eos_nyxia

Thanks for reminding me to relisten to #1 Record!

...don't forget to add shitting wherever, masturbating in public, and living in a barrel to that list! Life goals.........

@integral Great, now why doesn't he (since I have seen and responded to at least one of his other threads) and other people take this same attitude of "meeting people where they're at", and apply this to everyone else on the forum? What's the difference between "not capable", "doesn't care", and possibly thinking that what he does is in everyone's best interest? Like, if he was a woman in this space discussing things from a "feminine" point of view (even if what's validly feminine seems to be constantly up for debate) and getting antagonistic, this discussion would get gendered pretty quickly and people would be treating him like he's a screeching, overly-emotional harpy. Anger/ aggression is an emotion too, ya know.

Agenda = objective, goal, purpose, motivation, desire. Pick one or any. Everyone has an objective (or objectives) for doing one thing or another, even if they're not always cognisant of them. What's yours? What's your aim? What are you trying to accomplish? Beyond "infinite love"? Why are you so hella wound up, to start with? It's like watching someone screeching into the air. ...or maybe a televangelist. It gives off 'frothing at the mouth' vibes which I find a bit entertaining. ...I've had my moments too though, fyi. Not sure why you're looking at everything and seeing antagonism/ criticism. You too can 'choose' how you're going to respond if that's the game you're at. Yes, we're all mirroring aspects of ourselves and reach other (however you want to divide the pie that is identity/ self/ Self/ etc.) ....so what else about it?

@thisintegrated Originally I joined this site a couple of years ago to journal and hash out some of my identity issues/ thoughts in a public space. It was therapeutic and helped with dealing with breaking some of my self-expression inhibitions as well. If I didn't still journal on here (and get used to doing such), I probably wouldn't have an account and post on here at all anymore, though I might be reading people's posts, IDK. I still like reading people's journals, it's like getting a recurring subscription to looking into the personal, deeper slice of how people process and approach themselves, their lives, etc. So I am watching people doing their thing, and myself doing my thing, and sometimes the both of us doing our things in ways that sometimes intersect via interaction, observing each other, etc. And I find the writing medium a bit more intimate as well. Overall, even on this forum: I prefer to observe what people are doing, where they're at, what it means to them, etc. more than I really like to participate most of the time. As for visiting the "SD Orange" parts of the forum, I guess: 1) I'm chronically drawn to observing the lowest common denominator. 2) A lot of the "higher content" I find a bit dry/ insipid because of the contents of it.... as, in I stopped finding what was being discussed novel years and years ago. Probably around 16-17. TBH a lot of the stuff I see people writing about it's like... a far less coherent rehash of what I grew up around via my own reading and also my dad's influence, who was also highly educated and well-written/ well-read. >>>>insert various high-Fallutian, Neo-Buddhist/Hindu spiritual influences with a cognitive bias<<<< It's like watching people doing some kind of slow, confused noodling. From the outside, it's like... what's the appeal? Is this fun? Is this meaningful? Is this what everyone showed up to the party for? ... It has the same appeal of showing up to an appointment you're obliged to go to, or being stuck in the public schooling system. Still, I do read the stuff sometimes. I just find it boring. It's like: I check in quickly, breeze through it, see if there's anything noteworthy or interesting, get out. And if I feel like if I'm gonna come in here and post with a bad attitude, I just... shouldn't. It serves no worthwhile greater purpose.

We're probably not going to hear any sort of resolution on that any time soon. But generally, I would tend to assume that it is, at its very best, unnecessary. Unless there is some sort of "benefit" that I have never heard of... I've tried quite a few Stevia-based sweeteners over the past 15-20 years, and this one is one of the very best, IMO: ' A lot of them have this aggressively herbal, bitter aftertaste, and this is one of the few that doesn't.

There are too many people here who want to talk and want to be the best (and also be right), and that's very boring to both watch and participate in. Which is why I rarely post on the main forum. I guess some people interact with others on this basis for fun and possibly to learn something, but personally, I find it gets old very quickly. TBH I tend to assume that it has a lot to do with the demographics of the forum (some of which you mentioned): young, male, ...inexperienced with the opposite sex (or at least, """has trouble relating to the feminine"""/has some major chip on their shoulder about it), has certain cognitive biases and favours particular styles of communication, and tends to exclude others on this basis. Pick one or all of the above. Also, as @Gesundheit2 said, there is an element of this: mostly, this forum is probably made up of first-worlders with a lot of time/ privilege on their hands. If they weren't, they would be going about conversations on the same subjects in a different way; I am sure of it.

Why are you so passionate about all of this, anyway? And what's your agenda?

What does a "high-level" forum actually look like to people? (Serious question to be answered.. not just a rhetorical one.) Are you looking for a space where people have earned their accolades/ "rank", based on >>insert whatever your values are, and your system of measurement for growth/ attainment is<<. Is this just a group of people getting together, coming to discuss "Very Important Things" together? Is it meant or preferred to be more open or closed, and why? IMO it's first more about the sorts of conversations that people have, how we have it, and what sort of values we share. What actual work is being done (or not), both individually and in people coming together. Measurement and judgement about people's progress (or lack thereof) ought to come second, in the sense that, it's not very productive when taken in isolation, and done as something for its own sake. Case in point: take a look around at people doing the same thing, not just here, but in any group. IMO it's all the same pile, but sometimes with slightly nicer and more sophisticated window dressing. If people say that it somehow makes a difference because they are >insert "Godly"/ spiritual identity, insert specific activities<...it's mostly all distraction. By design, it generally gets people as a group nowhere (although it maybe works as a competitive stimulus for some people), and people make something of it in spite of it. Technically, enlightenment was always sold as a "way out" of the cycle of the grind. ....and that's how a religion starts. But you know, life goes on after that (whatever your metrics for "enlightenment" is).

Issac Newton's virginity sure helped with his reproduction value, haha. ....seriously though, how does being a turbo-nerd fit into all of this evo-psych stuff? The handful of explanations I've heard are just... so clumsy.

1 am mood: I fell a little bit deeper through the "what's Detroit techno??" hole. It's got that old-school, icy-cold Kraftwerk type of feel to it.

Honestly, out of all the things that I have ever done, learning observational drawing and painting has helped the most by far. I notice a ton of details now about people, my environment, and visual aspects of physical reality that I never noticed before, because it does train you to look at reality in literally a different way. (And AI art generators are not gonna replace that.) Is it very time efficient? Probably not.

Don't ask me, haha. I use old ass shit until it breaks down.

Hierarchization of this nature is not the way of the future IMO, especially with how I tend to see it used. It is being used to divide and undermine, rather than to bring us together, to develop common understanding and perspective, for collective growth (which is not based on hierarchy/ conceptualization of this nature first). For this reason, because it is being used complicity as if to develop some sort of social pecking order while developing people's individual processes of understanding (aka. "), I can't say that I think it is used in good spirit. Aka. is it bound to be used as a tool to emotionally undermine first, and everything else comes second. That it might not be actively intended for such doesn't matter. What matters is the effect it has on people. Like... it brings people together in this space, with a bias toward a specific type of approach to conceptualization (at best). Outside of this space though? ...no, I don't think it's going to work out well. The best that can be done with it is probably to take any helpful concepts that would help you serve certain groups and individuals directly better (assuming, hopefully, that is does work), and repackage it appropriately. Do not turn it into yet another religion. If there is any viable use it in all for social development, it will likely sort itself out.

Reading through this thread: it seems like this has turned into this particular forum's version of "the war of the sexes", which tends to keep cropping up in the Dating/Relationships/ Sexuality forum. "Standard issue masculine perspective": take responsibility for everything, everything is Y-O-U, it's all in your head/ problems with your thoughts and perspective, snap out of it, whip yourself (and others) into shape, scream at others (and yourself) like a drill sergeant, etc. ""Standard issue female perspective"": Um... everything else that is against this point above, apparently? Even simply taking a different attitude? ...the relative validity of subjective experiences?

Digging around for something new, 12 am mood: Another find: Deffo feeling this ~*FLOATING BOX*~ kind of mood:

Dream poppy, bouncing and twirling my way through 2022, vibes.....

One of the appeals of academia though is that (in my experience) is that you can get through to the people who care. (Just maybe not enough of them to actually stay in academia and to centre a life around it.) Academia has already been vetted, for the most part, for people who care enough about what they do enough to actually do it, to spend the time and the energy on what they do in a committed way. E.g. research. One is generally not in it for the money. No one starts spending their time doing this, if at the very least, they didn't think there was an important purpose or point to it all. That is what... academia is supposed to be for. One of the issues is that outside of academia, it can hard to find this sort of commitment to quality control (in both intention and action) in clear concentrations. There are just people everywhere who are more committed to their idea of things, and making an identity out of it (perhaps this is unavoidable for the most part), but the supposed ""ego"" part of it, without the actual necessary work to be on par with academia in terms of the quality of "doing work" (as opposed to determining the quality of all of the results or work done). Big surprise. People do care, but it's usually more casual. People generally have lives and other things to do, understandably. Also: by the structure and set-up of the environment, people have to actually find a way to communicate, generally come to some sort of conclusion/ consolidation of ideas. Leaving people to their own devices, without structure or being led (or "encouraged") in one direction or another, people don't tend to do a great job of this for the most part... Remember that academia literally arose out of the cloister.....

That said, I think this is actually pretty neat, for its own sake. In a "diversity of communication" sort of way. In the way that there are also many other foreign languages, or even programming languages, that one can learn. Or that a language like Esperanto exists, intended as a form of universal communication via a grammatically simplified language.... but barely anyone actually uses it, let alone is a native speaker of it. Instead, we use messy, organically developed languages. Often stupidly complicated for seemingly arbitrary reasons, at least from the outside. It is a thing that exists, potentially for its own sake, or it can be used for >>>>insert various purposes<<<<. A lot of academic-speak, as disjointed and arcane as it looks, still developed organically enough and for certain means. By its definition and inception, it only has meaning within the context it was created. It's arguable that at a point, some people lost track of what certain things meant, in the sense that they lost a clear sense of objective, as well as a sense of groundedness. (At times, you might wonder if people really understand themselves as well.) Honestly? It's hard to be "in touch" when you become too insulated. I suppose there is always this risk when you become too insulated, whether as an individual or as a small group. You become seriously, seriously out of touch. No one can fucking understand you anymore. You start speaking in your own language, and language is by nature self-referential, one way or another..... And at this point, you definitely could say that it has become its own sort of "language game" in the most negative, critical sense of that term. Arguably: endlessly circular dealing with the same issues in the same sort of ways. Like a stagnant pool of water cut off from the flow of the river, or water stranded in pools from the ocean after a high tide has receded. In general, this is what the rigidity of institutions, and people doing things in a rigid, overly dogmatic way, both together and by themselves... this is what it tends to do. It gets STALE very quickly. People outside it cannot truly play it because they have no direct stakes in it, even if they're interested in the issues or questions being discussed. This is like... the nature of politicking, or being engaged in society, for better and for worse. At times, maybe we should instead be asking if "the means" (or language) is doing what the user intended of it. Not whether it strikes you to be of use to you personally, from where you stand. That is... if you actually care about understanding it. If the person who is using it is not interested in doing what you think should be done with it... I'm afraid you're going to have to convince them otherwise, one way or another. The answer to that is... appeal to what the user wants. Or could want.

Gods know you've heard enough from me about this over the years, lol. Academics love their arcane-speak, especially in the arts/ social sciences. It depends on the flavour, values, and tradition of your specific department though. We also had this convo: keeping outsiders out is very much on purpose sometimes. It's like being able to technically talk in code in plain sight. No one knows what you're really talking about and all the implications of it except others who speak your language. Don't get it or think it's pointless? It's literally not meant for you. It's straight up a clique, a party, or a social gathering that YOU are not invited to. Which is to say: understanding what they're actually talking about from the inside, and then coming to the conclusion that it's all a waste of time is actually different than being on the outside... and deciding it's a complete waste of time. People in STEM and the other sciences are less like this, actually. Maybe this is why I preferred being around my good handful of scientist/ social scientist friends when I was in academia for my very short stint. Lab people just wanna lab in my experience. It's not that they want to be misunderstood. But literally, all of their time and energy goes into research, at least for a time. They do not really... study communication either. I'm not sure if there is always a clear distinction or understanding in people's minds, especially the public. That wearing the hats of "professional academic" (as in researcher and communicator with other experts in their (sub)field) and "public communicator", (which includes teaching, but goes beyond this scope as well). I've noticed that people tend to be better at one thing than the other, with some exceptions, obviously, and usually, this is tied to one's interests, personality, and possibly one's levels of introversion/ extroversion. E.g. the researcher who just wants to research and talk to other experts, and doesn't really want to teach. All good educators are first communicators, because they have the real passion for communicating well. They LOVE and get a sense of gratification and achievement from people getting it, and they keep wanting to do it, over and over and over, even if and when challenges come up and people do not just "get it", for whatever the reason is. Being able to put more complicated ideas into the most simplistic and accessible form without interfering with the integrity of the ideas, that's a special skill. Being able to adjust the way you communicate, to different audiences and individuals, this is very much also a special sort of skill. I don't think people always appreciate and value this... one doesn't just "happen to be" an excellent educator and communicator even with a natural skill in communicating. Honestly though? There is not a great intrinsic overlap between the skills required for research and teaching. Obviously, if you want to keep and hoard all of your little secrets because you like the way it makes you feel, this is not going to work with educating. It's just not. Hasn't everyone had this math teacher (>or insert other subject<) who was obviously really good at math, like it seemed so effortless to them, but they can't really teach it worth a shit? Even if they do really, actually, truly care, in some ways, they can't naturally relate to your struggle. They literally have to put themselves in people's shoes to learn how people struggle, to actually be able to communicate. In a way, it helps to have struggled in various ways because you'll empathize and you won't overlook not understanding easily.

Man... where are the people who just learn things for fun, like almost entirely just for interest and curiosity and not necessarily for "usefulness" (which generally amounts to being able to use the language with other people, as a living language)? ...and also possibly because they're moderately masochistic in an intellectual way? Personally, sometimes I really just love a challenge. Especially if someone tells me it can't/ won't be done, or that I can't do that, or people just don't do that sort of thing. Also.... just general nerdery for its own sake. For example: I did a self-study course in Classical Arabic in uni because it was interesting to read parts of the Qu'ran in the original language, and not because I'm religious and interested in it, or I'm religious and felt it was necessary. And not because I was specializing in the subject in school either. I self-taught a little Sanskrit for the same reason. It's different, it's novel, it's foreign, and I want to have some sort of hands-on experience with what it's about. Something that's not just based on what other people (presumably and hopefully actual "experts") say about it, but something that is first-hand experience, so I can at least make some observations and conclusions for myself, or see where other people's conclusions come from. .........just because.

I started taking an interest in comedy as an art form about 5 years ago. While I've read a good handful of books on the subject (comedy writing, theory of comedy) since it does interest me, I've probably learned the most from watching LOTS of standup. All sorts. Famous, obscure, new comics, seasoned and respected, US, international, etc. People from all sorts of different backgrounds, with different personalities, and different styles of humour and perspectives of the world. But then, I didn't just watch it to be entertained and to laugh, but to study it because I found it interesting. Like if it works for you or doesn't, why? Who laughs at what, in what way, how much... and why? What doesn't work is just as important as what does... This then informs your own comedic/ perspective-generating process. Then, it's like a feedback loop: rinse and repeat, over and over again. You get different ideas, throw them out, test them out in conversation. Other times: you let ideas incubate or "marinate" for a while; it's more of a solo process. Another aspect of it (and maybe this is a personal thing too), is just continuing to observe reality better, like both people, other situations, and myself emotionally, and also in different ways. In non-obvious and unexpected ways. It required learning to find humour everywhere, and in the mundane and ordinary. In a way, you have to learn how to get outside your own seriousness// sense of self-absorption better. As an art form, I believe that it's something that should exist for its own sake first and to satisfy, grow, and even heal yourself... and everything else comes afterwards. Making other people laugh, getting attention, being seen as a better version of yourself... all of that should come strictly second. IMO, in order to be really good at it (like, having "wit" as opposed to just being "funny"), you have to be more than just confident, spontaneous, etc. You need to know yourself, and to have something to say and to share with others, perspective-wise. You have to "know" the subject of whatever it is that is your comedic focus well enough, whether that target is yourself, or it's about others, your environment, culture and society, etc. That requires a lot of being present and paying attention, just to start off.

@integral Why not mix vit C powder into your existing cream/ serum? I use this:

@Chives99 Thanks for reminding me of them! Hammock's been one of mine within the last year:

Wow... this is such a beautiful place! It looks so peaceful there.