Schizophonia

Vladimir Lenin; the most known communist thinker after Marx and Engels; and the one who sponsored rusian revolution and who ruled URSS some years before dying.

There was an invasion of the new Polish state in an attempt to impose Bolshevism. We can think what we want of this intervention but imperialism is a spoiling venture; which was not at all Lenin's objective.

https://www.amazon.com/Imperialism-Highest-Stage-Capitalism-Vladimir/dp/1614271909/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=MUVICS68G54L&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.DxLGVrO7wuaTdbf4tnmcXTO_Qtc4uSOwf6mJcqhs-OKNAh0xndffXlkRAVlaMQdjMV-19-kkTA4kJq92ceiAsMbRryFWr6YybA106XD8EftxOLewjDkDPnwdfNZ1hWF6cuwYRHL9-Zb0rktfNI_WG_LIMX31uYMeWUYAN1W8aI_dhKwACfGzmJiwoV9jnX4XqJ3p66NBP1WvOtih7lhL5Q.cyF8pqaHuKIRQw6Yeb0jyL32hEOnjWWD3wNjjEnb3kY&dib_tag=se&keywords=Imperialism%2C+the+Highest+Stage+of+Capitalism&qid=1766087829&s=books&sprefix=Imperialism%2C+the+Highest+Stage+of+Capitalism%2Cbooks%2C472&sr=1-1 🎁

It looks like some kind of lame cope.

Your post literally says “ I want my object of desire now” That's overestimating your abilities. Like you're being falsely modest, but what's behind this mental structure is the belief that you should normally be able to do it and that it's not normal.

I'm coming to join you in Brazil. To me the big butts

And you have no example to support what you say I mentioned Sadghuru because he's the only yogi I know, and he is ultra active. I also sometime watch Rupert Spira and he does videos, he is a normal person. He's not exactly a spiritual master, but I'm reading Deleuze right now; he was gentle and a communist, and probably the greatest philosopher of the 21st century. The only one I can think of who can get close is Ken Wilber, who's also a regular guy, active on YouTube, and has written a lot of books. Joe Dispenza ! That you like too. So I don't know what you're talking about; there is a confusion here.

Yes! But that requires time, money, and good mental health. So it's social.

Precisely; because wearing a blazer and being unkind is not a man's thing, it's a boss's thing.

Being an idealist means believing that ideas ultimately shape social structures and conditions, rather than the other way around (materialism). One could say that as a non-dualist I am ultimately an idealist myself; but what is implied in the ideas of idealism and materialism, as they are usually understood as philosophical concepts, is the separation of signifier and signified. You emphasize the signifier—that is "white people," "women" or objets like that—whereas I target the signified which is the collective subject; and i assume the nature of the collective subject is essentially social. Therefore there's no point in talking about "whiteness"; "whiteness", "patriarchy" etc is simply what happens when we industrialize.

Sadhguru is one of the most active people for his age. Most spiritual leaders are normal.

The problem for me is that you're completely idealistic; that is to say you're essentializing collective subjects. There are certainly biological differences between Black and White people, but if it had been the Malians who initiated the Industrial Revolution, and if women were more muscular than men in that agrarian then industrialized world that demands greater physical strength, preferably not being pregnant and greater empathy for children, then Black people would also have lost their religion, they would have become capitalist and imperialist, and there would be a "matriarchy" with men who criticize it for the same reasons. So I am not anti-feminist or against anti-racism per se, but if as I believe since I come from Marxism, it is the material question, the distribution of wealth, that essentially influences collective subjects and their relationships with each other; then this framework for interpretation is useless and will tend to create hostility; since it suggests that it is the fault of men, of white people or whatever if something happens, because of their essence or because of what is "contained in them" for "some reason".

It's paranoia. https://fr-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Hypertrophie_du_moi?_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=fr&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Once again you emphasize deprivation, as if this viewpoint made you productive, revolutionary when it doesn't. My father for example has a fairly low ego as you might imagine based on your criteria; that is to say, kind and present in the moment. And he's a skilled craftsman who has always earned a good living and been a business owner. Most truly productive people have this "psychological makeup," and the people you suggested as "achievers" with big egos are actually just garbage when they're not simply heirs. A big ego works when you read Wikipedia pages (i tease you), when you're a YouTuber, a coder, when you do training, coaching, dropshipping, and other ramdoms things like that. You won't find a great craftsman because you don't renovate a house with ego, but rather with a love for a job well done. The same goes for doctors, technicians, musicians, artists, railway workers, and great philosophers, great politician and so on; all those who actually produce and don't pretend; they can produce because they enjoy their work, not because they're in a "I have to do something great" delusion - it doesn't work like that. The separation between pleasure and effort is an illusion; it's pleasure that motivates you. "Dopamine," to use a vulgar and materialistic term, is what drives you. The problem is that people are losing energy because of new technologies and drugs, and/or precisely because they have an inflated ego, which paralyzes them because great things are made up of small things. That's what having a developed prefrontal cortex means: instead of thinking "I'm going to be king of the world," as a gorilla might say in its own language, you focus on less egotistical things like building a shelter, hunting, gardening... And who is more productive, a gorilla or a human.

You set your goals too high maybe. For example you could get a job at a store and in a month you'd have a good amount of money; and if you want to do something else, you can pay for training (though you don't even need it anymore with YouTube and AI) for, for example, a manual trade, and with that you can offer craft services that will bring in more money. I posted in the thread about success and ego that those with the "least ego" are the ones who succeed the most and the fastest because, since they don't have the pressure to produce something "big," they can do lots of small things that will ultimately add up to something important later on. The idea of depriving yourself now to eat your bread later is for me a total illusion and people who believe they can operate like that end up lazy, scammers, or doing shit.

She believes that the collective subject is essentially qualitatively associated with the majority sex in institutions. It's like me telling you that "whiteness" is a problem because white people are serious and hoarders, while Black people just dance; and that therefore by putting more Black people in power we'll be able to create a more relaxed society; lol.

That's one of the most lowkey sexist (and new age) delirium I've ever read.

To spread my Marxist propaganda a bit 😏; note that what hurts you in what she says isn't her "feminist" software, but her individualistic one. Even a kind of hidden discourse of domination (misandry) which automatically frustrates you because you think you are socially declassified. The only thing to do is control your mental dialogue and reject limiting beliefs, even if it means sacrifying from your life objects that remind you of limiting beliefs; it's basically essentially what buddhism turns around. From a political point of view, a left-wing government would be in favour of putting in place social policies so that people have the means to socialize.

Achieve what; what do you mean by spirituality

It’s ego hypertrophy

It depends of the university you are in. Philosophy is very large. That’s what I said I don’t know where you are but in France you can go in medical ethic via philosophical degrees (at the beginning).

@CARDOZZO He can manifest a higher IQ/bigger brain

In this instance @Leo Gura is clearly a lowkey naturalist in its notion of conformity; which is anti-non duality because from a non-dual point of view every-thing, every phenomenon, every subject-object relationship is just the ego; it's purely relative.

I was just trolling a bit because it reminds me of my bad experience with Debian. I know Debian is particularly different.

"Mirror neurons" specifically refer to empathy. Even if you're the worst psychopath you'll still feel close (I'm using this term for the sake of non-duality) to the five people you spend the most time with because they become your language. If you only know kebabs, the kebab language (the name "kebab," the smell, the taste, the linguistics of the ingredients themselves; in a "fractal model," you could say—always the same story—) it will make you become kebab; your world will revolve around the kebab. The question is—and this is where the issue of "conformity" might lead us—whether there's a form of language inherent to human beings, such as Chomsky's idea. by extension Lévi-Strauss, Heidegger and the more or less naturalist guys like that (I'm citing those I know); or not as the postmoderns think.