Schizophonia

Because you're not taking the unconscious into account; consciously you're not just thinking about sex you're thinking about lots of different things, but unconsciously you give importance to all these things because they relate to your survival, and ultimately to sex; that's what it means. So you think making your Actualized.org videos has nothing to do with reproduction, or that it's "above" it (because of the superego?). But why do you make these videos instead of something else? "Ha ha, because it increases my consciousness and that of others, and it's good to do that." Yes, but why is it good to increase one's consciousness and that of others? "Well, because it allows us to have a more balanced life, and because it's our divine duty..." Yes, but why is it better to have a more balanced life? And why is it our divine duty? Where does that come from? What is a "duty"? What is "divine"? Why, why, and why... And so, by going back from the unconscious to the conscious, by doing the phenomenology of your different desires, you will ultimately come back to this organizing principle of libido, survival, and sexuality. In accordance with psychoanalytic epistemology. That's the martingale; that's why I don't like Carl Jung for example he doesn't go far enough; he's too "heavy," too conceptual with his stories of archetypes, animas/animus and so on; probably because, like you, he's unconsciously too puritanical to fully accept the Freudian theory of sexuality

He was no more perverse than anyone else. Btw perversion means the negation of castration. For example, I was forbidden from being a child (the feelings we project onto them, like innocence or whatever), and because this prohibition, this castration, is painful, it is denied and projected, which leads to pedophilia. I deny that there is no love between my wife and me because otherwise there would be too much disillusionment, and so I become a cuckold. Etcetc. In a sense, this is what you call "corruption." You and your posts always so polite and expressionless. It seems to me that Lacan invented the concept of "object a", but I don't really know if it's equivalent to Freud's concept of the phallus. The Oedipus complex is the childhood scenario that essentially teaches you that you must be the object of someone else's desire in order to have them. It's called the Oedipus complex because, for the average person who grew up in a nuclear family, the first desire is usually for the mother, and the father tend to be seen as a rival. The same applies to a girl, although apparently the dynamic is more bisexual. Of course, that's potentially the case. I'll probably do a V2 with different language elements. A generally simpler epistemology to understand.

I should become a militant for the far right party of my country. It's not a joke i could easily get a deputy/"congressman" job at 7500 euros per month and maybe become at least a little known lol. Become an european deputy is even easier and won even better like almost 10k before income tax.

In general (all red) dunhill, malboro or gauloises; it doesn't makes a lot of difference. I like to smoke them slowly otherwise they're too strong, maybe i should rather take white ones (the weakest). I think the more stressed you are the more you like high doses of nicotine thanks to the calming effect. Whether stressed or even enthusiastic actually, a situation of excitement in general.

I'm lucky nicotine isn't very addictive for me. I can buy a pack and finish it in a week or two, then not touch it for months. I just don't care. Worst for alcohol, it just numbs me and it is not pleasant. Nothing beats cannabis or mushrooms in small doses.

no

Indeed, there is probably some Lacan in what I am saying without realizing it; I have read a lot here and there. I don't follow any particular epistemology; I just take the concepts and language elements that I like, and as I introspect, it creates a kind of ratatouille.

Prefer the beard

Anything you consider conformity is what you would do out of conformity because you don't like it; it's projection. We could replace the question with "list of things I don't like," it would amount to the same thing.

What do you mean Ok There's probably some Lacan in my paradigm without me realizing it, from reading so much here and there. What I'm describing is very likely at least partially wrong; I feel it's incomplete; it's actually endless. I'll probably do a version 2.

When I speak of an object, I don't mean only an "external physical object," as we can intuitively think about, but symbols in general; Lacan would speak of the symbolic order. The taste of a beer is a symbol; yet it is clearly "inside" and beyond the "physical" (I use quotation in relation to non-duality).

One way to look at it is that men are also pathological but project it whenever they can. Sometimes men aren't phallic; men need to eat food, and quite a lot of it, to slee, etc; you actually need food and sleep to be stronger, to ultimately be phallic eheh. But in a social context, the perception of lack is projected onto women,a car to use, a nation to save, etc. That's why men seem more stoic; the problem, the lack (of phallus), what you call madness is more projected onto the object.

lol, what do you mean

That will be on my journal or my thread on Hinge.

Yea it's a bit the ultimate "holon"

Freud didn't say that; men are just as crazy as women but the expression tends to be different. (hysteria vs. obsessive...)

Actually I was lazy and made the thread in one or two hours; if I'd taken a day or a week it would probably have been much longer and more complicated ahah. But ty. It basically means not to push too hard/to give up self love.

I want to clarify that in all cases the object of desire is a phallic mirror, even for a man. So, whether it's a male friend or a woman who is phallicized—that is, you're having sex while pulling her hair, etc. When you have sex with a woman, she becomes a phallic mirror; she no longer has any problems or needs.

The girl's issues are your business. When you take charge of a woman and her problems, you're in a masculine position. If you force or pressure her, you're creating the opposite situation, usually for neurotic reasons because obviously it's not pleasant for anyone and it won't work. If it does work, because the girl has guilt issues or something like that, you're putting yourself in danger because sooner or later you'll be cheated on. You'll be the guy she dates because he's "objectively good," and then in the end, your wife will cheat on you and experience orgasms like she never has with a random guy because he's significantly a better phallus for her. It's not a question of doing or not doing it, but of why you do it, of perspective. In the idea of self-improvement, this element of language can have a neurotic, self-centered dimension, which is indirectly feminizing. What's the difference between a guy who takes magic mushrooms to "fix" himself and a woman or a gay man who gets sodomized, lol? What's the difference between a guy who tries to improve himself in the sense of going from "not good enough" to "good enough" and a woman or a gay man who wears makeup, fake nails, a crop top, etc.? It's about unconsciously seeing yourself as a problem to be solved, instead of the other person/the object. Hence the misogyny and denial in obsessive-compulsive neurosis, because a woman, and even other men in general, don't care about your personal development, how mature, "nice," "overly self-aware," and so on, you are; about this "self-image." Again, it's like a gay man saying, "Did you see my croc top? It's nice, isn't it? 😏👄" Okay, lol, fine. People expect you to have a generally phallic posture, that is to say, confident and/or reassuring and/or funny and/or rich and/or a good sports/games partner, etc. I say "people" because men also expect you to be phallic, not because they aren't phallic, but because the vision of you as a phallic mirror is satisfying. That's the principle of 'friendship'. I don't particularly adhere to Freud; I naturally use his epistemology in particular because it's very pure and effective. If tomorrow I find more effective linguistic elements, I'll adopt them. 😏 I'm generally cerebral but yes Ditto Best martingale

No. When you play Mario Bros, you're playing at perceiving lack (being on level one, starting a storyline where something "goes wrong") and at bringing back the phallus (completing levels and winning). It's the same for a woman; she's full of voids/lack, and you're playing at erasing them. The more neurotic you are, the less masculine you are, because you identify directly with lack; like you want it. When you ruminate on tik tok it's neurotic for example; you're not playing with the lack of a third object as a phallic tool, you're playing at embodying the lack yourself. You want to growl.

No.

It disappeared because of ethnic and nationalist conflicts. A bit like Austria-Hungary, the USSR, or the British Empire.

baguette

I don’t know Riviere but indeed I looked at some Lacan works, my paradigm here is probably influenced by him even if I mainly stick to Freudian language elements Ahah no it’s complicated in general. Deleuze is even way worst 😬

Lol I hope not