Parththakkar12

@Preety_India Tell that to the traffic police-officer who takes bribes. They'll laugh you out of the room because they've been living off of bribery for their whole life! Where is your 'absolute power of the constitution'? Why can't it stop them?

@Preety_India Nope. I'm just paying attention to the reality. I'm just taking the 'right of the constitution' with a grain of salt. 'The constitution' does not have absolute power. When you see that, you start to see it as a tool that you could use either way. You'll know the intentions of those using it and you'll be able to predict what'll happen next.

Except of course that the definition of 'responsible use of your freedom' is decided by those who 'give you' your freedom. (Who gave them the right to give or take freedom anyways? Freedom is an absolute.) They'll decide that definition according to what serves them the most, not what serves you the most. Simple!

@Danioover9000 That precisely is the point of Life Purpose! To change those norms, to create new norms that work better than the old ones. That's where the real value lies - beyond the current societal norms. All you have to do is make it profitable for yourself and for your society to change the norm.

@EnRoute Whatever you do, don't listen to people who tell you that you have bad social skills and you need to 'work on yourself' or 'work on your social skills'. That's bullshit and it will gaslight you even more. It's mostly projection and has nothing to do with reality. What you need is trauma-work. And yes, people who tell you that 'your social skills are bad' or some nonsense like that will exacerbate the trauma. DO NOT go to a therapist who will tell you to fix your social-skills, that's an incompetent therapist. Go to someone who will actually try to understand your trauma. Most people (especially extroverts) are morons relative to this issue. They'll say shit like 'You don't talk enough because you have bad social skills'. That's nonsense. The reality is the other way around! If you talk too much, that's a sign that you have bad social skills. Simple-minded extroverts (who don't use their brain-cells before opening their mouth) will make this mistake and confuse the shit out of you. They (especially the blabbermouth-type extroverts) will take advantage of your silence and try to control of the narrative. Don't fall for it! Don't be silenced by them when they try to silence you.

Yes it is. And here we are, bumping it for no good reason.

Correction - actual conscious sex, not unconscious sex! I prefer conscious masturbation to unconscious sex any day.

Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Biggest joke ever. The risks are too high. That's not confidence, that's foolishness! You aren't a man, so you don't know how ready people are to falsely accuse you when you say things like that. If you're falsely accused, you're done. Do you know what this is called? Catcalling. I can't believe you are advocating for catcalling!!

This isn't demonization. It just doesn't agree with the whole 'man bad, woman good' narrative. That's it. It shows the biological realities of the relationship between the sexes! Not once did I put men above women. The patriarchy is dysfunctional and I fully agree with that! This is an attempt at distilling the problems down to their root-levels, looking at what's really going on. Males fighting each other to gain dominance to attract the females isn't unique to our species, in fact. This is biology.

When did I say anything about hating women? Or is it automatically misogynistic when you question the 'man bad, woman good' narrative?

Same goes for 'the patriarchy'. It's bad only when it hurts women, not when it benefits women! Let's not demonize the systems and let's separate out the dysfunctions from the systems themselves. It pays everyone to see that women are fundamentally selfish. So are men. We aren't saints, so let's not pretend to be saints. If we see that women have egos and they are selfish, we could design a system that accommodates for women's egos instead of enslaving women to perfectionistic standards.

This is how it's worked historically in tribes. This tribalistic attitude is reflected in the context of high-school with high-school teenagers! It pays us to see that women generally don't care on a biological level. It takes a special individual to actually have compassion for men and to actually not want men to fight each other. Also, it pays us to see that 'toxic masculinity' is toxic only when it hurts women, not when it benefits women! Not when women can manipulate it to their ends.

This is female narcissism for you right here. Enabling toxic masculinity and then bitching about it. It's a 'divide and rule' game, where they pick the winner. That's how they evaluate who's the strongest, the most confident. That bullying came across as 'confident' to her! That's the reality. That's what they mean when they say they're attracted to a 'confident personality'. This is what they have to gain from male conflict - they get to evaluate who's stronger. Looks like 'toxic masculinity' ain't all that toxic after all!

Look at your attachment-style. Is it avoidant? Is it anxious? Is it disorganized? I'd suggest maybe going to therapy and working on your attachment-style. You sound like you have parts of you that don't want to date because you see relationships as dangerous or something. I'd suggest looking into what's going on internally with you.

I think I would be able to pull a Russell when I hit 45. 45 is Russell's age and it's pretty old! My experience has been that the older you get, the less you care about what people think of you.

Out of curiosity - If your minimum-wage becomes $15, does this mean less minimum-wage jobs? Do the corporations have to save on the $5 somehow? Leo does keep saying that the corporations have obscene amounts of money, so maybe it's not that big a deal. What do you think?

Leo's video on holons is too abstract for me. This has happened the first time ever that a video of his is too abstract for me! This didn't even happen in his 'What is Perception?' video, although it got close. It didn't even happen in the 'Sameness vs Difference' video, although again, it got close. This time it was just too much for my mind! I can work very well with systems. I can wrap my head around systems and work with and solve systemic problems. That is my creative capacity as a mental-modeller, I create systems. But, when I started trying to wrap my head around the concept of holons, contemplating it, it just became too much. It became too boring, quite frankly. The mental effort expended to wrap my head around it felt like it not being worth it. I can understand it on a mental level. But, I'm unable to wrap my head around the ramifications of looking at the world through this lens and to actually integrate this concept into my metaphysics. I'm not seeing this as a 'problem to solve', I request you to not look at it like that. My question is - Have you faced a similar situation? What came out of it?

Very well spotted. Credit to you for spotting this and being aware enough to see this. Human beings have an emotional need called 'belonging'. Belonging is the human need to be a part of a tribe, to be a part of a group, to fit into a group. Now, when you wear a mask, you will feel the energy of mask-wearers pulling you towards them and you will 'fit in' with that group. In such a situation, the part of you that needs belonging will come up with all sorts of stories and justifications that help you fit in with them, that the mask-wearing group commonly believes. It may or may not be true, but that's not important. The important thing is to fit in. Likewise, when you don't wear the mask, the energy of those against wearing masks pulls you towards them and you start thinking along those lines! The mask is a huge symbol of what you believe about the COVID Pandemic in general. It's like a brand-symbol or logo of groups. This is how branding works, this is why it works. It creates a sense of belonging among the market of consumers, that 'you will belong with us and our consumers if you get our product!' The answer to this question, according to me, would be to consciously create a strategy for creating belonging, consciously creating your own tribe. When you have that need met or when you have a strategy for it, you will have much more incentive to look at both sides critically and to arrive at the underlying, complex, nuanced truth.

An insight about creativity - there is no process to it. It's a-mechanical, it's spontaneous. That's how ideas come, that's how insights come. Spontaneously! This is what makes art so mysterious, this is what makes creativity so mysterious in general. You cannot formulate a process for it!

It's all good and fine to have a sadistic fetish. As long as the other person is into the 'pain' you're 'inflicting upon them', should go well. If you are a dominant, your job is to create safety for the submissive. So, if you're the submissive, I'd suggest you have higher standards for dominants. Yes, being into sadism can be a legit fetish. But, if it's coming from a narcissistic space, if the dominant isn't cognizant of the submissive's safety, then it can actually be dangerous. Examples would include making the safe-word tricky, i.e. not straightforward, ignoring it as part of the narrative. Yeah, you could have a sort of interrogation-dynamic in which the dominant actually doesn't know the answer to the question they're asking and you could do something like 'if you answer my question correctly, that's your safe-word' but you also want to give the submissive an option of an emergency escape-hatch safe-word that's clear and both of you agree upon. Also, an amazing thing about the interrogation-dynamic is that the submissive has a lot of control as to where they want to take it. The submissive's answers will determine what the dominant will do next! If the submissive answers the question clearly and correctly, that's the safe-word and it ends there. But, if the submissive is into it and wants more, they can give an answer that's messy, not that straight to provoke the dominant, then the dominant gets to use 'interrogation-techniques'! There's tons of ways you can make this safe. You can, for example, give options in safe-words. This one is the straightforward one, this one is more tricky. Drawing analogy, again, from the interrogation-dynamic where the interrogator asks 'Do you want this to go the easy way or the hard way?' If the sub is into it, they'll go for the hard way! That's consent and that's what you want to see as the dominant. (Interesting how your way of asking for consent changes when you change the context) If you're a submissive, NEVER submit to a dominant who you doubt cares about your safety and who isn't overtly doing everything in their power to create safety. No matter how hot they are, don't get suckered into it. You could be putting yourself in serious danger. To answer the OP's question, all the difference is in whether they care about your safety in bed or not. If they do, then they won't have sadistic tendencies in real life, because those sadistic tendencies are carefully managed even in bed. But, if they're negligent towards your safety in bed, then they are potentially unconscious of those sadistic tendencies. This could make it so they bleed over into real life.

Leo looks very graceful to me. He is one of the most graceful spiritual teachers I've seen! His big-picture thinking, his conceptualizations, his holism, his depth of understanding, it's all unbelievably graceful. Graceful in an unparalleled way. As an individual, you're going to be graceful in your own unique way.

Somebody please explain this to me. When did I say in my last thread that I was 'projecting a feeling of inadequacy' or that 'I'm not taking responsibility'? When did I say anything about my sex-life? I'm talking about the whole industry and what I find fishy about it. Why is it so hell-bent on proving that men aren't good enough as they are? I find that this message comes from the dating-industry and it doesn't reflect reality. I find that men are good enough as they are, if they are authentically who they are. Isn't it counter-productive to send men this message that they aren't good enough, if you are a dating-coach? Very very confusing.

Is the 'improving yourself' part about getting with a woman or is it your natural growth-process? Before you tell me that 'the dating industry precisely tells you what that growth is', I'm going to say that's debatable. It's not about personal growth, it's about 'self-improvement' to get female validation. As someone who has been growing myself because I naturally felt called to it (not for some external results), my experience has been that the dating-advice they give never made any sense to me. I'm not attached to their 'results' or the 'results' they're telling me to chase, which is why I have the courage to have this conversation. It's always 'work out', 'go out and 'talk to girls' (whatever that means)', 'take personal responsibility', like what does any of this have to do with getting laid? They'll say that 'the proof of the advice is in the following of it' and then when you follow it and it doesn't work, they'll be like 'Don't come bitching and moaning to us, figure it out yourself! Rule #1, take personal responsibility'. What an ingenious way to escape accountability.

True that. I won't disagree. But, that's not the message from the dating-industry. They say things like 'You have to self-improve FOR GETTING WITH A WOMAN'. The definition of 'your growth', 'your confidence' is all dependent on external results! That isn't authentic, I can guarantee you that.

@AdamR95 Yeah but who has the authority to say whether he's good enough or not? Is it the hot woman in question? Is it the 'results' he gets (whatever those mean. When you talk about 'results', you sorta cease to see women as individuals and you start rating them on a 1-10 scale, that's the general direction you go) Or, is it himself? Or, is it conditioning from a whole society that tells men that they aren't inherently good enough?