Responding to the chosen one post:Why are we assuming that my decision not to engage means I have decided the other person is bad?

Protecting My Peace Is Not the Same as Avoiding a Conversation: Let Us Understand the Difference

I want to respond to this message, not because I am attacking the person who shared it, but because I believe there is something important here that people need to understand from another perspective.

Sometimes, people become so attached to the way they understand the world that they struggle to see that another person can understand the same situation differently. And when someone does not respond to a message in the way they expect, they might assume that the person is avoiding accountability, running away from growth, or refusing to hear the truth. And this is not always the case.

But what if that is not what is happening?

What if the person has already understood something that the person giving the advice has not considered?

What if the person is not avoiding the conversation but simply does not see the relevance of the conversation to them?

And what if the problem is not that someone cannot accept the truth, but that the way the truth is being communicated does not respect the person it is supposedly intended to reach?

These are the things I want us to consider.

I am not saying that I know everything. 

I am not saying that criticism is useless. 

I am not saying that nobody can teach me anything. And I am certainly not saying that I have nothing left to learn.

I am saying that there is a difference between being unwilling to learn and being unwilling to give everything your attention.

There is a difference between avoiding accountability and refusing to participate in a conversation that does not concern you.

There is a difference between protecting your peace and allowing somebody else to determine what deserves your energy.

And there is a difference between hearing words and understanding what those words actually mean.

Let us go through the message, sentence by sentence.

1. “Listen, keep doing whatever it is you're doing, chosen one.”

First of all, I can appreciate the positive expression in this sentence.

Someone is telling another person to keep going. That is a positive message, and I do not have to reject a positive message simply because I do not know the person expressing it or because I might not agree with everything else they say.

However, I also want us to understand something.

When someone calls another person a chosen one, what exactly do they mean by that?

For me, being able to associate with the idea of being chosen has more to do with the consciousness of the journey I am experiencing. It is about the challenges that can lead someone to see the world differently, to understand themselves differently, and to grow towards unconditional Love.

It is not about believing that I am more valuable than another human being.

I believe we are all equally love beings.

So, if I connect with the expression “chosen one,” it is because of what that expression means to me, not because I need a title to make me feel important. Not that I don't appreciate positive words. 

I simply do not need somebody to call me chosen before I can recognise the value of my existence.

And I do not need somebody to tell me to keep going before I can continue doing what I believe in.

Still, if someone expresses something positive, I can genuinely appreciate the positivity in it.

I can receive the good without surrendering my own understanding.

That is the difference.

2. “I have a question. Are you really protecting your peace?”

Yes, protecting my peace is important to me.

But before asking someone this question, I think we should first understand what peace means to that person.

Are we all supposed to protect our peace in exactly the same way?

Must everybody respond to every disagreement, every criticism, every opinion, every indirect message, and every situation that makes them uncomfortable?

Who decided that?

For me, protecting my peace begins with understanding what I am giving my attention to and why.

I have come to understand that my attention is valuable. My energy is valuable. It is My life force.

And I do not believe that everything happening around me deserves access to those things.

I can acknowledge that something exists without making it part of my experience.

I can recognise that somebody has an opinion without believing that I must respond to it.

I can see a conversation without deciding to participate in it.

And I can understand the message someone is trying to communicate without accepting that the message is meant for me.

So, yes, I protect my peace.

But I do not define peace only as the absence of uncomfortable conversations. I define it in relation to what I understand, what I value, and what I choose to give my attention to.

The fact that I do not respond to something does not automatically mean I am afraid of it.

Sometimes, it simply means I do not see a reason to participate.

3. “Are you really protecting your peace, or are you just avoiding conversations that make you uncomfortable?”

This is where I think we need to slow down and understand the difference.

Avoidance and discernment are not the same thing.

Avoidance, in a situation where accountability is genuinely required, can mean refusing to address something important because you do not want to face it.

Discernment means understanding a situation and deciding whether engaging with it is necessary, relevant, or beneficial.

Those are two different things.

For example, if I have hurt somebody, and that person comes directly to me, explains what I have done, and gives me a fair opportunity to understand their experience, I can listen. I can consider what they are saying. I can acknowledge where I may have made a mistake.

I do not need to pretend that I am perfect.

But suppose someone makes a general statement about a group of people, and I do not belong to the group being discussed or the statement has no identifiable connection to me.

Why should I assume that I must respond?

If somebody says, “All women are crazy,” (no offence meant) for that statement has nothing to do with me, why would I necessarily feel the need to enter that conversation?

I can disagree with the generalisation without making myself responsible for responding to it.

And if somebody wants to address me specifically, they can address me specifically.

That is common sense to me.

The fact that a conversation makes somebody uncomfortable does not prove that they are avoiding growth. Equally, the fact that somebody calls their silence peace does not automatically prove that they are practising discernment. Context matters.

We cannot look at another person's decision from the outside and automatically decide what that decision means.

We need to understand the circumstances before drawing conclusions.

4. “There's a difference.”

Yes, there is a difference.

And that difference is exactly why I am responding to this message.

I agree that protecting your peace and avoiding necessary conversations are different things.

But I also want people to understand that choosing not to participate in an unnecessary conversation is not the same thing as avoiding accountability. 

If someone wants to teach people about accountability, I believe the message should also make room for discernment.

Otherwise, we risk teaching people that every criticism deserves their attention, every disagreement must be answered, and every uncomfortable experience must be investigated for a lesson.

That is not how I understand life.

There are things we learn by engaging.

There are things we learn by observing.

There are things we learn by making mistakes.

And there are things we learn by recognising that we do not need to involve ourselves in everything.

Growth does not always require participation.

Sometimes, growth is recognising that participation is unnecessary.

5. “You see, somewhere along this healing journey, I started calling everything that challenges us and gives us energy…”

I understand the general point being made here, even though the wording appears to have been misheard in the transcription.

The message seems to be questioning whether people have started labelling every uncomfortable experience as toxic instead of examining themselves.

That is a fair question to ask.

However, I would also ask: who determines whether a challenge is useful?

A challenge can help somebody grow. It can also distract somebody from what they are trying to build.

A disagreement can introduce a new perspective. It can also be a disagreement that goes nowhere.

A conversation can reveal something about ourselves. It can also reveal that we have different values, different priorities, or different understandings.

The mere existence of a challenge does not automatically make that challenge valuable to the person experiencing it.

We must look at what the challenge actually brings.

And this is where my understanding of energy comes in.

I do not want to spend my life giving attention to negativity, simply because somebody believes I should be willing to entertain everything that challenges me.

I want to understand what I am engaging with, what it contributes, and whether it is relevant to my experience.

I am not afraid of learning.

I am interested in learning in a way that makes sense to me.

6. “Someone disagrees with you.”

Someone disagreeing with me does not mean that person is wrong.

It also does not mean that I am wrong.

It means we disagree.

What happens next depends on the subject, the reasoning, the context, and whether there is something meaningful for either person to understand.

I do not believe that disagreement automatically deserves a negative emotional response.

Two people can understand something differently without either person needing to attack the other.

And if somebody disagrees with my understanding of Love, consciousness, or the way I choose to live, that does not automatically mean I must abandon my understanding or defend it to that person.

I can explain myself when there is a meaningful reason to do so.

I can listen when somebody has something relevant to contribute.

And I can leave a disagreement unresolved when I do not see a reason to continue it.

My existence does not depend on winning arguments.

I am not trying to prove that I am more intelligent than anybody else.

I am interested in understanding, expressing, and experiencing life in a way that aligns with what I have lived to understand.

That is different from needing everybody to agree with me.

7. “Someone points out your mistakes.”

If someone points out a genuine mistake, I can appreciate that.

I do not believe that being conscious of myself means I am incapable of making mistakes.

And I do not believe that growth requires me to pretend that I have everything figured out.

But there is a difference between pointing out a mistake and assuming that you have the authority to define another person's entire experience.

There is also a difference between identifying something specific and making a vague statement that leaves the intended person guessing.

If somebody sees a mistake I have made, they can explain what the mistake is.

They can explain why they believe it is a mistake.

They can show me what I might not have considered.

Then I can examine the information and decide what I understand from it.

That is a conversation.

Simply making a general statement and expecting me to assume that it is about me is not the same thing.

And if somebody is genuinely interested in helping me understand something, I believe clarity is more useful than vagueness.

I am not asking anybody to agree with me.

I am asking people to communicate what they mean.

8. “Someone asks you to take accountability, now they're toxic.”

Accountability is important.

If I have done something that affects another person, I can listen to what they have to say about it.

But accountability also requires us to understand what we are talking about.

What action am I being asked to take accountability for?

What happened?

What is the evidence?

What was my involvement?

What exactly is the concern?

These are reasonable questions.

Accountability should not mean that someone makes an accusation and I must accept it without understanding what is being said.

It should not mean that every person who challenges me automatically has the correct interpretation of my behaviour.

And it should not mean that I must accept somebody else's assumptions about me simply because they have presented those assumptions as their truth.

If I have made a mistake, I can learn from it.

If I have misunderstood something, I can reconsider it.

If somebody has misunderstood me, I can explain myself.

If we still disagree after understanding each other, we may simply disagree.

That is part of being human.

Being willing to take accountability does not mean surrendering your own ability to think, question, and understand.

And refusing to accept an accusation without sufficient clarity is not automatically a refusal to take accountability.

9. “Come on now, chosen one. Not everyone who makes you uncomfortable is the gangster.”

I agree that not everybody who makes us uncomfortable is a bad person.

Sometimes, somebody tells us something we genuinely need to hear.

Sometimes, we discover that our understanding of a situation was incomplete.

Sometimes, somebody introduces a perspective we have never considered.

I am open to those possibilities.

But I also want to ask a different question.

Why are we assuming that my decision not to engage means I have decided the other person is bad?

I can decide that a conversation is not relevant to me without labelling the person who started it.

I can disagree with the way something is communicated without deciding that the person communicating it is toxic.

I can see a message and move on without creating an entire judgement about the person who shared it.

Sometimes, people are so focused on whether you will respond that they forget to consider whether you have any reason to respond in the first place.

And sometimes, they interpret your silence according to their own understanding rather than asking what your silence means to you.

I do not need to make somebody a villain to choose not to engage with them.

I do not need to hate somebody to have a boundary.

And I do not need to be uncomfortable with somebody's existence to decide that their message is not something I want to focus on.

That is the distinction I want people to understand.

10. “Sometimes, the uncomfortable conversations are exactly what you need to grow.

Sometimes, yes.

But not every uncomfortable conversation is what somebody needs to grow.

The fact that something is uncomfortable does not automatically make it useful.

And the fact that something feels comfortable does not automatically make it useless.

We need to stop treating discomfort as the only evidence that growth is happening.

A person can experience discomfort while learning something valuable.

A person can also experience discomfort because a conversation is confusing, irrelevant, disrespectful, or unnecessarily negative.

The feeling alone does not tell us which one is happening.

We need to examine the actual situation.

For me, criticism can be useful when it helps me see something I could not see before.

But if someone wants to criticise something I am building, I need the criticism to have some relationship with what I am actually trying to build.

I am not interested in recreating what has already been done simply to satisfy somebody else's expectations.

I am creating from a vision.

So the kind of criticism that is most useful to me is criticism that can engage with that vision, understand what I am trying to express, and help me recognise something I may have missed.

If somebody cannot yet understand the vision, that does not necessarily make them a bad person.

It simply means we may not be having the same conversation.

I am not asking everybody to see what I see.

I am explaining why the relevance of a conversation matters to me.

11. “And boundaries are important.”

Absolutely.

But boundaries are not only about telling other people what they cannot do.

Let no one's fears, tell you what is possible.

They are also about understanding what you will participate in, what you will give attention to, and what you consider necessary for your own experience.

For me, one of those boundaries is respect for the man I understand myself to be today.

I am an intersex man, and I live as a man. My understanding of myself is not something I can allow anyone to casually disregard. It's why I exist.

The man I believe I am today is part of my lived reality, and I expect that reality to be respected.

My spiritual understanding of this is that I am recognising the God within me.

I believe Love is God, and that the divinity I recognise within myself is not separate from the value I recognise in other human beings.

So when I say that I will not give attention to something that disregards the man I am, I am not saying that I am better than the person expressing it.

I am saying that I do not want to participate in a situation where the person I am is not being respected.

If someone wants to speak to me about something, they can speak to me as the person I am.

If somebody wants to include me in a conversation, they can include me without requiring me to abandon my own understanding of myself.

And if somebody has a genuine concern about something I have done, they can communicate that concern without disregarding who I am.

That is a boundary.

It is not a declaration that I am above criticism.

It is a declaration that criticism and respect can exist together.

12. “Your peace patterns does economy? Are you really healing?”

The wording in this part of the original message appears unclear, so I do not want to pretend I know exactly what was intended.

But if the question is whether my way of protecting my peace is helping me grow or merely helping me avoid things I do not want to face, then my answer is? I don't see myself as avoiding, when I don't feed anything to (whatever does feel good) what doesn't feel good is an indication that it's not in alignment with me, not that the circumstances don't matter.

I do not believe healing should be measured only by how willing someone is to engage with discomfort.

I believe we should also consider what that person has understood, what they have learned, and how they are choosing to live by it.

I am not interested in healing as a performance for other people.

I do not need to demonstrate that I am healing by responding to every statement about healing.

I do not need to prove that I am growing by allowing every person to challenge me.

And I do not need to turn every situation into a public explanation of myself.

Sometimes, I can simply understand something and move on.

Sometimes, I may decide to explain myself because there is something useful that other people can learn from the conversation.

That is what I am doing here.

I am choosing to respond because I see an opportunity to explain a perspective that I believe is important.

Not because I believe I owe every message a response.

13. “Or are you just protecting the version of yourself you don't want to let go of?”

This is another question that can be useful when it is applied thoughtfully.

Sometimes, people do protect old versions of themselves because change is uncomfortable.

Sometimes, people resist information because it challenges what they already believe.

But we must also be careful not to assume that every boundary is evidence of resistance to change.

What if the person has already let go (has dead the old) of something that other people are still expecting them to hold on to?

What if they have already moved beyond the need to prove themselves?

What if they have understood that they do not need to respond to every opinion in order to establish who they are?

In my case, I am not trying to preserve a version of myself that depends on other people's approval.

I have spent time understanding that my value is not determined by how I appear to others, what I wear, what I own, or what somebody thinks I should be. But what gives me life. Which is breathing happening to me.

I do not have any interest to live according to an image that other people have created for me.

I live according to the understanding I have developed through my own personal experience over the years.

That does not mean I am rigid to change, I am always striving to be a better version of Myself, this is constantly Growing, my evolution.

It means I do not consider every outside opinion a requirement for change. For I am not in competition with anyone's EGO.

If someone introduces something that genuinely helps me understand myself or the world differently, I can consider it.

But I will not assume that every challenge is an instruction I must follow.

Growth is not the same as obeying every voice. 

14. “Think about that.”

I have thought about it.

And I think the same invitation should be extended to the person asking the question.

Think about whether the message you are sharing is actually reaching the person you believe it is reaching.

Think about whether you have explained what you mean clearly.

Think about whether you are addressing a specific situation or making a general statement and expecting people to identify themselves inside it.

Think about whether you are leaving room for the possibility that somebody understands the subject differently from you.

Because the intention to help people grow does not automatically mean that every person who hears the message will need it in the same way.

Sometimes, the person receiving the message needs to examine themselves.

Sometimes, the person delivering the message needs to examine how they are delivering it.

And sometimes, both people have something to learn.

15. “You can protect your peace and be willing to hear the truth.”

I agree.

But I want us to understand what hearing the truth actually means.

Hearing something is not the same as accepting it.

Listening to somebody's perspective is not the same as agreeing with their interpretation.

And being open to truth does not mean assuming that every person who speaks confidently is speaking the truth.

I can listen to what somebody says, examine it, and decide whether it makes sense.

I can appreciate a person's contribution without accepting every conclusion they reach.

I can also recognise that something is true without deciding that I must engage with every person who expresses it.

Truth does not become more true because I argue about it.

And it does not become less true because I choose not to argue about it.

For me, what matters is understanding.

I want to understand what is being communicated, why it is being communicated, and whether it has any meaningful connection to what I am experiencing.

That is how I approach conversations.

I am not saying I cannot be wrong.

I am saying that I want to use my own understanding rather than surrender it.

16. “Keep doing whatever it is you're doing. Proud of you. We got this.”

I appreciate the positive expression.

And I want to make something clear: I can appreciate positive words without needing those words to establish my value.

I do not need someone to say they are proud of me before I can continue existing.

I do not need somebody's approval to validate my life.

And I do not need external recognition to understand the value of what I am doing.

That does not mean I reject kindness.

It does not mean I am incapable of appreciating encouragement.

It simply means that external validation is not what gives my existence meaning.

If somebody says, “I am proud of you,” I can appreciate the positive intention.

If somebody says, “Keep going,” I can appreciate the encouragement.

If somebody says, “We got this,” I can appreciate the sense of solidarity.

But I am not dependent on those expressions.

I can appreciate something without needing it.

And I can recognise the positivity in a message without assuming that the person expressing it knows everything about me.

That is an important distinction.

I also want to emphasise that positive words can have value even when we cannot fully know the intention behind them.

I do not have to accuse someone of pretending to be positive.

I do not have to investigate whether every kind expression is genuine before acknowledging that the words themselves are positive.

I can appreciate the good in an expression while remaining aware that I do not know everything about the person who said it.

For me, appreciation does not require blind trust.

And discernment does not require rejecting kindness.

Now, Let Me Explain Where I Am Actually Coming From

Everything I have explained so far brings me to the main point.

I want people to understand that my decision to engage with something is not based simply on whether it is uncomfortable.

It is also based on whether I understand the relevance of that thing to me, whether it respects the person I am, and whether I see a meaningful reason to give it my attention.

I understand that the God within me is valuable.

I have a personal experience that "Love is God," and that nothing is above Love.

And because I understand my own existence through that relationship with Love, I do not want to place anything above the value of the divinity I recognise within myself.

For me, this is not about thinking I am superior to another person.

It is about recognising that I cannot genuinely respect the divinity I believe exists within another person while deliberately disregarding the divinity I recognise within myself.

I cannot preach Love as something that matters and then treat myself as though my own existence has no value.

That is why respecting the man I am today matters to me.

If somebody wants to refer to me, they can refer to me as the man I am.

If somebody wants to communicate something to me, they can communicate it directly.

If somebody wants me to understand a concern, they can explain that concern without expecting me to guess what they mean.

I am not saying that people must agree with every aspect of my understanding.

I am saying that respect and disagreement can exist together.

If you have something to say to me, say it to me.

If you want to include me, include me.

If you have a question, ask me.

And if you believe there is something I need to understand, explain what it is.

I am willing to have meaningful conversations.

But I do not believe that every general statement made on the internet automatically becomes my responsibility to answer.

If somebody says something about a group of people and I am not being addressed, I may have no reason to respond.

If somebody makes a statement that has nothing to do with what I am doing, I may simply move on.

And if somebody wants to address me specifically, I would rather they do so directly than expect me to identify myself inside a vague message.

That is not avoidance.

That is my understanding of relevance.

And if somebody intentionally chooses to communicate in a way that leaves the intended meaning unclear, then the responsibility for that lack of clarity does not automatically belong to the person who fails to respond.

I cannot be expected to understand everything that somebody refuses to communicate clearly.

I am focused on the God within always.

I can recognise that a message might have several interpretations without assuming that I know which one the person intended.

That is why I value direct communication.

The Relationship Between Attention and Negativity

Another important part of my understanding is the relationship between attention and energy.

I believe that whatever we consistently give our attention to can influence our experience.

If I continually focus on something that produces negative emotions in me, I am giving that experience space in my awareness.

I am repeatedly bringing it into my thoughts.

I am allowing it to occupy my time.

And I may find myself carrying that emotional experience into other parts of my day.

This is why I am careful about what I choose to focus on.

I am not claiming that every negative experience can be eliminated by refusing to think about it.

I am not saying that we should ignore real problems or refuse to acknowledge harm.

I am saying that acknowledging something exists and continually feeding it with our attention are two different things.

I can recognise that war exists without wanting to spend my life immersed in the negativity of war.

I can recognise that people are killing one another and feel that this is something I want humanity to move beyond.

I can recognise that cruelty exists without wanting cruelty to become the centre of my experience.

And I can acknowledge that someone has expressed negativity without deciding that I must continue engaging with it.

I am tired of the wars and killings that happen in the world.

I am tired of negativity becoming something people expect everybody else to accept as normal.

I want to understand why human beings continue to choose things that produce suffering when we all have the capacity to seek experiences that feel better.

Even something as ordinary as using the toilet reminds us that human beings naturally seek relief from discomfort. We want to feel better. We want our bodies to function in ways that support our lives.

So why should I deliberately devote my attention to negativity when I have the ability to choose where I direct my focus? (Rather than Something not feeling good)

I am not saying that this question solves every problem in existence.

I am saying that it is a question worth considering.

For me, protecting my attention is part of protecting my peace.

Why I Believe Words Matter

I also believe that words hold power.

Words can encourage somebody.

Words can discourage somebody.

Words can help a person understand something they could not previously express.

Words can also make somebody feel misunderstood, excluded, or diminished.

The words we use are not separate from the experiences we create through communication.

Consider positive affirmations.

People repeat positive statements because they believe those statements can influence the way they think, feel, and approach their lives.

There is a reason people practise positive thinking, repeat mantras, and encourage themselves with words.

Words can help us direct our attention towards possibilities we might otherwise overlook.

They can remind us of what we value.

They can encourage us to continue when we feel uncertain.

And they can help us challenge negative beliefs we have developed about ourselves.

This is why I take positive words seriously.

I also use the example of plants being spoken to positively or negatively to express my understanding of how powerful our environment and repeated expressions can be. I recognise that this example is an illustration of my point rather than proof that plants understand human language in the same way human beings do.

The point I want to communicate is that repeated expressions can influence the environment in which growth happens.

Human beings are also influenced by the words they repeatedly hear, the beliefs they repeatedly encounter, and the way they interpret those experiences.

If somebody is constantly told that they are worthless, those words can contribute to how they see themselves.

If somebody is consistently encouraged to recognise their potential, that encouragement can help them develop a different relationship with themselves.

This does not mean that words control everything.

It means that words matter.

And because words matter, I believe we should pay attention to what we are communicating and how we are communicating it.

We should not underestimate the effect of the language we use simply because we cannot immediately see its impact.

Why I Do Not Need External Validation

There is something else I want people to understand about me.

I do not need somebody to tell me they are proud of me before I can recognise the value of my existence.

This is not because I believe I am above appreciation.

It is not because I am incapable of receiving encouragement either.

And it is not because I think positive words are meaningless.

It is because I do not consider external validation a requirement for my existence.

There was a time when I had to make a choice about how I would relate to my circumstances.

When I was wearing rags, I had to decide whether I would allow those rags to define how I saw myself or whether I could wear them with pride.

I could look at what I was wearing and decide that it meant I was less valuable than somebody wearing something better.

Or I could recognise that what I was wearing did not change who I was inside.

This reminds me of the song Coat of Many Colors, in which Dolly Parton tells the story of a coat her mother made from rags.

The meaning I take from that story is that the material used to make the coat did not determine the value of the person wearing it.

Something made from rags could still be worn with pride.

And a change in clothing could change a person's appearance without changing the essence of who they are.

That is the understanding that matters to me.

I do not believe that my appearance determines the value of my existence.

I do not believe that my financial circumstances determine my worth.

I do not believe that the way somebody else sees me is the final authority on who I am.

I can wear one thing today and something different tomorrow.

I can move from one circumstance to another.

I can experience changes in my appearance, my environment, and the things I have access to.

But none of those changes automatically determines the value of the person I am.

This is why I am not one who would be judging people by their appearance.

Sometimes, people are surprised when somebody they thought they understood turns out to behave differently from their expectations.

They say, “I did not know that person was like this.”

But how much of that person did they actually know?

Were they paying attention to how the person behaved, how they treated others, and what they consistently expressed?

Or were they relying mainly on appearance?

A person's clothes, possessions, or physical presentation cannot tell you everything about their character.

If you judge somebody entirely by appearance and ignore their actions, values, and behaviour, you may misunderstand who they are.

That is why I place importance on what a person expresses, not merely what they look like.

And that is also why I do not want other people to determine my worth according to my appearance.

I know that the person I am is more than the things that can be seen from the outside.

Criticism, Understanding, and the Vision I Am Building

Let me also make it clear that I am open to positive criticism.

I understand that criticism can help us recognise mistakes and improve the things we do.

I am not saying that I should never be questioned.

I am not saying that every idea I have is automatically correct.

And I am not saying that nobody can teach me anything.

What I am saying is that the criticism I find most useful is criticism that engages with what I am actually trying to achieve.

I am building from a vision.

I am not necessarily trying to repeat what has already been done.

So, when somebody wants to give me feedback, I find it helpful when they first try to understand the vision.

What am I trying to create?

What experience am I trying to give people?

What problem am I trying to address?

What is the meaning behind the decisions I am making?

When those questions are understood, the conversation can become much more useful.

Somebody may still disagree with my approach, and that is fine.

They may see a problem I have overlooked.

They may identify a better way to implement something.

They may suggest an improvement I had not considered.

I can learn from that.

But if someone does not understand the purpose of what I am creating, their criticism may end up addressing something I am not trying to do in the first place.

That is why understanding matters.

How do you know that somebody has understood what you are saying if there is no indication that they have understood it?

If I explain an idea and somebody responds as though I said something entirely different, how can we have a meaningful conversation?

I cannot expect everybody to understand me immediately.

But I can look for signs of comprehension.

I can look for questions that engage with what I actually said.

I can look for responses that show that the other person has considered the meaning behind my words.

And I can recognise when a conversation has not yet reached that point.

I am not looking for an empty wall to agree with everything I say.

I am looking for meaningful communication.

There is a difference between somebody who understands what I am trying to express and somebody who merely repeats the words I have used.

And there is a difference between somebody who challenges my actual idea and somebody who challenges an assumption they have made about me.

That is the kind of distinction I want us to learn to recognise.

Words Cannot Always Reveal the Whole Intention

Another thing I want to explain is that I do not believe words alone can always tell us everything about what a person intends.

People can say positive things without necessarily feeling the positivity they are expressing.

People can also express genuine care in ways that another person does not immediately understand.

I believe there is value in paying attention to the wider context of communication, including behaviour, consistency, and the way a message is delivered.

Sometimes, somebody says, “I am happy for you,” and the words sound positive.

Even if I cannot know exactly what that person is feeling inside, I can still recognise that the words themselves communicate something positive.

I do not have to accuse that person of pretending.

I do not have to decide that the expression has no value.

I can appreciate the positive message while recognising that I do not know everything about the person's internal experience.

At the same time, if the words sound sarcastic or dismissive, I may notice that the way they are delivered does not match their apparent meaning.

That is why I pay attention to the relationship between words and the energy behind it.

For me, there is a difference between appreciating a positive expression and being deceived by it.

I can appreciate somebody saying they are proud of me without needing to believe that they know everything about my life.

I can appreciate somebody saying they want the best for me without handing that person the authority to define what is best for me.

I can recognise something positive without surrendering my discernment.

And I can recognise something negative without allowing it to become the centre of my experience.

This is part of what I mean when I say that words matter.

I believe that human beings should become more conscious of the way they communicate, the way they receive communication, and the assumptions they make about other people.

Why I Pay Attention to What I Feel Around People

I also want to explain something about my own experience.

There are times when somebody's behaviour makes me curious about what they are actually thinking.

For example, I may observe somebody making fun of me or laughing at me as God shows me, and then that same person approaches me with a smile.

I may wonder what is happening in that interaction.

The smile alone does not tell me everything.

The laughter alone does not tell me everything.

I may have questions about whether the person's behaviour is consistent with the way they are presenting themselves to me.

But I also understand that my interpretation is not automatically proof of what another person intended.

I can notice what I observe without claiming that I know everything happening inside somebody else's mind.

This is important to my understanding of communication.

I believe we can pay attention to the way people make us feel, the way they behave, and the consistency between their expressions and actions.

But we should also leave room for the possibility that our interpretations may be incomplete.

I do not need to hold negativity towards another person simply because I have questions about an interaction.

My understanding of God is that everything that exists belongs within the reality I am trying to understand through Love.

Because of that, I do not want to respond to every uncertainty with hostility.

I want to approach people with the understanding that they are human beings with their own experiences, their own interpretations, and their own ways of expressing themselves.

I can respect the divinity I recognise within another person without agreeing with everything they do.

I can respect another person's existence without giving them unlimited access to my attention.

And I can choose not to engage in a particular interaction without deciding that the other person has no value.

That is what Love means to me in practice.

It is not about pretending that every interaction is positive.

It is about recognising the value of another person while remaining conscious of my own boundaries.

Why I Am Responding to This Message

Now, somebody might ask: if I believe that I do not need to respond to every message, why am I responding to this one?

The answer is simple.

Because I have something I want to express.

I see an opportunity to explain a perspective that I believe other people can learn from.

I am not responding because I feel obligated to defend myself against every statement about peace, boundaries, healing, or accountability.

I am responding because this particular message has brought a distinction into my consciousness that I want to explore.

I could have remained quiet.

I could have read the message and moved on.

But I have chosen to explain my understanding because I believe there is value in helping people see that the same situation can be understood in different ways.

And I want to be clear about something else.

My life does not stop simply because I am not online.

I am in Nigeria, and I do not always have electricity available to me. Sometimes, being online at all is a challenge.

So when I do get the opportunity to be online, I may not necessarily be following every conversation happening around me.

I may not have seen something.

I may not have received a message.

I may not have been thinking about the subject someone else is discussing.

And when something does come into my awareness, I decide how I want to engage with it.

Sometimes, a post suddenly comes into my consciousness without my having planned to discuss it beforehand.

That is what happened here.

I am using this opportunity to express what I understand, not because I believe every person must agree with me, but because I believe that communicating different perspectives can help us understand one another better.

I also want people to understand that the absence of a response does not automatically tell you what is happening in somebody else's life.

You do not know whether they saw your message.

You do not know whether they understood it.

You do not know whether it was relevant to them.

You do not know whether they were busy with something else.

And you do not know whether they simply chose not to engage.

Unless they tell you, you cannot automatically know the reason.

That is why I believe it is important not to interpret somebody else's silence as proof of a personal weakness.

If you want to understand why somebody has not responded, you can ask them directly.

And if you want somebody to understand what you are trying to communicate, you can communicate clearly.

You do not have to turn the absence of a response into a judgement about another person's healing.

What Questions Are You Actually Asking?

This brings me to the question I would genuinely like to ask the person who shared the original message.

What exactly are you asking?

Are you asking whether people sometimes use the idea of protecting their peace to avoid taking accountability?

If that is the question, I understand it.

Are you asking whether somebody can mistake constructive criticism for negativity?

Yes, that can happen.

Are you asking whether people sometimes refuse to listen because they do not want their beliefs challenged?

That can happen too.

But are you suggesting that everyone who chooses not to respond to an uncomfortable message is avoiding growth?

That is where I disagree.

These are different questions, and they deserve different answers.

If you have a specific situation you want to discuss, explain the situation.

If you have a question about my behaviour, ask me about my behaviour.

If you have something you want me to understand, explain what it is.

Do not assume that I must identify myself inside a general statement simply because the statement contains words that could apply to many people.

I am willing to answer questions when I understand what is being asked.

I am willing to explain my perspective.

I am willing to consider criticism that gives me something meaningful to examine.

But vagueness does not take a conversation very far with me.

If a message is unclear, I may recognise that it is unclear without feeling obligated to invent an interpretation.

And if I choose to remain quiet, that does not mean I failed to notice the vagueness.

It simply means that noticing something does not automatically require me to respond to it.

If you want a conversation with me, you can have one.

You can tag me.

You can ask me directly.

You can explain what you mean.

I am not saying this to attack you.

I am saying it because I believe direct communication is more useful than expecting people to guess what we are trying to communicate.

My Understanding of Love, this God Within

Everything I have said comes back to my understanding of Love.

I understand Love is God. And the awareness of that the God within me is worthy of recognition and respect.

And I believe that the same principle of Love should extend to the way I recognise other human beings.

For me, Love is not about placing myself above another person.

It is also not about placing another person above myself either.

It is about recognising that we are all valuable love beings.

That is why I do not try to engage in conversations from a place of superiority. Because love used itself to birth all that can exist is engraved within my being.

I am not trying to make somebody feel small.

I am not trying to prove that somebody else is less conscious than I am.

I am not trying to establish that my understanding is the only understanding that can exist.

I am explaining my perspective because I believe it has value.

And I am willing to recognise that other people may have perspectives that also have value.

But recognising somebody else's perspective does not require me to abandon my own.

If I believe in the divinity within another person, I must also recognise the importance of respecting the divinity I understand within myself.

That is why I cannot make external approval the authority over my life.

That is why I cannot make every criticism the authority over my decisions.

And that is why I cannot assume that every uncomfortable conversation is a conversation I must have.

I want my decisions to come from understanding, not from the fear that somebody might misunderstand my silence.

I want to engage because I see value in engaging, not because I feel that I must prove that I am willing to be challenged.

I want to listen because I am interested in understanding, not because I believe that every person who challenges me automatically knows something I do not. 

And I want to express myself because I have something to contribute, not because I need somebody else to validate my existence.

That is the distinction.

The Lesson I Want Everybody to Take From This

I want people to understand that there is more than one way to approach life.

Some people learn by engaging in difficult conversations.

Some people learn by reflecting quietly.

Some people need to explain themselves before they can understand their own thoughts.

Some people understand something internally and do not feel the need to discuss it with everybody else.

None of these approaches automatically makes somebody better or worse than another person.

What matters is whether we are being honest with ourselves, whether we are willing to consider relevant information, and whether we are treating ourselves and other people with respect.

If you are avoiding a necessary conversation because you do not want to take responsibility for something you have done, that is worth examining.

But if you are choosing not to engage with a vague or irrelevant message, do not automatically label yourself as someone who is avoiding growth.

If someone criticises you, consider whether the criticism contains something useful.

But do not assume that every criticism is accurate simply because it makes you uncomfortable.

If somebody encourages you, appreciate the encouragement.

But do not believe that you need external approval to establish your worth.

If somebody disagrees with you, recognise that disagreement can be part of learning.

But do not believe that you must resolve every disagreement before you can continue living your life.

And if somebody wants to communicate with you, remember that directness and respect can make the conversation easier for both people.

I am not interested in attacking anyone.

I am not interested in making anybody feel less valuable.

I am not interested in proving that I am right and everybody else is wrong.

I am interested in helping people understand that the world does not have to be approached from only one perspective.

We can learn from one another without assuming that everybody must learn in the same way.

We can respect one another without requiring complete agreement.

We can recognise the importance of accountability without turning every boundary into a problem.

And we can protect our peace without pretending that we have nothing left to learn.

For me, the most important thing is that we become more conscious of what we are saying, why we are saying it, and how we are interpreting what other people say.

Because sometimes, the lesson is not simply in the words themselves.

Sometimes, the lesson is in understanding the difference between what was said, what was meant, what was assumed, and what was actually relevant to us.

And sometimes, the wisest response is to engage.

Sometimes, it is to ask a question.

Sometimes, it is to explain yourself.

And sometimes, it is to recognise that you do not need to participate in every conversation to prove that you are capable of having one.

I can appreciate positive words even when I do not know everything about the person expressing them.

I can recognise criticism as potentially useful without accepting every criticism as truth.

I can respect another person's perspective without making it the authority over my own existence.

And I can choose to respond when I have something meaningful to contribute.

That is what I am doing here.

I am not asking anyone to agree with me.

I am asking people to consider the possibility that there is another way to understand this subject.

Because we are all equally loved beings.

And if we are genuinely interested in understanding one another, we must be willing to make room for more than one perspective.

Thank you.