Posts by mistyscout2

I don't think that's quite what I meant. What I’m getting at is that she really ought to ask if there could be any actual connection between those two things. Since a psychiatrist is a medical doctor first and foremost, they should definitely be able to tell her if those symptoms are even possible. If they aren't, then he can rule them out entirely, and she can just keep taking her medication without all this extra worry. You didn't just say to check in with the psychiatrist; you said to stop taking the meds altogether, which made me think you felt like there was something seriously wrong with the prescription itself. I was honestly just wondering if Big Pharma had messed up again... 😉

But did you actually tell them they should stop taking that medication just because it didn't sit right with you, or was it specifically because of those bruises (which might not even have anything to do with the drug itself)? I mean, everyone’s body reacts differently to medication since our central nervous systems and overall physiology are all unique. What works wonders for one person might do absolutely nothing for someone else, or could even make them feel pretty terrible. It's the same way we see with psychoactive substances like caffeine or alcohol, don't you think?

fadedbear92 said:Oh, so you're a shrink now?☕🙄

Look, I’m definitely not a psychiatrist; I was just genuinely curious about what triggered such a reaction—and I promise there wasn't any hidden subtext or anything behind my question. I'm really just interested in the facts. Honestly, I thought I was being as polite and straightforward as possible, so I'm a little confused by the cynicism.
I've been studying related topics for a few years now, and I guess I'm just naturally inquisitive.

Are you a psychiatrist? If you are, I'd love to hear your take on this. And if you aren't, that's fine too.

fadedbear92 said:Oh boy! Regardless of whether others have experienced it or not, get off that medication right away and call the doctor who prescribed it to you immediately!!!!

I was wondering if anyone could shed some light on what’s causing such a dramatic reaction? Like, why is it so urgent to stop taking it and call the doctor right this second? What makes this specific medication so much worse than the others out there?

Ryan Wood98 said:So, you seem to think that reaching out to a psychologist implies that the person doesn't actually intend to follow through with suicide?

And in a hypothetical scenario where it isn't a cry for help, but rather that person truly intends to do it?

As for what I would want to hear in such a moment, I couldn't say, since I have never been in that position. Furthermore, I don't necessarily believe that everyone in that situation would want to hear the same thing. I suspect that both the individuals and their circumstances vary quite a bit.

I think the reality of it is more like this:
That person might indeed be feeling a real desire to end things, but they don't *want* to feel that way. They want to want to live, and they want to be a happier version of themselves—someone who isn't constantly fighting those suicidal urges. Beyond all the typical human struggles we deal with, there's also that basic survival instinct at play. If they're talking to people or making an appointment with a psychologist, it doesn't mean the part of them wanting to die isn't real, but it does suggest that another part of them is reaching out for support. They want to find a way to be healthier and more content than they are right now.

Ryan Wood98 said:So, you seem to think that reaching out to a psychologist implies that the person doesn't actually intend to follow through with suicide?

And in a hypothetical scenario where it isn't a cry for help, but rather that person truly intends to do it?

As for what I would want to hear in such a moment, I couldn't say, since I have never been in that position. Furthermore, I don't necessarily believe that everyone in that situation would want to hear the same thing. I suspect that both the individuals and their circumstances vary quite a bit.

You're absolutely right, and that's why a psychologist—or even just anyone stepping up to act as a sort of amateur (but not necessarily less effective) counselor—has to look at everything through a micro-ethical lens, tailored specifically to the individual context of the moment.

So, I guess I’ve finally earned my partial ban from the spirituality section (if not from the entire forum). But honestly, hiddenpuma75 earned his long ago. He has this way of squeezing people in such a sneaky, underhanded manner, and I can't tell you how many people came to vent to me about him—usually right when I was swamped with work, dealing with problems I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy, or during those times when I was asking for a WHOLE DAMN WEEK to just step down as moderator, and yet nothing happened. I've poured countless hours of constructive energy into this community, and all I'm asking now is to be allowed to leave with some dignity instead of letting these MONSTERS continue to ruin the discussions.

hiddenpuma75, how many threads have you actually trashed for everyone else? They’d come to me to complain, and I’d often find myself defending you, saying things like, "Oh, let it go, that's just how he is, as long as he isn't being outright offensive, it's fine." Where do you get the nerve to play the victim over this one single thread? It wasn't even really a discussion; it was just you dragging things out. Seriously, why don't you ask the other folks in the spirituality group what they actually think of hiddenpuma75 as a conversation partner, and whether the topic was truly as brilliant as he thinks it was.

Look, hiddenpuma75, this isn't about the forum anymore; it's just between you and me. I've stepped in it, and now I'm stuck with the smell. But I can only hope that once I'm banned, the water will finally recede.

hiddensailor14 said:Personally, I’d take that "challenge" any day just to see who really comes out on top.

So, what are we looking at here? Is this an invitation, a threat, or maybe a promise? What's the deal?
Or are you just trying to find a polite way to screw over hiddenpuma75? 😁

All those private messages were born out of the exact same context as these posts, really. I didn't even bother thinking about saving them because, let’s face it, those kinds of narcissistic, pathological types always make sure to archive everything when it comes to protecting their precious "integrity." Every ideal seems foreign to them, even though they swear they live by honesty and "spirituality," when in reality, they're just run-of-the-mill charlatans. They are undeniably offensive. I originally wrote them in the thread, but then I redirected them to hiddenpuma75 via PM after I moved the topic to the Trash—just so the person they were actually intended for (hiddenpuma75) wouldn't be deprived of the important spiritual message I wanted to send him:

So, let's go through them in order, as the PMs arrived:

The first one is short and basically reflects my personal distaste for those spineless characters and promiscuous pseudo-spiritual preachers—those snake oil salesmen I'd pray my own neighbors never had to deal with:

You know what you are? You're just a total coward.

That was the first PM. I thought he might actually say something in response; he kept mentioning other users, claiming he wasn't like them and that he doesn't "push" people, but honestly, he seems like the biggest pusher in the neighborhood, haha...

The second one was a bit more substantial, sent after hiddenpuma75 started trashing a philosophy he clearly knows nothing about:

Anyone can philosophize. Some just do it better than others. Me, I'm just an ordinary fool anyway. But that's still better than being an incestuous mistake of nature like you.
Incestuous mistakes of nature and evolutionary dead ends aren't exactly capable of philosophizing. My ugly, flea-bitten late dog could have done a better job than you. Maybe you can, too, but only at the level of a local community college student...

The third PM isn't "controversial" at all, as hiddenpuma75 puts it; it's actually much milder and quite formal:

So, as the title says, and now seriously, without any insults. I was wrong to think that good communication was possible with you. Later, you received the accumulated "energy" of your own formula and way of communicating in letter form. Many people complained about you, and there was already talk of giving you a partial ban before, but then some people stepped in to defend you. If I had been following that debate back then, maybe I would have joined in defending your "right" to stay. And I would have been wrong. That's why this question has resurfaced, and you've been given a partial ban from the "Spirituality" subforum, something that should have happened a long time ago. I truly believe I'm doing you a huge favor. As for me, I am stepping down from my position as the druid moderator of "spirituality," which they are finally removing me from today—though they should have done it a week ago. I have smarter things to do than waste my energy on the forum on people like you. And I don't doubt you have smarter things to do, too. So, even in this somewhat strange context (after I've just unleashed a torrent of insults toward you), I genuinely want to wish you luck, all the best, and much success on your spiritual and other journeys.
I don't want to get into a long debate about this. Any potential clone of yours will also be banned. You can appeal the ban. You always have that right; you know where to go. Bye.

There, so everyone can see, not just a few people.

Oh, hiddenpuma75, such a spiritual warrior and knight, yet such a coward.

Brandon Wright54 said:We’re talking about two distinct states here: love and pure sexual lust. They’re essentially polar opposites—one tends to kill the other. When you’re genuinely in love, you’re operating in this spiritual realm where the idea of raw physical coupling feels almost distant... The more erotic you become, the less sexual you actually are. The person you’re connecting with becomes a projection of your own need for affection; even the way you perceive their body is shaped by your feelings, meaning what you see isn't necessarily reality. You could argue that this kind of spiritual love is the direct antithesis of lust. It borders on narcissism—loving a version of yourself through someone else. Love relies on illusion, on the idea that the ideal we’re chasing is already embodied in another person. You don't have to be the type who gets worked up over airbrushed models in Las Vegas to fall into this trap; even then, the object of your affection becomes a blank screen for you to project your perfect being onto. In this sense, idealizing someone isn't just about physical perfection—it’s an attempt to find yourself within them, rather than seeing them for who they truly are. From this angle, spiritual love looks like a narcissistic, selfish phenomenon, and that image of perfection isn't really a product of what's actually in front of you.

That kind of separation feels like a classic symptom of our frantic, capitalist, hyper-individualistic American society. Honestly, I just can't get on board with the idea that "one excludes the other"—I completely disagree. I’d love to dive deep into this, but I’m swamped with work at the moment. Maybe I'll write more in a day or two, or perhaps even later today if I catch a break...

Brandon Wright54 said:We’re talking about two distinct states here: love and pure sexual lust. They’re essentially polar opposites—one tends to kill the other. When you’re genuinely in love, you’re operating in this spiritual realm where the idea of raw physical coupling feels almost distant... The more erotic you become, the less sexual you actually are. The person you’re connecting with becomes a projection of your own need for affection; even the way you perceive their body is shaped by your feelings, meaning what you see isn't necessarily reality. You could argue that this kind of spiritual love is the direct antithesis of lust. It borders on narcissism—loving a version of yourself through someone else. Love relies on illusion, on the idea that the ideal we’re chasing is already embodied in another person. You don't have to be the type who gets worked up over airbrushed models in Las Vegas to fall into this trap; even then, the object of your affection becomes a blank screen for you to project your perfect being onto. In this sense, idealizing someone isn't just about physical perfection—it’s an attempt to find yourself within them, rather than seeing them for who they truly are. From this angle, spiritual love looks like a narcissistic, selfish phenomenon, and that image of perfection isn't really a product of what's actually in front of you.

Not necessarily.

Brandon Wright54 said:We’re talking about two distinct states here: love and pure sexual lust. They’re essentially polar opposites—one tends to kill the other. When you’re genuinely in love, you’re operating in this spiritual realm where the idea of raw physical coupling feels almost distant... The more erotic you become, the less sexual you actually are. The person you’re connecting with becomes a projection of your own need for affection; even the way you perceive their body is shaped by your feelings, meaning what you see isn't necessarily reality. You could argue that this kind of spiritual love is the direct antithesis of lust. It borders on narcissism—loving a version of yourself through someone else. Love relies on illusion, on the idea that the ideal we’re chasing is already embodied in another person. You don't have to be the type who gets worked up over airbrushed models in Las Vegas to fall into this trap; even then, the object of your affection becomes a blank screen for you to project your perfect being onto. In this sense, idealizing someone isn't just about physical perfection—it’s an attempt to find yourself within them, rather than seeing them for who they truly are. From this angle, spiritual love looks like a narcissistic, selfish phenomenon, and that image of perfection isn't really a product of what's actually in front of you.

There’s a grain of truth in the old saying that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and that everyone has their own taste (so there's no point arguing over it), but I don't think that's quite right here. For instance, if I see a girl walking down a street in Chicago and I think her figure is beautiful, that isn't being "created" by my love; it's just pure, simple sexuality. Sure, that beauty might act as a trigger for a whole chain of events—maybe I ask her out for coffee, we get to know each other, I fall in love, and eventually, we develop a deep bond—but one doesn't strictly depend on the other, if you catch my drift. I'm worried we're talking about two entirely different things using very different logic. I think you might have missed my point earlier, but it’s not a huge deal... And I could sum up my current thought in one quick sentence: if I walk past fifteen girls on the sidewalk who all have great figures (from my perspective, though they look that way naturally or due to cultural standards—since culture is basically our second nature), it certainly doesn't mean I'm in love with all fifteen of them, haha...

What we perceive as attractive in someone of the opposite sex is shaped by biology, our culture, and our own personal histories—those specific memories and experiences that might give us a certain preference for certain types. And ultimately, hormones usually drive the bus... But even someone older, whose hormone levels have leveled off, could look at two people and say objectively, "that person has a better physique than the other," without feeling any sexual arousal whatsoever.

I'll get back to you on the rest later; I still owe you an answer regarding the chocolate thing and my take on love... But I will say this: if anyone was more perceptive and vibrant regarding sexuality than Lacan, it was definitely the Taoists. They could just sit, be silent, and observe. There's a massive difference between living in traditional China and being in 1960s or 70s Paris during the height of the sexual revolution, throwing around flashy theories, hanging out with socialites, smoking cigarettes during lectures, and using overly complicated topology or pseudo-mathematics just to show how brilliant the master is—or to see how far he can push things before people realize the master is just talking nonsense (which is a theory in itself).😉.

Anyway, I don't think there's anything uninteresting about Lacan. In fact, quite a few of his concepts really grab me, especially when you look at how much he influenced philosophy and that whole tradition of bridging psychoanalysis with philosophical thought...

Brandon Wright54 said:I think this modern take on physicality fits the bill perfectly—it’s essentially just a sexual fantasy. You see it all the time in the way porn is shot, where the guy is barely even in the frame and the woman is front and center. There are exceptions, sure, but you can't deny that media and commercial interests shape how people fantasize globally. It’s that constant push toward an impossible ideal that drives us straight into the realm of pure imagination.

I just caught up on this thread—the concept is interesting, sure—but if she’s just living up to some idealized version of herself, that isn't really her. It’s just an idea of her. I think that’s exactly how we end up with these warped notions of what love is actually supposed to look like. At what point can we even be certain we’re loving the actual person in a relationship rather than just a polished concept?

Fantasy is one of those concepts that keeps popping up in my research—it’s an interesting rabbit hole. It’s funny how the discussion naturally drifted toward the idea of love... I wonder how much of that is actually connected to the fantasy itself. I think I get where you're coming from with that second angle, though—I see your point.

The whole thing shifts once you start eating that chocolate every single day. That "authentic" feeling—that magic—only exists the first time you bite into a Hershey’s bar and get hit by that initial rush of flavor and sensation. Your relationship actually begins at a storefront window where you first catch a glimpse of it, turning the candy into an object of pure craving. You and the chocolate become one; you're lost in this explosion of sensory input, forgetting every other food on the planet for a second. But after that initial rush, you develop this repetitive need to chase that exact same high. So, you force yourself to eat the same damn chocolate day after day, indefinitely. Eventually, the novelty dies. Your taste buds adapt to the point where what used to be a singular experience becomes nothing more than a mindless routine. Your perception of it changes. The bliss you felt while drowning in that sweetness—the very thing that drove your craving—gets swallowed up by the monotony. That's when the options open up. You might grab a Hershey’s bar while daydreaming about a white chocolate strawberry one, but more likely, your old favorite will just bore you to death. You won't even want to look at it, let alone taste it....

I agree that desire is essentially the desire of the Other, but I'd argue our own desires are never entirely our own to begin with...

I think we should be careful about blurring the lines between an "idea" and an "image," even if they seem similar... One of the fundamental things about being human, and even just how our language works, is this sense of interconnectedness. It could be spatial or temporal; we have this ability to hold things in our minds that aren't right in front of us in this exact moment or place. For instance, if someone is thinking about their girlfriend's curves during sex, but they're in a position where they can't actually see them, they might be—if we want to get all philosophical or maybe a little sophistical about it—even more connected to the whole person than someone who is only experiencing what's immediately in front of them as just a "body" to interact with in the moment. In that case, it’s not some disconnected "ideal" that doesn't match reality; it's actually a continuation of what they saw just twenty minutes ago when they were standing around chatting and she leaned over to pick up something she dropped... Or even just a minute prior in a different position, providing a sense of wholeness to the entire experience. To me, reality isn't nearly as fragmented as people make it out to be; it's much more continuous than any theory trying to define it, no matter what that theory claims... Does that make sense? So, it's not really some unrealistic idealization of her, but rather that uniquely human capacity to not just exist in the "here and now," but to view things from multiple angles at once. It's our way of stepping back from the sheer stupidity of looking at life through a one-dimensional lens based solely on physical senses without letting our minds help out. That's why we say humans are both sensory and intellectual beings, which is pretty much the truth of it...

Brandon Wright54 said:I think this modern take on physicality fits the bill perfectly—it’s essentially just a sexual fantasy. You see it all the time in the way porn is shot, where the guy is barely even in the frame and the woman is front and center. There are exceptions, sure, but you can't deny that media and commercial interests shape how people fantasize globally. It’s that constant push toward an impossible ideal that drives us straight into the realm of pure imagination.

I just caught up on this thread—the concept is interesting, sure—but if she’s just living up to some idealized version of herself, that isn't really her. It’s just an idea of her. I think that’s exactly how we end up with these warped notions of what love is actually supposed to look like. At what point can we even be certain we’re loving the actual person in a relationship rather than just a polished concept?

Fantasy is one of those concepts that keeps popping up in my research—it’s an interesting rabbit hole. It’s funny how the discussion naturally drifted toward the idea of love... I wonder how much of that is actually connected to the fantasy itself. I think I get where you're coming from with that second angle, though—I see your point.

The whole thing shifts once you start eating that chocolate every single day. That "authentic" feeling—that magic—only exists the first time you bite into a Hershey’s bar and get hit by that initial rush of flavor and sensation. Your relationship actually begins at a storefront window where you first catch a glimpse of it, turning the candy into an object of pure craving. You and the chocolate become one; you're lost in this explosion of sensory input, forgetting every other food on the planet for a second. But after that initial rush, you develop this repetitive need to chase that exact same high. So, you force yourself to eat the same damn chocolate day after day, indefinitely. Eventually, the novelty dies. Your taste buds adapt to the point where what used to be a singular experience becomes nothing more than a mindless routine. Your perception of it changes. The bliss you felt while drowning in that sweetness—the very thing that drove your craving—gets swallowed up by the monotony. That's when the options open up. You might grab a Hershey’s bar while daydreaming about a white chocolate strawberry one, but more likely, your old favorite will just bore you to death. You won't even want to look at it, let alone taste it....

I agree that desire is essentially the desire of the Other, but I'd argue our own desires are never entirely our own to begin with...

Autodesk, I completely agree that it fits the specific topic of this thread perfectly, which is exactly why I made that distinction between the broad subject and the specific discussion here 🙂. As for the actual subject we are currently diving into (given the slow pace of forum discussions, haha), then no, not really. Since you're talking to, well, let me be humbly modest for a second... I'm just sharing my own philosophical views right now. But anyway, let me get back to answering the rest of your points.

Brandon Wright54 said:But fantasies are essentially a type of idealized image—desire operates within a certain field of vision, and modern society pushes a collective standard of the "perfect" body. I agree that playing with fantasies is possible once a relationship deepens, but I think we missed each other there. I said a fantasy *about* the person you're having sex with isn't possible. That's where a third party enters the equation. According to Lacan, desire naturally gravitates toward the impossible, so I'd agree with that part. That tension in desire is basically a drive toward something just out of reach, and that desire exists precisely through fantasy. If you look closely—if the relationship is actually solid—why then is there this need for fake identities during sex? That is the true function of the phantasm. I don't think it stays "just playing"...

You're spot on there, though I think we really need to keep in mind what I was getting at earlier, especially that part toward the end.

Brandon Wright54 said:But fantasies are essentially a type of idealized image—desire operates within a certain field of vision, and modern society pushes a collective standard of the "perfect" body. I agree that playing with fantasies is possible once a relationship deepens, but I think we missed each other there. I said a fantasy *about* the person you're having sex with isn't possible. That's where a third party enters the equation. According to Lacan, desire naturally gravitates toward the impossible, so I'd agree with that part. That tension in desire is basically a drive toward something just out of reach, and that desire exists precisely through fantasy. If you look closely—if the relationship is actually solid—why then is there this need for fake identities during sex? That is the true function of the phantasm. I don't think it stays "just playing"...

I actually think it can be more than that; I don't think it necessarily implies that the relationship isn't good enough, which I feel is a bit of a false assumption. The purpose of all that play could be anything depending on the person. It might be a way to deepen the bond by learning something new about your partner, or it might truly just be PLAY for the sake of play (because honestly, things don't always need an external purpose, right?). It could also be that one person wants to experience certain things without compromising the integrity or dignity of the relationship (in which case, I’d agree with you), or maybe someone wants to try things that they simply can't do in their everyday life for practical reasons: like, say, having a fling with a tourist from the Philippines 😁 (just throwing examples out there!), or pretending he's a firefighter rescuing his partner from a crisis (I mean, they aren't crazy enough to actually start a fire just for the thrill!), or even saving her from some mythical dragon—since dragons obviously don't exist in the real world, it's impossible to do that for real. You get the idea. People can just be more aware of those little fantasies and enjoy them for what they are. And they don't even have to go that far. After decades of marriage, people might just want to add a little spice to their lives without jumping fences or sneaking around behind anyone's back. They might even lay their fantasies out completely bare only to realize they aren't actually that interesting. The possibilities for play are endless and really just depend on how imaginative the people involved are... And of course, assuming the ego is stronger and a bit smarter than the subconscious—which is really the whole point here—the ego keeps a firm grip on the reins regardless. That's why these things work in the game but won't translate to objective reality. It's that "reality of the virtual."

Brandon Wright54 said:But fantasies are essentially a type of idealized image—desire operates within a certain field of vision, and modern society pushes a collective standard of the "perfect" body. I agree that playing with fantasies is possible once a relationship deepens, but I think we missed each other there. I said a fantasy *about* the person you're having sex with isn't possible. That's where a third party enters the equation. According to Lacan, desire naturally gravitates toward the impossible, so I'd agree with that part. That tension in desire is basically a drive toward something just out of reach, and that desire exists precisely through fantasy. If you look closely—if the relationship is actually solid—why then is there this need for fake identities during sex? That is the true function of the phantasm. I don't think it stays "just playing"...

Since that’s heading in a completely different direction—I mean, we aren't just shifting sub-forums here, we're pivoting to an entirely different subject matter—and because we're talking about societal trends rather than the individual, I think it’s best if I just set that aside for now. Besides, I don't really fall for those kinds of illusions myself; I've never looked at those airbrushed, "perfect" bodies you see in a Super Bowl commercial and actually thought they represented perfection.

Brandon Wright54 said:But fantasies are essentially a type of idealized image—desire operates within a certain field of vision, and modern society pushes a collective standard of the "perfect" body. I agree that playing with fantasies is possible once a relationship deepens, but I think we missed each other there. I said a fantasy *about* the person you're having sex with isn't possible. That's where a third party enters the equation. According to Lacan, desire naturally gravitates toward the impossible, so I'd agree with that part. That tension in desire is basically a drive toward something just out of reach, and that desire exists precisely through fantasy. If you look closely—if the relationship is actually solid—why then is there this need for fake identities during sex? That is the true function of the phantasm. I don't think it stays "just playing"...

It might not even be possible during the act itself, though I’d say there's a chance it happens then too—sort of like how someone from that other thread mentioned, where a "philosopher" might actually be visualizing the woman they're with while it's happening. But putting that aside for a moment, I honestly feel like he wouldn't even need a fantasy in that specific instant. I feel like Lacan and those who follow his school of thought lean way too heavily on this whole concept of "fantasy." Whether they're right about it or not, I can't quite say. And look, I know I'm rambling, but I really think their obsession with fantasy just pushes them away from other interesting ways of thinking. It seems like if they moved past it, things would get a little too intense for them, which is probably why they stick to it. If they actually looked elsewhere, they might stumble upon the real truth, but then all of philosophy and psychoanalysis would basically lose its purpose—they'd just get lost in pure love and that genuine sense of oneness with the person you're with.

Brandon Wright54 said:But fantasies are essentially a type of idealized image—desire operates within a certain field of vision, and modern society pushes a collective standard of the "perfect" body. I agree that playing with fantasies is possible once a relationship deepens, but I think we missed each other there. I said a fantasy *about* the person you're having sex with isn't possible. That's where a third party enters the equation. According to Lacan, desire naturally gravitates toward the impossible, so I'd agree with that part. That tension in desire is basically a drive toward something just out of reach, and that desire exists precisely through fantasy. If you look closely—if the relationship is actually solid—why then is there this need for fake identities during sex? That is the true function of the phantasm. I don't think it stays "just playing"...

It seems like a pretty straightforward concept to me. Once you actually possess something, the frantic "desire" for it—that constant mental loop of daydreaming about having it or craving it—just sortically evaporates. Now, don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean you can't fully enjoy what you have. In my book, "having" something is a much better way to put it than just "desiring" it; I’m leaning a bit toward those Eastern philosophies or even some Stoic principles there, focusing more on the reality of what *is* in the moment rather than the hunger for what isn't. To give a little example that I think works quite well: when I’m sitting there craving chocolate, I am definitely desiring it. But once I actually start eating that chocolate, the dynamic shifts. I essentially become one with the chocolate—metaphorically speaking, at least, though biologically it's quite literal. It becomes a part of me, and I am actively experiencing it. There’s really no reason left to pine for it when I can actually experience it so deeply. That chocolate becomes part of my physical being; it hits my taste buds, my palate, my tongue—it satisfies all my senses. It sends these signals to my brain, triggering a lovely little cascade of dopamine and all that wonderful neurobiology we know so well. Eventually, the chocolate is literally absorbed into my body, providing me with actual energy. You could still say I "desire" the chocolate in the sense that I am not rejecting it, but the restless longing is gone because I finally have the "real thing" right here in front of me.

Honestly, I don't think Lacan actually brought anything new to the table here.

It’s funny how often we fall into that trap where we spend all this energy convinced that we absolutely need something, only to finally get our hands on it and realize it wasn't actually what we were looking for at all. It’s like you chase this specific goal for months, thinking it’ll be this life-changing moment, but once it arrives, there's just this weird sense of emptiness because it turns out it wasn't "the one." That’s really the heart of the matter, isn't it? I’ve been spending quite a bit of time lately circling around the concept of the *objet petit a*, and honestly, it feels like one of those ideas that you think you’ve finally pinned down, only to have it slip right through your fingers the moment you try to grab it. It’s that elusive little thing—that tiny, nagging gap between what we actually have and the impossible perfection we feel is just out of reach. It isn't some tangible prize you can go out and buy at a Target or find on Amazon; it's more like the phantom itch of desire itself. You know that feeling when you’re scrolling through something online, thinking, "If I just had that one specific thing, everything would click," only to realize once it arrives that the satisfaction lasts about five seconds before your brain starts hunting for the next missing piece? That’s the essence of it. It’s the cause of our desire, rather than the object of it. We aren't really chasing the thing; we're chasing the feeling of wholeness that the thing promises but can never actually deliver. I was reading some stuff regarding Lacan the other day—and yes, I did spend way too long getting lost in those dense paragraphs—and it struck me how much this explains our modern obsession with constant consumption. We’re essentially running on a treadmill of longing, perpetually chasing a ghost that keeps moving just a step ahead of us. It’s a bit exhausting if you think about it too hard, which is probably why I usually prefer to just let these heavy thoughts simmer in the background while I focus on more practical things. But there's something strangely comforting about realizing that the "missing piece" might not even exist in the first place. It takes the pressure off, doesn't it?Honestly, I think that just points to a certain level of immaturity and lack of experience, probably driven by some kind of external manipulation. It’s like their desires aren't even their own; they're being steered by the people they're trying to keep up with—whether that's business partners, peers, or just their social circle. It's that classic idea of the desire of the Other, where you end up wanting exactly what someone else wants you to want. Or, you know, the mass media does the same thing, shaping our cravings so directly that we basically become puppets of what society tells us to crave. But, as I was saying before, this really only happens to people who haven't quite developed a solid enough sense of self or a structured personality. For someone who actually has a grounded identity, it doesn't really matter where the spark of that desire originally came from. What matters is that the desire stays consistent and feels authentically ours, rather than being this constantly shifting, fluid thing. In a way, that constant flux is exactly what fuels our capitalist system of mass consumption, because no matter what you buy, that specific object—that *objet petit a*—never actually turns out to be "the one."

Honestly, you don't even need to maintain some perfect, idealized image of someone. This "third thing" you’re bringing up—those little games and escapades—they can totally happen even after you've really gotten to know someone and seen them for who they actually are, without all the rose-colored glasses. The trick is that while different kinds of fantasies might bubble up, they’re just temporary. You aren't projecting those illusions onto your partner; instead, you both just kind of laugh about it, knowing it's just playing around with ideas. In fact, I see things quite differently than you do: I think these moments aren't just possible once you've bonded, they're actually *only* possible once you truly know the person. Otherwise, you don't really have a baseline to tell the difference between a "fantasy" and what's actually "real." Once you know each other deeply enough, you have that foundation to play with those fantasies yourselves, rather than letting those illusions run the show and dictate your relationship—which usually ends badly anyway, because when you start with that intense "infatuation," you always end up dealing with the inevitable crash when reality sets in.

Oh, you’re honestly hilarious...

I actually wrote this one silly little one-act mock-drama about the whole topic a long, long time ago, and then posted it on the forum not too long after that. It just goes to show how ridiculous the whole thing is and how much fun you can have poking fun at it—honestly, some Hollywood comedies have even used similar tropes, and I highly doubt people were sitting around studying Freud or Foucault to get those jokes right. Let me see if I can dig up the link for you. It might actually be right up your alley. 😁

Here, have a look:

link

😉

@Brandon Wright54 — by the way, okay, I get the whole love thing. But surely you aren't suggesting that once love enters the picture, it somehow completely rules out sex??! Because if that's the case, what else is making love if not having sex with someone you actually care about? I really hope you weren't implying that one excludes the other... In my view, you can only approach sex in two ways: "just fucking" (which is more like a structured form of masturbation, as Freud points out) or "making love" (which is the other side of the coin)... That's the gist of it, anyway...

Brandon Wright54 said:Blah blah🙂 I think there’s some logic to it once you actually sit down and look at it.

The reason I just wrote "bla bla" is honestly because I’ve read and written about this stuff so many times now that I'm getting a little bored with it, and I just didn't feel like rehashing the whole thing again. 🙂
Of course, what they're saying makes sense and holds weight, but it isn't some kind of universal law governing everything... Sexuality and how we express it comes in so many different shapes and sizes. The version Freud talks about feels almost specifically tailored to a consumerist society... There are so many different moments in life, and at the end of the day, you know yourself and your partner better than any textbook ever could... There are those times when it's just the two of you, when you're being truly intimate, looking into each other's eyes and just completely losing yourselves in one another... And while that idea that attraction always requires some sort of "fantasy" might hold up when you're looking at girls on posters, or maybe watching a movie, it's not really necessary for me when I'm with someone I love—someone where we can just be totally unfiltered, farting in front of each other and talking about absolutely anything, from the mysteries of the universe to our favorite bands, or even just how many times we had to run to the bathroom today... Those topics might seem trivial, but that's what makes life feel alive. When you look at it that way, all these heavy discussions about the real, the symbolic, and all those intense theorists and pseudo-philosophers lose their grip on me... I'm not saying philosophy isn't important—far from it, I actually adore it and spend quite a bit of my time immersed in it—but certain claims that basically say "this is just how it is, period" feel silly, pretentious, and a bit trendy to me. I rely on philosophy, but I'm talking about these rigid "concepts" or "sciences," etc. Philosophy is great because it stays vital and breathing, unlike some of these stiff, clinical disciplines.

I'm not trying to start an argument here; I'm just sharing my take on the whole thing. You have to learn how to engage with these ideas while keeping them in the right context... You shouldn't walk around expecting these thinkers to have known everything (or anything, for that matter) or believing that everything they say carries ultimate importance.

@na ofu - whose first quote is this from the link?

I don't really see eye to eye with him on this one, obviously... As for that part from Žižek down there, I actually know those bits by heart. I have massive, massive respect for him as a philosopher, but he does have this habit of throwing out a somewhat superficial claim—mostly just to stir the pot and get you digging deeper—that can be a little off, so there's definitely more nuance to it than that... It all stems from that famous Freudian catchphrase about how "sex is impossible," blah blah blah...

Regarding that link, specifically concerning jouissance:

Jouissance is basically that intense, almost jarring kind of pleasure—the sort of transgressive rush people get when they dive into things we don't usually bring up at the dinner table, like sex, violence, or even death. Now, beyond just having a standard set of ideas about how the world works, ideologies actually shape how we relate to this "Real of jouissance" if they want to stay relevant and keep going. To make matters even more interesting, Zizek contends that Thes Two registers of The real ara not The deepest; instead, he bundles them together under the label of "ideological fantasies" or "phantasms." You could say these fantasies act as a vital add-on to whatever ideology is in place. The funny thing is, the very fantasies that pull us into an ideology actually end up distorting its core principles. At its most fundamental level, the Real doesn't actually point to anything that exists outside the boundaries of the ideology itself. So in the last resort The real indicates The inherent and necessary finitude of The ideological fabric, whereas ideological fantasies work to mask that reality, making it seem like these issues are just random accidents or caused by some outside force acting against our community.

Jacob Newman77 said:Good grief, people, I just saw what you’ve all been posting here. Where do I even start? 🙂
mistyscout2: Great call on those links, those books look solid—definitely my reading list for August. A few more have arrived too 🙂 hopefully there will be plenty of new material for this topic 🙂

Sure, but how do you trigger that state without the help of those lovely little molecules?

Yeah, actually, I was reading something the other day suggesting humans might have had telepathic abilities once. If they did—not saying they did, just philosophizing here—they must have lost them because of all these intense fears and taboos. Just imagine what the world would think if everyone could suddenly read everyone else's minds? Total horror, right? Depends on who you ask, I guess.😁
I posted that Žižek book in English over on that other thread, go look for it... he pulled that specific sentence out of context; it stands alone and doesn't have much to do with the rest of the chapter. So let's just treat it that way, with free interpretations🙂 It resonates with me because I think it's pretty easy to see what lies beneath jealousy: insecurity, an inferiority complex, and, to use Lacanian terms, the desire for the desire of the Other..

As for the whole simulation thing and everything else, I’m going to sit back and digest your posts for a bit before I weigh in... though we could always spin off a new thread from this conversation over in the philosophy section. What do you think, mistyscout2?

@Brandon Wright54: I am eagerly awaiting your deep dive into the hysterical position, women, and all that other good stuff.🙂

Personally, I'm down for that, though I feel like it might be cleaner if we just started a dedicated thread there and kept this one focused on its current path. We could move things over, but you'd have to clear it with Whereabout first—since she's the moderator, she’s the one who decides which specific posts (by number) should be migrated to the philosophy board to kick off a simulation discussion. Still, I worry that if we move too much, we might lose the context or ruin the flow of how these ideas actually came up. It might be better to let our conversation here stay organic and authentic, and then we can open a separate, formal discussion on simulation over in the philosophy section. "Be my guest"—as an Englishman might say (it sounds absolutely ridiculous when translated literally, but it's pretty funny 🙂).

Right now, I've been dwelling on something for quite a while: the radical divide between analytic and continental philosophy, and whether it's actually possible to build a bridge between them (I think some people are trying, anyway). I'm also chewing on a critique of absolute naturalistic epistemology... I've been thinking about starting a blog, but then again...

Has anyone else started picking up on the theory that these games are totally rigged? It feels like the big players in the betting industry have it all mapped out, using specific symbols that are only visible to those who are truly "in the loop."

Think about an octopus; it has eight tentacles. If you take those eight and divide them by two—since there are two teams playing in a sport like soccer—you get four. Divide that by two again, and you’ve got the two teams facing off in the championship. Divide it one more time, and you land on one: the winner. In my mind, the very symbolism of the number eight in an octopus is a subtle way of signaling that "They" know exactly what's coming, and they're leaving breadcrumbs for those who are observant enough to see them. You can even draw a line from the Octopus to the October Revolution:

While most people assume the February and October Revolutions were just direct fallout from World War I, official documents from the Russian Empire actually tell a much more complex story. After the unrest of 1905 was suppressed through heavy-handed state crackdowns, things seemed to settle down for a moment, but the situation was quietly spiraling out of control for the ruling elite. Throughout 1910, Russia saw about 222 strikes, with only 8 of those being classified as political. By 1913, however, the number of strikes had exploded to 2,404, and the police labeled 1,034 of them as political. Moving into the first half of 1914 alone, up until August, there were 3,534 strikes, 2,565 of which were deemed political. All in all, Russia was right on the precipice of revolution when the war broke out, yet even the Tsar seemed oblivious because the 1913 police reports were claiming that civil unrest was actually trending downward, suggesting everything could be handled without needing military intervention.

To me, this just goes to show that these "rigged" setups are often deeply political, and that the octopus is speaking a language meant only for those who are already initiated into the truth.