tsuki

Ahahahaha, the reframing in this thread is just glorious! Hahahahaha Great job @Karmadhi you got me there for a second .

Materialist metaphysics is empirically false. We were all dead before we were born and now we are alive. Why assume that something else will happen after this body is dead?

This observation right here is the key to your struggles. Being at the receiving end of someone's anger sucks ass. You are afraid and ashamed of being who you are and that is precisely why the other person gets angry in the first place. This is not a deliberate choice on their part, mind you - this is a schema they unconsciously developed because it was so effective in the past. This, however, gives them exactly zero rights to act this way towards you, especially if he is being abusive. If he is abusive, then you have zero obligation to explain yourself to him. Do a 180 turn and just flat-out ghost him. Being abusive includes: screaming, shaming, name-calling, gossip, physical threats and physical violence. If you can't tell whether he is abusive, or you are too sensitive, ask a friend to go on a date with the two of you. Now, if you actually are overreacting, then the first step is to stop acting in reaction to this feeling. Just stand there flabbergasted and feel it, looking stupid. That's it. The problem is that you do not allow yourself to feel this feeling. There probably is a deep-seated experience that caused it and expect it to surface. Perhaps one of your parents were emotionally explosive, or too overwhelmed with life to tolerate your "problems". If that is the case, then the correct way of proceeding is to develop: first empathy and then sympathy towards yourself. The latter starts when you actually screen people you hang out with and stop getting yourself involved with emotionally explosive people. This is called "setting boundaries" and is extremely difficult when you are afraid of making other people angry. See the self-reinforcing cycle? The bottom line is this: you gotta be on your own side. This doesn't mean that you ought to be a dick and push all people away. It means to stop attracting people who encroach onto your kindness. Saying "no" is a start.

Perhaps, this question also ties with the awareness/choice dilemma. The fact that you are not aware of making a choice does not mean that there weren't any. Sometimes, our environment (parents) choose our responses by raising us and instilling schemas within our behavior. In this sense, emotions are choices that were made for us. Practically speaking, the best we can do is to choose our responses to them, or stop feeding these schemas if they are unhelpful.

You need more finely grained distinctions to solve this question. Emotion as a change of the internal state is usually not a deliberate choice. You can talk yourself into feeling something, by remembering past experience, or imagining a probable outcome, but they usually work autonomously. Emotions in this mode carry information about the relationship between the self and external circumstances (whether the circumstances are beneficial, or not). When they act this way, they are very close to the core of my being and if I don't make space and inspect this information, I will give in in to them and let them guide my behavior. Sometimes, this is the correct way, sometimes, it is not, and it is up to the individual to decide on a per-context basis. More often than not, the choice in "how you feel" lies between the involuntary change of the internal state, and how you react in response to this change. Usually, we do not question whether the anger is in response to the actual circumstances, or in response to our story about it (and how it influences our desired outcomes). Sometimes, you can aikido the story and actually feel less angry. Sometimes, you need to talk to somebody about it to see that it is your own limited perspective about the matter. Sometimes, you should be angry and fight for yourself. Sometimes, however, emotions arise because the situation is similar to a past event that you have not processed properly and your psyche regresses to that event to "refresh" it. It takes some skill to identify these triggers as they happen and process the trauma that they are influenced by. In my experience, the more I inspect the root causes of emotions, the better I know myself and more willing I am to listen to them, as opposed to giving in to them. In my experience, emotions are never arbitrary, or stupid, but rather, coming from deep nooks and crannies of me that I rarely look into. They are a mode of intelligence that is not to be underestimated.

Try imagining it from the pov of the mother without framing her as a loveless monster. Try imagining that you understand that you have to do this, or else you will lose all the other children. Try imagining doing it and feeling that your heart breaks as you do it.

As you have said, large chunk of business is fixing problems that arise from ignorance. In these instances, people will make mistakes that could otherwise be avoidable if they had the knowledge, or took enough responsibility. However, the depth of responsibility is not bounded, but your capacity to execute it, is. There are problems that exist on a societal level that could be avoided given the right leader, but not everyone can be that leader. It is exceptionally unlikely that you will be the president of the United States, if you are a black woman with no education, physical disabilities, and a mental illnesses. Therefore, some problems may only be addressed via their symptoms, not by their root causes. In this sense, entrepreneurship will always be required. There is, however a synergy between business and spirituality. When you have understood what all of this is about, what could you possibly do, other than what is necessary? Giving expression to your highest calling is what is left after you have awoken. If you love yourself deeply, can you deny yourself the food you need to keep living? Why not take money for your art?

As with all matters in life, owning a house and owning an apartament have various pros and cons. The preference of one over the other depends on the kind of person you are. Generally speaking, having a house comes with maintenance responsibilities, in exchange for some benefits. For example, you have to take care of the plumbing, electricity, garbage disposal, walls, isolation, roof maintenance, gardening, mold in the basement, heating in the winter, road access, etc. They usually come with added time cost because they are in remote locations, so school, work, groceries, etc. take longer to perform. They are usually also more costly to maintain. The flip side is that you have more personal space - both within the walls of the house, as well as less issues with neighbors. You can put your house wherever you want, so access to nature is better, etc. Some people value these things a lot so it's a matter of personal preference and weighing costs vs benefits individually. I'd say that houses are for more self-reliant people that actually want to spend time on maintaining them. I am not one of them.

https://youtube.com/shorts/p_a6_eTBNbc?feature=share Props for trying Jordan... I guess...

You can teach someone that is willing to listen by creating analogies, but you cannot make them understand. Understanding is not contained within language. It is a movement that has to be performed for oneself, in response to what is being said. I don't think we're in a disagreement here. This is a very Petersonian idea. He predominantly thinks in words and this statement smuggles in the assumption that this way of thinking is special or superior. There are domains that are alien to language and cannot be expressed coherently. One of such domains are archetypal experiences, which, by their very nature are nebulous, paradoxical and illogical (by the conventional use of this term). He, of all people, should be aware of this. I did not understand this paragraph. My understanding of Jung's archetypes does not correspond with this. Jung is clear in that archetypal experiences cannot be fully articulated, or made clearly meaningful because they express themselves in symbols that point towards things that we cannot consciously experience. Yet, trying to describe them is beneficial to mental health. Again, understanding is not necessarily descriptive, but it is rather operative. One understands a hammer, when he is able to hammer a nail in. One understands communication if he is able to articulate ideas. These two domains are disjoint and both express intelligence. I appreciate him for his psychological knowledge, not for his philosophy or political thought.

The fact that something cannot be expressed with language does not mean that it is unreal. There are things that language is built upon, and are real, and yet, cannot be articulated. One of such things is understanding. If pure understanding was a feature of language, then how would you learn language in the first place? Another thing language is contingent upon is perspective. You cannot say what perspective is without building a perspective of a perspective. Similarly, you cannot positively describe what perspective is made of without dismantling the perspective. These are movements in a domain that is prior to language and cannot be positively articulated. Similarly, you cannot form a method of dismantling perspectives because it would be constrained by a perspective. This is why deconstruction is difficult to grasp - because it is not constrained by the same thinking that thinks in language.

Alright, I'll take a shot. JP is on a crusade against postmodernists and relativists because according to him, deconstruction leads to nihilism, resentment and the fall of society. Here, he's admitting that he failed to grasp what Derrida was getting at because "he was playing games", and was bad at articulating his thoughts. I get it, Derrida is notoriously difficult to read and like I said: it's admirable that he actually tried to read the book, but his dismissal of his ideas is in line with the ideology he's selling.

Great find! Psych2go is a very helpful channel. I recently read a book called 'Mindsight' by Daniel J. Siegel where he describes the mind in terms of interpersonal biology. What surprised me is that the basic emotions are not the only emotions there are, and in fact, are the minority. From what I understood, emotions are all energetic movements within the body with some, not all of them, are easily discernible. Still, learning to name those that are so neatly visible, is a very important communication skill that I highly encourage to practice.

Consciousness, love, truth, being, nothing, etc.

The purpose of the ego to facilitate the survival of the ego. The ego does not 'care' for you by keeping you alive. You can-the-fuck-not die. Period. The body will die, the mind will die, the heart will die, but you will not.

The overall vibe that I get from this place is of superiority. This is why I stuck around for so long. We are criticizing the ways in which the world is structured and giving high ideals of how to live life. Some people are inspired by this vision and feel energized to bring about positive change. Yet, others feel the weight of this responsibility and feel crushed, escaping from reality into delusion. There is A TON of people like this in here! I think that we need more examples of people truly living their lives and sharing it authentically, without treating this platform as another social media outlet with curated profiles. We need to show that success is not about being impeccably presentable. Successful people also struggle with "petty" things like, not being able to show up for your partner sometimes, having a messy home, or being an alcoholic. I also think that we need more awareness towards mental health, trauma, shadow work and psychotherapy. It is true that psychedelics are stigmatized and judged wrongly and I get that Leo's mission is to straighten things up in this respect. But psychedelics are also powerful tools that will bring more harm than good in hands of people that would otherwise benefit from more conventional ways of treatment. They are often presented as a fix-it-all pill, which is exactly what people seeking help want to hear. If downsides of psychedelics are mentioned, they are wrapped up in macho language ripe with virtue signalling. We are not doing a good job articulating that self-actualization is the apex of the whole damn pyramid. Yes, it's shiny, but it also blinds you. Look at the logo. The pyramid is sparkly and it also is black.

I enjoyed reading this. Too bad he's half a world away from where I live

Not an enlightenment joke

Ties well with the theme of the "smart dumb people", but explains it more maturely.