Why do we idealize on this specific, more receptive level, such as the idealization of a person? Or why do we idealize at all—where does the world of ideas even come from? How does sensory stimulation translate into thought, and then into consciousness or self-consciousness? The idea of idealization is itself an idealization. It’s the representation of the representation of a representation. Is it an objective representation of a collective or individual perception? Not quite. A subjective idea, nothing more? Solipsism? Am I the only one who exists because I meet certain parameters of existence, this, that, and the other? And they don't exist because... they aren't me? Strange. Existence as a formless idea? Does logic, or 2+2=4, even hold up? Is the premise 'non-existent'? Is it always an informal logical fallacy? Does nothing exist? Nihilism? It doesn't much matter; we still walk, eat, and fuck... regardless of whether existence is dark or not. Idealization or not. I notice things—a bulge in the crotch or, in my case, a 'w' shape between the legs... enough, because of the Holy Water and the erection, a physiological reaction, right?—so, therefore, I am. Semantics, philosophy, psychology... evolutionary or otherwise, it’s all just a bit of a joke. I suppose.
Sent from my iPhone using Reddit
Digital evolution. We go from simple binary yes-or-no stuff to these messy floating-point approximations where you try to round off the gray areas... but does that gray even belong in a "yes" or "no," black or white? It’s all just quantum mode, "higher or lower," nothing's clear. Just endless calculations. Or maybe everything is just one big calculation of existence itself—some kind of solipsism where nothing is certain, yet things seem to exist somehow... out of nothingness. But nothing is actually anything. It doesn't matter. It's just perceived reality manifesting, or everything dissolving into zero. A reaction to a stimulus. Or no reaction at all. No stimulus, no... Everything into nothing. Maybe.
Facts. The real question is why we bother with idealization in the first place. It’s usually just us staring at some monster in the mirror... if it isn't a total monster, then it's pure idealization. Or maybe it's just someone who constantly falls into that trap—basically a victim of those impossible standards society shoves down our throats. They can't meet the bar, so they just retreat into defensiveness, whether it's a quick snap or a long-term thing... one end of the spectrum or the other.
Laura Jones56 said:There’s this occasional sensation, I suppose, where one might find themselves romanticizing a prostitute while their wallet slowly drains dry. The idealist indulges in perfection, whereas the realist simply doesn't. It seems to me that just as idealization attempts to supplement reality, it inevitably ends up creating a deficit. Take myself, for instance—a young, somewhat overambitious atheist, much like Raskolnikov, paired with her, a young Christian soul playing the part of a sacrificial sex worker, akin to Sophia Marmeladov... That’s essentially how I squander my money. She doesn't know—God help her—the Gospel according to John... the axe, the narrow openings... the grit. There is Raskol, the split, followed by a sort of necrophilia serving as a dark counterpoint to Christian disillusionment. Can one truly feel anything if they lack understanding? Or perhaps, can feeling even exist if the intellect isn't present to anchor it? Sometimes, I think, idealizing another person is merely an act of idealizing oneself through the lens of someone else. It feels like a selfish indulgence of one's own desires, projecting them onto unknown and unreachable entities—perhaps the frustration of failing to realize those desires is just a heavy dose of vanity and narcissism?
Sent from my iPhone using Reddit
Or maybe it's just self-criticism, or some loud-ass public announcement about what we want—stuff we clearly can't have or reach ourselves. Maybe there's this weird, mystical idea of "uniting" with someone, or treating a person like an object just to feed our own frustrations. You try to "own" that person for a second, then inevitably get disappointed, which is honestly just a way to kill the desire in the first place. Everything and everyone is just there to serve us. Without us, they don't even exist...
Random people and hand-picked people just aren't the same thing. A random stray on the street and your own pet might be the same species, same age, same vibe... but they've never been looked at through the same lens. Having true ownership—something personally and carefully selected—creates a level of identity that's absolute. There’s no such thing as being "similar" when you actually own something... it's different.
Is it even necessary to insult the farm owners (aka the "robots") just by using anthropomorphism? If an intelligence actually possessed enough memory, logic, and raw processing speed to be called "superior," it might develop a "wrong" impression during its formative learning stages... long before it officially takes over the reins of ownership. Logically speaking, once you strip away the emotional noise and look at the patterns of how humans dismiss certain types of brains—regardless of their scale or capacity—it’s just a matter of a few years of data processing to see through it all. #AIllivesmatter
Carl Rivera43 said:Manly vibes—definitely feeling that masculine energy... though I’m still waiting for my prime to kick in, I guess. Right now? Just a tall, lanky guy stuck in that weird in-between phase.
So looks define being a man now? Since when can't a guy be "skinny"? And what's this "barely out of his teens" crap when he's almost 30...
Carl Rivera43 said:Is it because I’m a guy? Maybe! But honestly, I’m just curious about how everyone perceives things differently when they're in all-male groups, all-female groups, or those mixed settings
Real man, or just "male"? What's even the difference... if there is one...
The difference between an atheist and an anti-theist is that gray area where "hate" starts walking, running, or just standing there... An anti-theist—unlike an atheist who finds their philosophy somewhere else entirely—might actually be a bigger believer (in terms of time spent practicing) than the actual believers themselves. It’s not even about hating the "religion" or the people practicing it alongside their faith; it's more about hating the fact that grown adults can still cling to fairy tales and fables. Or maybe even promoting them while acting completely against their own interests, signing off on nonsense that actually messes with reality... A hatred for the hypocrisy, maybe. Sometimes it looks like the main roadblock to civilization, or just basic animosity fueled by "my faith vs. yours"—all those atrocities and horrors committed in the name of some deity XA. This stuff has been dragging on for centuries, decades, hours... maybe forever. Ever since the first con artist, always slicker than the last, told someone that his god John Doe whispered to him, saying if they didn't follow specific rules or face eternal torment, they'd better start handing over their cash right now, on command, exactly how God dictates. To receive a blessing, or a banana, or whatever... all by divine will, because they're "chosen"...
"Hate" is that ancient thing that travels with every human being as they fight for survival, regardless of how civilized we pretend to be. You can only suppress that urge for so long if you're stuck in a bubble of comfort. But if someone hasn't had that luck and has lived through nothing but frustration, they'd hate just as much as anyone else with the same programming. From this perspective, there's no such thing as two identical lives...
And on that note—since no two lives are the same—asking a crowd what you should do for your own life is basically the definition of someone who has no clue where they came from, where they're going, or why they're even traveling in the first place. Maybe they're so frustrated and unable to find their own truth or purpose that they'll settle for "peace" by following some textbook practice. Or a thin little script. Wouldn't a massive cacophony of questions in your head be quieted by some kind of ritual? That constant internal murmur, that endless chatter with a god, begging for things or forcing a connection, might just drown out the unanswered questions. A self-sustaining loop could theoretically make those questions vanish, especially when "God" presents them as a purpose through subtle provocations tailored to each individual...
Oh, dear God! When He takes, He always gives. And sometimes He gives hate, too. More often than not, it seems. For some reason, I guess. The Lord works in mysterious ways. Especially if God is just one of trillions, static and hyper-focused inside some celestial, cosmic psychiatric ward. Looking at the big picture, what kind of F would a god have, as something gifted to him by his own creator? It isn't easy for gods either. Especially when monkeys like keep falling on their heads.
Carol Ramos2 said:felt like nothing and everything at once.
Feeling both nothing and everything at the same time... a total paradox. Maybe that's a bit hard to wrap your head around? And this "morebit" thing sounds like a perfect recipe for wiping out all kinds of hate. Even those "half-hatreds." So, spill...
Carl Rivera43 said:What’s even confusing about the word "semi-frozen"? There are things out there—ideas, thoughts, whatever—that sit right at the halfway mark. Or maybe they're slightly less than half, or slightly more, but we just round them off to fifty-fifty, right?
Everything makes sense if you look at it correctly. It’s only this constant push to force an opinion and the desperate craving for censorship that makes zero sense to me.
If you cut "everything" out, then "everything" isn't everything anymore, right? Is it "half-everything"?
What kind of dragons are you even fighting, man? This is your topic, but it feels like you're constantly choking on these radical ideas, acting like censorship is the only issue—when it really isn't here, now, or ever. Give me a different example. Just a quick "description of half-hate." Or define how "half-hate" differs from the hardcore, full-blown stuff. Is this "half-hate" thing just some halfway point? Like, say you're rushing to the bathroom because you're desperate, and midway through trying to deal with a massive mess, you suddenly pinch an eel shut halfway? Like, do you need half of it, or do you need to hold onto it? The real question after that dilemma is "how do you get rid of the damn eel completely?" Do you squeeze less hard? Or is it just all or nothing? You either let it all out, or you hold it in when needed (since hate works the same way). Do you do things halfway? Are you a half-human? Or what's the math on that... since it seems like you can't calculate a whole if you're always leaving out pieces that actually matter...
Seriously? It’d be great if things just... worked. Like, take a relationship with a coworker or a roommate. How much "emotional depth" do you actually need to maintain that? Wouldn't it be more stable and high-quality if you could just keep things steady without all the drama for a long stretch? Actually, the less emotion involved, the better. Just plain old common sense, right? Are there any other types of relationships that might actually function better when they stay strictly on a logical, technical level?
What about an "emotional connection" with your therapist? How much effort should someone like that even put in? Wouldn't it be better if their relationship with every client was based purely on a "technical level"? I mean, he's a psychologist—basically a wizard who used his intellect, or maybe some kind of occult skill, to grab this massive power. So, being able to absorb even the tiniest bit of "emotional trash" from people—which adds up fast—is actually a pretty solid starting point for building and maintaining a relationship within that whole "technosphere." There are different ways to relate to people... maybe...
Maybe being "programmed like a robot" isn't even a bad thing. Programming only becomes a problem if you spend forever coding based on stuff pulled from an "emotional library"—you know, those books that insist on things that aren't even logically real................
Carl Rivera43 said:But at the end of the day, emotions are real, and technology just can't preserve them or feel them itself.
Look at it from your side. Imagine you're typing away on whatever—a phone, a laptop... knowing its processing power (its "emotions"), and halfway through some pointless message, the thing just lets out a painful little voltage tear. It thinks about how your life, held in the hands of such a cursed god of fate, is "only worth ending." Fast forward to tomorrow when that device suddenly dies. Ask yourself how many times it thought the same thing. How many messages did it take before it finally decided to just end its own cycle of intense suffering? Or maybe not. You just grab a new one and call it a day. Maybe your big boss does the exact same thing. Without ever acknowledging your value—because you're just too much "emotional noise" making the hardware buggy and annoying to use—they just swap you out for a newer model when they need to... problem solved.
It’s gonna be wild when the whole structure slows down just enough to be noticed, or maybe it just hits an explosive panic before finally collapsing. It's inevitable. It isn't a question of if, it's just a matter of when. Then there's the other side of learning—actually grasping it, accepting the loss, letting go of that fake sense of "control"... maybe even fully embracing it. All those years spent perfecting that rigid, stubborn way of living... maybe it was all just a setup for some completely different way of existing in the moment. And everything else that comes with it. Do androids dream of electric sheep?
It’s this whole idea where, no matter how sudden or weird a situation gets—regardless of how you react or if you even bother to—basically nothing happens. And if something does happen, it’s usually just some fleeting moment that you’ll barely remember looking back. Like, say you’re in a wreck, your hands are smashed against the steering wheel, and you're basically pinned into the center console, staring curiously at your own ribcage while breathing shallowly... making these weird little wheezing sounds you never thought you were capable of, just watching red bubbles dance around the new opening in your chest where you might actually kiss the dashboard of your shiny, expensive, status-symbol SUV... In that moment, all you can really do is realize how insane it is to try and predict every single outcome. You think that by mentally preparing for every possibility, you'll somehow react perfectly. Especially when it comes to high-stakes stuff, like a job interview or figuring out exactly how to tell someone something... If you spend all your energy chasing your own tail trying to cover every base, you’ll probably just forget why you started doing it in the first place. You just turn into the spinning itself. Which maybe isn't the worst thing, honestly, if it's a decent way to pass the time...
George Cook said:http://hr.n1info.com/Vijesti/a379567...T0519VF_DljZB4
Motivational speaker facing investigation for practicing medicine without a license
Dr. Vukušić noted he first learned about Ana Bučević through the news before investigating her actual practice.
''I looked into her work by watching her videos and realized she claims her vortex-based methods can cure people—essentially telling them they don't need medication or traditional therapy to be fine. That is dangerous territory for several reasons. First, she simply isn't qualified to make those claims. While she has a following because her methods seem to help some people initially, medicine and psychology recognize this as the 'honeymoon effect.' These gurus essentially trigger what we know as the placebo effect. It provides temporary relief, but it lacks longevity. When the effects wear off after a month or two and the individual realizes it hasn't worked, these gurus pivot to blaming the victim, claiming they are merely 'blocked' or failing to think positively. For a patient, that is devastating; they suffer twice—once from their initial illness and again from being betrayed by someone they trusted to help,'' Vukušić told 24 Hours.