LastThursday

It's longer than a Leo video, yes!

One aspect I like about music is that it allows you to time travel. You can sort of get yourself back into an earlier version of yourself. It doesn't even have to be music you actually listened to, just the musical genre can be enough: This is modern stuff, but in a very early 80's style, which was very prevalent here in the UK, mostly from about 1979 to 1983. When I first heard this type of music in 1979: it was like aliens had landed and taken over music. I was hooked even at the age of six or seven and I've liked electronic music ever since. It is very much a part of me. Of course all pop music is electronic nowadays, it's just morphed itself and become so sophisticated it just seems so natural and normal. I'm still waiting for the aliens to land again though!

I wouldn't say that the doomer spirals are latent within you. It's just that when you give them energy and attention they are self sustaining. Some problems are just too big for any one of us to tackle, so there isn't a clear reaction to what we should be doing about climate change, capitalism or the pandemic. We can only do our small bit - within our capabilities - and that should be good enough. There's only so much bandwidth we have allotted with our attention, so if the big things concern you then increase your future leverage by focusing on other areas of your life first. Personally living in the UK I'm terrified of the shutdown of the thermohaline circulation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation), but there's personally not much I can do about it, so I think about other things!

No problem. I'm not accusing you of being racist at all. Apologies if you took it that way. My intention was just to give an example of where being prescriptive with word usage, is actually for the benefit of all; everyone agrees not to use racist language.

I know. But you have to assume that @Jennjenn is referring to strangers, she's talking about women in general - and so am I. Definitely context has to be taken into account, personally I'm not against using "girl" in the right situations.

I think you completely misunderstand how words work. Using language is part of culture not separate from it. All nouns and verbs have "weight" to them. To say it's simple or neutral is a misunderstanding. Well apologised. I'm sure your need to not insult or attack is happening "inside you" and inner work is needed? This is an overreaction. Language is flexible, we can all change the way we speak without it causing us much pain and in the process improve the lives of others: I'm sure you don't use racist language in every day life? I'm sure you don't see not being able to use racist language an imposition?

So it's not neutral? Using girl implies some amount of familiarity or closeness - that is one of its connotations. I would argue that using woman is more neutral because it doesn't imply closeness, it has less baggage. When you are referring to strangers, implied closeness should be seen as weird.

@Preety_India fair enough you're entitled to what you feel. But I'm basically arguing from the same position as you: Using the word "girl" deeply impacts the way we view women (negatively), that's my entire argument.

It's far from simple. It's not about you. It's not. I'm sure @Jennjenn is an intelligent woman who knows her own mind. Stop gaslighting and insulting her. That's your prerogative and I would respect that.

Not really. Words are powerful. They shape our perceptions. The word "woman" means something different from the word "girl". There's differences in connotations of maturity, age, formality, familiarity, slang, achievement and so on. Both have their contexts and uses. Use the most appropriate word in the context. But, the most neutral term to use for an adult female is "woman" - especially ones you are not familiar with. Using the word "girl" can give the impression that a woman is immature (and by implication not to be taken seriously or needs protection or mollycoddling or doesn't know her own mind); that you believe her to be more familiar than she actually is or wants to be with you; (as a man) that you have or believe you have some sort of dominance relationship with a woman. None of these senses are empowering for women. I suspect the discomfort or reluctance to use the word woman, or denial that there's even a problem, is ultimately all to do with how women are perceived. If the two words were really interchangeable, then why would @Jennjenn even have bothered posting?

Here in the UK "mate" is nearly gaining gender neutrality. I've heard "dude" used with women here, although more so between women. "Thanks Sista" maybe, but only between women also. "Fam" is becoming popular with either sex, but has more of an urban feel. I'm out. Then there's a load if you're very familiar with them: love, darling, chick, lover, princess, gorgeous, and so on.

@At awe no man. Context. Context. Context. The word "man" or "woman" is only ever used third person. You don't go up to a person you don't know and say "Hey woman! My name's LastThursday, what's yours?" or even worse "Hey girl! My name's LastThursday, what's yours?" (my stomach's churning already). And in a group situation you should already have enough information to know whether woman or girl, man or boy is acceptable. Nothing wrong with saying "Hey boys let's go out on the town and smash it.", because you know each other and it's ok. Context. If in doubt use man or woman.

It's not complicated. In a group of strangers, the default word when describing females should be: women. If a woman wants to be called a girl or anything else, then she should say so. Otherwise, refer to her as a woman. If you know she's legally a child, then call her a girl. Exactly the same logic applies to men and boys. In the UK you are a 17 year old girl and an 18 year old woman. Simple.

I'm not Leo. I have my own open mind. He may or may not be right. I think you'll find many open minded people here, using their own brain. Don't reject them. Yes. Are you not part of this forum? I hope you're not a sheep too that would be a shame.

Because what s/he says has been said before. And you already understand what is being said and reject it. But the rejection comes from an informed point of view - because you (or collectively) have already open mindedly contemplated it. It isn't blind rejection.

Probably. How was that for open mindedness? Open mindedness is not blind acceptance nor is it blind rejection. It is about practising non-judgement. But once you have contemplated something, then you should make an informed judgement for yourself. And you should be prepared to change your views on it again in future. Do you think I understand open mindedness?

The forum doesn't have a motto. But being open minded and being allowed to say whatever you want, is not the same thing. The forum has rules like any other place. If your post gets locked, either find a different way to say what you want, or move on.

Untrue, I don't see many folks getting banned here. Normally only if they're repeatedly being a PITA.

I've never felt inferior, I just ignore anything which doesn't apply to me at the time. If you're affected by the idea of a narrative, then you've already fallen through its trap door. Why take it all so seriously? If you don't like the message then just discard it.

The confusion is that you think you are separate from God. What is fair and just depends on who's making the judgement, is it you or God?

It's true that this forum is no substitute for actual first-hand experience of whatever it is you're looking for. On the other hand this forum is experience so it's useful as an experience. Although, an experience that hasn't been had, is no experience at all: so it's never possible to "look for" an experience anyway, you just have to wait for it to happen to you.

@LastThursday Shorts (I should start a YouTube channel): I'm bored to death of programming for a living. But if I do anything else now, it will take me years to ramp up both in experience and pay. Do I stick to what I know or take the plunge? How do I choose what to plunge into, I have so many interests and things I could potentially do. I know that concentrating on just one thing for a living is going to bore me to death in the long run, I need variety. Maybe I could take Leo's approach and have a theme around which I tie all my other interests together. But how do I tie together: computing, music, mathematics, art, sociology, engineering, languages, history, writing etc. etc.? How the hell do I make a living out of all that? Yes yes a YouTube channel, get with the times Guillermo.

Act is a good word. Another way to see mood is like switching between characters in a play. When you're in a particular mood, you are identifying with a particular character within you and you act as if you are that moody character. Normally, something in the script (of real life) triggers that character to come out and assert itself.

This seems like the conflict between avoidance (minimalism) and exposure (buring through karma). For example if you have a phobia of spiders then is it best to avoid them or expose yourself to them? Which is the best path? In your case it looks like minimalism (avoidance) is harder to maintain than burning through karma (exposure). This is probably just your natural inclination or what you've been used to in the past. Minimalism is fairly easy to understand. But exposure in the context of burning through karma is harder. The point of exposure is really about constant or over exposure. To treat a phobia with exposure, you have to consciously and purposefully expose yourself to your phobia over and over again, until it gets recontextualised. It's the same with the burning aspect of burning through karma. Burning is a good word for it because it highlights this over-exposure process. You are trying to recontextualise your urges by enacting them over and over again with conscious intent. There are dangers with over exposure though. Firstly, that you don't do it enough. For example you never cure the phobia because you don't expose yourself enough to spiders for example. Secondly, that you become addicted. Some urges are best avoided beforehand than exposed because once exposed (e.g. to cocaine) it becomes exceptionally difficult to switch to avoidance in future. This highlights the fact that many urges are dangerous or unhealthy, you are causing lasting damage either physically or mentally by carrying them out. Most of the dangerous urges are obvious: smoking, hard drugs or risky sexual behaviour. These types of urges have other - safer - ways to be recontextualised, do them instead, and avoid them.

I can't let myself off the hook. I need to keep questioning and introspecting until I get so damn bored with it that I have to take action. Over time I've managed to install within myself a dynamic that actually paralyses me, it stops me from developing myself and stops me from getting the best out of life. Somehow I need to break up that dynamic and install a different one in its place. I know this is is going to be incredibly hard to solve, because it's all bound up in my identity and history. One way to start is to treat the whole dynamic thing as a system. A system with interacting parts behaving as a whole (see my previous post). It's worth noting that the system as it is works, it does actually hang together. I know it works because the system has been in place for decades and I've managed to survive comfortably off it. In all fairness I could survive off this dynamic indefinitely, or at least until retirement. But there are factors outside this system impinging on it. When you start talking about systems then everything becomes a system. The paralysis dynamic (PD) I have is a system inside a larger system. That larger system includes elements which interfere with the working of the PD. That is to say that even though the PD has served me well in terms of survival and comfort, there is more to life than pure survival. The larger system includes desires physical and emotional and unexplored experiences. One large component is the need for expansion. The PD is about hunkering down and protection from the big-bad world, but expansion is its opposite: it's about exposure and risk and novelty. On the whole then the even larger dynamic is that of the PD on one side of the see-saw being overweight and not giving a chance to Expansion on the other side. But because Expansion is not actual or very lightweight, it only sits in this space of possibility, which makes it nebulous and ill-defined. Nevertheless the need for expansion is there and is getting stronger. It's getting stronger as I get more confident and sure of myself, and it's becoming a petulant teenager. Could it be that that is enough? That this need to expand my horizons will eventually become overwhelming, it will put on weight and tip the balance towards itself? Is it enough to suck it and see? One pressing aspect against this is time: how long do I have till old age? How many years of vitality do I have left that I can squander in waiting for expansion to assert itself? Surely when my vitality dwindles then needing to hunker down and survive will become overwhelming? Isn't that all old people seem to do? (A paragraph of questions!) I think that question around vitality is driving my neurosis about paralysis. It's making the problem pop out in sharp relief. I'm fit, healthy and mentally in my prime right now. I need to act now and I need to keep acting until I can't any more. Or at least that's the neurotic urgency I feel. It terms of history my life has been a trajectory towards ever more comfort and stasis. My teenage years so unsettled me that all I wanted was to escape it and to have some sense of stability, emotional and otherwise. At the time escape was expansion. I've been hugely successful in that sense: I do have a sense of pride in myself and my achievements; whatever I turn my hand to I make a success of. So my paralysis is part of that success, it seems churlish just to throw it away, and replace it with god knows what. Why replace certainty with uncertainty? To be continued ...