Gesundheit2

@Preety_India The nice guy description doesn't make sense. You said that nice guys are unattractive because they're fake. But that's not quite the case. In most cases, nice guy behaviors are a genuine expression of pure neediness, scarcity, insecurity, general undesirability, etc... At the same time, any man who is interested in you wants to get into your pants one way or another, but no man can say that explicitly to you because women flip out because they don't want to be viewed as sluts. But you're okay with men getting sex from you in other fake ways. The only cover up that you don't like is the nice guy. In reality, you don't like nice guys because they're overly nice it's similar to overselling a product. Nobody wants to buy a product that is not popular. So you unconsciously get repelled and then rationalize it away with fakery in order to turn a blind eye on your selfishness. .. Other than that, Needy guys are immature kids, and you don't want to be dating kids. Bad boys, on the other hand, are kids with a mustache I know you can't resist the temptation of the mighty mustache

You almost spelled my name there

I was anticipating he would say something like that, kind of a tongue in cheek joking with both of you.

This cracked me up! @Preety_India Communication. Attention/care, without excess Understanding/not self-centered. Honesty/Transparency. Ties up well with communication. Shares your interests and looks out for them.

That's why @Zeroguy is a smart guy.

Can someone have a very big sophisticated ego, and at the same time be free from all self-image issues? Conversely, can someone be in a state of total no-self and still have major self-image issues? My experience says yes to both questions, but that's a new distinction to me. I always thought there's a correlation between the two as if they're one thing, but that correlation seems delusional now. I always had the inclination to demonize the ego as something bad and unnecessary, due to cultural upbringing. But now after (another ) full deconstruction, things have taken another course and started going full-circle. Lately, I've been discovering the importance and value of the ego on an experiential level. And what's most shocking to me is that sometimes it seems that the ego is one of the best ways to fully heal the self-image from all insecurities, and that seems like a prerequisite, contrary to what I always thought. It's like the ego at a certain point becomes/starts turning into a powerful master that can take ownership of all of one's problems and then solve them. I'm still not completely sure, nor completely clear about this, at least not in the biggest picture possible, so I'm looking for more perspectives to explore. I feel like there's a certain series of insights surfacing for me here, but I'm not quite sure I get it. I mean if someone has a relatively little ego and a lot of self-image issues, to me that must indicate a miserable life (my parents as a prime example). On the other hand, if someone has a relatively big ego and not much self-image issues (Leo, I think), that means they're probably quite happy and successful. Most people, in this case, fall in the grey area in between on different lengths of the spectrum. What do you guys think?

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