Schizophonia

That's honestly what i think. No that's just a ~normale~ (as you would say) behaviour to have. 🤗 Drops his pants and sends a video of a sensual dance with a full erection to his Croatian doe on WhatsApp as a courtship display* Then, sometimes the only answers are simple, especially when the correspondent only exposes insecurities, cognitive dissonance, etc. She's not braver than us ahah

You're in the anima.

@Actualising There's no problem, if you're ready to leave your girlfriend for another one like that then it wasn't really worth it and it's a gift that you're giving to both of you.

Yep. Think about it : There isn't even a way to know how you look like in nature ! The only times you would even vaguely know what you look like would be when looking in the reflection of a body of water. There is also no fashion, no makeup, and we wouldn't even have the same physical appearance due to differences in living standards. And then of course there is survival which distracts our attention. And everything changed like that, but not our DNA ans so CNS. Sadghuru said we would be happy if we if they remove half of our brains lol. You spend your life on youtube so i'm sure you've seen it. I think ego density is the biggest characteristic that determines a person's personality along with their mobility (hypomania vs stability). We could make a grid and sort people on it with these. It's even worse in the third world, that's where you'll meet the craziest people. Third world is not the natural human tribal way of life, it's developed sedentary societies where people live modern wage labor but without being paid "well", are poorly fed since birth, live in unsanitary conditions and are influenced by belligerent cults. (Islam, Hinduism, Voodoo...) Yep. The problem is not being introverted, the problem is having a stressful ego. My mother is extroverted and has a heavier ego than you or me, my father is introverted but he has a very simple ego. I am talking about the human self, when I talk about neurotic tendencies for example it is indeed a characteristic of the self, but it is also a constituent in its own right, there is no difference. And so in the end neurotic people have a bigger sense of self, a bigger ego as we understand it in the "spiritual" sense of the term than those who are not. Even if I am very functional today I have a fundamentally quite heavy ego and that is probably what induces so much fear when I try 5 Meo DMT, i highly assume. Or rather, despite the fractal structure, I don't see the ego as a "bubble" with a heart but rather as a canvas, with sections that are particularly more or less relaxed, more or less complex, and more or less solid. Eheh no what i mean is more than that. A person with a heavy enough ego will be less empathetic than another person no matter what they feel, and the heaviness of the ego is based on the beliefs that structure the ego. Yes but still less funny than turning into a planet 🫨 Dw. Don't hesitate if i need to clarify things i say.

I'm not stuck, i just take pleasure simping talking to you and you are difficult to replace. There are plenty of normies i could easily win over but there would be no point in doing so outside of sex. If you would push me away i would just shrug and give Willy another direction, for now he cares enough about his slavic alien so I'm taking advantage of it to have fun. Ahah, no that's the hot part Sometimes i start discussions and I'm actually too lazy to continue, because the goal was mainly to show off my ideas, because I had a burst of interest or something like that.

When we are small or when we live in a setting where stressors are intermittent (typically survival, in the third world) it is easier to be happy. But in the opposite case, negative experiences, cognitive dissonances and defense mechanisms (neurotic character) makes the ego much heavier, with more layers eheh, and we find ourselves in a rather cold and repetitive place. I tended to have a very strong ego myself and when i started to socialize, and it is still a bit the case today, i was surprised to see how normal and happier people than me seemed more "simple", their psyche was simple while mine was very complicated and heavy. It is not just happiness that the ego suppresses, it is also motivation, physical power, empathy towards others including family, punctuality etc. My father made a lot of efforts for me and yet I always had difficulty loving him, the same for most people; During my first try with LSD not only did I enter a state of ecstasy, samadhi, and I was finally able to feel a powerful feeling of love and empathy. I wait for it eheh.

Not necessarily, even a normal person can be happy if his ego begins to lack substance. This normally happens when we overcome the problems that the ego identifies with, but if the problems are too complicated, if they are permanently there without being corrected, then this blocks access to happiness.

It's normal. I have confidence your performance😉 Happiness comes from freedom (from the ego).

Lol. I let spiders in my rooms because they are harmless and kill other insects.

Thanks, ditto Michael.

Okay fine, so where is this moral? It has to be somewhere. In the Bible maybe? Once again you begging the question, and that's normal because it's the only thing you can do with something drawn solely from the imagination. I can i've already killed several chicken (for eat ofc). It's disturbing for the ego at first, but not being able to kill an animal to eat it is also disturbing in the other direction for someone who is used to it. Do you think that a few million people, generally western/white or of marginal religious tendencies here and there in the world are normal, and the tens of billions of humans who have done this throughout history are not normal? I don't care in itself, having to do something because "nature" would be as imaginary as your ethic, that's not what i oppose veganism on (for me). No, it's the opposite, it would be to declare that there is an objective world that would legitimize my point of view the most, in absolute terms. Because if everything is imaginary, it leaves room for maneuver to slide towards a maya where eating lentils is super good and holy etc. But right now, you can imagine your ethics as much as you want, you imagine above all a maya where meat tastes good etc. That's what your being wants to imagine the most. Don't know if i'm clear. Begging the question + as a Lacanian pain in the ass i direcly see the mark of libidinal regression in the "animal flesh". For me it's just a piece of protein that tastes good, yum, then my empathy will eventually push me to avoid killing an animal in a way that is too cruel. Again, not because I'm "good" (regression) but because as an empathetic person I feel good about not hurting it too much. In fine the result is a trade-off between the two libidinal forces, that is to say that I will savor this freshness and, at the same time, make sure that the animal has not suffered too excessively (or that I have not seen it suffer, because ultimately it is essentially a question of perception). I don't see any problem with someone becoming vegan because they are hypersensitive and have a fixation on eating animals, it would be rational. But when you talk about "good", "animal flesh" it is not the same phenomenon that is hidden behind it. It doesn't tastes good and it's not nutritive Ahah We are all just selfish, only our survival matters; Idealistic ideas, which are far from the body, are a way to survive in a social context where you are weak, even if it's totally denied by the conscious . Freud and Nietzsche described this same phenomenon from two different points of view, if you're interested. Health*

You can't tell me that ethics is the best argument for veganism because it is a purely subjective, relative, and simply intangible fact because it is a tool of neurotic origin; Even if it is completely in denial, it is a way of diverting the libido from the reality principle to the imaginary. "I enjoy eating x" -> "normal", "genital" pleasure principle. (Master morality as Nietzsche would say.) "I enjoy eating x if I have saved enough" -> pleasure principle passed through the filter of the reality principle. "I eat y because it means that I am good" -> Libidinal regression, "slave morality" as Nietzsche would say. Essentially as a defense mechanism against the reality principle during the Oedipus complex and the passage to the phallic stage, which would explain why idealist ideas are more present in industrialized societies. On the other hand, hygiene is a totally tangible value, even if I would certainly not agree, you could try to demonstrate to me that veganism is healthier with studies or anecdotes, things that are based on reality.

Yes, but no one is going to subscribe to his thing.

For now, just his video is seriously lacking in professionalism lol. You can be a radical, provocative personality but still make an effort.

No, it's actually the worst, because ethics in this context is not based on anything tangible and is purely relative, even psychotic. You can actually strongly defend veganism from a hygienist point of view for example, because even if I can accuse you of epistemiological bias etc and basically estimate that you are wrong in the end these are concrete proofs that you possibly have at your disposal (studies).

No even if it annoys you it is perfectly logical. 1) Humans have evolved around a diet rich in meat, especially seafood, fish and small game. So a diet rich in fat. 2) Humans have not evolved massively around the consumption of nuts or avocados, the fats available in abundance in this evolutionary process are essentially if not systematically of animal origin. Some very important fats only exist in animals (EPA / DHA), although there are marginal traces of manufacture of consumption of flax seeds, for example, in the Paleolithic (in Europe from memory) 3) As humans have evolved on a diet rich in fat, diets rich in vegan fats are automatically more effective than low fat ones in reducing mortality from all causes, among other things. Now we should do studies on paleo diets, maybe it already exists i don't know.

A postulate based on simple reasoning can be true, a postulate based on complicated reasoning that involves more data and/or logical patterns can be false. Systematically preferring the more complicated arguent only serves your will to protect your ego, believe system and is anti-dialectical.

The diet of Paleolithic humans consisted primarily of fatty meats and some nuts, fatty fruits, and soft tubers/roots. The high-carb diet has no archaeological sense, it is normal that it does not obtain good results even on those who promote it.

No i meant how it is based to calculate the food score. If you put the foods in chronometer you see that the foods on the left consumed in normal proportion are not so nutritious and there are foods on the right that are. It's like a completely biased way to sell a vegan weight loss diet.

Being nuanced.

Ok mea culpa. I guess phytochemicals make the bill go up considerably.

Humans are also the only ones to wear clothes or make tools, it's natural for humans. By does not exist in nature, i mean that has not been involved in the evolutionary process. Many human ethnic groups have developed the ability to manage lactose and dairy proteins, and most humans consume at least processed dairy products to remove these indigestible products (yogurt, kefir, cheese ...) Veganism is literally not found in nature (in humans evolution), there have been tribes and even civilizations (Indus Valley civilizations) carnivorous or almost, but not vegan. Even Ayurveda does not recommend veganism at all, honey, meat and milk are considered superfoods if digested: Veganism is an ascetic drift even in Indian culture. Humans are highly adaptive omnivores, with a tendency toward carnivory. There are plenty of animals to trap and kill in nature, but there are not fields of nuts, fruits, grains, and vegetables. And when you do find a fruit tree by chance, there aren't many because insects and small mammals have consumed most of them. Even figs in nature are hard to find because even with a thick layer and few calories, insects and mold come and devour everything as soon as they start to ripen a little. Eating fruit in quantity is an agrarian affair, therefore modern, therefore non-evolving. Yes i'm agree. What is good is to do what is suitable for our system, and what is suitable is the result of an evolutionary process that has been imposed on us. Meta analyses are biased, both by obvious epistemological biases but also ideological ones. Carnivores are also biased, for example animals in the wild are lower in saturated fat than modern farmed animals, because instead of getting their calories mainly from starch (which is converted more into long-chain saturated fatty acids) they get them from plants, nuts, fatty fruits rich in polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats. Humans also evolved mainly with fish and seafood, not modern grazing ruminants rich in long-chain saturated fats, whole and often raw milk rather than cheese etc etc, more biases.

On what is based this notation ? If it's about calories it's hard enough to eat a few dozen calories of kale in one meal.

@Sugarcoat There is a part "The purpose of the ego in evolution" at 1:09:15 You did a topic about that from what i remember, maybe i mismuse.

Be careful, you're selling me expectations there eheh.