Ulax

Thanks Irina. Sounds like you've been doing a lot of great work on yourself. Congrats on the progress

If your eyes are literally getting fucked by the sun, ye go for it lmao. However, gonna be making things harder. Eye contact is sooooo key

Nah not a lost cause imo. Just had an unfortunate life which has pushed parts into adopting extreme, yet well meaning roles. IFS can deal with it. Tho, I think it would require a managerial part to be open to the treatment modality for there to be a change, which, with a narcissistic psychic structure, may not be likely. I've heard good things from the psychodynamic realm, too i.e. Otto Kernberg and Frank Yeomans. I find Kernberg's theory of NPD pretty interesting. He believes that Narcissistic structure is a defence structure that sit atop a BPD structure. So, once you deal with the NPD you have to deal with BPD. (Btw BPD = Borderline personality disorder, and NPD = Narcissistic PD) Though, from what I understand, it can be fucking tough re the psychodynamic route. And ye I agree re the dark ages of mental health. Mainstream stuff like CBT isn't going to do anything substantial for NPD sufferers.

Ye this is gold. But, I think the main mistake you're making is where you're asking these sorts of questions. I'd start asking questions in healing sections of forums like this. I'd go and do IFS asap. Dating without sorting out your trauma first is just essentially getting dodgy therapy and replaying your life traumas again and again. It won't go with time and experience. You'll just get better at papering over the cracks. Prioritise the right work.

Depends what you mean by happiness. If you integrate, and connect with enough aspects of your psyche most falls will be met with love. Imagine if you were in a community where everyone was psychologically integrated and loving. However, one member got really sad all of a sudden. Would the other members become sad too, and lose all their happiness. Or would they more likely become a loving form of support for that sad member, with the likely outcome that the sad person retains their psychological wellbeing. Well, that's what, to my mind, its like inside an integrated/ connected-enough psyche when most falls happen.

Think its important to keep in mind. However, I think folks with more severe difficulties have to integrate a lot of green to actually be able to do stage orange things. So, think it often depends on individuals. I.e. if someone is rendered non-functional by a mental health phenomena.

@StarStruck Right on dude! Sounds like you're killing it atm

Nice vid. I think its useful to take advice from people who've gone from A to B in some area, and copy what they did if you want to do a similar A to B. However, its also important to account for survivor bias and disregard advice they give that pertains to areas they don't have expertise in. I.e. I'd take advice from trump on how to become president, but not about foreign policy

@Vincent S So its a smoother effect than regular coffee, re cacao?

lol. Was expecting Beck to be a bit above the boomer level of acting in the world tbh.

? Go to somalia and ask, 'Who lies more men or women?' ?

Dafuq. How could he support trump. I saw his blog post, where he says Trump would be better than biden. I get it if he sees the democrats as doing something that will provoke a long term backlash from teh republicans, or something else rather counter-intuitive. But if it was a claim based on just the short term (i.e. period in office) status of the USA I'm at a loss. I couldn't find any elaborated arguments from Beck on this, either.

Perhaps start off with the aim of instilling some sense of radical doubt in them. Pyrrhonic scepticism might be a useful step. However, first maybe start off with some cartesian scepticism I think that would be more readily accepted. I think Descartes himself may have been christian, im not sure which sect tho. That at least gets the intellect on board with the idea of the metaphysical doubt required to entertain ideas like non-duality.

probably goes back to daddy

?

I think Tim pool forgot to include the bit him being scared of saying out of step with his political donor's wishes

Just came across this channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/EpichistoryTv Am going through the napoleon series. Absolutely fantastic stuff. Can't believe its for free!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/25/li Devastating

When sensible gun laws get put in place

@Raze ye might be limerence

You're welcome dude. Thanks for giving me the space to post it

Have ended up writing a proper essay here lmao. For the tl;dr, i.e. very brief answer: (Note: Metaphysical = What actually is, sociological = What is done in a given community and why) What is the difference between logical thinking and intuitive thinking? How can you tell? - There is no metaphysical difference, only sociological. Metaphysically, Logical thinking is conceptually impossible. All thinking is intuitive thinking. Because there can be no true or valid statements. Sociologically, within contemporary society, logical thought is simply a set of intuitive thoughts that are arbitrarily privileged over another set of intuitive thoughts. Can we really trust intuition? Aren’t all religions based off of intuition? Logic/critical thinking may be a better method? - Metaphysically, that is answerable, for the idea of 'trust' is arbitrary. Religions are based off intuition, yes. And, that last question is also metaphysically unanswerable. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Long answer Nice post. Not really feeling taking the test, but your questions have intrigued me. I think contemplation can be both logical and/ or intuitive. depends how you do it.. I think a big difference is that with logical thinking you can never really ever make it human. The idea is divorce the question from the will of man to the will of reason, imo. The end result of a logical contemplation is therefore more akin to an object. It is something discovered outside of you, like a chest of treasure. You follow the map correctly and you find the treasure. Otherwise you end up with fool's gold. On the other hand, with intuition, it is inherently human. It is you who must be accommodated for. It is a creatory act, where the answer is not so much an object, but an extension of yourself. I suppose that would difference if you defined intuition as purely a mechanism which sort of unconsciously sorts through everything rationally in your unconscious, and therefore the answer is still an object, just an objet that originates from a different source than logical contemplation, i.e. conscious v unconscious source. -------------------------------------------- One caveat I'll put in though. When I've talked about logical contemplation above, I did that with the assumption that logical contemplation is actually possible. I don't actually believe this. For that to be so, I believe there would have to be a way to say that an answer was true or valid. The former if the answer it yielded was true in some objective sense. The latter if the answer flowed from the premises one assumes when logically contemplating. The latter such that you could say this answer is valid, within the paradigm of my assuming the taken premises are true. However, I refute both the possibility of validity and truth. For there to be truth, I believe there must be some foundational justification. For, to say something is objectively true requires that that claim is justified. If there is no base justification, something true in of itself, an axiom if you will, then each justification is simply justified by another justification, and that one to another justification and down and down you go, in an infinite cycle of justifications. Therefore, any claim that any claim is justified is arbitrary, even this very sentence. Now, some folk say, well okay, that may be true, it may be there is no axiom. But! Alas, we can select axioms, and say if these axioms are true, despite the lack of base foundation, we can say that there are certain right answers in terms of what answers necessary follow from these axioms. We will not say that the answer is true, instead we will say the following. The answers are valid! However, to my mind, this too suffers the same fate as someone's claim of a claim's truth, and for the same reason. To argue that something flows from a set of axioms still requires some claim to truth. No matter how specific you make the axiom, you must in some way make an assumption about how the axioms connect together. For example, if you take these two axioms: 1. The sky is blue 2. All blue things are ugly And, by axioms, that is to say we can treat the propositions as necessarily true. You may say, okay, well we can say its valid that it follows that 3. The sky is ugly. Again, it is not 'true', but valid. However, the issue is that such a person has made numerous other assumptions, i.e. 'If A is X, and all X things are Y, then A must necessarily be Y'. The arguer may say, 'okay, let's just make that assumption and axiom then, and say the following' 1. The sky is blue 2. All blue things are ugly 3. If A is X, and all X things are Y, then A must necessarily be Y 4. Therefore, it is valid, that the sky is ugly However, the arguer can never win. This too suffers from various unthought assumptions, i.e. that, if 3 is true, then in 1 the sky can be taken to be A. The issue is there are always an infinite amount of assumptions made about how the axioms connect. No matter how many are addressed, the connection made between them, even in the paradigm of proving validity rather than truth, is always arbitrary. --------------------------------------------------------- I've goy a bit carried away here in my writing lol. But if you're still with me, you might be wondering, okay, cool, why does this matter to contemplation. Well, if nothing can be proven to be true, or valid, as they are conceptually impossible, then we must compare this finding against the fact that many people proclaim to be making claims that are true/ valid. So what are they doing? Why, to my mind, they must be engaging in intuitive contemplation entirely. There is no distinction between the logical and intuitive contemplator in essence. For the former is not possible. Any contemplation is a an act of intuitive creation. Now, in a given community, there will be certain intuitions that are shared by many, and that for whatever reason command great power. That is to say, they are able to gain the relevant consensus necessary in that community for these intuitions to be privileged over other intuitions. You can conceptualise that occurring in the material world and the psychic world, amongst one's own thoughts. But I won't go into my theory of mind for now. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Therefore, to repeat my answers: Do you think contemplation is more logical or intuitive? - I think contemplation is always purely intuitive What is the difference between logical thinking and intuitive thinking? How can you tell? - I think it depends on whether you are answering the question on a metaphysical (what actually is), or sociological level (How communities act and why). -- For the former (metaphysical) type of answer, the difference is that logical thinking is conceptually impossible, while the latter is possible. Therefore, all thinking is intuitive and none is logical. -- For the latter (sociological) type of question, the difference is that the logical thinking pertains to the intuitions that are privileged over other intuitions, with these other intuitions being deemed intuitive, or nonsensical. I note that this is only so in communities of whose dominant consensus is that logical thinking ought to be privelleged over intuitive thinking/ nonsensical thinking. Can we really trust intuition? Aren’t all religions based off of intuition? Logic/critical thinking may be a better method? - I don't think you can give a non-arbitrary answer to this question, on a metaphysical level. I'm not so interested in exploring the sociological answer to this here. All religions are based off intuition but so is all thought. And, again to argue that logical thinking is a better method, is to assume there is such a thing as logical thinking, at least in terms of the metaphysical type of logical thinking that I have mentioned. It is perhaps akin to asking, 'In our material world, does batman or the police force do a better job of stopping crime', to which one, with conviction, would usually answer, 'BUt batman does not exist?'. Therefore, logical thinking cannot be said to be a better method, as it does not exist.

@Identity Sounds great dude. Glad it helped with connection. Also, loving the sound of these ecstatic dances. Might have to try it out myself in the future

There's various definitions of consciousness that sometimes refer to quite different constructs.

The latter I'd say. I think the former is something else. Its an awareness of what one could have. However, without the all-encompassing love, the latter is always defined in large part by its lack. In contemporary society, the romantic relationship promises something it cannot deliver. The former, to my mind, is a sharing of a love one is already aware of. And, to the extent that the latter form of love is missing, the partners will look to take such love from each other. How about you? What is love for you