Schizophonia

D'accord

Metropolitan or Quebec's one ? given that your canadian. C'est similaire mais avec des expressions différentes, et un expression orale, un accent différent. tabarnak

It depends; his videos on spirituality/non-duality are very good, and his speaking style makes him pleasant to listen to. Those that discuss psychology, sociology, or politics are less good. When I criticize of course it's because I like confrontation; I'm not spitting in the soup.

People who pretend to work but are actually at best code-pisser, and who debate of the best os to be "productive" lol

Nobody says that lol except for women who are in a ruminatory delirium (i just invented this term) here and there especially on social media We're essentially among balls here so we don't see it but women have the same ruminatory deliriums. One could say yes but they're at the opposite polarity; like they complain about not having a boyfriend, but it's because they have too many choices, whereas for us it's the opposite blablabla. But actually if you look at your closest women mirrors (your mother, your sister, their friends, your own female friends...), you'll see that they tend towards shortage (they settle for random or even clearly low quality men, with no reciprocal effort from the men they flirt with...) if you too. Because the problem is not the signifier (the opposite sex) but the signified (the object of desire, the "phallus"); it's neurotic. The idea is always the same; to see oneself as a victim because a victim is a hero; that is to say someone who integrates into the collective subject. The more individualistic, capitalist and/or lacking traditional collective structures a state is the more automatically people will become weak, depressed, and crazy; neurotic and sometimes psychotic especially socially disadvantaged subjects.

That's why you get lost or avoid almost all debates, and why you're stuck in shallow concepts; typical example is conformism; you can't explain your intuition, so you just throw your exemples out there like begins the question and if someone asks questions you just reply, "Ugh you're annoying me, just contemplate." Reading and studying philosophy or even simply watching good videos, not just browsing Wikipedia, in addition to being a pleasure, will provide you with elements of language, concepts, even epistemology with a "dialectical" approach and/or scientific evidence in favor of it (although we, as non-dualists, know that positivism is an illusion and autistic bullshit 😏). At some point you didn't learn how to make Skyrim mods by reading the C++ Wikipedia page it doesn’t makes sense.

Notice how most of these people are physically unattractive. If you have an individualistic bias, it will seem paradoxical to you that they are doing even more harm to themselves; but if you see individuality as an illusion, whose the signified is actually the reproduction of larger-scale structures (like an ant and the intelligence of the anthill), of collective subjects one might say from a more directly Marxist point of view, you understand that they are only reproducing what they think they must do, what they think they deserve. Before, I would have thought of a cope like "If I hurt myself now it will benefit me later because I'm ugly, so I have to be particularly careful"—a kind of (paranoid) projective functioning—but in fact that doesn't work, because projection implies a rational will on an individual level, which isn't the case here since these people aren't any happier--on the contrary-- and deep down they know it's antisocial; this doesn't suggest they might receive an increase in love from the group in exchange for certain efforts, criterias that are met. They were simply bullied, labeled as worthless at an early age, and reproduce the collective will regarding their individuality, which dictates that they deserve a certain amount of love, of survival on some form. Hence the intuitively skeptical stance of Marxists towards personal development, and particularly the New Age movement, because it is a vehicle for authoritarianism; and what lies behind authoritarian logic is the mental conditioning to function (again, we are herd animals, our pseudo-individuality actually reflects structures and in particularly human social/collective ones, even if it's repressed) within a world of social classes, specifically in a socially disadvantaged position. For exemple typically there is something extremely suspicious about taking "psychedelics for self-medication." Firstly because it doesn't work—the whole "people changing their personality/life after a trip" thing is in my opinion a load of bullshit and basically doesn't exist; i don't believe it a minute—and secondly because it's an authoritarian way of thinking that is to say which is part of the greater belief of being socially disadvantaged. "I'm going to become a better person by ingesting a vasoconstrictive violent hallucinogen." The same goes for believing that reading crappy self-help books is going to change your life. The more honest you are with yourself and the more you learn about human psychology, the more you realize that the only thing that truly and substantially improves a person's "quality" in the long run is their social conditions; as a survivalist and a collective being (from a non-dual perspective, I wouldn't even make that distinction). If tomorrow I put you in a strict bourgeois family you will become the ideal son-in-law much, MUCH faster than with any self-help book, psychedelic, or any other tool. Why? Because humans REFLECT STRUCTURES I should start a thread about this to develop and tidy it up.

@Leo Gura If you liked Windows 7 (it's my favourite too) you would love mac os x. The simplicity of Windows 7 but more modern, more beautiful, and faster; without malware too.

Excuse for killing people, out of sadism.

All cleavage is an illusion; everything is its opposite depending on the point of view That's why I insisted that the best episemiology is the one that eliminates the highest degree of cleavage. Indeed the conformity thing is shaky; Leo is always quite shaky because he comes from personal development and has little sociological culture. Non-duality and Structuralism are two of the things I'm thinking of that can explain this divide (and by extension, the low-key philosophies surrounding this divide, like Baudrillard's hypermatrix for example), thus rendering it obsolete. Thus there are no longer conformist/non-conformist actions; there is simply --reciprocally--, an ego, structures. The Marxism I sometimes talk about is a form of structuralism.

Sorry but he's unbearable to listen to.

The more abundant you are the more you can indulge in your vices, but that doesn't mean it includes killing people; a shadow like that is extremely rare and probably more something associated with socially marginalized people.

Being in a state of separation doesn't necessarily make you more narcissistic. When you prefer playing on your computer to talking to people because they're "jerks" (separation), your attention always shifts to an "external" object (you understand why I put it in quotes; non-duality and all that), a computer. And you can be a big bimbo who wears tons of makeup, love dramas ans cie (quite narcissistic) and still be awake.

I am actually marxist

What did you do; clearly.

No that's paranoid personality disorder; Hence indeed the intense projective mechanism, the tendency to be ruthless with the weak and submissive, even fetishistic with the strong, etc. Narcissism is simply exaggerated "self-love": Self-love not in the spiritual sense lol but in the sense of using "oneself" as a libidinal object.

Idk

They (benzodiazepines/Z drugs ?)quiet the mind but aren’t efficient to make a psychotic people efficient; even the opposite because high doses of then will quickly make you very tired and potentialy high, even more delusional. Like alcohol.

Plot twist : You do escorting to pay your studies

Because their sense of self evolued. It's reversible.

You're right, that doesn't contradict what I said. Narcissism is excessive self-love; self-love in the sense that attention continually shifts to the most primitive objects of identification, such as your body, your history and so on instead of extending to other objects The problem with narcissism is not self-love itself but a hostile relationship with "external" objects. Your self-love story is more true for neurosis You're joking about your mirror story but a narcissist is really like that lol, they like to look at themselves in the mirror, telling themselves how handsome and superior they are (just like me😏) etc.

No you hypothesized that strong egos accomplish more, and I propose the antithesis: not only the difference between what a weak ego and a strong ego produce will be qualitative rather than quantitative, but a weak ego will actually produce denser things because the weaker an ego is the more it can dedicate its attention to dense external objects. Symbols capture attention, leaving less for the imagination of the self; this is what Lacan would call the supremacy of the symbolic order. And to support my example, I would say that the people you mentioned don't produce anything particularly beautiful or intelligent, and some are even heirs to wealthy families (Trump, Musk, and that Saudi prince already; I don't know about the others, but probably more or less). Resisting the Nazis and enduring torture like Jean Moulin requires very little ego. Spending decades working on nuclear fission like Marie Curie requires little ego. Being a great doctor/surgeon, sleeping poorly and constantly using caffeine to learn, and later caring for patients in a university hospital requires little ego. Being a great philosopher who produces many concepts—I won't list them, I have too many in my head—requires little ego. Being a good horseman or gardening and creating beautiful things requires little ego. All of these are truly accomplishments; beautiful and intelligent things, or simply things that make oneself and others happier. All the people you mentioned are, once again, heirs and/or swindlers, often with legal problems, and/or people who produce "meh" stuff that only losers consume. You haven't enriched your own thesis or even accepted mine; you've simply launched an ad hominem attack, calling me pedantic. Which is probably true to some extent since you find it logical to projecting that onto me, but that doesn't invalidate what I'm saying.

? No, the very definition of narcissism is the excessive love of one's own image.

Otherwise just read some solid sociology or even psychoanalysis.

A cam business with girls that has earned him legal complaints, and a sale of "online formation"... Narcissism doesn't work, and if it does, it's usually a scam or a crappy business that worked out by sheer luck for the person involved; selling training courses, dropshipping, YouTube videos, sometimes even selling drugs (lol); always easy money. If you want to produce something of quality, something you'll truly be proud of, it requires embracing a love for the object, for a job well done, which is the opposite of narcissistic delusions.