First of all. Props for admitting you were wrong not just once but multiple times. I find it rare to meet people who can ever admit to being wrong about anything ever. Lol. So I tend to value it a lot when I see someone able to do that.

To try and reiterate my point. I think that, by definition, prejudice is unfair judgement. It is making a decision about someone or something without giving it the thought or the research it deserves, so I simply cannot imagine how any type of prejudice could ever be acceptable.

Once again, I think we're caught up a bit on the meaning of this word.
Lemme try to say it another way in which I think you may be able to understand a lot better.

Instead of using the word prejudice, you could say.. It's a conviction. Or even just an opinion. Just because it was formed in the past does not mean it was improperly formed. Most of our ideas about life were formed in the past, and.. I wouldn't say they are all bad just because of that.

In a similar way that I would suggest we should strive to be fair in our judgments, we should also similarly strive to be fair in our prejudgments.

Like the prejudgment you have about morality and how you think if anyone is being fair they should know that rape and such are wrong on a simplistic sort of "Golden Rule" level.. I think that's a fair prejudgment/judgment to have. I can't necessarily say it's 100% absolute gospel truth because I'm no authority to say such kinds of things, but it seems fair and logical to me.

An unfair prejudgment would be to say that all people of a given race are a certain way because a few or one of them are.. That is just illogical and unfair.

So I don't think it's the prejudice itself that is bad, but improper/unfair/irrational/illogical prejudice.

I think that most people have so many conflicting opinions in their head. And when you do, looking at a body of information and drawing an accurate interpretation from it becomes all but impossible. So, in all honesty, I think that the most important factor to intelligence is not genetics, but self-honesty.

Really well said! I'm going to quote you on that one as well. :D

I have a theory that language as we use it is an inferior means of communicating. I think it likely we have forgotten much of our power, or better yet, been made to forget. Perhaps we do not need to speak at all to communicate with one another, but we have been doing it so long that we no longer remember how we used to do it, or by what other means we're capable of doing so.

Everything physical that I observe, based on a lot of my experiences, certainly appears to be a shitter copy of something spiritually innate within us, and the whole point of the physical seems to be to drive us away from this part of ourselves.

Telephones are but a limited recreation of telepathy, televisions of remote viewing etc. We even have the word "forge" which means to create something of a physical nature, but also means to "copy" something else. Perhaps the language itself is hinting at this theory's potential accuracy.

But, if you take logic, and you remove time from the equation- what would remain? Without a beginning, middle and end, logic would surely manifest either as an ever-present understanding of all- or, an ever-present curiosity. I hope it would be the former. I feel at times that people think the rational mind is for drawing closer to the truth. But, I do wonder if that is wrong. What if we all understand the truth already, and we use the rational mind to pave the way to the truths that we're more comfortable with?

Some really deep thoughts here I gotta think on a bit.

So to get back to the point. I think a journey inwards to discover the truth would return a very different type of understanding. It needn't be one that we can rationalise, but one that we simply "know." There is too much emphasis on rational thinking in the world today. But logic is just one tool in our toolkit. I think intuition is largely underestimated.

This is something I've been thinking a lot about recently in regards to gnosticism and agnosticism. Two schools of thought, one says we can know and one says we can't. In the end I think it's probably a balance and a combination like seems to be the answer in so many areas of life, however what that proper balance is I'm not sure. Especially in this world where it seems like everything could be an illusion ALA The Matrix movie or some kind of computer simulation which many believe might be our reality, so I mean.. I'm not really sure we can know much of anything with certainty, or with a "completeness". Who is to say all of the laws of nature we understand aren't flipped around and changed tomorrow? Just cause it's never happened before doesn't mean it can't. At least that's what I believe and I can point to a lot of examples which seem to point in that direction. Heh.

In regards to what you were saying earlier about a language that's higher than words.. I'm open minded to it, and think it may be possible but even when we think in our brains it seems like we are using words/pictures/logos, at least to a large extent anyways.

In the way some people think "everything" is math, I think everything is "language", so what could be a higher language than pictures and words? I wonder.. I guess maybe feeling and touch and emotion? Yet it seems to be like there is symbolism within even those things.. shrug I'm not sure really fascinating to think about though.

Anyways.. I think that's enough for me for now. Hope you've been well! :D