Gesundheit

I think there's something missing here. I wasn't talking about compatibility as in intimate relationships per se, but since you attributed that component exclusively to intimacy, I think there's something deeper going on here. Of course, it is good to find a compatible life partner with whom you can also be deeply intimate. But that's a bonus, at least for me. Since I have compatible friends, I do not desire a highly compatible partner. I mean of course I do want the most compatible girl there is, but the psychological need for being understood won't be causing me neediness when I interact with potential life partners cuz that psychological need is already fulfilled and therefore I'm operating from a place of abundance which is attractive in and of itself, which only grows in a cascade effect. The more abundant you get, the more compatible partners you will be able to attract. And then from that place you will be only adding more abundance over your already existing abundance. The only thing you need is the initial spark. After that it will take care of itself. Do you have compatible friends? If you don't, you can hang out here on the forum it can help you fulfill that psychological need which will help you navigate better in the real world. And of course, you're most welcome.

Accept her as she is. Success comes with a tax, that is neurosis. If she's highly neurotic, that means she's a very successful person. These two things come together usually and you can't separate them. You either accept the whole package as it is or you don't get the package.

@tsuki For me as a man, I have contemplated my sexuality a lot and have had some insights. I don't think it's very different the way attraction works for women. We were all kids after all. Basically, sexual desire is energy that arises in the second chakra. The rest is simply classical Pavlovian conditioning, i.e. the thoughts and fantasies and all that. We were conditioned from an early age to desire certain things. Here's how it works: First thing is we learn to desire women. Second is we learn to desire the most beautiful ones. Third is learning to distinguish beautiful from ugly based on past experiences, conditioning, and indoctrination. Fourth is letting all that sink in to the subconscious mind and then take the time and space to develop on its own within the initial boundaries that were made, such as: "it's okay to desire beautiful women unless they are siblings".

This sounds nice on paper but women also used to be sex slaves and not long ago harems, which I don't think is what any woman wants in our modern society. I personally don't buy this evolution theory you suggested. I think evolution has very little role compared to upbringing and media brainwashing.

@Etherial Cat I don't think you're answering the addressed question. The question is not about the kind of guy that you would like to spend your time with. It's about the kind of guy that you'd masturbate to. I'm pretty sure nobody masturbates to Eckhart Tolle or Sadhguru. The fantasy guy is the target of this inquiry, not the realistic relationship guy. Sorry for being vulgar ? but that's what I'm asking, I'm not sure about @tsuki though

But a nice guy would still not be able to turn you on like an edgy man. Right? I think @tsuki is asking specifically about the unconscious component of attraction underneath the conscious layer of the mind. It's not about what you want after filtering things out. It's about the desired traits before the filtering process, and a lot of times even after. Same as it is for us guys, a good looking woman is always attractive regardless of how much we try to filter her out through awareness. It's very hard to break out of attraction.

Well then, you might better ask yourself why do I want to understand attraction? That is, if pure understanding is your ultimate objective. For most people it's not. For most people, understanding is desired because of its usefulness. In this case, attraction - there are literally no rules why anything is attractive to anyone. We could say that on some level there are certain psychological needs that are starving to be fulfilled, but those needs would have to be specific to each person, and even to each moment of the relationship because we change all the time. Imo, the most practical application of this understanding would be to be to create an environment where it's easy to have communication with the partner all the time and make sure that there's complete trust, transparency, and honesty between you and them. Communication is the key here because otherwise it would be manipulation, but maybe the partner would like being manipulated?

@tsuki There are no rules for attraction. I could ask you why do you love your favorite food? The answer is I don't know, chemistry maybe.

Why does anything exist? (I don't know) Alternative answer: Placebo for any lacks you have within your psyche.

Everyone is literally stuck wherever they are, and there's absolutely no way out of right here and now, except in another here and now somewhere in the future. The notion of helping others and getting help is completely destroyed. When things happen, they happen. Even to take responsibility is not something you can make it happen. You can't create responsibility. It has to exist within you first for it to manifest in your life and make a difference. Responsibility is ultimately just fear. If you're fearless, you couldn't be responsible. And now this, what I'm doing here is none of my choice or control, maybe as a human. But as the designer of this mystery, it might be all of my choice and under my control. Then again, maybe that's just narcissism on my part. Regardless, I'm still just a human doing its human things thinking about things that can not be known except in belief.

Maybe because you're projecting?

Is it a negative view that you have or just a lack of libido? If it's just the perspective you have currently, then it's easy to solve. If you actually lack the desire, then it's really hard to know why. It could be something organic in your body or in your brain chemistry/psyche. And this you gotta check up with a specialist.

Or maybe that it's not true?

The problem is that you're not resolving the nihilism problem entirely by taking direct experience as absolute truth. If direct experience is absolute truth, then you have the problem of solipsism. And by you here I mean me, because in direct experience you don't exist as a person. Only me.

No, not me. I believe that reality is a simulation of some kind. Awake people believe it's not.

I don't think vulnerability and attachment are related to each other. You can be vulnerable but detached, and you can be closed-off but needy. These two factors seem totally unrelated in my experience. Maybe the answer is that it's not about how vulnerable you can be in a relationship, and it is better to be vulnerable than closed-off because relationships are built on trust and trust comes from vulnerability. Maybe the answer is that you should work on the attachment problem. Generally speaking, attachment and obsessions are coping mechanisms that result from lack. If there's abundance, it's nearly impossible to develop these conditions. Now abundance can be a little bit tricky because there may be abundance in reality but scarcity in the mind, in which case there will be attachment. Like someone who has billions of dollars and still fears poverty. That's scenario #1. Scenario #2 is lack of abundance in reality. Like a poor person who has very little money to live on, so he would have to be very strict about the way he spends it, which would make him develop scarcity mindset because he is in fact in scarcity. And scarcity mindset is nothing but attachment to money, but in case of poverty it's kinda justified I guess, or maybe not, I'm not sure. But anyway, if we want to be practical, the best way to treat scarcity would be by becoming rich. In which case you would have to develop abundance both in your mind and your reality. To develop an abundant mind, you have to develop more authenticity and self-love. To develop an abundant life, you have to work at it by going out and meeting people and getting rejected and accepting the rejection and becoming a more compatible person etc...

They already have an answer to this question; the map is not the territory.

I've experienced this earlier today, here's what I wrote about it in my journal: "I also started shifting from thinking to being. I had experienced much deeper levels of connection with source in the past than now it pales in comparison, but still it's good progress. Now I started seeing with my eyes again! It's as though I was blind of some sorts. And now it's like I broke out of the control of thoughts. They don't affect me like they used to do." Although I think the term derealization refers to the feeling of wonder regardless of real/unreal duality. It's the detachment component that is the essence of the experience. Not really sure about that though.

Derealization disorder, in case you want the materialist perspective.

You're all (including Sadhguru) overestimating spirituality like it's the ultimate truth. But there is a higher force that governs spirituality and its relationship with evolution. This higher force does not care about anything. Maybe Sadhguru is more connected to that force than Leo. Maybe it's the other way around Idk. What it logically looks like is that psychedelics should be the future, but who knows? Really. If you think about it, it does make sense on some level that what Sadhguru is saying can be true. I don't see why it can't. I guess it's just too complicated for me to understand.

And then he will take 5-MeO-DMT and vanish lol

Living is a thing of the ego. Anything is ego. Coolness is a modern hierarchical concept that people use to rank each other in classes within any given hierarchy. I have strong reasons to believe that coolness wasn't even a thing before cinemas and the whole entertainment industry were created. Before coolness, it was frank power, money, magic, authority, science/religion, and leverage. Now coolness counts as an important trait to be had. If you aren't cool, you'll be judged harshly. A lot of people these days make careers and thrive barely using this one trait, when in fact it's just a useless stupid made-up thing.

You seem to assume that just because you can't imagine consciousness emerging out of unconscious objects that it can't. But says who? Don't confuse the limits of your imagination with reality. Just because God exists does not disprove materialism. It could be the case that consciousness is a material by-product that has developed over time out of material objects that have developed over time out of nothing. That nothing is the ultimate God that does not have qualities, and is not even conscious, therefore it can take any shape or form. In this case, it happens to take the form of "consciousness". So consciousness is not God but just a tiny part of it. I'd like anyone to challenge this perspective.

I believe not.

Yesterday was a total failure. Gosh! It's so hard to follow a retreat system at home. But anyway, I was able to surrender myself, and funnily enough I reconnected to not-knowing and self-love to a certain degree, and I also started shifting from thinking to being. I had experienced much deeper levels of connection with source in the past than now it pales in comparison, but still it's good progress. Now I started seeing with my eyes again! It's as though I was blind of some sorts. And now it's like I broke out of the control of thoughts. They don't affect me like they used to do. At some point I kinda gave up the challenge and thought it was pointless. Now I'm back on track, although not fully. I will allow more stuff on the expense of other unnecessary stuff. It's getting interesting.