The observer

That's a concept. Actually there is only concepts. ?

There's nothing wrong with ego, except for the ego. Tricky.

I would say it depends on what you choose to include inside this magical IT. You've clearly reached a deep point at realisation. You've emptied your cup, fully. But the cup isn't necessarily meant to be empty forever. That's part of the magic, if you allow it to be. You're half-way through. But continue, there's more.. Illusion also is. Do you see it?

Life is the house of illusion, of narcissism, of love. If you can't submit to that, and if you're not efficient enough, you're gonna get kicked out soon. Life cares, but death doesn't. Life wants you to spread delusion, to spread love. It's all fine. Maybe you don't belong here. Maybe you're already dead. Life is also the house of duality, of balance, of opposites. You can't just go and live in the extremes. You gotta always level down to where things are at. The more paradoxical and complicated you are, the more blessed you'll be. Life worships complexity and it walks over simplicity. Deny that and see. You will die.

I love myself. And you should too. If you can't do that, then that's only because you don't love yourself. I feel sorry for you, but not really. I love you as you are, ignorant. How narcissistic am I? Perhaps the most. I don't care. You're just as much narcissistic as I am. Only you deny it and cover it up with all sorts of stories and judgements. It starts with judgements. You're banning yourself from love. Everytime anyone shows you any amount of love, you shy away and reject it like you don't deserve it. Do you know who's feeding on this misdirected love? Your ego. You don't let love in, and you don't give love to yourself either. There's this feeling of guilt, like love is not for you. Well, it helps if you recognise that and admit it. Just look into the mirror. That was narcissus's weakness. You're afraid of falling in love with yourself. Why? Because you're too vulnerable and love comes way too strong. It's gonna be okay. There's no wrong way to live life. It's just a zero-sum game.

Oneness ☯️ Positive from the yin pov is negative from the yang pov and vice-versa. It's infinitely more complicated than this simple duality, but that's how it is. Life is a zero-sum game.

That's partly what I'm saying. Of course, it's all about integration. But there's more. What is the main motive for any human behaviour other than survival? I mean, after ensuring your basic survival, what motivates you to keep working? If it's just survival, then you would stop striving for more after you have your basic needs met. But no, all of us (maybe most of us, not sure) want to climb up the ladder. Why? Because expansion is an innate desire and a natural component of our being. Death is imaginary, we know that on a subconscious level. That's why we don't concern ourselves with the idea of death all the time, because it's limiting. Evolution describes that as: survival for the fittest. The fittest here being the most effective ego. The more expansive your ego is, the more chances you have at survival, success, and happiness. Having a more integrated/expansive ego goes hand in hand with your own health and the well-being of your environment. It's nature doing its magic in even more subtle ways.

Take responsibility for your own life. When you care too much about someone, they're gonna automatically subconsciously assume that you are needy. And even if they are conscious, needy is still not attractive because it feels like a drag. It's just too much pressure and it's unsustainable on the long term. And yes, it is your problem, not theirs. People get attracted to attractive stuff, and they get turned off by unattractive stuff. If you didn't know back then how to be attractive, it's fine, you can still learn. In fact, that's a very valuable lesson for you not to place too much importance on others but to instead be the leader of your own life.

@Extreme Z7 @remember I agree. However, you still miss my point. I'm talking about the motivation in action that makes one strive for more. It's survival in the sense that it moves him away from death, so that's self-preservation. But it's not survival in the sense that he does not even think about death at all at that point, that's self-expansion. The key distinction here is that whether the person is consciously considering death or not. There's no doubt that we all subconsciously don't want to die. But the point still stands, that this is a more nuanced way to understand the problem. Instead of just lumping all human thinking and endeavour into one limiting category, we can make a little distinction and allow both self-preservation and self-expansion to come into the conscious mind. Because if I'm always consciously concerned about whether something is surviving me or not, then I'm never going to expand. To expand effectively, I would have to basically forget the concept of survival (life and death) entirely and move it into the subconscious mind. After all, that's what we all do. I don't know what the denial is about. At least with this perspective, when I put it out there, I know that I'm not using it to survive but rather to expand. Survival alone cannot explain that because it gets you in a strange loop situation. How can I survive my concept (ego) while not surviving it? It just doesn't hold water because the one who's preaching about survival is the one who's doing it and probably denying that he is. I hope you can see the problem. Expansion would be a more honest and accurate way to describe my actions. I can survive my concepts by expansion. No problems there. @RendHeaven It's expansion. You don't get it. Move on.

@EternalForest There's no reason why anyone does anything at all. Even if they say they have certain reasons, you're the one interpreting whatever they say. If I said that I love you, would you believe me? If yes, then, well, that's exactly the problem. You give away too much authority. Instead, suck it up and take responsibility. There's nothing personal about anything.

@Extreme Z7 Or, maybe you don't realise that you do/are. What is the relative insight(s) that you're trying to convey? That everything is survival? If yes, then welcome home.

That's a point where all maps stop working. It really depends on our definitions of survival, expansion, self-image, reputation, motivation, emotion, safety, etc... At that point, if I can say that it's all survival, then I can also say that it's all expansion. Because how do we define either of the concepts? Can we really separate them? Which one is the correct one? Or are they both correct? See, it becomes pointless to even talk and discuss about it because whatever you do is the same as anything else. Right now, we're having a discussion in the relative domain. Bringing down insights from the absolute is helpful, but we still have to make nuanced distinctions based on definitions and assumptions. Otherwise, we shouldn't be even talking.

Is exactly what I'm saying.

Degrees? From which point of reference? I think it doesn't matter what they call it. They don't understand what they're doing anyway. It only matters to us here as we're discussing. People can put different labels on similar things. It doesn't change the things themselves. Basic survival and ego survival are deeply intertwined. It's difficult to separate them, but it's possible. Ordinary unconscious people cannot separate them, but I can, and I hope you and Leo do.

Look Leo, I'm trying to offer you a way of understanding/viewing things differently. If you think that your understanding is all-comprehensive, universal, and absolute, then I will not go on any further. I will understand that it's a survival strategy that will keep you from expanding your perspective.

I don't know. Why don't you ask it? Maybe that specific ant doesn't think at all. That's one way to look at it. There's another one, and you're not able to see it (remember I'm suggesting a stage Yellow approach). Okay. Perhaps cynicism is not the perfect word. I just realised that it's a loaded word. Let's forget about it entirely. I still stand by the rest of what I said.

It works both ways, and it goes full-circle. At some point, extreme abuse could turn into healing, as in it teaches us how to be strong and independent. And similarly, at some point, extreme healing could turn into abuse, as in too much softness makes you spoiled and vulnerable. Try to always look at things from different angles. The world is more flexible than it appears to be. Anyway, I guess the best way around this is to find balance, but how do we find our individual balance without going back and forth between the extremes? It's easy to come up with theories, but each one of us has their own delicate balance and we're all at different places. Also, you could always love and understand yourself regardless of your partner. That alone can heal you.

How do you define healthy vs. unhealthy narcissism? At which point the healthy turns into pathology? Yes, on a surface level. But I don't think that abuse is due to the attraction itself, but rather due to a bunch of reoccurring patterns for those people. And basically, all abuse boils down to boundaries and miscommunication. You can't let kids play basketball indoors. You know they're going to break lamps. If you create boundaries, they can enjoy playing outside, and you can keep your lamps safe and unbroken. Yet, without having the ability to communicate clearly and effectively, all boundaries become useless. So, it's a mixture of both. Of course, there are some rare cases where you are not even able to choose to create boundaries or communicate, like physical abuse. But that's not the general rule. It's like less than 10%. This requires special care and strong enforcement of boundaries by outer parties. We can only do our best to prevent it, but unfortunately, our best is not always good enough.

No, I see that. And if that's true, then that whole concept is illusory and should be done away with. Right? You can't call out other illusions and still keep yours. You'd only be deluding yourself. My point goes deeper. Instead of undermining thoughts and behaviours as purely driven by survival, I think it's better to acknowledge that they're driven by a higher force. Once basic survival is taken care of, the rest of thoughts and behaviours is not going to be directed at survival anymore. It's rather going to be directed towards expansion.

I get that. But I don't think it's effective to keep calling it survival at that point. Essentially, sure it can be viewed as a survival strategy. But that's not how it is perceived by the one who's doing it. When someone is perpetuating a particular pattern, the thought of life vs. death (survival) never even crosses their mind. They're aiming towards something else entirely. That's their drive. It's more accurately called a desire to expand, which does not contradict survival essentially. It's just a more nuanced term for it. The relativity of drives is a complex problem (Yellow). Cynicism is a stage Blue/Orange explanation. Therefore, it cannot work. And it will cause a lot of trouble and confusion. @Inliytened1 Please don't misquote me ?

Yeah, yeah. Or maybe you missed my point. No. 99.99% of everything I do all day long is unconsciousness, not survival. Unless you equate the two, which I think is a mistake. I've watched your series the days you posted them. And I'm pointing beyond the map you're operating from. The map is not the territory, right? If I can't have the perfect map, I still can have a more comprehensive one than cynicism. Cynicism as an explanation is stage Blue/Orange at best. Seriously, it's outdated. On the other hand, Maslow's hierarchy is Yellow, and it's way more nuanced and accurate.

You always want to narrow things down to survival. That's cynicism. It's good to have it in mind but it's not everything. The map breaks down eventually. Not all of us want to survive (I mean obviously we do but we have to take it for granted to be able to seek other things, i.e. expand). Most of us take survival for granted and we mostly focus on other things. Unless we're faced with a death situation, we're almost never concerned with the concept of death. Of course, when I say survival is not the main driver, I don't mean that we would have been seeking death instead. It's just that we don't think that much about survival itself. We don't think that much about life and death. We're so much engrossed in our lives while taking most of it for granted. And that's not a bug, that's a feature. Because if we would stay worried and constantly thinking about death, we'd never grow and evolution would stop. Thinking about death is limiting. We rather seek more freedom and expansion. Conclusion: The main drivers of human beings are expressed in Maslow's hierarchy. The lowest driver is survival, and the highest is freedom and expansion. But everyone is at a different place in life (and will always be). That makes it extremely complicated to find a common ground. Besides, expansion of some people has to occur on the expense of others' contraction. So, the game is always dynamic. And so here we are. I think my theory is more accurate and nuanced than pure cynicism. Let me hear your thoughts Leo.

@louhad If it was so simple, there wouldn't be much trouble amongst people. It's because it's so much complicated and there's no actual ground that we all share that all of our disagreements exist in the first place.

Haha! True dat! ?

I gotta side with @Etherial Cat on this. It mainly has to do with the person themselves. If I close myself and shy away from love, how can I receive it? If I don't love myself, then I will not allow anyone else to love me, because I believe deep down that I don't deserve love because it is a sin. It all starts with a judgement and ends with a judgement. These plenty of mismatching people are not actually mismatches. They sure have some similar and some different qualities. The way attraction works is not simple, I agree. But then, do you think the way you think things should work out is the best way? Do you think that your judgement is better than God's? After all, you're forgetting that you're only judging from a very small perspective. When you judge someone as great or terrible, what does it actually mean? Does it say anything about them? Or does it say much more about you? Like all belief systems, attraction theories have their limitations. The map is not the territory. Being narcissistic is not a bad thing, and there is no ideal personality to chase. These subtle judgements run our lives, and potentially ruin them too. Let me know if you want to discuss more about this. I would be more than happy to.