Gesundheit2

It would not be an issue if you were not Leo. It's all a big ego game, and you're only winning because you're the admin here lol.

Women are these sweet creatures that make up for half of society, and have control over the other half. Happy women's day.

--Uncensored Zen proverb.

@Carl-Richard Yeah, that used to happen a lot before my awakening. I would really adopt the character, almost literally become it. I would think like I am in their shoes and experience what I imagine would be their emotions. It was mostly the hero, but basically any character with a great deal of story and emotions. I literally suffered for the characters. Then I awakened and consciously decided to stop this. I learned to detach myself and observe just for fun. Then I almost stopped watching entirely, cuz it stopped being fun. Now I mostly watch sitcoms, if anything at all. My latest attempt to watch something different was Naruto. And it's boring as fuck! Lol, no. But there were discussions about banning anyone that leaves OCD-triggering white spaces before each paragraph. I honestly still don't know what I want to be. I think I could be anything, depending on the environment. Like I know what I have to be and have to do, but it's not like I want that. I don't not want it either. I'm fine being a puppet for God. Haha! Yeah, I think so. Although, I don't have enough info about Jim Carrey. I don't think I've seen him in any movies yet.

Nope. I don't think I ever did. I notice that when I consume information, I tend to want to absorb it mainly for myself. But if the content reminds me of someone or some discussion that I've had with them, then I take a mental note and try to deliver as soon as possible. Ideally, I would send a message with the link or use the mention function. I also tend to assume a certain response based on our previous interactions. But this is almost exclusive to the people I know personally. I don't generally assume the kind of responses to get from people I don't know well enough. I don't know if that would mean I'm somewhat autistic. I think I might be, never got checked up on that. However, I've developed my emotional intelligence and I am now capable of guessing and attuning to people's emotional states, even if it's just a block of text and I don't know them at all. So, I guess I wasn't originally an empath, but my empathy grew from all the spiritual work that I've done over the years.

I don't know. Almost the opposite of that happens to me every time I do the thing you described. Every time I try to answer a question and/or take someone else's perspective, I get a meta perspective rather than a contracted one, which is one of the main reasons why I come to this forum regularly. It helps me become/go meta. My original perspective does not go away, rather I gain a new, or at least a more nuanced understanding.

In my case, I didn't know I was in an awakened state because it happened gradually. I thought I was normal and unawake because of how much people emphasize awakening as an extremely odd and supreme state with colors and visual effects and angels etc. I never got that sudden shift, or I did a few times but not in that pleasant majestic way. Then as I gradually started understanding the truth about myself, I realized that I was already there. The reason why only some experience it is because most people's practice is too weak and shallow. This is serious stuff and it requires tons of work. You can't just meditate 20 minutes a day and expect enlightenment. It's not very likely to happen that way. You need weeks and months of diligently consistent practice. It's like going to the gym. You can't expect to get very muscular if you go a couple times a month and lift 10 lbs.

Repression is not always bad. Sometimes it is good. For example, repressing your children's sexual imagination in order to prevent them from getting attracted to each other is good. Similarly, men need to repress their emotional side in order to be ruthless in making the right decisions. And women need to repress their intellectual side in order to be fully-attuned to their environment and what their families need. Integrating both sides is a rare feat that is unlikely to happen unless you're old enough and have burned through your primary expression.

He was also abducted by aliens. What else?

I don't think materialism is the cause of depression or mental illness in general. I think it's rather a coping mechanism/strategy for already mentally ill people whose illnesses are caused by something else. If you think about it, all of these things you mentioned are actually symptoms rather than causes. Or maybe both at the same time.

However, what I said above doesn't apply to debates, as they are rarely focused on understanding. Most debates are actually focused on the opposite of understanding, and the debaters will deliberately try to misunderstand what you're saying because they're trying to preserve their biases. No debater will be happy about narrowing down the meaning of words or using a clear concise dictionary, as fluidity of meaning is their main technique to mislead, distract, and win the debate.

There aren't any errors within language. Essentially, language doesn't have inherent rules. We all know it intuitively. All linguistic errors are assumed in order to keep a standard language that is understandable by more people. Rules were meant originally for non-native speakers who are trying to learn a new language. Then it developed into its own science. Anyway, what you're referring to is more a problem of (mis)communication, which is not a problem of language itself but rather a problem of the human mind and how it works. We don't understand what we don't understand until we understand it. That's the problem. When you try to communicate something that you understand but the other person does not, there will likely be miscommunication, depending on how close or far that person is from the understanding you're referring to, and on your ability to make it as close to them as possible. But no amount of definitions or clearly defined sets of terms will bring anyone closer to understanding something that they don't have a frame of reference to. They need to have had at least one glimpse of what you're trying to communicate or something close/similar to it. That's how learning/understanding occurs.

Read up on postmodernism. The problem of self-reference is inescapable, hence words cannot have a concrete solid meaning.

Way too comfortable childhood. The school system.

Eternal Battle.mp4

@mr_engineer The (Masculine and Feminine) has its roots in Chinese philosophy, specifically the Zen tradition. It is referred to as Yin-Yang, as in the famous nonduality symbol. It has also been around in Plato's philosophy. But more recently, it was popularized mainly by Carl Jung. Essentially, Yin and Yang are the two forces that are opposites in some way, but not entirely. They are distinct enough from each other, but not completely. They interplay with each other without cancelling one another, which gives birth to this phenomenon called Life. And these two forces exist on every level that you can imagine, from microscopic to universal. They also manifest in different forms, like the psychology of a person, or the cycle of life, or just the inhalation and exhalation of air in each breath. Basically, any duality that you can perceive can be thought of as an interaction between the two polar forces of Life. The labels are interchangeable and there's not really hard distinctions between them. That's the Chinese philosophy, and it's centered around the concept of balance. Then comes Carl Jung and starts making connections between that and the human psychology. Eventually, he came up with the Anima and Animus theory that explains one's personality as an integration of two opposite aspects that he referred to as the masculine and the feminine as they were culturally associated with gender. Now, I'm not entirely sure about this but I think that Jung understood that this cultural association is not absolute, and that it can change depending on culture. The concept is solid, as every man has to repress some woman (feminine) qualities inside himself and every women has to repress some man (masculine) qualities inside herself. This is necessary in order to be a functioning part of society. And it's always valid to refer to the counterpart with its corresponding label, because there are only two counterparts. For example, you can always say that a person who has problems managing their emotions is dealing with Anima possession, regardless of their gender. So the feminine part of their personality which is responsible for managing emotions is in their (unconscious) shadow, which is another Jungian concept. And in order to correct this problem, the person needs to consciously examine the part that is causing problems in order to make it aware, in this case the feminine, so that it leaves the shadow and enters the conscious mind. And while emotions are typically associated with females in our current mainstream culture, Anima possession can affect women as well, as neither parts of one's psychology has a gender.

Most of human activities are arbitrary, except for the core survival function. Even the distinction between genetic wiring and social upbringing collapses at the level you're asking. Everything can change or remain the same, depending on how it can best serve the same purpose.

@Devin Women also develop deeper emotional attachment than men. Breaking up a relationship is harder for women than men, especially the longer it has lasted.

@Devin Selfish and transactional are not the same. Everyone is selfish, including you and me, but not everyone treats others transactionally. Women value loyalty. They don't toss husbands to the side of the road just like that unless something is seriously wrong.

Welcome to life.

I don't know why marriage even exists in secular countries, so I can't answer that question. In my country, however, women marry because of (in no particular order): Social pressure. Lack of a better option. Innate desire for family and children. Yearning for masculine presence. Sexual desire. Financial security. Tradition. To make other women jealous. Other reasons.

If what you think he is saying is true (and it isn't true, neither is what you think what he is saying), then this can be interpreted in one of two ways: Men are great companions and women are simply treating them as transactional. Men are terrible companions and they refuse to improve so women leave them. Let's be real, which one is closer to common sense? It's not a complicated video. He presented a boring theory that seems mostly like a projection. You keep telling us to re-watch it as if it is the bible or something of major importance.

@Devin I don't understand your mental process. Your interpretation of the video seems completely off the mark. It's clearly talking about hypergamy in one way or another. I don't get how you don't see that. You seem to view women as some sort of alien intelligence that is hyper pragmatic and opportunist, even though it's very well known that women are very emotional creatures that base most of their decisions on emotions, sometimes even if it goes against their own survival/self-interests, and despite their intellectual recognition of the consequences. I'll add that many women, like my own mother, stay in toxic relationships for noble reasons.