Nilsi

I’ll buy one once there’s a nursery where I can send it to be taught how to behave.

The Oedipus complex is basically Freud’s model of how early desire gets structured: the child forms an unconscious attachment to the opposite-sex parent and hostility toward the same-sex parent as a rival and figure of authority. This conflict generates anxiety and eventually produces an internalized prohibition - the superego - that regulates desire in line with social norms. Freud treated this as a universal mechanism underlying conscience and culture. Like any developmental model, it has limitations and tends to impose a fixed pattern onto complex experiences. Deleuze and Guattari, in the polemically titled Anti-Oedipus, challenged this sharply, arguing it reduces all desire to a narrow, culturally specific family drama and overlooks the broader social, economic, and productive flows that shape desire. But honestly, is it really weirder than Jungian ideas that everyone is secretly carrying around the archetype of the cosmic Mother or some primordial Magician haunting the unconscious?

Yeah, but I don’t want some clunky-ass robot in my home breaking stuff, collecting dust, and wrecking my nerves. If it could reliably do those chores, it’d be a no-brainer investment. But I don’t get a kick out of “being on the cutting edge” or whatever - at least not when it comes to technology.

Fair enough. But it would be silly to dismiss the Tao Te Ching with “guarantees” without having read a single page.

„An atheist starts by assuming that God is a silly idea held by dumb, indoctrinated, irrational people.“ Classic. Talk about strawmanning...

But how good is it, really? Can it clean, cook, open doors, do laundry, and make the bed? If so, I’ll gladly drop 9k.

That last sentence was just a silly metaphor - don’t take it too seriously. Also, how nuanced of you to „guarantee“ this and just „lol“ at me, when I’ve watched every video Leo has ever released, read all the Ralston books, many Wilber books, all of Nietzsche, and most of Deleuze - yet you probably haven’t read a single sentence of the latter. Actually, falling for Leo’s delusional grandiose rhetoric is one of the best litmus tests of maturity - and you’ve clearly drunk the Kool-Aid.

Although engaging mainly in intellectual discussions on an internet forum isn’t necessarily a good reflection of a person’s overall personality, if you ask me.

Type Priors (25%) Likelihood Posterior (%) Rationale (Key Cues) INTJ 0.25 0.80 40% High: introversion, abstract vision, logical analysis, structured planning. Ni+Te fit. INFJ 0.25 0.60 30% Moderate: introverted and intuitive, but less emotional evidence. (Would have Fe) INTP 0.25 0.40 20% Lower: logical and introspective, but P vs J conflict (structure). (Ne-Ti pattern) ENTJ 0.25 0.20 10% Low: agenda-driven but extroversion evidence is lacking (contrasts other cues). That‘s with 1.000 examples and ChatGPT 4.5 Deep Research. Nice idea and execution btw @Carl-Richard

I completely appreciate Heraclitus. You know who else did - and saw him as a fundamental precursor to their own metaphysics? Nietzsche and Deleuze. Nietzsche: “Heraclitus will remain the profoundest of all philosophers.” And: “He sees in all things not the persistence of being but the eternal and self-creating, self-destroying fire, the eternally living flame, flickering up and down in itself, and time and again consuming itself.” He also wrote: “Being is an empty fiction invented in opposition to the rich thronging diversity of the becoming and the passing away.” Deleuze: “Heraclitus says: ‘An unapparent harmony is stronger than an apparent one.’” “The same world is both a chaos for the empirical understanding and a cosmos for the transcendental thought which deploys it in pure Idea.” And in describing becoming: “Becoming is thus not the disorder of appearances, but the dynamism of the Idea itself.” It’s funny that you cite Heraclitus so favorably while criticizing Deleuze for supposedly being too fixated on becoming.

There’s a humility in reading people’s best works and actually making an effort to understand where they’re coming from and what they’re trying to communicate. You have to appreciate how difficult it is to put experience and understanding into words in a way that lets someone else glimpse the depth behind them. When someone devotes their life to this craft - trying to grasp something profound about reality and communicate it - and they happen to be a one-in-a-billion intellect like Nietzsche or Deleuze (and I suppose you’ll just have to take my word on that for now), I think it deserves to be taken seriously and worked through with a certain respect. Only then can you really see where its limitations lie. And I can guarantee you, with all due respect, that these thinkers are far beyond anything you’ll find on Actualized.org in terms of rigor and the subtlety of metaphysical insight. So if you’re serious about this, and you have the time to watch Leo’s videos or read endless forum threads, why not go straight to the real deal? It’s the equivalent of going from self-inquiry to 5-MeO-DMT.

So do I.

It’s a bit like philosophical astrology, I agree. But still, it’s valuable to be aware of one’s own philosophical predilections.

I work in sales and marketing in the advertising industry, so that’s a big bias running through everything I do - just so you know. But using that as an excuse to take what I’m saying less seriously would be a mistake.

I’m not a psychoanalyst or anything like that, so my interest in Freud is naturally limited by the fact that he developed his theories exclusively through his clinical practice. That’s also what makes his work so powerful and surprisingly accessible - the epistemology is completely transparent and doesn’t defer to any prior concepts or texts, except when he draws parallels to his own empirical findings. But I’m extremely interested in desire - how it structures life, business, relationships, politics, art, and ultimately reality itself. In fact, I’d say it’s my main theoretical interest. So I take Freud’s discoveries very seriously and find them incredibly productive.