Schizophonia

Promised I'll come to whip and torment you so you become skinty faster.

It makes me think to Denmo, he was Canadian too.

It’s normal

I never have that

Am I wrong; isn’t what you “really like and doesn’t comes from “conformity”” ego as anything else. I meant that a good epistemology deletes cleavage and would easily delete conforms/nonconforms one.

@Sugarcoat @CARDOZZO Value judgments are useless; people simply act according to their own structure, We are no different from a machine. I have provided initial practical solutions at both an individual and collective level.

@Judy2 Psst

It would be that simple if there were no unconscious mind.

Yes but it never works. And even if it works out, there's a good chance there'll be nothing more than a date, and even if by some miracle you have sex, is she good enough to be in a relationship? How long will it last?

It doesn't matter. If deep down you believe you're worthless and don't deserve a girlfriend (among other things, of course, we ask ourselves these kinds of questions because we're too privileged to think about money), you can ask yourself as many questions as you want, doubt that it's all wrong, and know what you objectively need to do to improve your well-being, you'll continue to be blackpilled, to ruminate, and your living conditions won't change. The only thing to do is to eliminate everything that reinforces feelings of powerlessness; that's what non-dualists prescribe, and in fact, most religions do it more or less consciously. On a collective scale, as I already mentioned earlier, there are social policies. It's also a problem inherent to capitalism; why do we allow products that reinforce your learned helplessness? Because there are structures (egregors, one might say, from a non-dual perspective) that feed off you; capitalism isn't centered around your survival, your well-being, but on the survival of powerful archetypes/egregors, structures. Non-dual structural-Hegelian-Marxist metaphysics, baby. 👺

The only solution on an individual level is mental dieting. The solution on a collective level is social policies because, as I said in another thread, being sociable requires money and time.

People reflect their social circumstances.; this is one of the things I am currently learning from Marxists/structuralists that is distancing me from psychoanalysis. If you tell someone especially when they are young and highly neuroplastic that they are a shit their will act as a shit.

Actually from a non dual pov everything is conformity. Why are you playing the "hunger game"

It doesn't serve the same purpose. Psychology/behavioral therapy is a form of hygiene; learning to manage stress, having emotional support, avoiding drugs, changing one's perspective, etc. It doesn't explain why a person has idiopathic psychological problems; the moment you manipulate the subject's mental structures, their subjectivity, then it becomes psychoanalysis. A psychiatrist is basically a psychologist who is studying medicine and can prescribe drugs. It is less obvious to talk about psychoanalytic science because it is a young practice and, as I said, it implies a degree of subjectivity. There are also many people who hate psychoanalysis because some psychoanalysts have suggested that phenomena like homosexuality or autism could be curable; there is an ideological dimension to this rejection. There is also a Marxist/Structuralist critique that I find interesting even though I have not been interested in it, which does not reject subjectivity unlike some scientistic autists but rather the individualizing character of the episemiology/linguistic elements of psychoanalysis.

Behind every object of desire (a tall Slavic woman in a garter belt 😏, love, drugs, a Häagen-Dazs vanilla ice cream, watching and breathing in nature, a BMW...) lies the inclination to use these as a mirror of your identity, in order to maintain a degree of ego inertia. I could delve further into the non-dual dimension, but that's not the focus of this thread. Libido, not just in the sense of sexual arousal but of energy in general, the "will" of "doing things", is a phenomenon of intensification, of densification of usual dualities. Someone talking about "seminal retention" or taking stimulants might say to me, "But Valentin, if libido has an inertial purpose, then why do I want to do different things when I have more energy?" The answer is that by intensifying this inertial drive, certain mediocre, even habitual activities will be abandoned in favor of activities that are actually more fundamental to human egotic structures. It's because your life isn't threatened that you bother to be lazy—in a way, lazy people are very meditative, lol—but if your ego is threatened, then you'll need, and therefore want denser objects to maintain your ego structure. This isn't a revolutionary phenomenon, but rather a reactionary one; It is actually easier for someone with low energy to take truly revolutionary actions (like taking psychedelics, for example). This idea of being "in the right place," the ultimate signifier hidden behind every object of desire, is what Freud called the "phallus." The term phallus isn't even patriarchal or anything like that; it refers to children's tendency, when they discover that girls don't have penises, to interpret the difference between the sexes as a litteral castration. Thus, in psychoanalysis, when we speak of "castration," of "losing the phallus," we are indeed talking about the possibility of losing objects to which the ego is attached or identifies. What is the difference between men and women in their relationship to the phallus and to the object of desire? The main idea is that men are usually so attached to the idea of possessing the phallus that they prefer to look "down" to prove to themselves that they do, by contrast. Conversely, a woman (or even a man in the case of neurosis, which I'll come back to) who doesn't consider herself phallic, or only slightly so, will look "up" to try to benefit from the phallus above. It's a mirroring effect: the man will reassure himself that he is the phallus by making jokes, giving money and flowers and cie to a woman, and the woman will feel that she possesses this phallus by receiving these gifts. Men : "Oh she is not phallic compared to me so it means i am phallic". Women : "Oh he is so phallic compared to me so it means i get the phallus". I'm talking about giving flowers lol, but the phallus can also take on a negative form; being an asshole and a neo-Nazi can be phallic, and you can attract certain women that way. The central idea is that women find in men tangible objects to which they like to cling, again as a mirror of their ego. If a woman's obsession is being persecuted, she's not going to like a guy who doesn't. It's not "Oh, this woman has suffered so much, she'd be happier with X." The reality is that some women enjoy suffering, some women appreciate kindness, and everyone finds something to suit them. Very often, a horrible person can be more phallic and more attractive to most women. And this isn't unique to women; a man will also choose a mean and/or crazy but very sexy woman over a kind woman who looks like nothing. And men, often the ones who complain about women's choices btw (I'll come back to that), also frequently choose activities that generate a lot of negative emotions (politics, religion, personal development, fighting, sports...) rather than "kind" activities; it's exactly the same. As you can see from the topic, the man prefers to have the phallus (therefore on the positive part of the graph) even if it means perceiving less in absolute terms (smaller surface area). There's no point in being paranoid about it, but that's why "simping" doesn't work and is even ultimately repulsive, because by doing that you're identifying with the lack of a phallus. In other words, you have an object of desire in your imagination that you don't possess and you act accordingly, which is inherently anti-masculine. It's even infantilizing, because in reality, girls also look downwards to some extent. What's attractive is acting without threatening your feeling of losing power/control (the phallus), even if it means losing the girl (which is an illusion, because in reality you're pushing her away anyway by wanting het (what means you need her, and so you don't have the phallus, you are in danger), that is, acting out of pure love/pleasure; with complete "egotistical modesty." I look upwards, I conquer what "I should/want to have" = Feminizing. I look down, I tend my vegetable garden as Candide said = Masculinizing. An overview of obsessive-compulsive neurosis. It's a psycho-sexual mechanism that everyone, and especially men, uses to varying degrees. When you were a child, you were more like a woman and you acted in such a way that you projected the phallus outward (usually onto your mother) to "woo" her, up to the Oedipus complex or the phallic phase in general. It's when you annoyed your parents saying things like, "Oh, look, Mom, this video!" or "Oh, look, I'm doing cartwheels!" while pretending not to understand that it bothered them. In some people, the abandonment of this pattern was too weak, which leads to infantilizing/feminizing behaviors. The hallmark of neurosis is misogyny and disdain stemming from the contradiction between your self-centered, idealistic self-image (seeking a penis that's elsewhere) and the demands of others; not just women, but people in general, but also your own body. Imposing a diet on yourself, for example, is neurotic and contradicts both your own body and the expectations of others (for instance, if it's a celebration). Finally, a diet can be a necessity (for health and attractiveness), but deep down, it's very often at least partially neurotic. Personal development often attracts particularly neurotic men because a normal man would simply be working on his own little empire/garden. It makes no sense to want to "progress," to want to be rich for the sake of being rich, even to torture yourself with psychedelics, etc. It only makes sense if subconsciously you do not identify with the phallus and consequently try to use makeup to obtain it, which is again in line with what people expect from an adult man, which makes many people in this environment unsociable and even more or less misogynistic as i said before.

Idealistic nullity. Socializing requires time and money; and then there is learned helplessness.

Ah yes of course I use it on myself and others to interpret problems and it works very well. If tomorrow I find or am interested in a more efficient system, then I'll take it.

What do you mean

I'm sure you haven't studied Freud even a little bit, it's just another thing you say because you imagined it in the shower. See my response to AION. Is Ayahuasca superior to 5 MeO DMT because it's "much more complex"? No, you'll probably say that on the contrary ayahuasca's "complexity" is primitive fantasies and corrupting, and that it's with 5 MeO that you become a kangaroo alien. It's the same here.

No, it's a matter of perspective. It's by moving towards ever simpler models that we can progress towards higher levels of intelligence. It's because you no longer know how to produce ATP, how to carry out the billions of metabolic processes essential to the body, that you know how to do something like drink a cup of coffee. It seems simple to drink a cup of coffee, yet it's made possible by the most complex form of intelligence found on Earth; knowing how to produce ATP is fine for single-celled organisms. The Oedipus complex is not "widely discredited"; it is essentially closed-minded people who "find it weird" and ridicule it. There are no particular perversions in his work; he just says that the main object of love is (normally, within the framework of a mononuclear family) the mother up to the phallic phase and the internalization of the incest taboo, sometimes strange/funny speculations through dream analysis such as the "primitive horde". It's the opposite; because Jung is more complex in the sense of being less holistic, "less profound, more expansive," as Ken Wilber would say. That's why it's so popular; average people can read it easily and feel intelligent because they "have read Jung" even though it's actually very boring and useless because of its heaviness/inefficiency.

I didn't experience that, but I remember erotic dreams from before I was sexualized. I remember rolling around in paint (a bit of an anal sadist eheh) and it was exciting.

signifier of the lack*

As I've already said it's overly conceptual and even uses too much New Age jargon, It aims to be more complex and organic. Freud on the other hand is down-to-earth, simple, more fundamentalist in general. Simplicity vs Multiplicity People accuse Freud of being too influenced by the socio-cultural conditions of his time but this is only true for the Oedipus complex, and even then he specified that of course the family dynamics and environmental scenarios that accompanied psychosexual development are variable;not everyone is going to grow up in the typical model he presents but psycho-sexual development will still take place in its own way with the same potential difficulties; it is not the signifiers (daddy, mommy) that fundamentally matter but what is signified, that is to say the law/limitations or the desire. Jungian epistemology leaves much more room for these socio-cultural biases because of its organic, not to say romantic form. How do you know that x belongs to the animus and y to the anima? How do you justify attributing qualities to these respective categories? Unless you're simply saying, "Oh well, I've often seen that, it seems to be that," in which case your epistemology is mediocre, there must be an underlying system that serves as the "why" for this division. And if we have this system (the phallic position in this case), then we might as well get rid of this division. One might say that it's the same thing, but again the more we create precise concepts rather than vague and romantic ones, the closer we get to the signified.

No i I explained the source of the language elements.

@AION I consider Jung being inferior to Freud or Lacan. Not holistic enough