Gesundheit2

Couldn't agree more.

You're not ready for them yet. You didn't understand the post at all. Not ready for it.

@Emerald Classic! That's it. I'm cutting my veins. Life is nothing without your love, babe.

Haha! Correct! Syria has never been anything other than a monarchy. When Hafez became president, he removed a lot of people from sects other than his (Shiite, Ali-sect) from the most crucial positions in the government, and then inducted people from his sect in order to dominate the government and secure the presidency. Like I said, all the parties here are inactive and useless, including Al-Baa'th itself. The only function (at least inside Syria) of Al-Baa'th is to control the government, not much anything else, like improving it or anything. Syria is not an industrial country, therefore I would guess communism/socialism makes more sense than capitalism. But I'm not very erudite in these discussions. Please don't call it a civil war. It was anything but that. Syrians had almost nothing to do with it. We were just victims of it. We have always lived in harmony with all the different religions and sects and ethnicities, and we're still in perfect harmony with them. And we (the majority) never had major problems with the government. It's a lot more complex than a civil war, especially when terrorist groups have participated in it. A continuation of the cold war between the east and the west could be a much better description, which answers your last question. Putin basically wants to limit the American influence in the area, so that's mainly why he and Iran are friends with Al-Assad, because Al-Assad is one of the few opposing forces to America in the middle east. Actually, he's mainly opposed to Israel, but Israel and the US are allies, so. And yes, the Russian & Iranian support has been definitely a game changer. The Syrian army could never endure all the terrorist groups on its own. Also, I've heard rumors that Putin has owned the western port a few years ago because of the debt. And it makes sense, so I think it's reasonable to assume that it's true.

After successfuly winning the recent elections by a landslide, Bashar Al-Assad continues his administration in his fourth term. He performs the constitutional oath in front of the parliament and gives an hour long speech discussing the last 10 years, current circumstances, and future plans and projects. Very construct-aware speech. Here's the full video on Facebook (without translation): https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=4365268756829443&id=208881799134847&anchor_composer=false&__tn__=*W-R Watch his entrance and the ceremony. P.S. The slim blondie is the first lady.

Absolutely not. Intimacy with another person is synonymous with being needy, since you don't actually need them but only imagine that you do. If you are going to engage in a relationship with a child, letting them project intimacy onto you is understandable. Then how come I am almost there? I rarely (almost never) feel the need for another human being in my life.

That's your excuse, and you're free to hold on to it. Doesn't mean the truth shouldn't be spoken.

Inserting a "should" here shows that you totally miss my point. Everyone wants intimacy, I'm not disapproving of it. And there are no shoulds or shouldn'ts with the truth. The point is just that it's not wise to derive/expect intimacy from external sources when you are the source of intimacy in the first place, not the other person. Have you forgotten all the spiritual teachings? You are complete. You don't anyone to complete, see, or understand you. Consider that you can feel (and have actually felt) intimacy even if the other person is completely indifferent of you. What does that tell you? It's all in your head. You are the source.

You're right, honey. I see and understand you. Do you feel fulfilled now? Be honest

Elections here are 100% staged. We don't actually need them because the results are always well-known already. It's pretty funny, really. You'd actually laugh if you saw the campaigns. Empty words written on street billboards. That's it, and I mean all of it. There's nothing else to it. I wish I took photos of them to show you. It's blatantly obvious that the designer of the billboards for all three candidates was the same person. The billboards had the exact same layout and general design. The only difference was the content/slogans and the theme/color. Obviously, the other two candidates were just two dummies hired by Al-Assad to fill a temporary useless role in order to make it look like there were elections. Elections here are a joke and a play in front of the international community. There's only one major party here (Al-Baa'th), the rest of the parties essentially exist as a formality and nothing more. They're completely inactive and useless. In other words, the ruling party is the only party here. And therefore Al-Assad will be the only president for as long as possible. If Al-Assad were to step aside, someone else from his family or from his close circle would rule, and nothing would change. I don't have a problem with that per se. I'm not really that involved or invested in politics in the first place. And so are most Syrians. We are very underdeveloped politically. It's also very funny to watch the national news from time to time.

Purple pill instead of red; colors for all tastes. Pick up your pill and have fun

That's not women sexuality. It's just human insecurity. Nice guys have similar needs/issues. The way they go about fulfilling them is by projecting on women the image of a wonderful angelic perfect human being that's loving and understanding, resembling the attention they want from the mommy they're still attached to. Basically, nice guys put women on a pedestal, like a child that hasn't/can't let go of his mommy yet, because he's weak and insecure. And so, they spin their maternal cord and throw it onto other women hoping that it would attach to one of them. But that ends up backfiring because most women are insecure about themselves in the first place, and so they don't feel comfortable with being on a pedestal, because they're not real mature mommies yet. And even if they were, they would rather cater to someone who is more related to them than just a random dude who treats them well. That's why the nice guy approach is a fatal strategy within the context of pickup. It rarely works, if ever. Likewise, a mature man resembles the daddy that women put on a pedestal. And so this dynamic works, because the man is comfortable with being the leader/on a pedestal, and the woman is needy and insecure in most cases, and she's looking for someone to satisfy her needs and provide stability in her life, exactly like a daddy. But notice, even if the woman was mature, and not needy, nor insecure about herself, she would rather choose the daddy archetype because he'd make a better father for her children than the nice guy. At the point of maturity, her mother instincts start working alongside her sexual instincts. So the only reason a mature woman would settle for a nice guy is the lack of a better option. Investigate the feelings of intimacy, you'll find that they're just insecurities masked as needs. I was a nice guy once, and I used to experience romantic intimacy with women the same way women experience it with men. All intimacy stems from insecurities/self-image issues/co-dependency/attachement. A mature and healthy human being does not experience any intimacy with humans or animals or any external objects, only with themselves as the divine. But that appearance can be faked to others, which is where pickup advice is useful for. Most PUAs are not spiritual, and don't know anything about their divine nature, but somehow they're still in touch with it, and so they unknowingly try to get there through the "fake it till you make it" approach, which is why they're not the real deal. They're nowhere near the ideal man. They're low consciousness, deceptive, and self-deceived. They're not really confident or leaders, just a facade. But since women are just humans, they get fooled by the appearances. And so here we are.

It may be better to differentiate between judgement and projection instead. Judgement is more neutral, it can be either right or wrong, it's based on data and information, and it's more rational but it doesn't necessarily undermine emotions. Projection is a defense mechanism that many people use in order to protect vulnerable/shadow parts of their psyche. It's mostly about the person who is projecting, regardless of whether it matches the reality of the other person. Projection is mostly emotional and lacks rationality.

It is controversial only because of the propaganda. The reality is very clear for anyone on land. It was not a revolution. If it was, I would have joined in. It was riots and violence from the beginning, and many of the people involved were paid and low consciousness. I knew some of them. My family was threatened because we didn't participate in the protests. And many families experienced the same. There were several bombings as well. Then, after all that didn't work, armed militias (including Al-Nusra, ISIS, and others) entered civilian areas, and we had to move out in order to avoid their evil and the mortars and air force of the government. The government declared that everyone should move out and stay away from the armed groups because there's no way to deal with terrorism other than that. At the same time, everyone on the opposite side had to endure mortar attacks all the time from those armed militias. Naturally, every city has governmental agencies, these were targeted by the armed militias as they were occupied by army forces to protect them from terrorist attacks, but mortars aren't really accurate, so a lot of civilians died and got injured in the name of revolution. There are a lot of details to the war that it's hard to write them all. But that's basically what happened. I will answer if you have questions. There was violence against peaceful protesters. The Syrian government is not a democratic one. It never was. And during the war, Al-Assad was responsible for the deaths of many civilians, too. I and my family had to actually move out under air strikes. But there's a difference between that, and between what I anticipate would have been a total destruction and fragmentation of the country caused by terrorist groups coming from everywhere, followed by country-wide American intervention on land. That would have been a total disaster and millions could have died easily, and the war would have not likely stopped. If you think about it this way, Al-Assad actually saved hundreds of thousands, even millions of lives. There are conflicting stories about his desire to rule to begin with, anyway. But in his latest speech, he said that Syria is in a spot that makes it impossible to be neutral, and so you have to take a position and a cause to die for. Otherwise, you'll become a slave and a doormat for others. He said there's no running away from trouble, and one has to face it head on. Basically, he doesn't have a choice but to fight, because he has integrity. He is loved by the majority. There's not a single doubt about that. There are of course certain groups that don't like him, but they're minorities. Namely, people who have affiliations with the Muslim brotherhood have different agendas, and they have a history of blood with his father. Other than that, most people support him, some out of fear to be fair, but most out of love. If I had to give a number, I would say 60+% of Syrians support and follow him blindly (out of fear/love). The number was even higher before the war (because many families have experienced direct damage caused by his forces). About half of the other 40% (more rational people) don't really mind him being president, they say it doesn't matter who rules as long as there's stability. The other half is divided between people who actually hate him explicitly but can't do anything against him expect talking about him (with a risk of getting arrested and tormented), and others who hate him in secret but show support or neutrality out of fear. People who left the country moved out for various reasons. Right now, most people who leave the country do it for economical reasons. I wanna leave as well, and I'm working towards that for this particular reason. During the war, people moved out to avoid the mortar attacks launched by either sides. Some areas were heavily targeted by multiple armed forces, so civilians had to move out trying to escape death. Many Syrians youths move out regularly to avoid the mandatory service in the army, and many of them are educated and have PhDs. The list goes on. But the point is that I don't think there's a relationship to draw between the number of immigrants and the supporters of Al-Assad. I, for example, don't support him, per se. But I live here anyway because I couldn't move out yet. I wanna move out mainly because of the poor economy.

So, basically, ego is God? Huh? If that's so, then why does the distinction exist? Why are there two words instead of one? Wouldn't it be wiser to remove either of them and apply the other universally? If by a separate entity you mean some ghost floating in some distant isolated galaxy, then yes.

How do you distinguish between appearance and actuality? Ego appears to exist, but so does everything else. If you deny the existence of ego because it seems like a mere appearance, then how do you not deny existence itself? After all, all of what you have of existence is just your perception of it, which could very well be just an appearance, exactly like what you think of as the ego.

Yeah. Just trying to create a universal definition here (biggest picture possible), at least for myself. I think anything less than the biggest picture possible is myopic and causes confusion. What is the essence of ego?

Says the ego. Not true, either. If I don't identify with any thoughts, that means I don't know who or what I am, but not necessarily that I don't exist. The existence of the thing that's experiencing this experience, whatever it might be, does not hinge upon thoughts. Thoughts come and go, and ego still remains. Ego is larger than thought/identity. In a sense, it's a container of the thoughts, but again, that's not what all the ego is, ime.

Thanks for the article and site, and the music suggestion. Maybe, but I am not trying to catch no-mind. I'm, rather, trying to catch the mind, aka the ego. So, why can't I use concepts? I have the experience, just trying to verbalize it, if that's okay with your ego

Can you narrow all that down into one very specific and short statement? What is the essence of ego?

Idk. I really don't think that's quite final (i.e. biggest picture possible). I mean, sure, identity is part of the ego, and it's based on feeling, but that's not all of what I experience as an ego. Identification seems more like one aspect/variable of the whole thing, and it's probably about rigidity vs. fluidity of identity, rather than the reality/actuality of the ego as a whole. If I am not identified with any thoughts whatsoever, does that mean I don't have an ego? I don't think so, because there's still an experiencer (experience, whatever) in that case. What's the difference, anyway, between a raw sensation and a sensation with identity/thoughts added on top of it? Doesn't the raw sensation count as ego, too?

@allislove Interesting. Although, does it necessarily have to do with I-thinking in specific? What about other-thinking? I mean other-thinking as in any pronoun whatsoever. Examples, this (it) is hard, that (it) is far away, she is beautiful, he is sad, you are smart, etc... these are all phrases that don't have I-thinking, at least not explicitly. Do they count as ego?

The separate self thinks that the separate self has Microsoft Word and not much time, and so the separate self used the "find and replace" function to alter the original post like this

As I began my spiritual quest about 7-8 years ago, I started questioning everything. One of those things was the shape of the earth, and all the telltales around it. At the time I did my research on the subject, the internet was flooded with conspiracy theories and all sorts of information that supports the flat earth theory, and of course, the opposite side. Recently, I've been having some interesting "conversations" with an acquaintance - a conspiracy theorist - who believes that there's an elite group of people who rule the world, etc... So, anyway, in one of our conversations, he told me that the flat earth theory is censored from YouTube and Google. I did a quick search, and that seems to be the case. Right now, I'm wondering about the reasons. I get it that conspiracy theories are not generally a good thing to dig into. So, I'm not against censorship of conspiracy theories per se. But what about different opinions? And what about free speech? Let's take it one step further and say that the flat earth theory is absolutely false. Still, why the censorship? It doesn't make sense to me. I mean, what's the point? Like if someone believes in the flat earth they're going to fall off the edge of the earth or something? I just don't get it. What's so wrong/bad about the flat earth theory? EDIT: Turns out there's no censorship whatsoever, only SEO-based results as it appears to me now. The initial quick search results gave me the impression of censorship because I didn't take the time to look more closely. In this light, it appears that "censorship" has become another weapon that conspiracy theorists use nowadays in order to feel righteous. I apologize for the misinformation. It was a hasty judgement on my part. Thank you all for your inputs and your time.

@lmfao @Zigzag Idiot Thanks. Will contemplate on that.