I have found academia to be just that as well! Everything I can manage to come across and explore deeper generally leaves me feeling empty-handed. It's so disheartening. I am finding it all-too-common that I am considered the unintelligible one while another is seemingly only reciting information without actually comprehending it. For now I will be backing off of trying to enter dialogue on the 'bigger' ideas until I can do so efficiently. Any suggestions on improving exhaustive detail recitation??

Speaking of, I just completed the World Religion portion of my Landmarks in Humanities class, and have answered a LOT of my previous questions.
And as you pointed out, I have to agree, although I would still apply it to all of the respective communities.
In my original discussion, I was continuously dismissed as 'sounding too much like religion', therefore not worthy of their interest to debate. As someone who has admittedly been ignorant to religions and their makeup, constructs, origins, etc., I saw his point yet feverishly denied the comparison.
Upon this current chapter I found several connections that help me refine my verbal execution of my analysis of my personal experience. Of course, these connections (i.e. Neoplatonism; anticipating a mystical union between individual soul and the 'One' or Ultimate Being, achieved only by ascent through a series of levels or degrees of spiritual purification) still do not provide the mathematical or scientific data to support my attempt at explanation against a rigid mind

Thank you!

I agree with your comment about mathematics being an inadequate tool that hinders. When trying to explain this 'meta' concept to a concretely-mathematically-minded other, his argument was that it is not tangible (which I disagree with but could not provide evidence of), to which I disputed his view by pointing out that he had no concrete evidence of atoms existing, he simply was told that they do, yet still believes in atoms, therefore his 'tangible' argument was null.

I have found that the philosophical, scientific, and 'hippie' communities all have explained or titled my experience in their own respective forms, yet somehow it has not quite gained unifying acknowledgement, therefore sounding 'crazy' to any one individual of a single community, defining by way of the other communities (i.e. telling a scientifically minded individual that it was raising of the levels of conciousness). This is what I am so frustrated with.

I am unaware of the context for 'world to world'. I am I guess referring to 'raising conciousness', which I have found to be synonymous with 'quantum jumping'.

From the perspective of a victim of more than one of these unfortunate social injustices, it seems to be that you have experienced none of these things, nor have put any action towards solving these issues.

If you did, your comment would have lacked such an inadvertently benighted assumption as to what the biggest threats to global welfare are, and what the demographical makeup of victims actually looks like.

There are a few insightful documentaries on Netflix that may help with economical, empathetical, and frankly, common sensicle updates for further insight.

I realize this may be a stray from the current discussion, but I found this to be a relevant thread....

How does one explain 'quantum jumping', a phenomena I am not well-versed on in the definitive manner but rather the experiential manner, to one who is not up-to-date with the modern studies of quantum mechanics/supernatural phenomena/what-have-you.

As a newbie to the philosophical community, a lifetime member of the 'metaponderings' club', and a newly attached partner to an (disappointingly) abstainer of philosophy, I have found myself not only unsuccessfully debating the possibility of comprehending AND navigating the theorized 'multi-verse', but also cornered into a position that can easily be mistaken as "stupid" due to my lack of "lower-level science to back it up."

I am what my professors consider an "unconventional student", I am unable to communicate in collegiate terms, and I am frustrated.

And guidance, terminology, and links to scholarly resources would help immensely.

I realize you have briefly done so already, but would you please elaborate on the 'Kalam Cosmological Argument' even more? As a newbie to the philosophical community I am very interested in this subject, and as a 'non-traditional' student I apologize for my lack of academic linguistics. I appreciate any further clarification.