Parththakkar12

@7thLetter What's really going on is that you haven't found a way to authentically carry yourself or express yourself in relation to other people. Your sense of self is your inner core, who you really are. Your personality, however, is who you project yourself out into the world as. Generally, for most people, their personality/behavior does not match who they really are on the inside. This is an inauthentic way of being. Some people will tell you to 'just be yourself'. How do you do that though? If you 'just be yourself', if you just tell your boss to their face that you hate them, that's not going to go so well. It's not so simple. It's a gross over-simplification of the situation. Very few people are able to 'just be themselves'. Those who can do that are usually either sociopaths or simple-minded extroverts. The real solution is to create your own personality according to what you want to stand for in the world, what your authentic values are. It's like seeing what you stand for, what need you're meeting in the context of business and then creating a brand around that product/market-need. Your brand, in the context of business, is the way your market sees you, their image of you as a company/product. If that business reflects your Life Purpose, that business is an authentic business that genuinely meets real needs. The same goes for yourself relative to people. Other people see your potential, they see some sort of spark in you, but you don't see it yet. They can't put their finger on what it is because you haven't. They can't do that for you, unfortunately. This is making it so you're not sure as to what they see about you, how they perceive you, whether you should believe them or not, what they say about you doesn't fully make sense to you, etc. They themselves aren't sure about you because they can't be. With people, your personality is equivalent to your brand. If you take control of your personality, the image you project out onto the world, then you will feel more in control of how you make people feel. This is what PUAs leverage. They've learned to act confident and leverage that with women. They still aren't fully secure though because most of the times, it's inauthentic behavior to get into women's pants. The way to be secure about it is to have that personality match who you are at the core. That's authentic self-expression. For example, what's happened with me is that I am self-confident when I'm by myself. However, I have struggled to carry this over to social interactions and people keep telling me that I lack self-confidence when that's clearly not the case! This has been a major gaslight for me, in fact. They will tell me that 'your social skills are bad' or 'you aren't opening up more'. None of that is true. What's really going on is that when people are inauthentic and when they tell you that they're authentic, that's a huge gaslight and it can get extremely difficult to wrap your head around, especially when they're telling you to 'just believe them'. This could very well lead you to lack confidence with people, even though you're confident in yourself. What helped me was just lots and lots of research and integration-work and experimentation as to what's really going on with people and how I could play a role in that whole situation.

@Gesundheit I've been there. Oh my God. This is exactly what I used to believe! All I'm going to say is - Prepare yourself for a rude awakening the day you feel lonely. The day you really feel it, you'll have an existential crisis. This is what happened to me. I speak based on experience.

@Gesundheit Out of curiosity, do you believe that the only reason for loneliness is a lack of self-love? Do you believe that human beings can exist separately if we ever reached a point where we don't materially depend on each other anymore for survival/materialism? Do you believe that 'independence is the ultimate good/ultimate ideal of strength that we should all aspire to'?

When I say 'healthy', I mean healthy in the context of relationship. Here's the thing - if you send the message that you don't want the person in front of you to be the way they are, if that's your style of relating with people, that's where the problem lies. If you are a Life-coach or someone who really doesn't care about having personal relationships with your clients outside of coaching, you're in good shape! The problem will come in friendships, dating, etc. Depends on what your priority is. Is your priority to coach them out of their situation? Or is it to be friends with them? Criticism will create friction in the relationship, that is a sure thing. And, if this is something you do on purpose, I'd advise you to be weary of this. In personal relationships, human beings need closeness. Criticism comes across as a threat to that closeness. So, if you're critiquing someone, I'd suggest that it be solicited first. That way you'll know for sure whether they're growing themselves or not, and/or whether they're willing to give you a role in their growth-process or not. If you're some sort of Life-coach, you know the answer to that question and you can help them in your way. If it's a personal relationship though, that's trickier. The defensiveness you get in response is not entirely based on their insecurity! Not if they're looking to you for closeness and then get blindsided by your criticism.

I see that you actually have conscious reasons for acting how you're acting. Interesting. Let me show you something you could be missing. A criticism is a push-away. You're not bringing people closer to you when you criticize someone, you are pushing them away. It creates separation or the perception of separation. It's a rejection of how they currently are coupled with an expectation of how you'd like them to be. Now, if you come into this with a rejecting message, are you sure you're helping them? Will they receive help from someone who sends them a rejecting message? You are right about the part where them going into defence-mode is a sign of insecurity. But, they may very well want to have nothing to do with you once they've worked that part out. If you're fine with that, if you're fine with pushing people away, then we have no problem. Just be mindful of the fact that you're the one doing the push-away here. Healthy people will go away from you if you do this.

@Preety_India Tell that to the traffic police-officer who takes bribes. They'll laugh you out of the room because they've been living off of bribery for their whole life! Where is your 'absolute power of the constitution'? Why can't it stop them?

@Preety_India Nope. I'm just paying attention to the reality. I'm just taking the 'right of the constitution' with a grain of salt. 'The constitution' does not have absolute power. When you see that, you start to see it as a tool that you could use either way. You'll know the intentions of those using it and you'll be able to predict what'll happen next.

Except of course that the definition of 'responsible use of your freedom' is decided by those who 'give you' your freedom. (Who gave them the right to give or take freedom anyways? Freedom is an absolute.) They'll decide that definition according to what serves them the most, not what serves you the most. Simple!

@Danioover9000 That precisely is the point of Life Purpose! To change those norms, to create new norms that work better than the old ones. That's where the real value lies - beyond the current societal norms. All you have to do is make it profitable for yourself and for your society to change the norm.

@EnRoute Whatever you do, don't listen to people who tell you that you have bad social skills and you need to 'work on yourself' or 'work on your social skills'. That's bullshit and it will gaslight you even more. It's mostly projection and has nothing to do with reality. What you need is trauma-work. And yes, people who tell you that 'your social skills are bad' or some nonsense like that will exacerbate the trauma. DO NOT go to a therapist who will tell you to fix your social-skills, that's an incompetent therapist. Go to someone who will actually try to understand your trauma. Most people (especially extroverts) are morons relative to this issue. They'll say shit like 'You don't talk enough because you have bad social skills'. That's nonsense. The reality is the other way around! If you talk too much, that's a sign that you have bad social skills. Simple-minded extroverts (who don't use their brain-cells before opening their mouth) will make this mistake and confuse the shit out of you. They (especially the blabbermouth-type extroverts) will take advantage of your silence and try to control of the narrative. Don't fall for it! Don't be silenced by them when they try to silence you.

Yes it is. And here we are, bumping it for no good reason.

Correction - actual conscious sex, not unconscious sex! I prefer conscious masturbation to unconscious sex any day.

Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Biggest joke ever. The risks are too high. That's not confidence, that's foolishness! You aren't a man, so you don't know how ready people are to falsely accuse you when you say things like that. If you're falsely accused, you're done. Do you know what this is called? Catcalling. I can't believe you are advocating for catcalling!!

This isn't demonization. It just doesn't agree with the whole 'man bad, woman good' narrative. That's it. It shows the biological realities of the relationship between the sexes! Not once did I put men above women. The patriarchy is dysfunctional and I fully agree with that! This is an attempt at distilling the problems down to their root-levels, looking at what's really going on. Males fighting each other to gain dominance to attract the females isn't unique to our species, in fact. This is biology.

When did I say anything about hating women? Or is it automatically misogynistic when you question the 'man bad, woman good' narrative?

Same goes for 'the patriarchy'. It's bad only when it hurts women, not when it benefits women! Let's not demonize the systems and let's separate out the dysfunctions from the systems themselves. It pays everyone to see that women are fundamentally selfish. So are men. We aren't saints, so let's not pretend to be saints. If we see that women have egos and they are selfish, we could design a system that accommodates for women's egos instead of enslaving women to perfectionistic standards.

This is how it's worked historically in tribes. This tribalistic attitude is reflected in the context of high-school with high-school teenagers! It pays us to see that women generally don't care on a biological level. It takes a special individual to actually have compassion for men and to actually not want men to fight each other. Also, it pays us to see that 'toxic masculinity' is toxic only when it hurts women, not when it benefits women! Not when women can manipulate it to their ends.

This is female narcissism for you right here. Enabling toxic masculinity and then bitching about it. It's a 'divide and rule' game, where they pick the winner. That's how they evaluate who's the strongest, the most confident. That bullying came across as 'confident' to her! That's the reality. That's what they mean when they say they're attracted to a 'confident personality'. This is what they have to gain from male conflict - they get to evaluate who's stronger. Looks like 'toxic masculinity' ain't all that toxic after all!

Look at your attachment-style. Is it avoidant? Is it anxious? Is it disorganized? I'd suggest maybe going to therapy and working on your attachment-style. You sound like you have parts of you that don't want to date because you see relationships as dangerous or something. I'd suggest looking into what's going on internally with you.

I think I would be able to pull a Russell when I hit 45. 45 is Russell's age and it's pretty old! My experience has been that the older you get, the less you care about what people think of you.

Out of curiosity - If your minimum-wage becomes $15, does this mean less minimum-wage jobs? Do the corporations have to save on the $5 somehow? Leo does keep saying that the corporations have obscene amounts of money, so maybe it's not that big a deal. What do you think?

Leo's video on holons is too abstract for me. This has happened the first time ever that a video of his is too abstract for me! This didn't even happen in his 'What is Perception?' video, although it got close. It didn't even happen in the 'Sameness vs Difference' video, although again, it got close. This time it was just too much for my mind! I can work very well with systems. I can wrap my head around systems and work with and solve systemic problems. That is my creative capacity as a mental-modeller, I create systems. But, when I started trying to wrap my head around the concept of holons, contemplating it, it just became too much. It became too boring, quite frankly. The mental effort expended to wrap my head around it felt like it not being worth it. I can understand it on a mental level. But, I'm unable to wrap my head around the ramifications of looking at the world through this lens and to actually integrate this concept into my metaphysics. I'm not seeing this as a 'problem to solve', I request you to not look at it like that. My question is - Have you faced a similar situation? What came out of it?

Very well spotted. Credit to you for spotting this and being aware enough to see this. Human beings have an emotional need called 'belonging'. Belonging is the human need to be a part of a tribe, to be a part of a group, to fit into a group. Now, when you wear a mask, you will feel the energy of mask-wearers pulling you towards them and you will 'fit in' with that group. In such a situation, the part of you that needs belonging will come up with all sorts of stories and justifications that help you fit in with them, that the mask-wearing group commonly believes. It may or may not be true, but that's not important. The important thing is to fit in. Likewise, when you don't wear the mask, the energy of those against wearing masks pulls you towards them and you start thinking along those lines! The mask is a huge symbol of what you believe about the COVID Pandemic in general. It's like a brand-symbol or logo of groups. This is how branding works, this is why it works. It creates a sense of belonging among the market of consumers, that 'you will belong with us and our consumers if you get our product!' The answer to this question, according to me, would be to consciously create a strategy for creating belonging, consciously creating your own tribe. When you have that need met or when you have a strategy for it, you will have much more incentive to look at both sides critically and to arrive at the underlying, complex, nuanced truth.

An insight about creativity - there is no process to it. It's a-mechanical, it's spontaneous. That's how ideas come, that's how insights come. Spontaneously! This is what makes art so mysterious, this is what makes creativity so mysterious in general. You cannot formulate a process for it!

It's all good and fine to have a sadistic fetish. As long as the other person is into the 'pain' you're 'inflicting upon them', should go well. If you are a dominant, your job is to create safety for the submissive. So, if you're the submissive, I'd suggest you have higher standards for dominants. Yes, being into sadism can be a legit fetish. But, if it's coming from a narcissistic space, if the dominant isn't cognizant of the submissive's safety, then it can actually be dangerous. Examples would include making the safe-word tricky, i.e. not straightforward, ignoring it as part of the narrative. Yeah, you could have a sort of interrogation-dynamic in which the dominant actually doesn't know the answer to the question they're asking and you could do something like 'if you answer my question correctly, that's your safe-word' but you also want to give the submissive an option of an emergency escape-hatch safe-word that's clear and both of you agree upon. Also, an amazing thing about the interrogation-dynamic is that the submissive has a lot of control as to where they want to take it. The submissive's answers will determine what the dominant will do next! If the submissive answers the question clearly and correctly, that's the safe-word and it ends there. But, if the submissive is into it and wants more, they can give an answer that's messy, not that straight to provoke the dominant, then the dominant gets to use 'interrogation-techniques'! There's tons of ways you can make this safe. You can, for example, give options in safe-words. This one is the straightforward one, this one is more tricky. Drawing analogy, again, from the interrogation-dynamic where the interrogator asks 'Do you want this to go the easy way or the hard way?' If the sub is into it, they'll go for the hard way! That's consent and that's what you want to see as the dominant. (Interesting how your way of asking for consent changes when you change the context) If you're a submissive, NEVER submit to a dominant who you doubt cares about your safety and who isn't overtly doing everything in their power to create safety. No matter how hot they are, don't get suckered into it. You could be putting yourself in serious danger. To answer the OP's question, all the difference is in whether they care about your safety in bed or not. If they do, then they won't have sadistic tendencies in real life, because those sadistic tendencies are carefully managed even in bed. But, if they're negligent towards your safety in bed, then they are potentially unconscious of those sadistic tendencies. This could make it so they bleed over into real life.