credulity, credulity is the fuel of self and collective manipulation, as well it’s the very grave of intelligence.

The more the mind gets ceaselessly occupied with activities that do nothing but enlarging that gullible space, the more the psyche transmutes itself into a dull, stoned or even schizophrenic, psychotic and totally irrational barking chaos.

The internet is a treasure of the modern communication, however, as a matter of fact, the virtual communication has largely contributed to the establishment of a sort of global modern form of mess and madness.
From thinking to be in touch with the ”archangels”, to the act of believing to be an alien from who knows what star system, from channeling this and that up worshiping ”high vibrations” whatsoever, to the veneration of beliefs inherent in other dimensions to come; the modern madness is institutionalize itself, and, as a matter of fact; it’s rising.

When it takes just few days for ones own psyche to convince itself that whatever form of nonsensical thing whatsoever is actual reality, then that’s indication that such mind has immense, unfaced, not addressed, psychological troubles and no stability whatsoever..
The more the attention is given to the protocol aimed to follow and nourish mental architectures of gullibility, the more the ”psychological brain” neglects itself through the act of pursuing an idiotic idea, which then becomes a delusional and authoritarian belief system.
It looks like a rising amount of people are getting more and more determined to transform themselves into actual enemies of reason by purchasing the most nonsensical mumbo jumbos, as well, because the mumbo jumbo cannot possibly stand for itself but it rather requires constant consensus; those battered minds, out of not inquired fear and not studied confusion, engage the poisonous and contagious necessity to spread the nonsense and to create proselytism’s so to glorify the mess..

This a phenomenon of nowadays, something that is unfortunately rising and spreading.
It’s shocking to see how the virus of gullibility is also entering the field of psychotherapy, the field of parenting, the field of schooling and so on.

It appears to be evident how a serious study of this modern psycho-sociological phenomenon requires a really serious inquiry, a deep dismantling of all forms of credulity, nowadays more than ever, before it’s too late.


Here comes a topic the many refuse to face.
the dissecting analysis of human love.

We surely have over-glorified and hyper idealized the sensation we call ”love”, which is most of the time not love at all by the way.
The many, whatever the field in which their love for something is and operates, follow this dynamic of thinking.
however; is it really that difficult to call love just sensation, which is what it is, and to not do vice versa.. by calling a sensation love?
Love is a sensation, just like fear, anguish, joy and so on..

To repeat: the experience of love is nothing but a psychological experience, which is a sensation.
Obviously the conditioned brain who clings to spiritual beliefs or religious ones or even ideological ones such as ”patriotic love” and all the rest of it.. cannot possibly avoid the act of denying such fact, which is fact, and rather it prefers to sink into the everlasting bias such brain calls ”love” or ”truth”..
and indeed the conditioned mind denies such fact by clinging to faith and beliefs and so on.

Nevertheless, the fact remains::
love is a sensation, neurologically, synoptically, cerebrally, chemically, energetically if we will & psychologically.. and as sensation, it has a beginning and it has an end, which means that it’s a fragment.
The denial of this fact is the denial of the recognition of the whole fragment,
denial that leads to a life lived fragmentarily. that’s indisputable.

One may say:
but that’s what makes us ”human”: love plus pain is what makes us human.
Well; one wonders; why should we accept this. Why ?
Mankind is the species, humanity is what we have shaped all over, all around and right within the brain, the psychological brain of the species.. and the majority of humanity, (the –”to be human”–), indisputably implies pain, confusion, illusions, distress, suffering and, yes, love is intertwined with this whole mist..
So why do we accept this?

The few actually detect how such dynamic gives us an immensity of problems, distresses, inattentiveness, confusions, blindness, dullness, and fears.
why ? Would we deny such a reality?

The few of the few are actually willing to go deep and intelligently deep, not philosophically or moralistically, into this ”why?”

The implication of such inquiry requires tremendous attentiveness.
The many, usually, at the light of the possible act of facing this inquiry, simply run away.
back to the loving bubbles..or new ones, shaped out of escapism.
that’s a fact.
a never inquired fact of ours.

Can there be love together with freedom from love?
Can logical intelligence and complete attentiveness be more important than love?
Can one actually understand that this possibility is actually what love is all about, meaning: a clear mind?

I would say:
I don’t see why not.


The psychological movement, (and all of its weight of behavior effects), aimed to gain self-esteem is surely a pattern that belongs to the strive to acquire psychological security.. that’s indisputable..

Nothing is technically wrong if self-esteem, (as long as it is a something healthy), which is a topic all over the place.. from the motivational arena to the basic psychotherapy of nowadays (which is unfortunately more and more contaminated by spiritual beliefs)..
however, it seems that the individual that loves his or her position of being on the path aimed to gain self-esteem, so often, if not always, ignores a couple of extremely relevant questions which are:
1) is the mind interested and able to actually detect when the path toward self esteem becomes an actual dependence ? A psychological drug ?
2) What is relevant the most ? The path to conquer self-esteem ?
Or psychological sobriety and logical thinking (which, by the way, contains an automatic dosage of self esteem by its very own mental nature) ?

By dissecting this word, then we have ”self”, which we know what it means, if we know it at all: the ”me”, the psychological accumulation one has..
and we have ”esteem”, which means ”estimation”..
Self esteem merely means ”estimation of the self”..
Estimation, however, is not what the actual actually is.. which is the ”me”, the actual self with all of its confusions, preoccupations, unexplored dynamics, concerns and conditioning’s..

This means that the more the mind invests energies in the love for the path to gain self esteem.. the more the gap between what is and what the estimation of what the me is enlarges its psychological separatedness..
In other words;
the more relevant the engagement with the estimation becomes,
the more one loses the rational and intelligent acknowledgement of what one actually is..

In this way, paradoxically, the love for self-esteem, (to gain and to preserve it.. with also implies the fear of losing it, or the concern of failure), creates a condition in which the psyche loses its contact with reality.. more and more.. which is precisely what happens in the so called spiritual or motivational or new age whatsoever field..

Love for the way toward self-esteem .. is not self-esteem ..
Self-esteem is what comes into being spontaneously in the mind when the mind nourishes its mental clarity .. and not an existential journey of some kind ..


By ”thoughting” we refer to the dominant activity to extrapolate psychological images from concepts and words and definitions.
Now, all definitions, words, concepts, which is what shapes thought, come from the apparatus of memories, the mnemonic matrix through which we all proceed every day.. and this matrix, this network, this which is what we call ”consciousness” or whatever way we like to address it, is indisputably heavily influenced by an incredible amount of psychological, cognitive and historical factors, right?
This conditioned matrix, the cognitive influence, is what shapes thought.
We must point out that the conditioned thought is helpful when it’s technical.
For example, what cognitively takes place in the mind during the vision of the keyboard of the computer, the symbols, the letters, the codes and all the rest of it, is obviously the response to the conditioned knowledge of the way through which a computer functions.
This influence is what makes the brain able to operate technically.
However, when it comes to the psychological life, the introspectiveness, the possibility to think about our daily psychological issues and so on.. there is a question that should be asked which is;
can there be thinking without memories? Obviously not.
But can there be thinking without influences, therefore without influenced responses?
Can there be thinking without infected cognition?

These questions, beyond their mere words and concepts, actually raise topics of immense relevance.. because the thought-process that is created out of knowledge is always mechanical, which is a good neurological and practical thing when it comes to the field of technicality and physical survivor.. but it also becomes a great factor of corruption, mentally then socially, when it comes to the field of psychological and psychosocial living..

The infected cognition equals a mental life, therefore the practical life too, and then obviously the social one, conducted mechanically, ritualistically, obtusely.. with a very dull, vacuous mind.

The thought is the response of memory, and when such thought is not technical, then such thought always seeks for security, whatever the field of seeking is, whether it be the church, the icon, the escape, the drug, the spiritual video, the guru and so on..

Can oneself’s cognition be the observer of itself and not the mere response to its infections?

I don’t see why not.

So you never asked, you never found out for yourself the very reason why you thought that this and that person were better than you, more elevated, more ”high”, more advanced and whatever.
Just like the diligent man at the ceremony stands in a position that must be lower than the priest on the altar.. and he never asked himself why such a thing should actually take place.. and if that priest, which is made out of thought, actually was really someone with a wider mind, ”close to the divine”..
You see? You gave yourself to the work.. really believing to place yourself on the path of wisdom, toward the end of your stirred emotionality, the conclusion of the distress and the confusion, isn’t it so?
But the so called work you did was, just like the man and the priest are, a product of authority out of thoughts.
You have turned yourself into a thought-process, a mind set.. watching ”open-mouth” the preaching of your favorite teacher.. a video, a speech, a ritual after another.
you took a plane to see his or her ”spiritual majesty”, you were worshipping such icon claiming some awakening, some consciousness, some enlightenment.
but you were actually sleeping in the lap of the mind-set.. in the swamp of devotion, which is the result of a stirred psychology.

You were looking for ”the way it is” but the way it is was a structure regurgitated by conditioned thoughts.
therefore the unborn Inquisition that a stirred mind requires in order to elevate psychological sobriety above beliefs.. became for you the captivity of the act of following.
The restless psyche of yours, indeed, became the ”fisherman” of itself by placing your mental existence on the path and race of search for the liberation you always wished but never had.

How did you know that the cause you were serving was supposed to be the line toward your ”inward liberation”.. since your psychological brain was manufactured out of confusion?

The tethered rope to your ”spiritual dreams”, the ”ascension”, the ”divine feminine” whatsoever and all the rest of it.. gave you the impression that your thoughts became able to swim.. isn’t it so?
..By ”creating your own reality” maybe.
and by believing in the ”law of attraction” perhaps.
and so on.

What you ignored was dynamic in which your outwardly manufactured dreams were nothing but the sophistry generated by the clever inventions of the gurus, of the masters, of the teachers:
all mindsets here and there to drown your possible logic by turning yourself into a devotee of nothingness.

Your dedication, the devotion, the veneration, was the means you used to polish the bars of your mental cage.. day after day, year after year perhaps, between a hope and another.. and struggles in the between.. justified as ”symptoms of ascension”, ”measures to gain wisdom”.
what a glittered misery!

The handling of our own psyche is too intense, only the idea is so intense.. and, at the light of this fact, most of us want to be insensitive.. yes: that’s what we want..
We may call it ”rise of consciousness”, ”kundalini”, ”spiritual evolution” and whatever we will. but in truth, we just want to find some security by escaping the weight of the mind.

The guru, the master, the existential teacher.. after all they are just like shallow dietitians;
by copying themselves one with another.. just like unoriginal dietitians, they preach in this and that way how to empty the mind, isn’t it what they fundamentally do?
No one invites the mind to actually investigate, to find out for itself in total logic, about what the matter of very architecture of the psychological weight such mind carries is actually made of.

You wanted freedom, that what we want.. right?
But in reality what we call freedom is nothing but a perpetual security to remain asleep in the lap of thoughts.
pushing away the act of thinking.
and this is what the what it is.. actually is.
which is pretty much petty and miserable, just like all gurus are.

Think about these things.

Well, the description is not the described, we said..
just like the interpretation in not the interpreted.
and thought is not thinking..
and the selfie is not the person behind..
and the private diary is not the mind that wrote it..
and a blog about this and that on he or she or them and the events, is the report not the actualized actual..
and the rose is not poetry, nor a divine gift, nor a decoration, neither an element aimed to bring into being some harmony in our chaotic lives.. perhaps by putting it in the center of the table.. severed.. it’s just a rose..
and the ideas are not the facts,
and the tattoo does not shape a human being into something different..
and the psychic or the guru or the human-alien hybrid and whatever, just remains a human being, with a falsifying psyche or merely with a mind stuffed by the psychological pictures of what that person is not.. nourished everyday by the followers of course..
and the translation of the perception is intellectualism married with conditioned memories, not the original perceptiveness..
and the evidences sometimes are fundamentally useful to find out what lies beyond them and not to get stuck in the rut of conclusions and consolidated assumptions..
and the church is nothing but a building..
and the sacred icon is nothing but a cultural handicraft,
and the order in the house does not necessarily represent indication of order in the mind but quite the opposite when that domestic order is applied compulsively..
and so often the possessor is not who possesses the possessed..
but rather it’s the possessed that possesses the possessor..
and the path toward whatever form of ”mystical revelation”, ”enlightenment” whatsoever, ”existentialism of light” and so on.. in nothing but a mind-set, which is even and always second hand, due to the fact that the seeker is not the creator of the path but rather another has shaped that path for him or her..
and words and definitions are not what it actually is..
because the translation is not the translated..And therefore:
the description is not the described..
however; it seems that most of the time this remains nothing but pure, alluring, cleverly/based sensation, semantic, words, concepts, wise elements to say perhaps.. whatever one means by ”wise” ..
while the actual acknowledgement of it, beyond the definition, behind the mere language and philosophical attributions..
remains an unexplored territory and dynamic of everyday’s life and act of thinking..
which means that the realization of this fact, doesn’t necessarily bring into being the actual acknowledgement of the fact itself..
and this phenomenology actually relegates these words into a field of mere intellectual entertainment..
and the entertainment around the actual..
is not the actual..
is still an entertainment..

There is this common trend of nowadays, fomented by a countless amount of mumbo jumbo sources, that makes gullible people believe that everything has consciousness, including a stone, an excrement, a lake, a protozoan, a paramecium, the cells and so on..
Well; cells have no consciousness ’cause cells have no brains, therefore no psychology,
brains have psychologies, therefore consciousness, mind-apparatuses which are, in the human case, unfortunately so often deeply and dramatically conditioned.

A single cell is not sentient, it has no consciousness (this would be pretty much a ”Deepak Chopra” mumbo jumbo/based ideology), a single cell has just the automatic impulse to regenerate itself, to reproduce itself or to merely preserve itself:
it’s the ”egg” of organic life.

cells have no gods,
cells make us,
we make gods,
gods and gullibility plus the search for a meaning in life, search that arises out of confusion and suffering, with no willingness whatsoever to deeply and intelligently understand the entire psychological edifice of such confusions and such sufferings, actually destroy the brain cells, psychologically speaking, due to a mental process based in the act of atrophying the elasticity of the mind and intelligence, (mental disorders, psychosis, neurosis, indoctrination, psychological and social suffering due to beliefs, superstition, irrational fears and so on), and they also destroy organisms and human beings in general (through wars, conflicts, subjugations of all kind and so on)..

The whole ”spiritual search”, no matter if soft, romantic or insanely delusional, is to be compared with a big alluring, inviting ”swimming pool” which is unfortunately filled with poisonous snakes..
Then the question is:
would you/we like to jump in ?
Perhaps with our whole families and the future generations
to come ?

That ”swimming pool” is our life and mind, the ”venomous snakes” are our inventions, our beliefs, our gullibility, our psycho-cognitive unstudied insufficiency, our mental defections and all the rest of that corrupted human business..
Maybe, if we really want to change, the desire of ”jumping” should be dropped, and a deep analysis of what is all about, psychologically speaking, the whole decoding of the very mental structure of the ”me”, should become our first necessary prerogatives and priorities..
then perhaps we will see the real flowering of intelligence, and the tangible reduction of mental suffering..

It all can be summarized this way:
As long as the question ”how can men change psychologically ?” (whether it be ideologically, spiritually, existentially or religiously or through cults and sects whatsoever) remains substantially more relevant than the question ”why men do not change, psychologically ?”,
so long men, obviously, will never change..
nor individually, neither sociologically..

Think about these things..

With no necessity to over intellectualize things, we can clearly see how the daily, yearly (and eventually all life long) deal the many of us are busy with
and caught in, is that swing between -what is- and -what it should be-.
It really seems that we live in that interspace.

The actual and the psychological space in the middle is the cradle of ideals, the -”psychological bacterial culture”- of beliefs, of assumptions, of idiotic gossip so often and all the rest of it.
From this middle space; cultures, tribalisms, traditions, moralities so often sectoral and corrupted and superstitions come into being, isn’t it so?

1) if one intelligently observe what reality actually is, then one can tangibly acknowledge how the ”should” is not a fact, not yet at least.
The -”I should be like that, not like this”- is perhaps a really productive and intelligent selection;
when the selection is really intelligent and productive than it really should be like that;
we should be able to emerge from our stupidity,
we should be capable of comprehending, for example, that an action taken out of the alluring but nebulous sentiment, without the intelligent comprehension of that sentiment, results so often into an almost guaranteed problem, and so on;
of course we should do so if we really care about our mental sake and related actions.. however; the -”it should be”- is not (yet) reality;
what is really is what is psychologically right here right now.

2) and here comes a question:
can the mind that is interested in the -”should”- wholly comprehend what to that mind is relevant the most?
What’s relevant the most? The present (what it is) or the future (what it should be) ?.

3) Can the psyche direct and devote whole attention to the -”what it is”- and, just for a little while, discharge the -”what it should be”- so to prevent distracting circumstances?

4) Can the mind monitor and deeply comprehend the whole psychological structure of what that mind actually is?
Because the psyche that tries to change its stupidity into intelligence produces nothing but confabulations which remain the inexorable product of stupidity and in future stupidity they obviously result.
If the mind instead sincerely wants to understand its dullness, its oscillating pettiness due to various forms of psychological littleness, whether morbid pride, vanity, feeling of revenge due to past sorrows and forms of mess and so on.
if the mind really wants to study its stupid sides, one after another, then something psychologically revolutionary comes into being, which means; the flowering of intelligence that mind, most likely, never had before.

Think about these things.

We all have fantasies, which is fine unless they are insane, pareidolic, gullible, nonsensical and even deleterious brutal;
fantasies are neurologically, cognitively and psychologically means to evolve..
however; what seems to be a deep lack, as well a handicap along the educative process, is the dramatic absence of questioning and observing about the circumstances in which our fantasies cross the border after which they become belief systems..

It really seems that we all live, humanistically and historically speaking, within a massive paradox; a paradox in which our fantasies are both our cognitive and evolutionary treasure, psychologically speaking and in terms of civilization,
and our indisputable curse:
the whole ”sacredness” for example, the acts of killing with each other due to beliefs, ideals, credulities, the gods and all the rest of that; are all the results of fantasies,
or better to say the result of the not inquired passages from fantasies into beliefs..

Fantasies create illusions, irrational fears, systems of superstitions, pareidolia, psychological hoaxes, mental and collective hallucinations mistaken as truths..
and they also create incredibly beautiful and productive things; technology, art, music, fairy tales, poetry, movies, inventions, creativity and so on, unless those elements do not permeate our levels of suggestibility making us silly, dull and naive..
However; the intelligent analysis of the very structure of fantasies remains most of the times unexplored, isn’t it so ?
This lack is what represents the actual problem.
This problem is indeed where the very roots of our credulity lie (and lie).

So; why are we not interested in automatically detect if a fantasy is or is not crossing the border after which it becomes belief ?
Why are we not interested to understand this whole matter in the very moment the fantasy arises in the brain and what it actually does ?
Are we interested in this self-observation ?
Or we rather prefer to go on ?
Because what can be nothing but a fantasy today, perhaps becomes an institutionalized dogmatic ”truth” tomorrow..
and then all intelligence is lost, while conflict comes into being..

Think about these things..

At the light of this actual geo-social messy movements inherent in the situation of the refugees in Europe, perhaps we comprehend more what we have been sharing for so long time in regard of relevance and the quality of attentive observation;
it's shocking to denote how people in regard of this mess reason and are so deeply in lack of a serious analysis of what's happening and rather slaves of acts of taking drastic positions out of fears, preoccupations or forms of naivety; conspiracy/based mindsets and goodness/stuffed mentalities, irrational fears and naive gooders, seem to take over rational thinking while it also seems that most of the preoccupied people concerned about these current events or, on the opposite: enthusiastic with the goodness inherent in hosting such people in their own countries, it appears that most of those people largely ignore the matter of beliefs and faiths and their implications, and therefore a concrete debate about such things does not come into being..
Most of the refugees have deeply rooted beliefs,
while western people are quite the same.
How are we facing this modern geopolitical movement?
This mixture of beliefs and its inevitable conflictual outcomes?
With the mantra called ''integration''?
By building a church here and a mosque there and pretending that their followers get along harmonically in the name of mutual religious respect?
By applying suggestions just like the offer made by Saudi Arabia to build 200 mosques in Germany?
History teaches us how the disinterest toward intelligent observation leads to collective naivety inherent in moralisms such as ''religious sensitivity'' and ''freedom of religion'', the translation of which actually means ''freedom of indoctrinating''.
and even worst; meaning the monster of fanaticism expressed through new walls, new antagonisms, new ignorance sedimented in forms of nationalism and all the modern aspects of tribalistic territoriality.
The delicacy of the current events, as well their inevitable intensification in the coming years, imposes an urgent need to discuss about the psycho-social and cognitive problems inherent in faiths and beliefs, and this discussion cannot absolutely become an intelligent discussion and productive observation as long as this observation and discussion arise from a conditioned base produced by our own beliefs ..
One has to analyse these problems with a mind free of traditionalists, free of faiths and religions, beliefs and nationalisms, free of nationalisms and culturally religious based mindsets, because that's the only appropriate way to erect, without imposing, a necessary sober education that can make men intelligent human beings, not dull believers but rather men and women free of religious, free of stoned cultural and tribalistic conditionings, intelligent thinkers without anchored bonds tethered to illusory faiths and beliefs, because any act aimed at facilitating the practice of beliefs and their inevitable indoctrinations as outcomes, leads inexorably to chaos and conflict, disorder and problematic years of future mess .

when we are trying to be a good person what is going on?
do we ever think about the rules and regulations that accompany this psychologically secure desire? How to be a good person in someone else’s eyes we need to either impose our ideals of goodness on them or make them state and keep to their ideals of goodness so we can perform to the role we imagine they would approve of. either way it is slavery.
The cynical side of the need to feel a good person comes into being and gets represented by that circumstance in which, (and when), he or she who wants to feel as a ”good person” demands such confirmations and consensus to other people;
this psycho-behavioral trend is indeed no longer ”goodness”, but rather it slightly transforms itself into an almost petty activity aimed to use and even abuse others for mere self-validation’s purposes.
This cognitive and behavioral modality actually clouds the necessary intelligent self inquire one requires in order to realize what’s the percentage of junk and conditioning’s, dependence and addiction and what’s really productive, in terms of intelligence and sobriety, is that business and urge one calls ”goodness”, so to prevent its transformation into selfishness disguised as ‘good values’.

First of all the conceptualization of ”goodness” is so often both localistic, (inherent in the cultural values, the background, the local or tribalistic morality, the beliefs and all the rest of it), and anchored to oneself’s past acknowledgement, (with its the related weight of conditioning’s).

As long as one does not seriously study the wholeness of the cognitive structure one identifies as ”goodness”, so long and so often, aside the superficial politeness and the harmless behaviors, the formal or tender words perhaps, the various ”I love you” at the end of the call or the message and so on, this form of not inquired goodness remains nothing but a movement of dull psycho-behavioral banalities because a person that functions like that is fundamentally a mind that demands constant validation, without any introspection about this, often exhausting, demanding addiction.

Can a human being captured in such ideological and moralistic psychological and social constructs and games analyze in full the totality of this conditioned attitudes ?
If the psyche becomes interested in such studies, then the individual perhaps realizes how only the mind interested to stand for itself, is the mind that cultivates lucid and intelligent goodness.
Aside the various dogmas and ideals that this or that culture encourage, it’s obvious that sober and intelligent goodness can only come into being when the brain is interested in its psychological sufficiency, which is mental sobriety, logic without anchors to illusions, perpetual questioning and solid attentiveness.

Let’s put it in this way: when the wish ”to be a good person” becomes more important than the introspective self-study of what the ”person who wants to be a good person” actually is, then the ”person who wants to be a good person” is not going to become a good person;
the behavior becomes polite perhaps, the gestures and the moderation with words and so on,
but psychologically speaking a person like that becomes nothing but a social robot, at the mercy of the local cultural values, with no self-observation whatsoever.
Then the silent, inward, surreptitious fear of losing this achieved but shaky status quo comes into being, inexorably.


Yes, the world contains countless contradictions, violence and cruel in-congruences of all kind, manipulations, addictions, exploitations, biased and deeply confused minds, fear and all the rest of that terrible human business;
we shouldn’t be afraid to declare what reality is for what it actually is, rather than labeling it with romantic illusions.

However, there are also beautiful minds out there, sober intelligence at work, struggling with a little bit of this and a little bit of that perhaps, but determined to not give up and to rather study the whole structure of the inward and outward human struggle.
There are deeply productive activities organizations and people willing to live their individual life and their togetherness without any sort of games, prejudices, lies, religiosity, cults or demi-culty/structures, dogmatic beliefs, sectarian ideals and all the rest of that junk.
One does not behave negatively nor pessimistically when one wants to intelligently detect the whole mess in the two ”worlds”; the psychological one and the social one:
to to that is nothing but to be rational and realistic so to not live blindly, in and through a deliberate denial.

To construct a mere ”positive mind set” out of not comprehended confusions, with no intelligent inquiry at all, is indeed, to open the mental and behavioral ”doors” to a sort of psychological dullness, forcibly glittered, but dullness remains.. as well it’s to live in irresponsible denial, as well it means to ignore the possible abuses to come..

This is to say that ”to trust the world” is not to jump into an ”existential pool” filled with poisonous snakes.. but rather it means: to be logically and intelligently selective, to question everything rationally, and then: question the questioned.. without clinging to any romantic but meaningless ideology or illusions whatsoever..

To question the questioned is the way of intelligent selectiveness; the refinement of intelligence:
the mind that does not rely on to illusions nor too extreme conclusions, neither to the adhesion to any beliefs and spiritual romantic authorities of any sort, is indeed the mind that intelligently selects logical self and outward analysis.
Then trust and intelligent seductiveness comes into being spontaneous. as the result of self-psychological sobriety.. because of which psychological insufficiency does not attack the process of reasoning.. and the mind grates no more.


When it comes to moderation in regard of alcohol and other drugs (excluding the devastating ones of course)..
then how can one be sure if the perception of the moderation one holds, (or one believes he or she holds), is actually intelligent moderation or if it rather already became a deceiving mindset which then leads to stupid or even deleterious consequences or hurting aftermaths ?

Isn’t it true that both tolerance and moderation so often show us, no matter of we like it or not, how many problems we actually have when it comes to deal with those positions ?
We surely have considerable issues with the circumstances related to tolerance and moderation..
What is the manner through which we usually address tolerance and/or moderation ?
Through values ? Through pride ? Through our past ? Through self-beliefs or misty faiths or mentalities inherent in the various kaleidoscopic misconceptions that tell us ”what we are capable of” ?
Through some pre-packaged models of ”goodness” inoculated in our mind by external mind-sets and social morality and all the rest of ?

Pride, excess of politeness or ”blasts” of irrational reactivity so often actually behave like real drugs..
One gets hurt in both ways:
an excess of politeness often gives fuel to the desire of taking advantage in a specific situation, perpetrated by a counter-part..
An excess of anger gives fuel to irrational conceptualizations, expressions and behaviours and all the rest of that mess we all well know..

Therefore; what is one to do with it comes to tolerance and/or moderation which seem to be daily occupations ?
For example; when is that moderation crosses the border after which moderation becomes belief ?
You know ? Stuff like;
”don’t worry; I can stop with the drug any time I want” ..
”don’t worry, trust me, I’m going to change”..
and so on..
And when is that politeness loses its intelligent ingredients and its necessary attentiveness and becomes an addiction and a tendency that paradoxically hurts the mind that clings to that value ?

Obviously one should be capable to detect analytically and logically the whole approach to these things and the procedures of these psycho-behavioural circumstances.. therefore getting about to speak up logically through a firm, solid, intelligent position..


Lack of attention is the very real source of the majority of psychological conflicts.
Thought turned into mindset is responsible of the division between the thinker and the experienced, which equals the sleep of the thinker.

The ”spiritual mind” lacks attention ’cause it’s subjugated by its credulity, by its desire to believe, to cling to illusions, to be a part of.. which are all an activity out of confusion.
The religious mind lacks attention ’cause it’s encapsulated within the necessary nourishment of its dogmas, prayers, superstitions and rituals it has to accomplish every day.
The ideological mind lacks attention ’cause it’s captured by its anchors which are tethered to its boxes and bonds.
The ”mind of the street”, the ordinary mind, with its weight of dramatic disinterestedness, of indifference, is a slave of its shallow morals, shallow values, petty ambitions and miseries of various nature.
And they all are conflictual, aren’t they so?
Are there fractures within the spiritual community?
Jealousies, hierarchies, gossip, mediocre forms of pettiness, envy, processes of imitation and competition?
And in the religious group? Isn’t it the same?
And among different idiotic and nonsensical factions under the dome of the same belief or ideal?

The mind that moves a step within the immediate perception of this sober inquiry inherent in this middle distortion, which is reality is to be considered a healthy mind. merely because a mind like that is a mind interested, (seriously interested, not ”mystically”, or as a form of intellectual entertainment of some sort.. but rather completely interested), in the flowering of its unbiased intelligence.

All other minds basically depend on public opinions, of what they have been told, accepted, denied and intertwined with something else.
which means that the struggle to continue.

The believing psyche is always conflictual, insufficient. it’s a fact and, as well; its history.
Reasoning without believing, instead, brings into being the immediate perception a sane psychology requires in order to recognize the real and drop the trash.

I assume that sensation we call ”love” comes from the verbal and emotional translation of the act of caring, caring in terms of affection and giving values..
Now: let’s imagine a political fiction/based reality in which 500, 1000 years from now, after the nazi’s won the second war world, the nazist ideology has become something quite moderate in some parts of the world, however, people that cling to such ideals still love the adolf hitler’s ”mein kamp” as their reference point, their ”bible”, right ?
Would you accept, (a general you, not just you), this ideology ?
Probably not, right ?
Because that ideology has as roots tremendous pain, conflicts, absurdities, tortures, impositions, killing, abominations.. which is what the base of that ideal is made of, as a matter of fact..
Then why do you, (general you), love the bible, whether it be the chatholic one, or the gita, or the quran and whatever form of more or less historical ideology?
Isn’t it the same ?
Can you see that there is so often, if not always, ”love” without the inquiry about what this and that ”love” are all about ?
In regard of this psychological activity, the activity of caring.. what is almost always missing in it is the very act of wholly reasoning, of putting the whole intelligence we have, if we have it, in the investigation about caring itself.. which is like to say ”thinking about thinking”..

For example; if I care for someone, whether it be sentimentally or whatever.. then is there also the interest, the fully logical interest, the complete caring about my activity of caring ?
Because if such a thing is not present.. then how can I possibly know, clearly, intelligently, if my act of caring is biased or not.. if is not full of junk?
It’s obvious that whatever we call ”love”, without any inquiry about that ”love”, is not love at all; it’s blindness..

Having an idea of love, indeed, is surely not love:
the idea is the result of the ”me”, which is our ”consciousness”, which is itself heavily confused and conditioned, plus the collective influences.. which means that that idea must be conditioned and confused also.. not to mention the fact that it oscillates according with the culture, the background, the current local morality and all the rest of those cultural and sociological dynamics..
Whatever love means, beyond its mere sentimentalism and verbalization’s, whether it be the hope, the faith, the patriotism, the images and crushes and all the rest of it..
surely it’s an activity that must (should) go together with a clear, intelligent thinking..

when that sensation-word, with all of its contents, arises in the brain.. then can the thinker, if the thinker is there at all, analyses his or her own psychological condition?
Because if the thinker is confused, then when the sensation of love comes, such sensation remains obviously the result of confusion.. and confusion is what it creates..
Have we ever noticed how much confusion our acts of loving this and that actually contain ?

If rather the thinker is instead interested, first of all, to put radical attention so to wholly comprehend the very mental structure of his or her confusion.. then, yes, (if we mind to use that word), that is what one can call ”an act of love”..

One assumes that, paradoxically, what frightens us the most is the tangible possibility to find out that our ”love” for this and that actually contains an immense amount of psychologically conditioned garbage..
which precisely the reason why the many of us prefer to avoid all possible investigations about such attitudes we call ”love”, .. and they rather prefer to swim into superficial parameters of ”thinking”, living and existing..

Thought is never good or wrong.. thought is thought and nothing but thought..
it’s the way we react to it, we use it, to be right or wrong..
and the relationship with thought is precisely what we constantly ignore..
which is also the main problem characterized by our large insufficiency to distinguish between what’s thought and what’s thinking..

In regard of ”goodness”:
surely there can be ”goodness” without clarity, without a sufficient intelligence and psychological sobriety.. however; it all depends on how long such goodness is going to last.
One maybe brings into being, genuinely, good purposes pivoted on specific ideals and beliefs.. then the proselytism begins, the ramification of the belief and ideals, within a single generation or generation after generation.
The initially ”good” trend then becomes dogma and institution.. therefore it brings about authoritarian separation and it breeds conflicts

This is to say that a good thing is temporarily a good thing,
but a good thinking, thinking without distortions, which is the ”good thing of all good things” definitely has the quality to establish an intelligence in which beliefs and ideals are totally unnecessary.

All of the ”not-so-good-things” present in the society, or not good at all, are merely the macro extension of our psychology.
We might complain against the social assembling and the system in general.. but aren’t our process of ”thinking”, or better to call them mindsets, something that behaves ”politically” as well? Isn’t a mindset, a belief, fundamentally a system that functions, psychologically, precisely like a political party?

This understanding raises a question which is:
when we think we are right, meaning; we are living and thinking ”rightly”, then is there a possibility to inquire in what the very source itself and fabrication of this thought-process and sensation is?
Does this sensation, this inwardly manufactured value come from an indisputable rationalization?
Or does it come from the ”psycho-political” construct we have shaped within our ”mental brain” and then called it ” rightness”?

Most people function through this pre-packaged idea that suggests that the act of clinging to the standardized ”goodness” may establish consolidated friendships.. which is most likely what the outcome will be.
however, it also seems that many people are actually willing to sacrifice parts of their possible intelligence in the name of this archetypical ”goodness” and aspects of friendships so to escape loneliness, boredom, depression and isolation.. without any intelligent analysis of such factors.

The question is:
talking about goodness, what can we expect from a collective of people the main relevance of it is goodness itself and not their private intelligence?
Is that really ”goodness”?
Or it’s merely a form of societal mechanism?

I have an opinion which is (let me say it) pretty much raw and iconoclastic in regard of the so-called ”spiritual masters” whatsoever. no matter who they were and are, whether they were or are sincere (but biased), scammers or dialectic equilibrists and mere intellectual confabulators. One should inquire in the very reason why we use to call their words ”teachings” and not merely ”opinions” which is precisely what they are and what those words were .. always.

When it comes to detecting those ”teachings”, we have this false tendency to blindly cling to shallow ratiocinations, superficially, which is as always, the result of our psychological demanding.. (not questioning).

We take their words as ”supreme truths”, as ”gold” to mentally digest and to collectively apply so to ”raise our consciousness” whatsoever .. which is like agitating dust for nothingness.

What we refuse to understand, however, is that those ”masters”, all of them, with all their ” teaching ”, consciously or not, tell us nothing but exactly what we want to be told in order to escape our daily neurosis.
and in fact the condition of being in this position made up by latent or even militant acts aimed to turn constantly ourselves into followers.. annihilates our possible intelligence.

we should ask ourselves a fundamental question which is:
what is that all those teachings have actually ever given to us along the centuries?
The jesus, the buddha, the various gurus from the east and all the rest of it.. what is that they gave us in terms of psychological actuality and factuality?
Isn’t it true the fact in which we have the same neuroses we had thousands of years ago?
We maybe struggle with other things, other problems .. maybe more modern psychosis more or less disguised, and so on, but the very psychological structure of the distress still the same.. and unfaced.
We prefer to follow..

What they have never given to us .. and they will never give us .. is the psychological progress we never had, which is intelligence with no influenced junk .. which is up to us .. not up to such teachings , whatever they may be .. which can perhaps be productive enablers .. or terrible psycho-social poisons .. just like the tormented human history teaches us ..
but all of these teaching have never been and will never bring into being a radical understanding of our mind.

Unfortunately we all are always interested to escape .. not to observe..
we are interested in the getaways that can be found in the doldrums perhaps .. in apathy of living dully .. or in the rush to stand still .. or in the whole confabulated spiritual scenario..
and this is our disgrace.

Why do we follow? Why do we follow existential teachings, since the mind who follows some existential teaching whatsoever is the mind that foments its own cultivation of junk in the ”psychological brain”?

The mind who totally drops such opiate activity.
is a mind interested to become a psyche with no junk.

There are men who considered themselves vastly learned, the education of which can go and debate in every possible direction.. from politics to science, from literature to astronomy, from philosophy to history and so on.. which is a good thing of course..
However, some of those minds have that tendency to nourish themselves with pride,
pride for their knowledge, isn’t it so ?
Just like the body builder who likes to impress by showing his muscular mass, and the highly skilled yoga teacher who proudly shows his abilities.. so; the man full of book has often that proud attitudes to impress, to exhibit his knowledge, very often as means of surreptitious superiority and competition..

At the other side; a considerable amount of people develop a sense of reverence toward the knower.. The man addicted to knowledge and stuffed by pride, also foments the psychosocial icon of his authority which then gets fueled by those who has not such a large dosage of notions..

However: while having knowledge is a productive circumstance necessary to keep the mind far from dull ignorance.. the man of knowledge seems to, so often, ignore the matter of fact in which knowledge brings about knowledge, not intelligence..
which is a simple observation and fact, but evidently the pride that comes into being, together with the possession of knowledge, seems to so easily suppress such a simple decoding..

There is a large difference between the psychological activity of thinking through the knowledge one holds and the psychological activity of thinking in parallel with the knowledge one holds but without processes of identification with it.. ’cause while in the first case the psyche remains unable to detect the eventual junk present in the accumulated data, in the second case the brain can be easily selective which means not synchronized with obtuse elements such as pride, firm certainties, and various forms of sophisticated obtuseness..

A man can surround himself with books and notions.. but this circumstance does not deliver psychological sobriety:
as a matter of fact, indeed, it has nothing to do with it..

If the discontent, the personal discontent.. let’s say the ”generalistic discontent” of living.. (aside the tangible problems).. whether it be boredom, solitude, kind of depression, loneliness and all the rest of the usual daily package made up by these psycho-cognitive factors.. if that discontent, if that psychological movement, if that mental motion remains not investigated, not attentively analyzed ..
then the discontent engages the blind search of contentment..
It mechanically fuels the ”demanding mind” which then begins its seeking..
seeking for distractions, ideals in which to belong, ”spiritual” or religious strategies.. ”powers of now’s”, ”laws” of attraction whatsoever.. or merely drugs, alcohol, compulsive amusements, shopping, gossiping, gambling, shallow complaining modalities.. and in every case it leads to escapism..

Escapism, which is the antagonist of attentiveness, is the very responsible factor of our gullible mind.. of our psychological tendencies to accept so easily ”truths” and dogmas.. leaderships and manipulations of all kinds..

Despite our daily more or less distress.. it’s after all quite easy to find means for our satisfaction nowadays.. ”satisfaction” which has a very short life, therefore it endlessly demands for more gratification..
shopping, spiritual or motivational videos, food, video-games, hobbies, books, bicycling, fashion, gossiping, friends and so on..

The fact is that our discontent has a cause, aside the tangibility; a psychological cause..
therefore it is the effect..

How can the effect be comprehended, as the response to the cause.. as long as we turn it into an escaping activity ?
It obviously can’t !
Which means that whatever we are going to psychologically then practically undertake, pleasurable, gratifying or not.. generates inevitably more and more psychological dullness..
It slightly turns the mind into an activity interested in its ”branches” only, its ”branching”.. not in its mental roots..
until it falls, neurotically perhaps..
or it merely stands, self-encapsulated.. rotting.. days after days, years after years..

Are you interested in the esoteric search and quest ?

The eso what ? (laughing) That’s madness !
What do you mean by ”esoteric” ?
You are here, I mean; the ”psychological here”; the status in which your psyche and therefore your whole behavioral existence are, surely struggling with something, temporarily or continuously, you have psychological issues, uncertainties, insecurities and confused initiatives that manifest themselves out of those mental nebulas, just like we all more or less experience.. (not something to be ashamed of; we all are like that, more or less)..
and you want to go ”there”, right ?
”Esoterically” you want to go somewhere..
in the mystical world, in the territories of the various existential ”truths” whatsoever.. isn’t it so ?
What makes or made you think that that esoteric achievements will end your confusion ? The gurus ? The books you read inherent in that business ? The shaman ? Our did you merely convince yourself through an edifice of thought-processes out of your pain of living and distress ?

Do you know the meaning of that word ?
We do not even bother our battered brain in order to find out the significance that has determined the origins of all of the bombastic definitions we use, follow and worship such as ”love”, ”consciousness”, ”awakening”, ”spirituality” and all the rest of those affairs..

”Eso”, esoteric, means ”within”..
But careful; not that ”going within” that has been echoing in our minds and communities for centuries.. Not that ”go within”, that ”all answers are within yourself”, ”within your heart” and so on.. promoted by the buddhist philosophies, the zen, the countless books and speeches of the gurus written and spoken about that matter..
Not that ”within”, which is merely a bias that runs as a fashionable but vicious circle.. running to stand still..
but rather ”within” as a form of dissecting, questioning, exploring, analyzing and not just an act of adopting the statement said, the process of indoctrination and so on..

This concept of ”eso”, esoteric, is the result of the mind of Aristotle, who was the pupil of Plato, as well the founder of logic..
Plato was a stunning thinker, an incredibly acute philosopher, however he was also the one who wrote the bias called ”the 3 evidences of the existence of god”..
Aristotle did not want to adopt such things, but rather he wanted to dissect this whole edifice of thought, which is the meaning of esoteric, the real one..
Then Pythagoras did the rest..

The word that you are using is actually and indeed a wrong word;
it’s supposed to be called ”exoterism” not ”eso”..
”exo” or ”ex” means far away.. ”exotic place”, ”extrasolar planet”, ”expat” and so..

You are ”here”, but you like that word esoteric, or exoteric, which gives you that sense of ”moving away”, that outgoing false sense of security and even power that one believes to gain by tethering himself or herself to a certain path toward a different reality, right ?

But that’s the reality you are experiencing psychologically.. with all of its weight of never dissected, nor understood confusions..
Therefore let me turn your own question to yourself:

now that we understood what that word actually means..
then: are you interested in your own ”esoteric” analysis ?
Your possible intelligent observation and comprehension of your whole apparatus and psychological structure of distresses and confusions ?
Or are you merely interested in the illusory acts of stepping out of it ? The exo ? Generating an psychological icon after another ?

It’s funny:
”esoteric” actually means iconoclastic..

It’s indisputable that tolerance is so often the result of mental stasis.
One has his path, and another has another path, lifepath, which means a mindset..
Both say, perhaps; we are tolerant one with another, we can discuss, we can even be friends maybe.. and this perhaps is going to happen, or most likely not..
but even in the case the two individuals will meet, the two human being will discuss, will discuss about this and about that.. will perhaps enter the fields of very intriguing intellectual conversation and they will set up a talk show, eventually, a radio debate, a weekly conversation between atheists and christians maybe, or nationalists and anarchists perhaps.. but will the mindsets that use that fashionable word ”tolerance” even meet with each other ?
Surely not;
when the show is over, when the radio debate arrives to its end, ten one mindset restores its own business, and the other does the same;
nothing is left at the end of the conversation, no act of thinking, neither inquiries are taken at the end of the day.. words and psychological efforts have been invested and wasted.. merely because the mindsets have no qualities of thinking; just the attitude of re-formulate the mental and intellectual matter they are made of, the tradition, the belief, the thought-processes, the limitation and the self preservation of their ideologically conditioned pivots.. and that’s a fact..Therefore one wonders what we are actually talking about when it comes to the use of that word ”tolerance”, since the mindset does not think if not only for itself.. in the name of its self-replication ?
What we mean by tolerance when tolerance springs out from the desire to preserve the mindset ?
Maybe one respects, deliberately, the psychological intoxication that another carries, despite he or she, the respectful person can actually see the biases at work within someone else’s psyche..
but is such a civilized & respectful person also interested to radically decode and dissect the whole edifice of biases his or her mind holds ?
Usually this does not happen at all..So often the act of asking for tolerance comes from the factuality in which one actually tolerates his or her own biases, which means that maybe a certain regime of tolerance comes into being.. personally and interpersonally.. but what does not come into being is the intelligence such person could cultivate in order to analyse and actually study his or her own cemented conditioning’s..
and therefore, just like history has shown us a countless amount of times; this psychosocial and behavioural dynamic leads, sooner or later, to the perpetual replication of forms of violence..

This is to say something very simple which is that common and easy circumstance in which when tolerance is more important than intelligence, then that’s not tolerance at all: it’s violence along the act of demanding ”respect”..

This is one of the cardinal human miseries..

Can there be such a thing as compassion when there is no intelligence ?
Can compassion be the outcome of a stagnant mind, caught in its dullness, pride and repetitive conditioning's ?
What's compassion ? Not the sentimental definition as we know it but rather the very psychological predisposition..
Is compassion indissoluble from kindness and politeness ?
If one believes so, then what is one to do when it comes to deal with minds that are incredibly structured and shaped by their beliefs, by their illusory mythologies, by their cemented superstitions and dogmas ?
How can one be possible polite with he or she who has no intentions whatsoever to challenge and question his or her dogmas, pride, conditioned ideals ?
In other words; can compassion mitigate beliefs ?
Can compassion address the walls human beings erect with each other ?
Can compassion erase the virus of psychological conditioning's and stoned biases ?
Surely intelligence brings about compassion, but this does not work vice versa..
Can thought with all of its weight of barricades and limitation behave compassionately, or better to say:
is thought compassionate with the whole psyche ?
Is faith for example, or pride, which are belief, with all of their charge of dogmas and gullibility, compassionate with the whole structure of our psychology ?
Belief is always more or less authoritarian, which means; how can authority bring about compassion ?
It's obvious, through an attentive and intelligent analysis, that compassion has nothing to do with the game of respecting this and that, but rather it's something that comes into being, spontaneously, with a self inquiry capable to question our own beliefs and biases, therefore with the act of becoming able to see such psychological impediments outwardly,
because one can perhaps be compassionate in terms of actions and generosity, which is a good thing of course, but if his or her own psychological dullness remains not inquired, due to religious ideas, or nationalism, or ideals, or identitarian positions, or solid prejudices and so on, then each act of compassion remains fragmentary and intelligence does not come into being..


More than to the philosopher, one should ask the matter of morality to the biologist, or the expert in animal behaviour and animal cognition since only a few know how such a thing as ''natural morality'' does actually exist.
One says: ''there is violence and no morality in nature, certainly there is more violence if compared to the human dimension''.
Is that really true?
The python kills once in a while, is the rest of his/her time occupied with violent activities?
And the owl? The crocodile? The hippopotamus? The cow?
We invented psycho-social instruments of morality such as religions, ideologies, dogmas, the 10 commandments, the fifth of which states ''do not kill'' (while the biblical god, according to the book, killed almost 25.000.000 people!), but are we moral?
Are we truly moral beings because of the moralistic inventions that we have created? 
Have we been mainly moral throughout the last 50.000 years, despite the ideological constructs of morality, regardless of cultures and tribalisms, before and after religions, BC and AC and so on?
Are we really less violent than other intelligent animals on Earth? 
Or have we merely ''internalised'' the violence in us, psychologically speaking, making it cerebral in terms of illusions, delusions, the institutionalisation of beliefs, indoctrination, absurdities, ideas of progress based on dogmas and so on?
After all, by looking at the mental disorders and comparing these facts with other animals; what's the animal that mentally suffers the most on this planet?
Isn't it the cultivation and perpetration of irrational issues, both inwardly and outwardly, one of the most cruel and subtle forms of violence?
We create and cultivate ideas of progress, aside the technical one, progress within our individual intelligence and in/of civilisation, but such ideas of progress get generated out of our inward tension: at the light of the absence or deep scarcity of observational and logical qualities in thinking, it's obvious that psychological and psycho-social progress will never come into being, which is why such a fact makes the education and the self education based on critical and logical qualities in thinking so incredibly important.
With morality intelligent progress comes into being, but an idea of progress is not progress, and an idea of progress generated by moralisms, which are not morality, generates instead violence.


Etymologically speaking, it's curious to denote how the word ''assumption'' actually has religious imprinting and root, the origin of this word means:
1) The ascension of the virgin mary to the heaven.
2) The act of taking possession of something, to incorporate.
Like; ''because I've been told so then I assume that the virgin mary ascended in the heaven''..
Now, aside the technical assumptions which are also known as hypothesis or theories, as well they are necessary to discover things in whatever our field of discovery is, from the psychological perspective (and reality) inherent in this matter, the important question is: why do we make assumptions ?
Why do human beings make psycho-existential assumptions to then cling to them and fomenting the act of taking them as realities ?
And why, (it seems so), assumptions are so often faster than reasoning ?
One sees a picture of someone else sitting at a table on which there are several empty bottles of beer, and he or she assumes that the person in that picture must be an alcoholic.. Then this stored image connotes all future virtual interactions with that person and ideas about he or she..
One sees another picture in which someone else presents himself with yellow eyes, and calls that person ''evil'' or weirdo or merely not reliable person..

One sees a temple or a statue of the buddha or ganesha or a person with crossed legs and a prayer position and he or she assumes that there must be something ''holy'' or ''spiritual'' whatsoever in there..
but as a matter of fact, if one breaks through the assumption by dismantling the dullness of its labels and patterns and sees the real thing for what it is, or at least if one gets willing to rationally find out for himself or herself, then one understands that the person with the beers was actually at a party, he is not an alcoholic; the empty bottles belong to other people, the picture with the yellow eyes was just an activity of playing with artistic expressions and, or, even a deliberate provocation aimed to actually point out this topic of making assumptions so easily, and one realises that the temple is not holy at all; it's a building, the buddha and ganesha are statues, while the person who yoga is doing nothing but a physical exercise, there is nothing ''spiritual'', nothing esoteric in there, which are instead conceptualizations put together by conditioned thoughts, and so on..
So, what would happen if one dislocates all of this tremendous waste of psychological energies in the actual observation of this fast mental activity so to slow it down and to reduce the psychological narrowness inherent in making so quickly and easily superficial cognitive assumptions ?
The decryption of the assumption as it arises in the brain surely provides means to strengthen the elasticity and sobriety our intelligence requires..
Think about these things..