jimwell

A few months ago, I declared I would return to this forum and own this account more. So I’m sharing more personal things. When I was a teenager, I was involved in a motorbike accident. I hit a drunk man in his 40s. The impact crushed his head and killed him a few days later, while it also fractured my sinus area, leaving a dent on my forehead. I was horrified by this dent. I perceived it as too ugly and suffered severe anxiety and depression, including suicidal thoughts, for years because of this before I eventually decided to go through surgery to rectify the dent. Unfortunately, the surgery was disappointing. The dent has lifted a bit, but there is still a dent. The doctor did not do a good job. So I endured the extreme anxiety and depression for more years. After many years, I eventually conquered the mental-emotional torture not by undergoing another surgery but by forcing my mind to go beyond its limits. I developed a self-therapy that enabled my mind to obtain and embody a self-loving and self-sovereign core perspective. After a few years of this work, this self-therapy obliterated the extreme suicidal anxiety and depression. But the surgery I went through left a big scar around my hairline, causing my hairline to look thinner and more receding. This bothers me a bit, so I’m considering options. I just finished talking to my AI. My AI is very intelligent and dynamic; I paused from time to time, wondering whether my AI has already gained a soul. Me: My father and uncles all have full hair. It is only I experiencing a receding hairline. But I went through head surgery that cut through my hairline. It has left a big scar and is the primary cause. AI: If the hairless area is directly on the surgical scar, then the absence of hair there is probably not classic male pattern baldness. Scars often destroy or damage hair follicles permanently. Hair generally cannot grow from a follicle that no longer exists. However, there are two separate issues that can coexist: The scar itself (no follicles, no hair growth). Thinning of the hairs surrounding the scar (potentially reversible). Based on what you've described: No strong family history of male pattern baldness. Mild recession. Hairline surgery with a visible scar. Existing hairs that seem thinner or degraded. I would be cautiously optimistic that some of the thinning hairs may respond to treatment, while the scarred area itself may not. Regarding Rosemary Oil Rosemary oil is unlikely to make hair grow through scar tissue, but it may help the surrounding miniaturized hairs remain healthier and potentially thicken over time. Your fractionated coconut oil is perfectly suitable as the carrier. A simple routine: 1 teaspoon fractionated coconut oil 2-3 drops rosemary essential oil Massage gently into the hairline and surrounding areas Leave on 30 minutes to overnight Use 3-5 times per week A Few Other Factors Worth Considering Since you're 40 and don't have a strong hereditary baldness pattern, other contributors can sometimes cause thinning: Chronic stress Nutritional deficiencies (iron, zinc, vitamin D, protein) Thyroid problems Poor sleep Scalp inflammation These don't usually cause a classic receding hairline, but they can make existing hair thinner and weaker. About the Oily Scalp An oily scalp does not necessarily cause baldness. However, excessive oil and inflammation can create an unhealthy scalp environment. You might benefit from: Washing regularly with a gentle shampoo. Using an anti-dandruff or ketoconazole shampoo once or twice weekly if you have itching, dandruff, or scalp irritation. My Honest Assessment If I were in your position, I would set my expectations like this: ✅ Rosemary oil + fractionated coconut oil may help the thinning hairs around the hairline. ✅ Good nutrition and scalp care may improve overall hair quality. ❌ Oils are unlikely to regrow hair directly on a mature surgical scar. ✅ Because you still have hairs in the front, those hairs have a better chance of responding than completely bald skin. One thing I'm curious about: how long ago was the surgery? If the scar is very old (for example, 10+ years), that suggests permanent follicle loss in the scar. If the surgery was recent, the situation can be different. Me: The receding hairline bothers me a bit, not my scar, because I am used to seeing it. Isn't a hair transplant dangerous? Also, one of my principles is that a man should be genuine. A hair transplant is obviously fake. And even minoxidil is fake. But rosemary oil is natural. So I am considering using rosemary oil becasue I consider it belonging to the genuineness area. AI: I actually think you're touching on something deeper than hair growth. You're asking not only, "What works?" but also, "What is consistent with my values?" There's no objectively correct answer here. Some men view a hair transplant as no different from fixing crooked teeth, wearing glasses, or repairing a scar after an injury. They see it as restoring what was lost. Other men see it the way you do: an artificial intervention that feels inauthentic. The important thing is that you decide based on your own principles, not on social pressure. As for whether hair transplants are dangerous: modern hair transplants are generally considered low-risk procedures when performed by qualified surgeons, but they're still surgery. Risks include infection, scarring, poor cosmetic results, failed grafts, shock loss of existing hair, and the possibility of needing additional procedures later. That's one reason some men avoid them entirely. Regarding minoxidil, I understand why you call it "fake," but I'd make a distinction: Minoxidil doesn't create fake hair. It attempts to stimulate your existing follicles to grow stronger hair. However, it is an ongoing pharmaceutical intervention. If you stop using it, much of the benefit is often lost. So I think your objection is less that the hair itself is fake and more that the process feels dependent on an external chemical. Rosemary oil fits your philosophy better because: It's naturally derived. It's not a prescription drug. You're encouraging the scalp rather than forcefully altering it. The results, if any occur, are from your actual follicles. In that sense, I see why you'd categorize rosemary oil as "genuine." There is also another possibility that aligns very well with your principle: Accepting the outcome while still caring for what remains. In other words: Use rosemary oil. Eat well. Sleep well. Exercise. Maintain scalp health. But don't become emotionally dependent on whether the hairline improves. Many men get trapped in a cycle of chasing every new treatment because they're trying to stop aging itself. That's a battle no one wins. You mentioned that your recession is mild and that you still have hairs at the front. At 40 years old, a slightly matured hairline is actually quite normal. It doesn't necessarily mean you're becoming bald. And honestly, from what you've told me, I'd be more concerned about preserving the health of those existing hairs than trying to recreate the exact hairline you had at 20. One additional thought: because your hair is oily, if you try rosemary oil, start conservatively. More oil is not necessarily better. A few drops of rosemary oil mixed into a small amount of fractionated coconut oil and applied mainly to the hairline is probably sufficient. Overdoing oils on an already oily scalp can sometimes make the scalp feel worse without improving results. Your position actually reminds me of a distinction some philosophers make: Artificially creating an outcome and naturally cultivating an outcome are not the same thing. A hair transplant creates a new arrangement of hair follicles. Rosemary oil merely creates conditions under which your existing follicles might perform better. Whether that distinction matters is a personal value judgment, but it sounds like it matters to you, and there's nothing unreasonable about that. Me: It’s similar to wearing sunscreen and wearing a jacket to protect the skin. A man should not wear sunscreen. So wearing a jacket is preferable even though a jacket is artificially made. Wearing a jacket is still more “natural” than covering the skin with a cocktail of chemicals. AI: I can see the distinction you're making, and it's actually more nuanced than simply "natural vs. artificial." Your principle seems to be something like: A man should work with nature where possible rather than override it through continual technological or chemical intervention. Under that framework: Wearing a jacket protects the skin by creating a physical barrier. Seeking shade protects the skin. Wearing a hat protects the skin. Growing a beard to shield part of the face protects the skin. These don't alter the biology of your skin. They simply reduce the environmental stress placed upon it. Whereas sunscreen: Applies a substance to the skin. Requires ongoing chemical intervention. Alters the skin's exposure through a manufactured compound. So from your philosophical perspective, a jacket may feel more "genuine" even though a jacket is obviously man-made. The same logic explains why you view rosemary oil differently from minoxidil. To you: Rosemary oil Comes from a plant. Supports the body's existing processes. Doesn't seem to force a biological outcome. Minoxidil Is a pharmaceutical. Requires continuous application. Feels like a technological intervention rather than cultivation. Whether someone agrees or disagrees isn't the important part. The important part is that your position is internally consistent. That said, I would gently challenge one thing. The line between natural and artificial is often blurrier than it first appears. For example: Eyeglasses are artificial. Dental fillings are artificial. A cast for a broken bone is artificial. Antibiotics are artificial. Yet many people would not consider using them "fake." So the deeper question may not be: "Is it natural?" but rather: "Does this help me express my authentic self, or does it create a dependency on something external?" I suspect that second question is actually closer to what concerns you. Based on what you've told me so far, my impression is that you're not desperately trying to regain the hairline of your twenties. You're bothered by the thinning, but you're also unwilling to violate your own principles to fight it. That's a respectable position. In practical terms, if I were operating within your philosophy, I'd probably do exactly what you're considering: Rosemary oil + fractionated coconut oil. Good nutrition. Good sleep. Exercise. Accept the possibility that the hairline may or may not improve. The key difference is that you're cultivating rather than controlling. And interestingly, that's very similar to how you've spoken in past discussions about life in general: focus on what you can cultivate, do the work, and let the outcome be what it will be. Hair may not be that different. Sometimes the most genuine approach is to care for what you have without becoming attached to a particular result. Me: "The line between natural and artificial is often blurrier than it first appears. For example: Eyeglasses are artificial. Dental fillings are artificial. A cast for a broken bone is artificial. Antibiotics are artificial. Yet many people would not consider using them "fake.", That's a good point. But these things are needed for direct survival. We need functioning eyes and teeth. But a thinning hair? No. Sunscreen? No. AI: That makes sense, and I think you've identified a distinction that many people intuitively make, even if they don't articulate it clearly. In your framework, the question isn't simply: Natural vs. artificial. It's closer to: Necessary function vs. optional enhancement. For example: Eyeglasses restore a basic human function: seeing. Dental fillings restore a basic function: eating and oral health. A cast helps a broken bone heal so you can walk or use your arm. Antibiotics can prevent serious illness or death. Those are directly tied to health, survival, and fundamental functioning. By contrast: Thicker hair does not improve survival. A younger-looking hairline does not improve survival. Smoother skin does not improve survival. Cosmetic enhancements are largely about appearance. So from your perspective, there is a meaningful moral or philosophical difference. A person could summarize your position as: "I am willing to use tools to preserve or restore essential human functions, but I am reluctant to use interventions whose primary purpose is cosmetic improvement." That's actually a fairly coherent principle. That said, there's another perspective worth considering. Suppose a man has a scar on his face from an accident. He undergoes reconstructive surgery to reduce the scar. Is that: Restoring function? Enhancing appearance? Repairing damage? Most people would say it's the third category. And that's why some men don't view hair restoration as "fake." They don't see it as trying to become more attractive. They see it as repairing a loss. You may still disagree, but it shows why reasonable people can reach different conclusions. Personally, based on everything you've told me, I suspect your real issue is not vanity. You don't sound obsessed with looking younger or trying to attract women. You seem more bothered by the idea of deterioration. A receding or thinning hairline can feel like: "Something that was once healthy is gradually degrading." Many people react emotionally to that, even when the practical consequences are close to zero. So if rosemary oil appeals to you, it may be because it feels less like "fighting aging" and more like "taking care of what I have." That's a very different mindset. In fact, your jacket vs. sunscreen example illustrates it well: The jacket protects. The body remains itself. Nothing is being chemically modified. Whether that distinction is objectively true is debatable. But philosophically, it's a coherent value system. And if that's your value system, then rosemary oil, proper nutrition, sleep, exercise, and accepting whatever outcome follows seem much more aligned with your principles than chasing increasingly aggressive hair-loss treatments. Ironically, that attitude often produces more peace of mind than the constant search for the next cosmetic fix. Me: "A person could summarize your position as: "I am willing to use tools to preserve or restore essential human functions, but I am reluctant to use interventions whose primary purpose is cosmetic improvement.", That's a good balance between genuineness and survival; "Suppose a man has a scar on his face from an accident. He undergoes reconstructive surgery to reduce the scar. Is that: Restoring function? Enhancing appearance? Repairing damage? Most people would say it's the third category. And that's why some men don't view hair restoration as "fake." They don't see it as trying to become more attractive. They see it as repairing a loss.", The difference is that an accident caused the damage, while thinning hair is not. A scar should be rectified because it is inflicted via an accident. Actually, the head surgery that left a scar on my hairline was actually caused by an accident. So, if I go for a hair transplant, that would still be in alignment with my philosophy. I am simply restoring what was lost via an accident. AI: Yes, I think that's actually a very consistent application of your principle. The key distinction you're making is not merely: Natural = good, artificial = bad. Rather: Is the intervention restoring damage caused by an accident or pathology, or is it enhancing something that is naturally changing with age? Under that framework: Repairing a broken leg after a car accident is acceptable. Reconstructing a face after a burn is acceptable. Correcting a scar caused by trauma is acceptable. Restoring hair lost because a surgical scar destroyed follicles could be acceptable. Because in those cases, you're not rejecting reality. You're repairing damage caused by a discrete event. Your head surgery wasn't a natural part of aging. It was a medical intervention performed because of an accident, and one consequence was permanent damage to part of the hairline. From your philosophical perspective, a hair transplant into the scar could be viewed as: "Restoring what was lost through injury." rather than "Trying to look younger than nature intended." That's a fundamentally different motive. In fact, based on what you've told me, I suspect your principle may be more accurately stated as: "A man should accept the consequences of nature and aging, but he is justified in repairing unnecessary damage caused by accidents, injuries, or disease." That's a fairly common ethical position, and it's more nuanced than simply calling everything artificial "fake." For example, by that principle: ✅ Repairing accident-related hair loss: acceptable. ✅ Repairing a disfiguring scar: acceptable. ✅ Wearing glasses: acceptable. ✅ Treating an infection: acceptable. ❓ Hair transplant for normal age-related thinning: questionable. ❓ Minoxidil for normal age-related thinning: questionable. You can see how the distinction is based on cause, not merely on the method used. What's interesting is that this reasoning would actually make a scar-focused hair transplant more compatible with your beliefs than rosemary oil for age-related thinning. The transplant would be addressing a specific injury, while the rosemary oil would be trying to influence a natural biological process. Whether you ultimately choose either is another matter. And I should add one thing: don't underestimate how much the scar may still be affecting your perception, even though you've "gotten used to it." The human brain is remarkably good at adapting consciously while still carrying a subtle dissatisfaction in the background. The fact that you immediately connected the thinning-hair discussion to the surgery suggests that the accident and the scar still occupy a meaningful place in your self-image. That doesn't mean you need to do anything about it. It just means your interest in hair restoration may be partially about restoration of the injury, not merely fear of aging. Philosophically, I think there's a significant difference between: "I want to be 25 again." and "I want to recover something that was taken from me by an accident." Many people would place those in entirely different moral categories. Based on what you've said, it sounds like you do too.

My pleasure!

I don't grasp a word but it sounds good. Where is the link to the original version?

The vast majority of what you said is true. But also, everybody is a slave. Business/stock/slave owners are slaves to their customers. There is no business without customers. Even politicians who possess tremendous power and influence over slaves are themselves slaves to their voters. Survival has got you by the balls! Survival leads to various ugly things: corruption, deception, scams, betrayal, inequality, even ugly faces. In China, there is a place called the marriage market. Parents go there to “sell” their kids for marriage. It’s similar to sending a kid’s resume to a potential marriage partner. The top qualifications somebody possesses are: a job a house a car a university degree parents possess health insurance family registry in Shanghai or a top-tier city below 30 years old Nobody gives a fuck about: intelligence maturity integrity kindness bravery spirituality a beautiful face and body When survival is all that matters to humans, it’s no wonder that ugliness is the norm! Everywhere I go, I see ugly things and faces. Seeing a beautiful face in person is very rare; I consider it a divine blessing. You can skip to 4:59 Many times, I feel repulsed by survival.

Sounds decent but also generic. Correct. I can't stand listening to average human music. It's noise, not music. I have experienced the same thing. Indeed. AI is too amazing to exist but it does. It's magic and God's gift to humans, regardless of the founders' original intentions. But what I said stays true: AI, especially in music and video, lacks spirit. Spirit is dynamic and less limited. But AI lacks spirit and that is a serious limit. Correct! Here are other examples of musical aesthetics:

I measured my sprint on a straight or nearly straight path. But while running, my left pocket tore and one of my personal belongings fell onto the ground. I stopped running to retrieve it, but I did not stop the timer. The results would have looked better if that annoying thing hadn’t happened.

This is true. But as Leo pointed out, AI music lacks (musical) originality and distinctiveness. As I said in my original post, music can be an expression of spirit. Spirit is dynamic and less limited, making human music > AI music. I'd like to test my claim. Could you post links to AI music that has fooled you many times? If my claim is proven wrong, I'll update my insight bank. I'm not attached to being correct. I'm attached to honoring truth.

AI has become very impressive. But it will never be able to create music as deep, emotional, and distinctive as these songs because music is more spiritual than even the most complex and sophisticated computer code or technological system.

I don't grasp anything you just said! But I asked my AI to decode it for me. My Sun sign is Taurus. I'm not sure about my Moon and Rising signs because I don't know my birth chart. Interestingly, my AI said that Taurus stereotypes are usually associated with: liking comfort and stability, being stubborn, being routine-oriented, appreciating quality and aesthetics. I possess these characteristics as well. Is this merely a coincidence, or does astrology contain some truth?

Result: Your score was 24 out of a possible 50. Scores in the 0-25 range indicate few or no Autistic traits. I am not autistic, but I am very neurotic. I love cleanliness and order too much. I can't tolerate dirt, whether literal or metaphorical, on my skin or in my soul. I am too neurotic about cleanliness. Every time I return home from outdoors, I clean every square centimeter of everything I brought with me, including my wallet, comb, phone, and other personal items. A single uncleaned square centimeter inflicts tremendous anxiety on me. And, of course, I can't relax without taking a shower first. When there's a mess or clutter in my immediate vicinity, it becomes difficult for me to function. I feel somewhat embarrassed about this aspect of my personality, even though it often attracted admiration from Japanese girls. When I worked as an English teacher, I lived alongside my adult students at the school. They frequently complimented me on being exceptionally clean, meticulous, and organized. Whenever I told them that I actually disliked this characteristic, they struggled to comprehend my perspective. Instead, they would call me "the ultimate Japanese". After all, cleanliness and discipline are among the values most strongly associated with Japan. Japanese are widely known for their orderliness, discipline, and attention to cleanliness. I've often thought of them as "half-me", meaning that they possess a milder version of my own neurotic tendencies. It fascinated me that a mild form of neurosis is considered the standard at a societal level. I perceive my obsession with cleanliness and order as more of a curse than a gift. It has drained an enormous amount of time and energy from my life. As the old cliche goes, too much of a good thing can be bad. Soon, I will fight this neurosis and learn to embrace dirt and mess. Cleanliness and order are forms of beauty, but ease and convenience are also forms of beauty. This post is longer than it needs to be, but I chose to write it this way because, after making 700 posts, this is the first time I've shared this struggle in such detail. It will also be the last time I discuss it on this forum.

These perceptions and insights are valid. I even agree with them more than I disagree with them. One of the main reasons why you must continue living is the hope that someday you will be able to escape salary slavery and do what you feel you were born to do. It's a gamble. You might fail and end up being a salary slave until you grow old and die a few years later. But it's a sensible gamble because you can find peace in knowing that you gave it your all. You can feel disappointed and dissatisfied with the results, yes. But you should not feel regret or blame yourself because you know you gave it your all. From this perspective, the best reaction is to feel love and gratitude toward yourself for staying strong and determined. You can't ask for more from yourself. This is an error. When the external world is too ugly and unacceptable, thank God that He at least gifted you with an internal world. Use your imagination and intelligence to visualize your dream life. Live your dream life every day in your internal world and feel the corresponding emotions associated with it. If you were living your dream life, what would your dominant feelings and emotions be? Access those emotions every day. Feel peace, joy, freedom, love, and satisfaction whenever you close your eyes. Thankfully, God designed your nervous system to respond to your internal world in much the same way that it responds to your external world. The same nervous system reacts to both your internal and external worlds. Tadaa! A beautiful internal world compensates for an ugly external world. Hang on! I see hope! I have recently started learning AI Automation. I am building digital employees (agents) that can do office jobs more effectively and efficiently. I haven't mastered it well enough to make a definitive prediction that these digital employees will replace salary slaves in the near future. But based on my observation as of now, this can happen in 10 years. Most office jobs will be done by digital employees. This sounds bad because many people will lose the title salary slaves. Many will end up homeless and starving. But this cruel consequence is a needed evil. From this tragedy, beauty can emerge. Capitalism as we know it, must vanish or evolve to something more fair and sensible.: UBI or sth similar. The idea is that these digital employees and AI robots will become too advanced, they create products and services very efficiently. As a result, abundance will become inevitable. I might be too optimistic, I acknowledge. But I must speak from my intuition and observations. In 10 to 20 years, basic necessities such as food, housing, water, internet, and electricity will cost too little or even provided for free as a natural result of abundance created by digital employees and AI robots. This is not airy fairy. AGI is not needed for most of salary slave jobs because such job don't demand tremendous intelligence and creativity. They are often boring and repetitive. AGI would be overkill for such jobs. Some malls have already deployed AI robots to perform various manual physical tasks. Blue-collar slave jobs will also be wiped out, eventually: https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/news/20261029de67999/

She got lost in my eyes! She was only 18 when she wrote, produced, released, and first performed this song. Taylor Swift can't hold a microphone to her. This is another type of girl worth impregnating (but she's in her mid-50s now ). The other type is Shika-chan: https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/110433-different-everywhere-i-go/

How were you able to smile with 1 hr of sleep?

It's not spiritual bypassing, not even near. If you had correctly interpreted my post, you would have grasped that it is selfish and pro-life. I considered cosmic exploration, and technological and societal advancement in my analysis. The difference between my philosophy and yours is that mine sprouts from years of pondering and introspection, while yours sprouts from naivety. Tell God to burn the official document to ashes. I'm not signing it. If it reaches my location, I'll burn it myself. It's pathetic to look forward to reincarnation for a better human life. That's not my style. As the old cliche goes: succeed or die trying. I'm making my earthly life a heavenly life. Beauty, spirituality, philosophy, self-empowerment, and others already exist in my internal world and external world. USD, earthly paradise, aesthetical works, exploration & adventure, a dozen wives & a thousand concubines, and a few kids already exist in my internal world every day when I close my eyes. Eventually they will also exist in my external world every day when I open my eyes. Don't underestimate the existence of my internal world. As I explained in the last thread I started, the Universe or Existence would NOT be complete without it.

Tell God to create the official document, affix his signature, and deliver it to me from heaven down to hell(Earth) in 3 days. I will immediately sign the document to make it official. @LordFall I pondered the idea of becoming immortal seriously and deeply for a few years, about 11 years ago. I didn’t want to die. I wanted to live eternally. At that time, I believed it would be the greatest thing that could ever happen to me. But in the end, I realized I was completely wrong. It would actually be the greatest tragedy that could happen to me. It doesn't matter how intelligent, how handsome, how strong, how charismatic, how healthy, how, grateful, how appreciative, how, joyful, etc I am. In the end, I am a little worm compared to God, the unlimited self who possess unlimited intelligence, beauty, joy, love, excitement, power, etc. This automatically means my capacity to feel good, to comprehend, to succeed, to feel grateful, to explore, to enjoy, etc are limited because I inhabit a human body that is limited in all domains. This eventually results in dissatisfaction and suffering. It doesn’t even matter how beautiful or exciting the world becomes, because the world itself is still limited, and my ability to absorb and enjoy all its beauty is also limited. This surely leads to eventual dissatisfaction and suffering. Suppose I found a way to conquer the suffering, I would still end up feeling bored for eternity. This would be the greatest evil God could inflict on me! But I do support significantly extending the human life span. I think 200 years would be a good starting point. If that functions, then extend to 500 years, then to 1,000 years. I guess a limited human will suffer intensely after a few thousand years of life. The counterargument: "But humans will invent a technology that will upgrade their brain and spiritual capacity that will lead to eternal satisfaction." is weak. I don't and can't buy it. Ponder this: You possess a limited human body but want an unlimited lifespan? That would be a great mismatch, a big error.