Schizophonia

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

At first I thought it was a girl, because it reminds me of the name "Jeanne" in french.

Indeed we can go back to the Paleolithic era. Top super

Thankfully, they number over a billion and possess vast resources. And it's a semi-planned economy.

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.