Schizophonia

In my case, it works like this: you dissolve the layers of "bad self," "neurotic self" if you will, and in fact, you risk losing motivation because you no longer know who you are. Because the body is manually led to this "primordial happiness," but the layers that block access are too repressed in the unconscious to be visible, except in dreams or uncomfortable situations. What works for me is visualization; it's difficult to say, but by playing with your imagination and your senses, you can succeed in visiting frequencies of happiness, intensity/vitality in general. But it's a challenge to maintain these frequencies and abandon this kind of dysthymia in everyday life.

I was going to make this a response to @Daniel Balan's topic, but in the end I'm going to make it a topic. I thought it would be good to do a little propaganda 😏 1)Lowest production : The production/import of certain raw materials, particularly gas and grain, has declined since the war in Ukraine, since these are the world's leading exporters. We could do a Marxist analysis of the war in Ukraine, the management of covid etc but that would be a topic in itself. 2)Structure of interdependence of the capitalist system : Theoretically, this should only be correlated with a slight increase in overall commodity prices. But the structure of the capitalist system implies that if one market player fails, it risks dragging the rest down with it. If your baker neighbor loses his job for whatever reason, it's not just "no big deal because it's just less bread"; in a planned economy, yes, having fewer baguettes wouldn't be too much of a problem, but since we're in a market economy, that we exchange capital and not production goods you're dependent on his purchases from you (let's say you produce photocopiers) and therefore on his wages. This means that during a recession, due to a stock market crash, a drop in production of certain commodities, etc, capitalist systems get stuck in vicious circles. This is the theory of "Commodity fetishism" proposed by Marx, There is a divide between use value and market value. This means that, through a domino effect, as explained above, and of course, speculative bubbles in certain commodities, while the means of production (labor, available resources) haven't changed that much, we end up with outlandish price increases. Real estate is one of the best examples; there has never been so little real estate built due to demographic stagnation, and even if that were the case, it doesn't require that many resources, especially with modern methods, and there are a lot of vacant homes; so logically, real estate should never be so cheap, but for the reasons mentioned, the opposite is happening. 3)Distribution of wealth : Due to an unequal redistribution of wealth, inflation is difficult to cope with for a significant part of the most disadvantaged population. Some market's players to gorge themselves and even increase their incomes because, in a way, inflation serves their interests (for example, small producers are more expensive than large agri-food groups, which are often less ethical about their production, the way they pay and treat their employees, etc; because, precisely because they are large groups, they are the ones who can own the best means of production ("socially necessary labor time" in Marx) and therefore ultimately offer the best prices; these large groups are therefore the ones who will generally be favored first, hence capitalism's tendency to generate monopolies, and so as i explained especially in times of crisis). The capitalist world is full of people who own more than they produce, and vice versa, because given (I'll come back to this in the next point) that capitalism is no longer fundamentally about the exchange of goods/services, with a concrete use value, but about the exchange of commodities, of capital; then there is a dissociation between the use value of an object and its market value. This dissociation create the possibility, and this is what the entire capitalist system revolves around, of "surplus value"; literally "more than (true) value", the difference between use value (and we could say labor, the resources including human resources necessary for its constitution) and market value. And because of that, for certain reasons the people who produce goods with a real use value and which will be distributed, who produce labor value as Marx would say, do not recover the equivalent in purchasing power, in capital; And vice versa, there are people who don't provide that much labor, but because they "own" (hence the fact that private property is fundamentally theft in Marxist theory) or are friends/relatives of those who own the goods of production (including labor) find themselves in a position to have a purchasing power greater than the actual labor they provide. Added value can be excessively absorbed by those who have the most control over the production and distribution chain, and missed by those who are not in a position of power, even when they are the ones producing the goods and services in question. Because in a capitalist system, those who are privileged are not the producers, but those who own the means of production and the capital in general for whatever reason. This is what we call having capital. Capital is a value that you possess independently of what you produce and which often allows you an exponential capacity for the accumulation of this same capital (if you own an apartment, you want to rent it to someone and take advantage of the fact that they need an apartment to generate surplus value; you haven't produced anything, there is no labor value, you have just taken advantage of having capital that they don't have, which will allow you to have even more now, in a virtuous circle (for you ) if you will). Karl Marx divided people in two categories called the Bourgeoisie (capitalist class, to be less "anachronistic")and the Proletariat (worker, performer...) This divide isn't about purchasing power; a baker (I'll come back to this) is technically a bourgeois/capitalist as Marx understood it, because he generally owns his means of production (one could call it a "small agricultural bourgeoisie"). An insurer who earns €5,000 a month by basically ripping off his old folks lol is still, in some way, more a proletarian; why does his insurance company agree to employ him even though he earns a lot and is easily replaceable ? because his boss earns EVEN MORE. There is more added value made by his work, he is "employed". As I saw on a Marxist YouTube channel in my country, so I'm going to repeat it eheh, we can imagine a graph with an abscissa axis "Capital/Labor" (Capital on the positive part, and Labor on the negative part, for example) and an ordinate axis "Top manager/Executive" (Idem). If you are a farmer (bottom right of the graph), you exploit your employees; but at the same time, you are dependent on and therefore exploited by all the structures that distribute your production (agri-food industry, retail establishments, etc.). Which means that, well, farmers often earn a poor living, even though they are capitalists and, despite everything, terribly useful to society and work a lot; lots of farmers kill themselves because of that. And vice versa, the insurer I mentioned is useless; in fact, it is closer to the proletarian class, but is a higher-ranking executor. It is subservient but still better placed in the capitalist structure; we could place it at the top left of the graph. What happens is that the further you are to the top right of the graph (basically beyond the downward diagonal), the more you tend to earn more than you are actually worth, and the free market and private property are in your interest. The further you are down the diagonal, to the bottom left, the more you are exploited. If there are people who are French and want to know more about the graph : 4)Debt : In a planned economy, to carry out a project, the state could just asks to some people to work on it, but since we are in a market economy the state, or a private agent, has to pay, so if it desires a product in the long term, it will be forced to take out "loans" with interest. You can buy a kilo of potatoes, because in a market-based system you "earn money" and this "money" corresponds more or less to what you have produced (even if it is false, as we have seen, but we will take it like that because it is convenient), but obviously if you need to house yourself, you do not produce the equivalent of a house per month, so you cannot buy a house with a monthly salary, and at the same time you need, ofc, it so in this operation you will need a mortgage. But the bank produces nothing/does not increase production; it serves no purpose; it is an institution that profits from the neoliberal production and distribution system, having stolen trillions from various states over the last century. The interest payments on the US debt alone in 2023 were $1 trillion, do the math. And that's just the public debt. To give a concrete and conventional example, when you have your house built, the bank loan you need is just an excel file. This doesn't mean there are more workers available, more farmers and land to produce food for these same workers, more trucks, more workers and resources to build these same trucks ans so on. Do you see the magic trick ? But the capitalist system is twisted in such a way that you have to resort to a "banker" to "lend you money," with "interest," to get the right to have your house. and because of that a whole structure that basically does nothing apart, lives off spoilation, and not just a little, can survive. So to summarize : Lower production + capitalist system structure that sets off vicious chain reactions, monopolies, and an unequal redistribution of wealth.

Thanks Tbh i am regularly on coffee and nicotine (wape) lol. I wrote this topic on that combo. In reality productivity has still increased despite demographic stagnation, rising oil prices etc. You can ask ChatGPT; a modern American produces on average as much as four Americans in 1950, thanks to technological progress. Yet there is still, and even more, food stress, housing problems, etc. Food and housing quality haven't improved, except maybe now there's optical fiber lol. So, in reality, these are structural problems: inequality, spoiling through the debt system, and contradictions of the capitalist system.

Thanks You are absolutely right; I am now at the stage where I am fighting with my usual mirrors, which correspond to the me I want to change. 🫨

Yes it's true, but it's like saying someone doing doing sport isn't important if he eats too much at McDiabete. The good, productive reasoningis to say it's already that done, it goes on the good direction/it's better than eating too much big mac and not doing any sport. Yes, but like any kind of love. If you want to go with this materialist paradigm, well, every sensation that life allows you to experience is possible because it's intended by your biology, your brain. From there, there's no pleasure, love, higher or lower affect; it's a delusion; in any case, it's a will/possibility of your little primate brain. I don't know if what I'm saying is clear. Of course, obviously, most people will want to do something other than be with their children all the time, even women; in case I wasn't clear. If only because to feed them you have to work, lol, anyway. Already responded 👍 Again, i already explained several time but it's not important; i do my propaganda. Every single action is selfish; totally. Even when you think you're being empathetic, you're actually serving your own pleasure in being empathetic, your repressed guilt, your power strategy (also repressed), etc. And secondly, there's nothing wrong with being selfish, even in the usual sense; the goal of the superego is to function well in society. This whole thing about saying you shouldn't be selfish, higher conscience, blah blah blah, is a mentally ill delusion. It's also hypocritical; because we're constantly eating meat that comes from some obscure slaughterhouse, a phone made by exploited Chinese people, and little African children being sent to rare earth mines. We're constantly crushing insects that piss us off, trying to humiliate/insult politicians we don't like, etc. So talking about what is more selfish, having or not having children, for all these reasons seems like nonsense to me. There is no transcendental desire. Let's go back to the materialist, biological paradigm since you like that; a desire, a pleasure, a delight is possible because it is permitted by your nature. Now you can play the Buddhist and explain that life is suffering and that by abandoning desires and meditating, everything will be fine. I believe this is an illusion and that the majority of Buddhists, even highly evolved ones, will never fully transcend their desires. And these desires, when they aren't neurotic/psychotic, are generally social things (children, friendship, enough money to live, etc.). My whole criticism, as I go around here and there and on this somewhat trollish topic, is that the "personal development" egregor, and by extension the people/archetypes who participate in it, has a tendency to come into conflict with the social. There is no higher development; it's the delusion of spiritual idiots. There is an energetic structure, a rhizome if we want to borrow Deleuze's good idea, a "moving" one that strives for its survival and seeks to "grow," and which is therefore conditioned in this objective by a social structure and environmental conditions in general. If you believe in profoundly moronic theories like spiral dynamics—because yes, spiral dynamics is one of the most moronic and individualizing sociological models that can exist—you'll be led to believe that people in the West are nice and in favor of gay marriage because "they evolved" naturally because "God" is like Pokémon. Someone like @Jowblob might tell me I'm saying this because I'm not aware of unity/non-duality, but precisely if you're a solipsist, then you know there's nowhere to go and that if you're going anywhere, it's actually your ego. Now, on the human level, even if it's a hologram, it's still very real, so there are things that feel good and others that don't. My entire thesis is a critique of the paradigm of personal development, of Actualized, of Leo, etc., all that egregor, as something effective for doing good. Spirituality is an impulse, it's a passion; something desired by "your brain," your egoic process. There aren't egotistical things and less egotistical things; since everything comes from the ego, ahah. It's an illusion. I think @Razard86 mentioned it somewhere. Ofc. But you might be able to fly to the next town, but the easiest way is to take the car. 🚗

There's nothing cringe you're weird. It's your personal sensitivity.

If you want to try to contradict me you have to enter into my dialectical process, otherwise you might as well say "no I'm right".

You could say the same thing about all the personalities who are commented here. But since you're subservient to Leo/put him on a pedestal, you say it now.

He is wrong. There is no single action who isn't selfish, precisely because you chose to do it; it's an illusion. That's said if you want there are actions who are narcissists, generally out neuroticism/psychosis (self diriged) and actions who are altruistic (object diriged). There is no love in "doing something for humanity"; Even priests who have vowed celibacy spend their time helping others with their personal matters, doing humanitarian work where they can, for example, take care of children, etc. The same goes for Buddhist monks; they do it out of selfishness; they are not against pleasure, but rather against small pleasures. It's the same thing you do with a child, you inject (potentially, then all scenarios are different) a large amount of love into the universe; in a simple and practical way This way of seeing things is neurotic; it is secretly about satisfying an integrated tyrannical superego (inherited from the Oedipus complex) at an early age. No, that's not true. It's more narcissistic (look at my good recipes), and you give less love than you do with children. Do you think that people who look at your recipes become more energetically empowered by watching them? Of course not, that makes no sense. Again: 1) A lot of energy exchanged with one individual is always, overall, much more important than a tiny bit of energy exchanged with many people; just like a €1,000 check is always more important than 100 one-euro donations. If you're a solipsist, then THERE IS NO ONE LOOKING AT YOUR RECIPES. There's only what's perceived here and now; the real question is what generates the most love (or rather, the affection you want, generally speaking) here and now. And it's a false dilemma; the people who make recipes are the ones who are likely to have children; you'll see that antinatalists are often too selfish (in the sense of not wanting to give) to bother doing things like that. 2)When you say "I mustn't be selfish," you are tacitly implying that you are not a man and are still functioning as if you are subservient to a powerful father figure. We recognize neurosis by the superego's inclination not to take the form of a common law/reality principle ("I mustn't eat too much cake because I'll get fat") but rather to take an authoritarian form that directly opposes, to put it simply, the "id" (I mustn't eat too much cake because otherwise it's bad for some reason (unconsciously afraid of challenging Dad in the Oedipal competition)). 3)As I said in point 1, the universe is a reflection. When you operate altruistically, it's actually mostly narcissistic, and you'll encounter mirrors and, generally, a world like that. Are Leo's mirrors mature, masculine people full of love; fathers, entrepreneurs, members of charities, altar boys, etc.? Or is it something else? Ahah, that's the energetic reality of this egregor. Again, you're neurotic. We don't care about "leaving something behind," and as I said, when you want to "leave something behind," it's basically a narcissistic delusion, and therefore the affects distilled into the world by your avatar will probably be mediocre; especially since you're solipsistic, so logically you shouldn't have these considerations. Also, there's an over-inflated ego here; you're not the reincarnation of Napoleon or whoever; you're a random person. Precisely, having children is one of the main, most powerful, and simplest ways to exchange energy. Not the only one ofc; you're not going to spend your life taking care of children; that's not what it's about. You have no higher consciousness, that too is an infantile narcissistic delusion to avoid having to be an adult. I've already said this in response to Sugarcoat, but when you think about it, when you have been a minimum socially integrated or, better yet, somewhat aware of Marxist culture, it seems increasingly pathetic to see people talking about higher consciousness because they eat magic mushrooms when they are not particularly competent in some domain, have no culture, actually suffer from mental illness and are incapable of giving, have a medium or even low iq qnd/or too brain rot to even read a book, etc. There is an overestimation of oneself here. Ken Wilber talked about this in a video, I think, the title was something like "Western vs. Eastern Vision of the Ego."

Close to him about what ? Why consider Leo as a God ;It is "just" an entrepreneur who became interested in psychedelics and philosophy. he is good where he is good line any human being. I am the result of an entire life to think, to be interested in the politics of my country then psychoanalysis, and lots of trauma directly experienced or transgenerational; My paradigm is very solid and yes I propose point of views to Leo and other. Giving points of view is already what we are all doing here, no one is untouchable. A priori Actualized is not a sect. There is no "must" because i am not a fascist but there are "could" and even "should" because all ways of living life don't worth the same. Living in a barrel and smoking heroine is not worth being an IT engineer and eating vanilla ice cream There is not a remark that is not of a projective nature. So when you say that I project, you are right, but it is a way of delirious that you are superior to me, disguised disdain, to deny that I am also a projection, a mirror of what you are.

Without questioning and challenge, there is no more intellectual progress, and no personal progress at all; since one must see one's energetic structure challenged in order to be moved.

I didn't know he had Hashimoto's, so his chronic fatigue comes from that ? 🤔 My mother has it ioo. Everyone's been talking about this on this thread, but my point wasn't specifically about children; it was witticism, but more about the recognition of archetypes. Right now, I'm trying to change my personality, but as a result, I've started intuitively rejecting and making comments (rather negative ones, even though I'm trying to be polite) about some of my usual mirrors, which project into me what I am (since otherwise they wouldn't be part of my world, automatically, eheh) but no longer want to be. @Carl-Richard Was right in his joke, I will only become what I want to be when there is no longer this conflict.

Nemra projection Projectception

I didn't accuse Leo; it's normal to make assumptions. I said that if Leo makes so many assumptions, sometimes insulting ones, then he should be able to tolerate a thread where I question the reason for his libidinal investment choices. Maybe I shouldn't have said "you're not a man," it's petty, but I intuitively mirrored the pettiness of your message.

This is precisely neurotic reasoning; what you don't see is that 1) There isn't a single action you take that isn't linked to survival, even if it's unconscious. The reason you're on this forum, watching Leo and co.'s videos, is that it's unconsciously a way to gain power, to manage castration anxiety (loss, humiliation, etc.), in accordance with how you were raised by your parents and various early events. 2) You overvalue the intellectual weight of Leo's content. Taking psychedelics and deducing that you're god is very easy. Watching a two-hour video of Leo while cooking and pooping is easy; this spectrum of thoughts, if you can put it that way, doesn't require a particularly developed prefrontal cortex. Marx, Nietzsche, Deleuze, Lacan are intellectual giants, doing their work is already on another level, even Joe Dispenza, lol, to return to the theme of spirituality. My mentor, Franck Lopvet, is at the level of Peter Ralton, maybe even above, if that means anything. And most of these people have children; having a developed prefrontal cortex is different from having children or other ordinary activities. In principle, when we try to distinguish ourselves in this way, it's because we're actually brain rot; a kind of coping. Generally speaking, spirituality is a strategy for gaining power, if you are honest.

And I hope Leo has the shoulders to support a post on a forum, especially when he himself mades way more harsh assumptions about others. You're not a man and you're projecting that onto Leo.

You've been smoking too much on your e-cigarette. I'm just saying that I'm not talking about lineage, maintaining the population, etc; my paradigm is openly egoistical. I also didn't say that having children is the pinnacle, but that it's a very logical investment. I also say this is an illusion; there is no consciousness to evolve. There is a fluid matrix influenced by (one could say mirrored, to become somewhat non-dual again) an egregor, a social body. Leo is not particularly healthy or evolved; spiritual people are far from being more healthy and evolved than average; precisely because they are not (come back non-dual again 🫨) a psychedelic trip, a spiritual work; they are THE WORLD. The only way to "evolve" is to be social, because the implication that I am the world is the only way to give something to oneself, is to give it to other. A Marxist would say that you are the result of your social body; I deeply agree, but this is fundamentally at odds with the idea of the evolution of consciousness, at least the model typically proposed by spiral dynamics. Or even Jungian... If you're loving, you'll normally want children. If you prefer a cat to a child because "it requires less effort," then you're a lazy or cowardly person. But in life, you don't become happy by being lazy or cowardly, whatever the reasons; the end result is less vitality. Even when you are hardworking because you are driven by neurosis, as is often the case with personal development coaches, you will see that the frequency towards which you will slide will be cowardice/physical weakness. You can't love "awakening" or "humanity," it's meaningless. I don't believe it for a single second. Ofc. + Be careful, narcicism and selfishness refer to different phenomena. Eating apple pie is "selfish" but not at all narcissistic; engaging in political actions to show how virtuous you are is very narcissistic, but it is "altruistic." If you see what i mean. No, it doesn't work. It's a fantasy based on hot air.

Make Actualized Great Again

Don't be narcissistic, you're a mammal; you have the needs of ordinary humans, no matter how forgotten/repressed they may have been. I'm not saying to have children to "populate the planet," but to generate love. I've seen many people who have had children speak to me and obviously each scenario is individual but very often it gives real meaning to their lives. And it's not just about having children; it's about having a sensual, vitalist, and enterprising approach to life; having children, having a group of friends, doing business, having a job, making music, riding a jet ski, wandering in nature, feeling the beauty of nature and the present moment in general etc.

Did you really ever see someone who became exceptionnal because of psychedelics ? It's like, like people are neurotics they can't just say "I want to take psychedelics because it's a funny/interesting experience", they have to pretend it's necessary for "conCIOusNEss PersOnAl DevelOpment", that it's "better than therapy" while you have everywhere people who had 30666 trips are are barely different than before, or the differences actually come from experiences/efforts in real life. So you shouldn't make assumptions and suggestions to people who smoke crystal meth, because "Crystal meth smokers are just responding to their desire, you're trying to impose your value system." ? Everyone here makes assumptions about everyone else; politicians, self-help gurus, streamers... That's what I'm doing here, making a hypothesis about Leo Gura (I don't will don't put "I think that" at the beginning of each of my sentences ) They can ignore me yes. No one's going to jump on me for saying that except children lol. When I think about my father and the men his age who are hardworking, tough, who did a tough year of military service in their time in the French army, etccetc.; I would be ashamed to be like that, to be so fragile that you can't stand people politely making assumptions about my energetic structure on a forum. It's funny because on my Discord there's a guy with the same username as you who's a polydrug addict with fetishes. And he's unhappy... You're free to do what you want, yes, but there are ways of living life that will make you happy, because they're in line with our nature, and lifestyles that will make you unhappy. I am an intellectual. When I see the completely shitty, uninteresting level of certain intellectuals, I would even say that I am probably one of the greatest French intellectuals of the modern era ahah. 😏 Everything you say is projective My mentor (Franck Lopvet), who is easily on the same level as Peter Raltson, has about five children. Developed countries are having fewer children because capitalism, combined with the breakdown of the collective, has created a society where it is difficult to have children. The countries that have the most children are those where the social structure allows it, i.e., developing countries with relatively strong families, or more redistributionist countries (France, New Zealand, etc.). It is also possibly easier to get tangled up in one's neuroses when you have more free time; the injunction of survival blunts the recourse to neurotic functioning.

No because when i say "he should", I'm talking about enjoying, satisfying desires. Morality is a form of superstition in the sense that it aims to be an end, and unconsciously, it's actually about the fear of being punished. Desire/Enjoyment on the one hand, castration anxiety on the other.

You didn't offend me

@Alexop Maybe Swedish collective unconscious was adapted to a naturally very masculinizing environment, such as cold and few resources, and now that Sweden is a rich and modern country it must adapt so that individuals can return to more balanced behaviors.

You're not loving, otherwise you'd be serially monogamous like most humans. Because why bother looking elsewhere when you already have someone to whom you can give what you have to give? Obviously, you don't love your boyfriend very much, and vice versa (because otherwise he wouldn't stoop to dating a girl in an open relationship who also explains on a forum how great a guy she met was). Since you're not loving, you encounter mirrors that aren't loving, that is, not very physically present (men tend to be for women the mirroir of their symbolic order).