Schizophonia

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.

Generally you study philosophy for pure pleasure, or to work as a philosophy professor or in more specific professions like medical ethics.

https://www.reddit.com/r/linux4noobs/comments/lteetl/i_successfully_installed_linux_mint_after_an_hour/

handspinners

D'accord

Metropolitan or Quebec's one ? given that your canadian. C'est similaire mais avec des expressions différentes, et un expression orale, un accent différent. tabarnak

It depends; his videos on spirituality/non-duality are very good, and his speaking style makes him pleasant to listen to. Those that discuss psychology, sociology, or politics are less good. When I criticize of course it's because I like confrontation; I'm not spitting in the soup.

People who pretend to work but are actually at best code-pisser, and who debate of the best os to be "productive" lol

Nobody says that lol except for women who are in a ruminatory delirium (i just invented this term) here and there especially on social media We're essentially among balls here so we don't see it but women have the same ruminatory deliriums. One could say yes but they're at the opposite polarity; like they complain about not having a boyfriend, but it's because they have too many choices, whereas for us it's the opposite blablabla. But actually if you look at your closest women mirrors (your mother, your sister, their friends, your own female friends...), you'll see that they tend towards shortage (they settle for random or even clearly low quality men, with no reciprocal effort from the men they flirt with...) if you too. Because the problem is not the signifier (the opposite sex) but the signified (the object of desire, the "phallus"); it's neurotic. The idea is always the same; to see oneself as a victim because a victim is a hero; that is to say someone who integrates into the collective subject. The more individualistic, capitalist and/or lacking traditional collective structures a state is the more automatically people will become weak, depressed, and crazy; neurotic and sometimes psychotic especially socially disadvantaged subjects.

That's why you get lost or avoid almost all debates, and why you're stuck in shallow concepts; typical example is conformism; you can't explain your intuition, so you just throw your exemples out there like begins the question and if someone asks questions you just reply, "Ugh you're annoying me, just contemplate." Reading and studying philosophy or even simply watching good videos, not just browsing Wikipedia, in addition to being a pleasure, will provide you with elements of language, concepts, even epistemology with a "dialectical" approach and/or scientific evidence in favor of it (although we, as non-dualists, know that positivism is an illusion and autistic bullshit 😏). At some point you didn't learn how to make Skyrim mods by reading the C++ Wikipedia page it doesn’t makes sense.

Notice how most of these people are physically unattractive. If you have an individualistic bias, it will seem paradoxical to you that they are doing even more harm to themselves; but if you see individuality as an illusion, whose the signified is actually the reproduction of larger-scale structures (like an ant and the intelligence of the anthill), of collective subjects one might say from a more directly Marxist point of view, you understand that they are only reproducing what they think they must do, what they think they deserve. Before, I would have thought of a cope like "If I hurt myself now it will benefit me later because I'm ugly, so I have to be particularly careful"—a kind of (paranoid) projective functioning—but in fact that doesn't work, because projection implies a rational will on an individual level, which isn't the case here since these people aren't any happier--on the contrary-- and deep down they know it's antisocial; this doesn't suggest they might receive an increase in love from the group in exchange for certain efforts, criterias that are met. They were simply bullied, labeled as worthless at an early age, and reproduce the collective will regarding their individuality, which dictates that they deserve a certain amount of love, of survival on some form. Hence the intuitively skeptical stance of Marxists towards personal development, and particularly the New Age movement, because it is a vehicle for authoritarianism; and what lies behind authoritarian logic is the mental conditioning to function (again, we are herd animals, our pseudo-individuality actually reflects structures and in particularly human social/collective ones, even if it's repressed) within a world of social classes, specifically in a socially disadvantaged position. For exemple typically there is something extremely suspicious about taking "psychedelics for self-medication." Firstly because it doesn't work—the whole "people changing their personality/life after a trip" thing is in my opinion a load of bullshit and basically doesn't exist; i don't believe it a minute—and secondly because it's an authoritarian way of thinking that is to say which is part of the greater belief of being socially disadvantaged. "I'm going to become a better person by ingesting a vasoconstrictive violent hallucinogen." The same goes for believing that reading crappy self-help books is going to change your life. The more honest you are with yourself and the more you learn about human psychology, the more you realize that the only thing that truly and substantially improves a person's "quality" in the long run is their social conditions; as a survivalist and a collective being (from a non-dual perspective, I wouldn't even make that distinction). If tomorrow I put you in a strict bourgeois family you will become the ideal son-in-law much, MUCH faster than with any self-help book, psychedelic, or any other tool. Why? Because humans REFLECT STRUCTURES I should start a thread about this to develop and tidy it up.

@Leo Gura If you liked Windows 7 (it's my favourite too) you would love mac os x. The simplicity of Windows 7 but more modern, more beautiful, and faster; without malware too.

Excuse for killing people, out of sadism.

All cleavage is an illusion; everything is its opposite depending on the point of view That's why I insisted that the best episemiology is the one that eliminates the highest degree of cleavage. Indeed the conformity thing is shaky; Leo is always quite shaky because he comes from personal development and has little sociological culture. Non-duality and Structuralism are two of the things I'm thinking of that can explain this divide (and by extension, the low-key philosophies surrounding this divide, like Baudrillard's hypermatrix for example), thus rendering it obsolete. Thus there are no longer conformist/non-conformist actions; there is simply --reciprocally--, an ego, structures. The Marxism I sometimes talk about is a form of structuralism.

Sorry but he's unbearable to listen to.