Schizophonia

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    9,990

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Schizophonia

  3. Posted

    2 minutes ago, Daniel Balan said:

    Thats why I put them on the left of the authoritarian world. The government dictates from where you work, to the way you have sex with your wife. But that left is still conservative. The liberal left has nothing to do with the conservative left. 

    The USSR was actually quite liberal for its time. Some people on the right are only so because the right wing has a monopoly on the fight against immigration, on a strong state, and things like that in the collective unconscious, but are actually more left-wing; or simply in opposition to a random, more or less centrist government lacking vision, sometimes corrupt.

    Most communist movements are very liberal (Trotskyism, Luxemburgism, Titoism, Austro-Marxism...).

  4. Posted · Edited by Schizophonia

    16 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    Haha

    The dude was a bonafide sex freak.

    No non-pervert would create a theory of psychology about sex.

    Sex is the least important aspect of the psyche. Onlt for perverts is it so important.

    All this talk about phalluses is idiotic.

    Because you're not taking the unconscious into account; consciously you're not just thinking about sex you're thinking about lots of different things, but unconsciously you give importance to all these things because they relate to your survival, and ultimately to sex; that's what it means.

    So you think making your Actualized.org videos has nothing to do with reproduction, or that it's "above" it (because of the superego?).

    But why do you make these videos instead of something else?

     

    "Ha ha, because it increases my consciousness and that of others, and it's good to do that."

     

    Yes, but why is it good to increase one's consciousness and that of others?

     

    "Well, because it allows us to have a more balanced life, and because it's our divine duty..."

     

    Yes, but why is it better to have a more balanced life? And why is it our divine duty? Where does that come from? What is a "duty"? What is "divine"?

    Why, why, and why...

    And so, by going back from the unconscious to the conscious, by doing the phenomenology of your different desires, you will ultimately come back to this organizing principle of libido, survival, and sexuality. In accordance with psychoanalytic epistemology.

    That's the martingale; that's why I don't like Carl Jung for example he doesn't go far enough; he's too "heavy," too conceptual with his stories of archetypes, animas/animus and so on; probably because, like you, he's unconsciously too puritanical to fully accept the Freudian theory of sexuality

  5. Posted

    11 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

    Freud was perhaps not a rationalist but just a pervert.

    The dictionary definition of pervert should include a pic of Freud.

    Haha xD

    He was no more perverse than anyone else.

    Btw perversion means the negation of castration.

    For example, I was forbidden from being a child (the feelings we project onto them, like innocence or whatever), and because this prohibition, this castration, is painful, it is denied and projected, which leads to pedophilia.

    I deny that there is no love between my wife and me because otherwise there would be too much disillusionment, and so I become a cuckold.

    Etcetc.

    In a sense, this is what you call "corruption."

    3 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

    I read the post

    You and your posts always so polite and expressionless.

    3 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

    and you made good points I’d say I can find certain correlations to my own thinking. But also I don’t really see the value or necessity of using certain concepts/words like “the phallus” or “opedius complex”

    It seems to me that Lacan invented the concept of "object a", but I don't really know if it's equivalent to Freud's concept of the phallus.

    The Oedipus complex is the childhood scenario that essentially teaches you that you must be the object of someone else's desire in order to have them.

    It's called the Oedipus complex because, for the average person who grew up in a nuclear family, the first desire is usually for the mother, and the father tend to be seen as a rival. The same applies to a girl, although apparently the dynamic is more bisexual.

    3 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

    when talking about these things, because when you initially introduce exactly what they mean, they kinda sound like a stretch. And I feel what you said could all be explained in simpler words, while still maintaining all the main points you made. 

    Of course, that's potentially the case.
    I'll probably do a V2 with different language elements.
    A generally simpler epistemology to understand.

  6. Posted · Edited by Schizophonia

    14 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    That is literally what celebrity does.

    Girls do occassionally send me emails to fuck. Just cause I am known online.

    But it is not enough. You gotta be mega famous for that to be effective.

    And you still need skill to handle the girl. Even if she flys into your bedroom.

    I should become a militant for the far right party of my country.

    It's not a joke i could easily get a deputy/"congressman" job at 7500 euros per month and maybe become at least a little known lol.

     

    Become an european deputy is even easier and won even better like almost 10k before income tax. 

  7. Posted · Edited by Schizophonia

    7 minutes ago, Someone here said:

    What brand of cigarettes you smoke when you do smoke?  Maybe check the ingredients lol for the Nicotine concentration. Maybe you smoke lighter cigarettes than me . Mine are Lucky strike and Marlboro Gold .very high Nicotine. Not a cigarette for sissies. 

    In general (all red) dunhill, malboro or gauloises; it doesn't makes a lot of difference.

    I like to smoke them slowly otherwise they're too strong, maybe i should rather take white ones (the weakest). I think the more stressed you are the more you like high doses of nicotine thanks to the calming effect.

    Whether stressed or even enthusiastic actually, a situation of excitement in general.

  10. Posted · Edited by Schizophonia

    1 hour ago, Judy2 said:

    for example some scholar's reading of Butler's reading of Lacan's reading of Freud said that.

    Indeed, there is probably some Lacan in what I am saying without realizing it; I have read a lot here and there.

    I don't follow any particular epistemology; I just take the concepts and language elements that I like, and as I introspect, it creates a kind of ratatouille.

  13. Posted · Edited by Schizophonia

    1 hour ago, Elliott said:

     @Schizophonia 

    Is this not counter to how you regularly rag on here about the guys having low libido?

    What do you mean

    1 hour ago, Judy2 said:

    for example some scholar's reading of Butler's reading of Lacan's reading of Freud said that.

    Ok

    There's probably some Lacan in my paradigm without me realizing it, from reading so much here and there.
    What I'm describing is very likely at least partially wrong; I feel it's incomplete; it's actually endless.
    I'll probably do a version 2.

  15. Posted · Edited by Schizophonia

    2 hours ago, Judy2 said:

    @Schizophonia idk. this part is interesting to me personally, because i know that Freud's theory basically equates mental illness with the feminine and mental health with the masculine. having been affected strongly by mental illness, i do wonder if this is really true and if there are ways for the feminine to be feminine and still mentally healthy. i hope so, and i hope that Freud missed something when theorising the feminine as inherently mad, hysterical, and pathological. i guess women can be that and we are probably naturally predisposed to experiencing more negative affect. but that's not all of what we are. i hope there are ways to be sensitive and emotional, yet resilient and grounded at the same time.

    One way to look at it is that men are also pathological but project it whenever they can.

    Sometimes men aren't phallic; men need to eat food, and quite a lot of it, to slee, etc; you actually need food and sleep to be stronger, to ultimately be phallic eheh.

    But in a social context, the perception of lack is projected onto women,a car to use, a nation to save, etc.

    That's why men seem more stoic; the problem, the lack (of phallus), what you call madness is more projected onto the object.

  19. Posted

    22 minutes ago, Judy2 said:

    @Schizophonia idk. this part is interesting to me personally, because i know that Freud's theory basically equates mental illness with the feminine and mental health with the masculine. having been affected strongly by mental illness, i do wonder if this is really true and if there are ways for the feminine to be feminine and still mentally healthy. i hope so, and i hope that Freud missed something when theorising the feminine as inherently mad, hysterical, and pathological. i guess women can be that and we are probably naturally predisposed to experiencing more negative affect. but that's not all of what we are. i hope there are ways to be sensitive and emotional, yet resilient and grounded at the same time.

    Freud didn't say that; men are just as crazy as women but the expression tends to be different. (hysteria vs. obsessive...)

  20. Posted · Edited by Schizophonia

    50 minutes ago, Someone here said:

    I read the entire thing . Thank you for writing and you have a brilliant mind . But it gets wayyyy tooooo complicated to the point it's pointless

    Actually I was lazy and made the thread in one or two hours; if I'd taken a day or a week it would probably have been much longer and more complicated ahah.

    But ty.

    Quote

    and there is nothing I could flesh out the juice of the matter .also as I was reading terms I have no idea existed the article was getting way lofty and sent me to la la land where we are talking about abstractions and things that don't even  exist.

    It basically means not to push too hard/to give up self love.

  22. Posted

    16 hours ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

    Right, I think that was laid out in the innitial parts of the post by describing how men are seeking to be phallic in their relation to the women and women want the phallus, however I thought the latter parts moreso contained the main idea which is that you should identify as the phallus regardless whether you'd lose a woman that way (since you'd lose her anyway by being a simp A.K.A. being non phallic and viewing her as the phallus) and that you should ideally be tending to your little garden, so to speak, meaning doing yo own thang and everythin

    The girl's issues are your business. When you take charge of a woman and her problems, you're in a masculine position.
    If you force or pressure her, you're creating the opposite situation, usually for neurotic reasons because obviously it's not pleasant for anyone and it won't work.
    If it does work, because the girl has guilt issues or something like that, you're putting yourself in danger because sooner or later you'll be cheated on.
    You'll be the guy she dates because he's "objectively good," and then in the end, your wife will cheat on you and experience orgasms like she never has with a random guy because he's significantly a better phallus for her.

    16 hours ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

    Yeah basically that's how I'd have to be if I was to really follow this line of thinking, since nearly any kind of activity one can do is basically a self improvement in disguise lol just lazy and not giving a shit

    It's not a question of doing or not doing it, but of why you do it, of perspective.
    In the idea of self-improvement, this element of language can have a neurotic, self-centered dimension, which is indirectly feminizing.

    What's the difference between a guy who takes magic mushrooms to "fix" himself and a woman or a gay man who gets sodomized, lol? What's the difference between a guy who tries to improve himself in the sense of going from "not good enough" to "good enough" and a woman or a gay man who wears makeup, fake nails, a crop top, etc.? It's about unconsciously seeing yourself as a problem to be solved, instead of the other person/the object.

    Hence the misogyny and denial in obsessive-compulsive neurosis, because a woman, and even other men in general, don't care about your personal development, how mature, "nice," "overly self-aware," and so on, you are; about this "self-image." Again, it's like a gay man saying, "Did you see my croc top? It's nice, isn't it? 😏👄"
    Okay, lol, fine.

    People expect you to have a generally phallic posture, that is to say, confident and/or reassuring and/or funny and/or rich and/or a good sports/games partner, etc.

    I say "people" because men also expect you to be phallic, not because they aren't phallic, but because the vision of you as a phallic mirror is satisfying. That's the principle of 'friendship'.

    11 hours ago, Joshe said:

    It's about time Schizo clued us in on all his mysterious ramblings. Interesting and plausible, but they don't hold up or are at least insufficient, as was Freud. Good and interesting insights to explore- but psychological coherence? No.

    It's true that childhood attention seeking strategies persists into adulthood, but the whole psycho-sexual frame is clearly absurd. 

    @Schizophonia - move past Freud. 

    You have a good foundation and good intuition, but Freud is keeping you stuck. You have to look at human psychology from your own analytic lens. Don't presuppose the pioneers got it right. They didn't. You have to take from multiple pioneers, and even more importantly, your own observations, so you don't get locked into a paradigm you didn't create. 

    It's great to see how other paradigms comport with reality (which you do exceptionally well), but you also have to see where they fail. That benchmark has to come from your own observation of the subject matter. You're still young. Just watch humans for the next 2-3 years with no framework. Maybe your own framework will emerge. That's the path the other pioneers took. 

    If the predominant psychologist of the time gets hung up on sexuality, of course it will seep into the psychological theory. 

    I don't particularly adhere to Freud; I naturally use his epistemology in particular because it's very pure and effective.

    If tomorrow I find more effective linguistic elements, I'll adopt them.

    5 hours ago, Joshe said:

    😂Fuckin mirror effect, obviously! 

    😏

    6 hours ago, AION said:

    You need to get laid haha

    I'm generally cerebral but yes

    5 hours ago, SimpleGuy said:

    Bro came up with a fkin theory because he ain`t got bodies

    Ditto

    10 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

    Lol, it's 'mirror' now. 

    Best martingale

     

  23. Posted · Edited by Schizophonia

    5 hours ago, aurum said:

    Yeah I'm not following this.

    We have better models than Freud or Lacan for understanding masculinity / femininity.

    No.

    18 hours ago, Judy2 said:

    it gets a bit wacky in Lacan's reading because there it goes that women are the phallus and men have the phallus, because women serve as the "dialectical confirmation of [masculinity]". which i guess is true, but then Butler criticises how this view still originates in a matrix based on masculine desire alone and dismisses the idea of a preexisting feminine structure. which is as much as i can parrot from my university lectures; it's not like i understand the implications or if there'd be any alternative.

    When you play Mario Bros, you're playing at perceiving lack (being on level one, starting a storyline where something "goes wrong") and at bringing back the phallus (completing levels and winning).

    It's the same for a woman; she's full of voids/lack, and you're playing at erasing them.

    The more neurotic you are, the less masculine you are, because you identify directly with lack; like you want it.

    When you ruminate on tik tok it's neurotic for example; you're not playing with the lack of a third object as a phallic tool, you're playing at embodying the lack yourself. You want to growl.