Schizophonia

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    9,990

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Schizophonia

  7. Posted

    Just now, CARDOZZO said:

    I can't make a global argument to solve dating for everyone.

    What I see is that people do not want to conform to effective actions that lead them to get what they want.

    Do you want a girlfriend? Stop being stubborn, hit the gym, learn to socialize, go out and stop watching online hateful content. 

    It would be that simple if there were no unconscious mind.

  9. Posted

    1 minute ago, CARDOZZO said:

    Critical thinking is a essential skill to learn. Are they making questions? 

    It doesn't matter.

    If deep down you believe you're worthless and don't deserve a girlfriend (among other things, of course, we ask ourselves these kinds of questions because we're too privileged to think about money), you can ask yourself as many questions as you want, doubt that it's all wrong, and know what you objectively need to do to improve your well-being, you'll continue to be blackpilled, to ruminate, and your living conditions won't change.

    The only thing to do is to eliminate everything that reinforces feelings of powerlessness; that's what non-dualists prescribe, and in fact, most religions do it more or less consciously.

    On a collective scale, as I already mentioned earlier, there are social policies.

    It's also a problem inherent to capitalism; why do we allow products that reinforce your learned helplessness? Because there are structures (egregors, one might say, from a non-dual perspective) that feed off you; capitalism isn't centered around your survival, your well-being, but on the survival of powerful archetypes/egregors, structures.

     

    Non-dual structural-Hegelian-Marxist metaphysics, baby. 👺

  10. Posted

    1 minute ago, Schizophonia said:

    People adapt to their social circumstances.

    If you tell someone especially when they are young and highly neuroplastic that they are a shit their will act as a shit.

     

    The only solution on an individual level is mental dieting.

     

    The solution on a collective level is social policies because, as I said in another thread, being sociable requires money and time.

  13. Posted

    22 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

    If these theories are legit I wonder why it seems they’re not applied so much in modern psychology/psychiatry.

    It doesn't serve the same purpose.

    Psychology/behavioral therapy is a form of hygiene; learning to manage stress, having emotional support, avoiding drugs, changing one's perspective, etc.

    It doesn't explain why a person has idiopathic psychological problems; the moment you manipulate the subject's mental structures, their subjectivity, then it becomes psychoanalysis.

     

    A psychiatrist is basically a psychologist who is studying medicine and can prescribe drugs.

    22 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

    Not saying it’s the golden standard, there is probably major flaws in conventional psychiatry. But I mean it has some scientific basis, so I wonder if certain concepts that sound weird just “make sense” like you create a concept that somehow seems to be able to explain a phenomena, but there’s not much support for it actually being the case

    It is less obvious to talk about psychoanalytic science because it is a young practice and, as I said, it implies a degree of subjectivity.

    There are also many people who hate psychoanalysis because some psychoanalysts have suggested that phenomena like homosexuality or autism could be curable; there is an ideological dimension to this rejection.

    There is also a Marxist/Structuralist critique that I find interesting even though I have not been interested in it, which does not reject subjectivity unlike some scientistic autists but rather the individualizing character of the episemiology/linguistic elements of psychoanalysis.

  15. Posted

    51 minutes ago, AION said:

    So you haven't even tested those theories. What am I saying is this. For example: Is the Oedipus complex true for you? Since you are talking about it like it is God's given law.

    Ah yes of course I use it on myself and others to interpret problems and it works very well.
    If tomorrow I find or am interested in a more efficient system, then I'll take it.

     

  17. Posted · Edited by Schizophonia

    44 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    Jung is leagues above Freud.

    I'm sure you haven't studied Freud even a little bit, it's just another thing you say because you imagined it in the shower.

    See my response to AION.

    Is Ayahuasca superior to 5 MeO DMT because it's "much more complex"? No, you'll probably say that on the contrary ayahuasca's "complexity" is primitive fantasies and corrupting, and that it's with 5 MeO that you become a kangaroo alien.

    It's the same here.

  18. Posted · Edited by Schizophonia

    1 hour ago, AION said:

    Jung is more complex because reality is complex.

    No, it's a matter of perspective.
    It's by moving towards ever simpler models that we can progress towards higher levels of intelligence.
    It's because you no longer know how to produce ATP, how to carry out the billions of metabolic processes essential to the body, that you know how to do something like drink a cup of coffee.
    It seems simple to drink a cup of coffee, yet it's made possible by the most complex form of intelligence found on Earth; knowing how to produce ATP is fine for single-celled organisms.

    Quote

    In my opinion Freud is too simplistic and boils everything down to his perversions. For example Oedipus complex is widely discredited.

    The Oedipus complex is not "widely discredited"; it is essentially closed-minded people who "find it weird" and ridicule it.

    There are no particular perversions in his work; he just says that the main object of love is (normally, within the framework of a mononuclear family) the mother up to the phallic phase and the internalization of the incest taboo, sometimes strange/funny speculations through dream analysis such as the "primitive horde".

    Quote

    At least Carl Jung has stuff like archetypes which is still being used today. Think of models like Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) which is practical and useful. And his insights on the unconscious is undisputed. He is still being referenced in modern books.

    Both Freud and Jung offer interesting lenses but Freud's level is basically kindergarten level stuck at the level of the penis and the vagina. I don't see anything holistic about that unless you are watching a 3d porn or something. Archetypes on that other hand do a good job of charting the psyche.

    It's the opposite; because Jung is more complex in the sense of being less holistic, "less profound, more expansive," as Ken Wilber would say.

    That's why it's so popular; average people can read it easily and feel intelligent because they "have read Jung" even though it's actually very boring and useless because of its heaviness/inefficiency.

  19. Posted

    2 hours ago, Hojo said:

    @SchizophoniaWhen I first had dreams of naked woman they had penis'. Maybe this is the case for people who were exposed to vaginas early on but I didnt see a vagina until I was like 9. I already was told that woman dont have penis' before I saw one so I wasnt scared. Maybe if you are a baby and see one and have to make something up.

    I didn't experience that, but I remember erotic dreams from before I was sexualized.

    I remember rolling around in paint (a bit of an anal sadist eheh) and it was exciting.

  21. Posted · Edited by Schizophonia

    1 hour ago, AION said:

    in what way not holistic enough?

    As I've already said it's overly conceptual and even uses too much New Age jargon, It aims to be more complex and organic.

    Freud on the other hand is down-to-earth, simple, more fundamentalist in general.

    Simplicity vs Multiplicity

    People accuse Freud of being too influenced by the socio-cultural conditions of his time but this is only true for the Oedipus complex, and even then he specified that of course the family dynamics and environmental scenarios that accompanied psychosexual development are variable;not everyone is going to grow up in the typical model he presents but psycho-sexual development will still take place in its own way with the same potential difficulties; it is not the signifiers (daddy, mommy) that fundamentally matter but what is signified, that is to say the law/limitations or the desire.

    Jungian epistemology leaves much more room for these socio-cultural biases because of its organic, not to say romantic form.

    How do you know that x belongs to the animus and y to the anima? How do you justify attributing qualities to these respective categories?
    Unless you're simply saying, "Oh well, I've often seen that, it seems to be that," in which case your epistemology is mediocre, there must be an underlying system that serves as the "why" for this division.

    And if we have this system (the phallic position in this case), then we might as well get rid of this division.

    One might say that it's the same thing, but again the more we create precise concepts rather than vague and romantic ones, the closer we get to the signified.

  22. Posted

    16 minutes ago, Hojo said:

    Wouldnt a pervert be the best person to ask about sexual related desires if hes analyzed them? The word phallic dosent mean anything its just a representation of what a pervert would use, the phallic can be anything and exists in all domains. Its like a pervert saying I figured out why I am a pervert and its this representation and it exists in everyone. Just saying hes a pervert cause hes sexually repressed and uses the word penis alot, isnt intellectual at all.

    No i I explained the source of the language elements.

    On 05/12/2025 at 5:50 PM, Schizophonia said:

     

    The term phallus isn't even patriarchal or anything like that; it refers to children's tendency, when they discover that girls don't have penises, to interpret the difference between the sexes as a litteral castration.
    Thus, in psychoanalysis, when we speak of "castration," of "losing the phallus," we are indeed talking about the possibility of losing objects to which the ego is attached or identifies.

  24. Posted · Edited by Schizophonia

    14 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    Freud's worldview might have made sense in a world where people were insanely sexually repressed.

    Those fucking Christians are to blame.

    Again Freud wasn't a sex maniac; he was just very pragmatic, dry, even a bit cynical, and quite conservative; You would have appreciated him.

    Not having sex doesn't have that many negative effects on the psyche, so I don't really buy into the idea that the psyche is particularly influenced by supposed sexual repression.

     

    It's William Reich the pervert you're looking for lol; he was quite obsessed and wrote about how, when he was young, he got horny watching the animals on the family farm having sex lol, how he lost his virginity in pre-adolescence with the family maid, and all sorts of things like that.

  25. Posted · Edited by Schizophonia

    19 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    Don't forget, when you take this phallus stuff seriously it becomes your reality, your self-imposed cage.

    You wanna be a pervert? Keep obsessing over Freud's phalluses and you will end up as sick as him.

    That's why even though I enjoy playing with psychoanalysis I'm going to abandon it for the benefit of mirror effect (applied non duality), which is  even more simple, integral approach.