Schizophonia

😈

Day 1 I lost a lot of time due to a prolonged period of almost 3 years of severe insomnia where i had between 1 to 4 sleepless nights per week. This insomnia was triggered by a combination of chronic stress, use of stimulants (especially coffee) and even testosterone/DHEA to see if it would improve my physical appearance (actually turned me into a psychopathic beef lol) and my sports performance. Insomnia literally destroys you, you lose your motivation to do any type of work, your verbal and mental fluency, your humor, your empathy and even your physical appearance; It's really horrible, i can look like a 7 out of 10 on days when I slept particularly well and if possible avoided masturbation and sleeping pills, but otherwise be mistaken for an old heroin addict. I wasted a lot of time doing nothing and now i don't have much money or a social circle, my life is kind of shit, but that said i can sleep again and the bad sleep cycle is mostly my fault which means i have the energy to be productive again. I need more money, i want a professional career and/or a hobby, why not a sports career eheh, i want a nice car, i want to express my creativity. Currently i feel like a person close to forty, i'm not a zombie but i clearly lack energy and libido, vitality in general, i can work, i think i can also more or less defend myself if i am physically attacked, i can do things in general but it's not optimal. To help me both recover from my insomniac period and actually exploit my full potential i decided to take inspiration from a French youtuber (Thomas Mayer-Chéret) and to (among other things obviously) start seminal retention, it is not my only source but it is my main inspiration, it is one of the only youtubers that i still watch because i find him funny and pleasant to listen to, nevermind. From a dual and rationalist point of view, seminal retention is supposed to allow the maximum accumulation of metabolic energy. On the one hand by removing the sedative "reward" caused by orgasm (prolactin spike) and then by allowing the accumulation of spermatozoa which it seems can be recycled by the body (hence the use of turmeric in certain spiritual practices, supposedly having the capacity to increase the destruction and recycling of spermatozoa for the benefit of the body (it is therefore not recommended to use too much turmeric if you want a child)). From a point of view beyond duality, we could precisely say that seminal retention is a bridge from duality to non-duality, from the finite to the infinite; Empirically, deprivation of masturbation gives you the energy to manifest your selfish desires, the first time i had to deprive myself of masturbation for a long time was in high school because of a frenulum plastic surgery (which was not enough lol, which meant that i had to do in fine a circumcision, nevermind), and i who was usually shy, even cowardly, thought for the first time to see a random girl in my class to tell her that i liked her (which was not entirely true, but for some reason i had targeted her😂 ). In this journal i will of course talk about seminal retention (i hope not to relapse obviously, but that should not happen), but also other subjects that are close to my heart, i spend a lot of time ruminating on many subjects without ever having the courage to put all that into form, this will be the opportunity. This journal is also and above all a way to finally get involved. I will stop there for this first post, i have to keep some substance for the others eheh; The goal will be to make one post per day.

😏

It's completely open to criticism, but he doesn't say anything special; that the "left is dangerous" and that it's terrible that Kirk got killed. And then you say he's "cruel" before insulting him? lol You prove him right.

Masculinity is about being nothing, that's why men tend to be dominant sexually or in general in life because why would you want, be exited to the idea of being dominated/reduced when that's already your normal state, you can only want to go to where (you think) you're not already. So, Valentin is not a subject; Valentin is nothing, and the rest is all that is most important. From the warmth of my big black sweater, to the effect of nicotine, including the sight of an ass. It's all about submitting to the big other, as Lacan would say. Love is the impulse to make something exist, more of a symbol for men, and an imaginary one for women; even though technically we all live more or less across both orders.

Of course it's a poor country; it's a Central American island under embargo for 70 years, what don't you understand? It's like that everywhere on the planet, actually; I too can show you documentaries about poor neighborhoods in the United States that will make Cuba look like a safe place. Contrary to what you say, city dwellers don't have power outages, and even if this is the case in rural areas/smaller towns, ultimately 99% of the population has access to it. This is slightly more than all other Central American countries and equal to that of South American countries. And yes, there are poor people in your videos, but even in France and the United States, there are people starving too; if there weren't access to medicine and decent nutrition, Cuba wouldn't have an average life expectancy of 5 years longer than the United States. A small, almost resourceless island, with a population descended mainly from spanish farmers and a few black slaves, under an embargo, got a higher life expectancy than the world's leading power. Again. 1)Mao isn't the "Marxism" 2)China was a poor, backward, very corrupt country, divided between Chiang Kai-shek and warlords, which suffered the war against the Japanese and then the civil war between the nationalist party and a communist party; all of eastern China from Guanxi to Manchuria (Hoi4 helps me revise my geography😎) was damaged. Between 15 and 20 million people died during the war against the Japanese, and up to 10 million died in the civil war. And despite all that, and his nonsense, Mao left behind a stable Chinese state, largely free of corruption, and one that had begun its industrialization. Deng Xiaoping did indeed enrich China, but it wasn't thanks to market liberalization per se; Maoism was isolationist, and China was therefore an autarkic state. Opening up to the international market and the possibility of a private market allowed foreign investors to come and thus bring back their capital, and also their expertise. Even today, China is very statist, and that doesn't prevent it from becoming the second world power; probably soon the first. No Marxists today are in favor of autarky; most are alterglobalist because that's simply the rational position. No, technological progress and power relations do.

Wanting to make someone exist.

I'm not in favor of the Chinese model; I used it as proof that a country with a very strong state could become the world's leading power. I also used the case of France. China has high inequality because it's a huge country where wealth is concentrated in certain cities/provinces, particularly special economic zones on the coast. So you have very wealthy areas like Shenzhen, with lots of wealthy and skilled people, and the further west you go, the poorer and more rural it becomes. China is the size of Europe; it's a gigantic and multiethnic country.

I asked ChatGPT and Cuban doctors still earn more than the national average, so no, a delivery man probably doesn't earn more than a doctor. Once again, you can't get your American frame of reference out of your head. You have to ask yourself which country's population has the best care: Cuba, or other countries with a similar socioeconomic history, even if it's hard to quantify. Everyone would rather be Cuban with lymphoma than Nicaraguan with lymphoma; because at least there are plenty of doctors and it's free. Today, Cuba is one of the poorest countries with the highest life expectancy, at 79 years on average. This is higher than the United States (74 years), and Cubans live longer than Americans. No, it's not true. Doctors and surgeons make huge profits because they're in a position of power. First, the doctors; in France, and it's probably the same in most countries, there's a cartel of veteran doctors and academics who organize to prevent access to education from being made easier (scholarships, the number of students selected and trained, the same duration, etc.) in order to maintain the high salaries of existing doctors. There's also the profit from mutual insurance companies. In France, they're fairly regulated and inexpensive, but those in the United States are more expensive and more conditional; because they're businesses. The United States spends a larger portion of its budget on healthcare than France, even though healthcare in France is very inexpensive because hospitals are an industry. Depending on the sector, the average salary in the United States ranges from $250,000 to €500,000; it's absolutely enormous, and no one deserves a salary that high, even after 7/8 years of study. When you earn half a million dollars, you're profiting from human misery, that's all. As a general rule, when you earn a lot, you can have a lot, because there are people who can't meet their needs even though they work. Already responded. Yes, and if you work at McDiabetes, if you're not careful with your hygiene, you could accidentally kill someone. You could say that about any job, actually. Already responded.

@Leo Gura You're not looking for the truth; you want to be right. That's why you haven't contradicted my arguments, except for "Cuban doctors are poor." Well yes, compared to a rich country, where doctors are in addition to that entitled to use their position of power to overcharge their patients, they are poor. But the countries of Eastern Europe/the Balkans, South America, even more so Central America, and some African countries are very poor, even though they are capitalist countries with access to the global market. According to your reductionist theory, they should be much richer "since capitalism creates wealth." You also say that "all Marxist experiments have failed," when only a handful of countries have become communist, the majority of which were poor or very poor at the outset. Russia was a very unequal country with a level of industrialization close to the Middle Ages and under the Communist Party, despite the initial poverty of its population and infrastructure, the First World War, the Civil War, the embargo by Western countries after the Civil War and beyond, ethnic diversity, the sometimes polar climate, the Second World War, and isolation from the international market after the Second World War; it still became the second world power. The same goes for China; Mao made some really stupid mistakes, like the Great Leap Forward, which caused a famine, or trying to kill birds to prevent them from eating crops, lol. But that's Mao, not "Marxism," and despite everything, he still managed to create a state somewhat free of the widespread corruption of Nationalist China, and began the industrialization of the country. Today, China has once again become a market economy with special economic zones, but it's extremely statist and Marxist-inspired; and today it's the second-largest economy in the world. France also experienced its golden age of growth and purchasing power, known as the "30 glorious years," shortly after the Second World War; and this corresponded to a semi-planned economy as a compromise between the Communist Party, which had won the legislative elections, and the opposition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_French_legislative_election

It's a Caribbean island with no resources, which has always been poor and under American embargo since the 50s, obviously it's poor. You have to compare it to Central American countries to be relevant; Nicaragua, Belize etc which basically have no infrastructure outside their capital and rich enclaves. The objective of a communist country is also automatically to avoid prostitution in various ways (labor law, legality/tolerance of psychoactive products and prostitution...) to attract foreign capital as the Far Eastern countries have been able to do in various ways. Thailand got richer by having a military junta that tolerates drug sales and mass prostitution; well yes it works but it probably wasn't really Che Guevara's plan. This proportion of the capitalist system to move wealth towards the countries which prostitute themselves the most to big capital, by the logic of competition, geopolitical issues etc; is already described by Trotsky and it is what motivated, if we can put it like that, his idea of permanent revolution. Once again you are a good well-fed, white, democrat American who is unaware of the extent to which he is favored by power relations of which he is visibly unconscious of. We are talking once again about a third world country, which has gone through a civil war, which is under embargo, and which has managed to make its population fully literate, created the largest cigar industry in the world, and has become one of the countries with the most people skilled in medicine (in proportion), even if there is "no medicine" (infrastructure). It's like a millionaire kid with lots of free time making fun of his poor neighbor who has to work because he only got a "C" or "B-".

Yes, but if we don't have a communist project, then all the anti-oligarchy rhetoric will lead nowhere. The Trumpists win, the overtone window shifts in their favor, because the Democratic opposition are weak centrists without a coherent worldview or epistemology.

Communism transformed the russia into a nuclear superpower despite the civil war, the stalinist bureaucracy, the tens of millions of direct and indirect deaths of World War II, and the global western indirect embargo quickly after ww2 that i quickly talked about in my topic about Trosky; I should make a second improved and cleaner version btw. Even Cuba, which found itself self-sufficient, went from being the current equivalent of Cambodia to one of the countries that trains the most doctors and has the largest cigar industry in the world; Hugo Chávez, too, has made his population literate and drastically increased its standard of living. Meanwhile capitalist systems spend their time collapsing on themselves due to their contradiction, without there even being a conflict of intensity or deprivation of resources. The United States survived the 1929 crisis mainly thanks to debt (always the same Ponzi scheme) but also thanks to a policy of massive redistribution; Income tax could rise to over 90% during the New Deal. And these are very redistributionist countries.

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.