Gesundheit2

I also rarely play video games.

This explains how the ego can be viewed differently from two different zoom levels, but it leaves out something very important, which is the viewer itself. There are those two different zoom levels (perhaps many others, but let's keep focus), and there is the viewer/observer/awareness of them who's capable of reflecting and talking about them. Does the observer (center of experience, so to speak) not count as ego? And why?

By showing you how and why neediness exists in the first place. You gain awareness over the shadow, which gives you control over it. Realizing the absolute truth can be of major help, but you don't necessarily need it per se. You can deconstruct your psychology by asking high quality questions and then answering them yourself, a journal is recommended. Questions like: What is a "need", really? What does it actually mean for me to need a thing, on the deepest level? Are the things I currently think I need unquestionable? Or is there room for questioning? What's the relationship between neediness and thoughts? What thoughts are most frequent when feeling in need for something? At what point exactly do I stop needing something and start being more chill about it? What are needs as opposed to desires? In what ways are they similar? And in what ways are they different? What's the relationship between neediness and feeling? How does it feel (in the body) to need something? The more you question and contemplate, the more you deconstruct and restore your mind back to its original settings. Then, you will be able to construct things in any way you want, and neediness will not be an issue anymore.

@Preety_India

@Preety_India You're not ready, rookie.

It's not the only way. You can deconstruct your psychology and discover that all needs are imaginary, and that you don't actually need anything at all, even physically. Of course, that doesn't mean you will stop desiring things. You just see them for what they are. And what they are is a very different thing from what you think they are. Shadow work is also helpful as it explains the origins of neediness and gives you clarity and a sense of control over your emotions.

Textbook definition of a nice guy. A recipe for celibacy.

That's very vague, which is why most women don't end up getting it. I think you should start creating threads explaining and unpacking this one particular statement instead of criticizing men all the time for not being able to fulfill you emotionally. I don't mean you in person. I mean all the women here should speak up for what they want more than against what they don't want. Apply the law of attraction. Educate men on how to be desirable. Be very specific.

Hahahahahaha I'm speechless. Prove it. Try and withhold sex from your man and see how long he's going to last.

@Preety_India The nice guy description doesn't make sense. You said that nice guys are unattractive because they're fake. But that's not quite the case. In most cases, nice guy behaviors are a genuine expression of pure neediness, scarcity, insecurity, general undesirability, etc... At the same time, any man who is interested in you wants to get into your pants one way or another, but no man can say that explicitly to you because women flip out because they don't want to be viewed as sluts. But you're okay with men getting sex from you in other fake ways. The only cover up that you don't like is the nice guy. In reality, you don't like nice guys because they're overly nice it's similar to overselling a product. Nobody wants to buy a product that is not popular. So you unconsciously get repelled and then rationalize it away with fakery in order to turn a blind eye on your selfishness. .. Other than that, Needy guys are immature kids, and you don't want to be dating kids. Bad boys, on the other hand, are kids with a mustache I know you can't resist the temptation of the mighty mustache

You almost spelled my name there

I was anticipating he would say something like that, kind of a tongue in cheek joking with both of you.

This cracked me up! @Preety_India Communication. Attention/care, without excess Understanding/not self-centered. Honesty/Transparency. Ties up well with communication. Shares your interests and looks out for them.

That's why @Zeroguy is a smart guy.

Can someone have a very big sophisticated ego, and at the same time be free from all self-image issues? Conversely, can someone be in a state of total no-self and still have major self-image issues? My experience says yes to both questions, but that's a new distinction to me. I always thought there's a correlation between the two as if they're one thing, but that correlation seems delusional now. I always had the inclination to demonize the ego as something bad and unnecessary, due to cultural upbringing. But now after (another ) full deconstruction, things have taken another course and started going full-circle. Lately, I've been discovering the importance and value of the ego on an experiential level. And what's most shocking to me is that sometimes it seems that the ego is one of the best ways to fully heal the self-image from all insecurities, and that seems like a prerequisite, contrary to what I always thought. It's like the ego at a certain point becomes/starts turning into a powerful master that can take ownership of all of one's problems and then solve them. I'm still not completely sure, nor completely clear about this, at least not in the biggest picture possible, so I'm looking for more perspectives to explore. I feel like there's a certain series of insights surfacing for me here, but I'm not quite sure I get it. I mean if someone has a relatively little ego and a lot of self-image issues, to me that must indicate a miserable life (my parents as a prime example). On the other hand, if someone has a relatively big ego and not much self-image issues (Leo, I think), that means they're probably quite happy and successful. Most people, in this case, fall in the grey area in between on different lengths of the spectrum. What do you guys think?

Couldn't agree more.

You're not ready for them yet. You didn't understand the post at all. Not ready for it.

@Emerald Classic! That's it. I'm cutting my veins. Life is nothing without your love, babe.

Haha! Correct! Syria has never been anything other than a monarchy. When Hafez became president, he removed a lot of people from sects other than his (Shiite, Ali-sect) from the most crucial positions in the government, and then inducted people from his sect in order to dominate the government and secure the presidency. Like I said, all the parties here are inactive and useless, including Al-Baa'th itself. The only function (at least inside Syria) of Al-Baa'th is to control the government, not much anything else, like improving it or anything. Syria is not an industrial country, therefore I would guess communism/socialism makes more sense than capitalism. But I'm not very erudite in these discussions. Please don't call it a civil war. It was anything but that. Syrians had almost nothing to do with it. We were just victims of it. We have always lived in harmony with all the different religions and sects and ethnicities, and we're still in perfect harmony with them. And we (the majority) never had major problems with the government. It's a lot more complex than a civil war, especially when terrorist groups have participated in it. A continuation of the cold war between the east and the west could be a much better description, which answers your last question. Putin basically wants to limit the American influence in the area, so that's mainly why he and Iran are friends with Al-Assad, because Al-Assad is one of the few opposing forces to America in the middle east. Actually, he's mainly opposed to Israel, but Israel and the US are allies, so. And yes, the Russian & Iranian support has been definitely a game changer. The Syrian army could never endure all the terrorist groups on its own. Also, I've heard rumors that Putin has owned the western port a few years ago because of the debt. And it makes sense, so I think it's reasonable to assume that it's true.

After successfuly winning the recent elections by a landslide, Bashar Al-Assad continues his administration in his fourth term. He performs the constitutional oath in front of the parliament and gives an hour long speech discussing the last 10 years, current circumstances, and future plans and projects. Very construct-aware speech. Here's the full video on Facebook (without translation): https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=4365268756829443&id=208881799134847&anchor_composer=false&__tn__=*W-R Watch his entrance and the ceremony. P.S. The slim blondie is the first lady.

Absolutely not. Intimacy with another person is synonymous with being needy, since you don't actually need them but only imagine that you do. If you are going to engage in a relationship with a child, letting them project intimacy onto you is understandable. Then how come I am almost there? I rarely (almost never) feel the need for another human being in my life.

That's your excuse, and you're free to hold on to it. Doesn't mean the truth shouldn't be spoken.

Inserting a "should" here shows that you totally miss my point. Everyone wants intimacy, I'm not disapproving of it. And there are no shoulds or shouldn'ts with the truth. The point is just that it's not wise to derive/expect intimacy from external sources when you are the source of intimacy in the first place, not the other person. Have you forgotten all the spiritual teachings? You are complete. You don't anyone to complete, see, or understand you. Consider that you can feel (and have actually felt) intimacy even if the other person is completely indifferent of you. What does that tell you? It's all in your head. You are the source.

You're right, honey. I see and understand you. Do you feel fulfilled now? Be honest

Elections here are 100% staged. We don't actually need them because the results are always well-known already. It's pretty funny, really. You'd actually laugh if you saw the campaigns. Empty words written on street billboards. That's it, and I mean all of it. There's nothing else to it. I wish I took photos of them to show you. It's blatantly obvious that the designer of the billboards for all three candidates was the same person. The billboards had the exact same layout and general design. The only difference was the content/slogans and the theme/color. Obviously, the other two candidates were just two dummies hired by Al-Assad to fill a temporary useless role in order to make it look like there were elections. Elections here are a joke and a play in front of the international community. There's only one major party here (Al-Baa'th), the rest of the parties essentially exist as a formality and nothing more. They're completely inactive and useless. In other words, the ruling party is the only party here. And therefore Al-Assad will be the only president for as long as possible. If Al-Assad were to step aside, someone else from his family or from his close circle would rule, and nothing would change. I don't have a problem with that per se. I'm not really that involved or invested in politics in the first place. And so are most Syrians. We are very underdeveloped politically. It's also very funny to watch the national news from time to time.