Gesundheit2

Have you deconstructed deconstructionism yet?

I kind of agree, but not really. The structured scientific methodology is itself intuitive in essence. And intuition in essence isn't just a dumb random feeling that comes up out of nowhere for no reason and no purpose. So the methodology does not replace intuition, it just generalizes that one instance that worked with the original scientist and makes it more reusable for people with less intuitive acuity than the original scientist. And that includes the methodology itself, because someone (or some group) with great intuitive acuity came up with it intuitively, then it was made public for everyone to use. As for objectivity and subjectivity, I'm just trying to make a point to OP because in my estimation, his use of philosophy is distorting his perception of what science actually is, and I think that these terms will only add to the confusion.

@Someone here Look dude, all you're doing here is just repeating the same things I'm saying only in a more formal/technical/philosophical way by rehashing something you have read but not gotten direct personal insight into. So you have all the correct data, but because you haven't contemplated it enough, you misinterpret it and therefore arrive at the wrong conclusions. In simple terms, science can never answer the question what. It can only deal with questions that have to do with relative measures, like how, when, where, some whys, etc. TOE attempts to answer the question how. The main utility is a temporary satisfaction of the human delusional/idealistic thirst for/seeking of knowledge. But I'm sure humans will come up with a lot more other ways to make use of it when/if it's complete.

It seems that when you say think outside the box, you just mean adopt the postmodernist philosophy and do away with all identities/distinctions because the web is so complex and intricated to understand or unravel because of the problem of self-reference and circularity. Now you're just abusing the philosophy unnecessarily ?

It might help to ask the question in reverse: What is not a woman? Clearly, a chair is not a woman, a child is not a woman, a man is not a woman. Is a transgender a woman? Well, not exactly no, and not exactly yes. So, kind of but not really. That's why they have a unique label, that is transgender.

Just thought this might be related.

@Ampresus Don't resist the thoughts, cuz why resist? Instead, enjoy them, cuz why not enjoy? Shift your focus to the people and things that you want to get; Law of Attraction.

Consistency. This isn't about my preference or your preference. Science does not produce knowledge, because knowledge is imaginary in the first place. It's just an alternative language to view the world through. Another way to put it is that science can only produce relative kind of "knowledge", but never absolute. Science cannot arrive at absolute truth even if it wanted to, because that's not what it's for. To give an example, think of gravity. You might think that Isaac Newton somehow discovered gravity through science, and that gravity somehow explained something about the universe. But that's not actually true. If you think about gravity, it's literally just the phenomenon of objects falling down, or more simply the phenomenon of objects moving from up-to-down instead of from down-to-up. Newton simply thought and came up with a way of describing this phenomenon in a way that can be utilized with more accuracy when he proposed that the falling occurs due to the masses that objects hold (he invented this mass concept and the gravitational constant and somehow found a way to link between those concepts and distance). So he did not invent or discovered gravity per se, and gravity is not knowledge in any actual way, since the theory didn't actually explain anything the universe, but rather provided a framework to make use of. Really, Newton was simply just smart enough to be able to translate the observable phenomenon of objects falling down into his famous mathematical equation: F = G(m1*m2)/R2, and this equation made it possible for us to manipulate the world in a way that serves our technical goals more accurately. But of course, this gravity equation does not work in dating and relationships, since bigger masses are not as attractive as the curvy ones So gravity is not an objective knowledge. It's rather just one possible interpretation/translation of the original observable phenomenon. If you're smart enough, you might be able to create your own gravity theory and call it something else, like the incredible Aakash theory. Instead of objects falling down, you might explain this phenomenon differently, like for example, you might say that objects are actually being pushed down from above instead of pulled down from below (credits to Phoebe from F.R.I.E.N.D.S). And if you somehow manage to find an equation that proves consistency, then you might get nominated or even earn a Nobel prize.

Not really. What's the point of understanding the world through science? Is it not to ultimately have the ability to manipulate it and create desired effects in external reality? You are imagining the notion of objectivity. It is your subjective creation. Lol. Do you think I'm a hippy or someone with spiritual ego? I know what science actually is. But if you want you may check Wikipedia or something.

Objective and subjective are unnecessary philosophical labels that will not get anyone anywhere. It's better to think of science as a highly practical and effective tool for manipulating external reality.

At this point, I have experienced so many identity shifts, I almost don't recognize myself from 10 years ago anymore. I have experienced deep shifts that touched so many parts of my identity, both in depth and breadth, so my ego died and got reborn so many times, I'm almost not that person I was at all. It took a few "complete" -- or more accurately, major ego deaths, and many other minor ones. Just when my ego solidifies enough, somehow the events turn in such a way that causes it to take a hit, or even collapse in some cases. I think this is the reason why I don't have a personality type. Unfortunately, this is not the case for most people. Most people don't really change, like at all, from birth till death. They're just born some way, and they gather some conditioning throughout their childhood and early teens, and then remain the same forever. The saying "Once a cheater, always a cheater" is very true, because it applies to most people. I think besides people who undergo spiritual awakening, almost no one really changes. It's sobering to realize this fact, because I don't want to be thinking that others can share the same understanding as I, and then find out that that's not true. What I've come to realize recently is that nobody, unless they're spiritually awake, will understand what I'm saying. They will only ever interpret it from their distorted lens/worldview. I don't think this has to do with ego development or spiral dynamics as much as actually experiencing spiritual awakening, because awakening opens your eyes to things that normal people aren't even able to see/perceive. The normal person is only ever able to see their selfish interest without any regard for "impersonal truth". For the normal person, it's always personal, no matter what, even when they say or pretend otherwise, or even when they adopt not taking things personally as an ideology. Even seekers cannot understand me, because they will interpret my words from the spiritual ego's perspective. So it's futile, unless the other person is awake to the same depth as I am, which doesn't seem very common. Not that I'm the most awake person on earth, as I have caught some more awakened signals. But that they're really rare, and getting rarer as I'm awakening deeper. As a lesson and a general rule of thumb: People are patterns of behavior. Once you identify a pattern, make your judgement, then put a permanent label on the respective person. This will make your interactions easier, as it will provide you with more clarity on who/what you are dealing with.

@Devin Yeah, man. And it's definitely not an excuse to avoid working hard, or to dismiss the validity and importance of brute-force sometimes. But just for long-term, I have found that it ultimately doesn't work anywhere near ideally, and that it eventually backfires. I have personally not seen a person who takes this hard-work mindset for the long-term without throwing themselves out of balance in most aspects of their lives. It's like life becomes one-dimensional for them and they gradually start losing touch with it until they're completely living in a different world. At best, they may be successful but unhappy, or with secret but serious mental challenges. And I just don't recommend that way of living for any one.

Pushing yourself too hard is a bad long-term strategy. It's unmaintainable, and it will eventually lead to failure. Slow and steady wins the race.

@Kksd74628 You clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

@Kksd74628 I survived, but at the price of developing many coping mechanisms, such as OCD, insomnia, paranoia, depression, delusional thinking, and other conditions. Surviving is not the point. If you push yourself beyond your limits for a long period of time, there's a great chance you will break or morph into some pathology. I am speaking from experience. Humans are not machines. And it's not as simple as you think it is. But don't take my word for it, go knock yourself out at the gym (for example) and see what happens. Hint: You are not Goku.

You don't know it. You feel it. Like when you're lifting weights at the gym, you don't watch your count to know your limit. You just feel your limit and stop, or you rip up some muscles. Not listening to how I felt is something that I still regret till this day. And it's not like it was something that required intelligence. It was obvious. I just suppressed, repressed, and kept pushing through.

Red herring. It makes 0 difference whether solipsism is true or not.

Why else do you think I keep pushing you to give me more warning points? How is the term "gaslighting" even remotely close to what I said? Don't judge a book by its cover. Is that gaslighting? Did it occur to you that your standards of compassion/ethics could be imaginary/groundless? Have you not heard of the strict father model? Or do you only like the nurturing mommy?

Strong VPN + Tor.

@Zeroguy Aww! Thanks for the compliment Will you marry me?

Of course there are wrong ways, and they are clear and obvious. Alcohol, tobacco, poor deit, poor daily routine, video games, gossip, just to name a few examples.

I don't know how or why secular societies managed to integrate marriage into their legal system. After all, marriage is a religious, stage Blue concept, and it's a legal contract that allows sex and reproduction to happen, both of which are otherwise banned. But for a secular society, where all of that is allowed from the get-go, I don't get it. What's even the point in marrying someone when you can already have sex and children with them? Like, if you're already okay with everything with this person, letting him/her touch your most private spots, then what will the contract add to your life and relationship?

Empty your cup. The number one step for changing yourself is to detox from everything you're used to. Once you fill yourself up with some emptiness, the bad habits will become easier to dissolve, and you will be ready to accept and absorb good habits.

Yeah, they're not fruitless. These inquiries are "the work" in a sense. I'm just pointing to the next step. Rejection does not reflect onto existence. It does not affect it in the slightest, which is what makes existence absolute. Rejection can only happening within the mind. And whatever the mind says is irrelevant to existence itself, because it's just a reference/image/pointer, and therefore not representative of the real thing. Yeah, but here you're making it seem like the mind/logic is primary and existence is secondary. If my logic is correct, then existence should be the same as my logic. Kind of backwards, if you ask me. Then what's left for you to realize is the "neither" part.