Posts by hiddenhound3

Peter Phillips32 said:Just wanted to jump back in here and follow up on post number 6.
It’s pretty much common knowledge that when you talk to women about their sexual fantasies, same-sex attraction pops up more often than you'd think. Honestly, we don't even have solid numbers for guys because, let's face it, most dudes aren't exactly running to a therapist or a forum to vent about their deepest thoughts and feelings—they just keep it bottled up.

As far as I'm concerned, sex is basically the ultimate level of intimacy you can reach with another human being. You've got no walls up, no defensive mechanisms running; you're just raw. Think of it this way: sex is how you truly round out a connection with someone. And look, it doesn't matter if you're hitting that level of closeness with a guy, a girl, or a whole group of people.
I mean, the whole point of having sex isn't just about making babies, so it's obviously used for way more than just reproduction.
Up until now, I haven't seen much actual criticism here, aside from the usual unhinged nonsense coming from those "holier-than-thou" types who think they're morally superior to everyone else.

If you want to look at it through a different lens—like how we control our own muscles, emotions, and thoughts—it works similarly. If you can associate the act of sex with the opposite sex in a way that triggers arousal, then sure, you can also trigger that same response with the same sex, or with both. That's essentially how you end up with hetero, homo, or bisexual orientations.
For anyone who thinks this theory sounds a bit out there, just take a second to really think about how and when sexual orientation actually develops in the first place.

A few random things to chew on:
The brain is hands down the most powerful aphrodisiac out there.
From a physiological standpoint, male nerve endings run from the base of the penis all the way through to the anus—both externally and internally.

(sarcastic) p.s.
Wondering why there seem to be more bisexual women than men? It's probably because "macho" guys are too busy playing the role of the big, tough provider who only knows how to give, never receive. They've gotta stay "strong," right?

During my own period of exploring my sexual identity, I experimented quite extensively. I also have numerous female friends who felt deeply confused about their orientation during late puberty or early adolescence; very few could claim with absolute certainty that they were strictly heterosexual, and I know for a fact that many of us fantasized about homosexual encounters. In the end, however, 99% of us reached the conclusion that a man is indispensable. 😳 To be perfectly honest, I don't know a single woman who remained in a lesbian relationship. While I cannot say for certain why this phenomenon occurs, I do know that it is by no means an uncommon occurrence.

slywolf45 said:Well, you certainly find all kinds out there.😬

Honestly, I probably would have died of sheer boredom this Sunday afternoon if I hadn't stumbled upon you people.😁

If you really want to know what I would have done, I would have practiced my trombone, tidied up the house, prepared a nice lunch, and taken a relaxing bath. As it stands, I have accomplished nothing at all. 😠

I am heading out now before it gets dark. 😬

Bob everyone 😏 👋

Lisa Hernandez3 said:🤷 ...the deceit and everything else seems to go hand-in-hand with how they try to overcomplicate the topics and act intellectually superior.

I don't entirely agree with that first part—actually, those people often have quite a wide range of opportunities and deep interests. That’s probably why you can’t just write them off. It's easy enough to ignore total idiots—people you wouldn't want to deal with anyway, whom you can just disdain (though, let's face it, it's easy to feel disdained these days, too). To me, the bigger issue is the people who possess great qualities and social potential, but end up blowing it all because of their inflated sense of self and some sort of rigid, bureaucratic cowardice.
(I know, maybe that was a bit much and a little too obvious. 😁)

That spark in the eye—absolutely! We could look at it this way: who are we to steal anyone's spark? Even from the ones who troll us or look down on us. 🤷 Perhaps we should just float along in a sort of Zen masochism, playing the martyr and offering the high road until they finally show they actually have one. 🤣

😕

Regarding negative attention, I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Sure, I’d love to believe it counts as attention regardless of the flavor, but if I had the choice, I’d definitely pick the positive kind, thanks. 🙂

I find myself entirely unimpressed by dialectical prowess or an endless deluge of information; there is no shortage of intelligent people in this world, yet I consider those who squander their intellect on trivialities to be even greater fools than those who simply make mistakes out of ignorance.🤷

I am afraid we are not on the same page here, as my stance is neither rooted in Christian nor Zen masochism. Quite simply, I find such behavior repulsive, and the idea of mimicking the very individuals I despise never crosses my mind. I fail to grasp the logic behind attempting to disparage someone on a personal level 🤷 Or the persistent drive to force confrontational situations and incite conflict—to what end? 😕 Such tendencies merely reveal the internal turmoil of those who derive a sense of fulfillment from such combative communication. There are certain individuals on this forum whom I find genuinely unpleasant, but that is precisely why I choose to avoid them altogether.

Rachel Sullivan2 said:

I don't even know where to start with this one. Honestly, I’m just sitting here staring at my screen, fuming. It’s like some people just wake up every day and decide that common sense isn't part of their toolkit. You see it everywhere lately—this total lack of awareness, this complete disregard for how things actually work in the real world. It’s exhausting. It reminds me of those situations where you try to follow the rules, you do everything by the book, and then someone comes along, ignores every single guideline, and somehow walks away scot-free while you're left holding the bag. It’s infuriating. It’s like trying to drive on a highway where half the people think stop signs are merely "suggestions." You can't run a functional society—or even a decent conversation—when everyone is playing by their own set of imaginary rules. I'm not just venting for the sake of venting, though God knows I feel like it. There’s a pattern here. A pattern of incompetence and pure, unadulterated laziness. We're talking about fundamental stuff, the kind of things you'd expect any adult to grasp, yet here we are. It’s a joke. A bad one. And frankly, I'm tired of being the only one noticing how ridiculous it all is. kaže:
This sounds straight-up immoral! Seriously, why am I not getting those kinds of promos? 😠
🤣

I mean, if that's what you're calling a "sparkle" in your eye, then honestly? I’m kind of terrified. It looks more like a flickering lightbulb in a haunted basement than actual enthusiasm. 🤣
I don't even know where to start with this mess. It’s like watching a slow-motion train wreck where everyone involved is too busy arguing about the color of the wreckage to actually pull the brakes. You see it all over the news lately—just constant, mindless noise that serves absolutely zero purpose other than to get people riled up. It’s exhausting. It reminds me of those old sitcoms where the plot only moves forward because someone had to scream at a wall for ten minutes. Except in real life, nobody is laughing, and the "plot" is just us getting more and more divided while the people in charge sit back and collect their paychecks. We’re being played, plain and simple. Every time I think we've hit rock bottom with the level of nonsense being pushed on us, someone finds a new way to dig deeper. It’s a cycle, a loop, a complete circus. And honestly? I'm tired of being part of the audience.

Honestly? It’s way harder to see your own value. Like, seriously. Most people spend their entire lives staring into a cracked mirror, obsessing over every single flaw, every mistake, and every tiny imperfection. We’re basically wired to be our own worst critics. You can list your shortcomings like you’re reading a grocery list—"I'm lazy, I'm late, I'm a mess"—because those things feel heavy and obvious. They hit you right in the gut. But trying to actually acknowledge your own worth? That’s a whole different beast. It feels almost arrogant, doesn't it? It’s like trying to look at a sunset through a lens that’s covered in mud. You know the beauty is there, but you just can't quite wrap your head around the fact that *you* are part of that beauty. People will tell you you're great, and instead of believing them, you’ll start looking for the catch. You'll think they're just being nice or that they don't see the "real" you. It’s easier to dwell on the negatives because failure feels familiar. It’s comfortable in its own miserable way. But recognizing your value? That requires a level of mental toughness most people haven't even touched. It’s about standing in front of a mirror and actually owning your wins without feeling like a fraud. Trust me, spotting your flaws is easy work; seeing your light is where the real struggle begins.

Values? Absolutely. It’s the whole damn point. 🙂
That’s the only way you’re ever gonna wrap your head around the fact that someone else is actually more upright and better than you are. 🙂

Well, actually, my eyes are quite dull🤣 yet they possess a certain fluorescent quality that allows them to glow in the dark.😈
Anyway, I am heading out now.👋

Rachel Sullivan2 said:I don't doubt it for a second 🤣
that nobody's actually seen anyone find real happiness in this life. 🤣

Any amateur can play the part, which I already proved by posting that one thing and deleting it immediately. 🥳

Ooooh... but then there are those "brave" souls who fearlessly slide into DMs for their chosen inner circle 😁
just flooding them with harmless little observations, of course 😁
and staying on call 😁 body and soul 😁

Self-control and having a civilized discussion is a much tougher discipline to master, and it doesn't come cheap. 😉

But honestly? Being able to actually recognize your own worth is the hardest skill of all. 🙂

This sounds downright immoral! Why am I not receiving such private messages? 😠
🤣

yet the capacity to recognize one's own inherent value remains the most difficult task of all🙂

What is your take—do you believe it is more challenging to recognize one's own worth or one's own shortcomings?

Rachel Sullivan2 said:Facts. 🙂

I'm probably never gonna post about this kind of stuff on a forum, God knows why. 🤣

I swear to you, I will never write something like this again, but mark my words, I guarantee that what I have already provided was more than sufficient.🤣

Kajlat can be handled by any amateur, which I demonstrated quite clearly with the post I deleted immediately afterward. 🥳
Maintaining self-control and engaging in civilized discussion is a significantly more difficult discipline, and it certainly does not come without a price.😉

Lisa Hernandez3 said:Yes. The whole "uptight" thing was mentioned. But honestly, hardly anyone bothers those types; people either avoid their threads or subtly undermine them. Usually, though, they’re just so rigid that eventually, someone calls them out on it, and maybe—just maybe—they soften up and become a bit more social. I think the issue raised in the original post usually stems from people who are lively enough to participate, but have this one critical trait: perhaps they don't react quite warmly enough to certain flatteries, or maybe they pick and choose which topics to join, which leads others to view them as standoffish or "exclusive." Or, conversely, they might participate without much filter—writing about fine art one minute and teeth whitening the next—which some people find unappealing. Maybe they have specific interests, an education, or life experiences that make them a bit "intense" when discussing certain subjects. Or perhaps they dare to assert something that isn't the main focus of a particular group on the forum at that moment, and they stick to their guns even at the risk of being sidelined.🤷 They end up being seen as eccentrics, or they irritate (or disappoint, I suppose) people so much that everyone feels a bit tense whenever they pop up in a thread again.

It isn't very popular to bring this up, since it’s often inaccurate, but there is definitely jealousy (or malice) involved, along with misinterpretations of people's intentions, petty gatekeeping, and people simply taking the path of least resistance. 🤷 There are also small personal agendas at play, and I'm fairly certain there are always underlying interests involved. Sometimes those interests are just seeking tiny bits of validation through small forum victories, while other times, it’s about accumulating a series of wins—which can become a bit of a power trip. 😉

Oh, please—talking about "victories" on some random Kajlat forum? 🤣 I truly have nothing but respect for those who find fulfillment in such meager crumbs; such individuals clearly possess very narrow horizons and incredibly modest interests. 😳
Personally, I maintain that one should strive for contentment, as that spark in one's eye is an invaluable asset. In fact, I even find myself feeling a sense of gratification when someone gives me a Kajlat—after all, attention is attention, regardless of whether it carries a negative connotation. 😁

Drew Morgan said:Quote

Yeah, it happened with you too—and two other people. As for the forum users? I’ve got a couple of moderators breathing down my neck like debt collectors.

That level of aggression and that specific way of communicating immediately triggers my "polite contempt" mode. It’s fine, though; I don't even let it get under my skin. It’s tedious, sure, but honestly? I'm over it.

Quote

You just handed me the answer in the next paragraph.

Honestly, this just isn't happening for me. I’ve thought about it, and the answer is no. Legion tried to pin this on me, but that’s a total reach. His topics are actually pretty interesting, but when he starts peddling his "life recipes"—which anyone could do—I react to the advice itself, not to Legion. I don't even mind the guy, provided you can find the humor in his lectures.

You asked me if it was possible for someone to be named Abraham, yet I noticed you questioning another user about whether a certain name was even plausible.

Your contribution to this discussion dropped to zero; all that remained was your sheer irritation and blatant frustration. I told you then: the issue isn't with Abraham, me, or anyone else in the lineup—the issue is you.

Looking at this thread, specifically that first paragraph, it's clear you're just projecting your own annoying habits onto everyone else.

You have articulated that beautifully; it is a particular brand of aggression that isn't even truly passive.

slywolf45 said:😲
Good grief, that’s actually worse than being attacked directly.👎

I’m not typically one to lean on the "ignore" button—usually, I just mentally tune out people who get under my skin while still reading their posts—but in a situation like this, I might actually consider using it.

To be fair, I try to avoid them as much as possible myself.

I would certainly be happy to do the same, but since I serve as a moderator, I am unable to 😢
Furthermore, she continues to engage in behavior that is utterly irrational; she projects her own animosity or intolerance onto me, claiming that I am the one who cannot stand her, which is a completely distorted perception.

Honestly, I avoid them as much as humanly possible.

That is perfectly reasonable; one has their own interests and gravitates toward the specific topics and subforums they care about, whereas this bizarre fixation on a single individual feels like a parasitic tick.😳
I will admit that I do check profiles occasionally, though I only look at those I find interesting or whose contributions I genuinely enjoy reading.🙂 My motivation for interacting is never to provoke a confrontation, but rather to facilitate a pleasant exchange of ideas.

I am of the belief that nearly everyone has encountered this particular pattern of behavior at some point in their lives.
I am currently dealing with a specific woman on this forum who possesses an incredibly short fuse, a caustic tongue, and a deeply unpleasant disposition—traits she seemingly wears as a badge of honor. I have noticed her tracking my activity; she reads my posts and then migrates to the very threads I am participating in, where she pretends to speak generally while actually discussing me in the third person. She attempts to use opinions I expressed in entirely unrelated discussions to disqualify me from debates, mocking and trivializing my points. It is, quite frankly, the ultimate expression of malice, perfidy, and cowardice.
There is something inherently pathological and twisted about this kind of stalking and sabotage, as if these individuals lack sufficient excitement in their own lives and must manufacture conflict through intentional provocation. I cannot say 🤷 I haven't clashed with many people on this platform myself, but I feel absolutely no compulsion to stalk them, monitor their presence across different threads, or scrutinize their every word.

dustyskipper3 said:It’s tied back to those old myths about descending into the underworld and the later Orphic legends—ideas involving the reincarnation of souls and the whole concept of metempsychosis.

I suppose that "turning back" might symbolize a psychological process of detachment, or what we call splitting (Spaltung). It's that move toward abstract thought where the subject separates itself from the object—from reality itself—which ends up being a sort of punishment, an isolation from that very reality (the object of desire). In a way, it feels like a condemnation of pure reason, whereas the Orpheus myth serves as a tribute to mystical trust. His lyre represents this ability to master the world through something beyond mere intellect, maintaining unity with everything around him and even overcoming death itself.

In patients dealing with schizophrenia, this "splitting" eventually manifests as a "bronze wall" or an "icy wall" standing between them and everyone else. Faces start looking like they were "cut out of cardboard," people look like puppets, and trees or bushes seem just like flat cardboard cutouts. Objects, sounds, and living beings all feel "sliced apart." It makes me think of Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt, I guess. It's as if people whose illness is rooted in this analytical separation of self from others eventually end up seeing everyone else as inanimate objects—just pillars of salt. You see this kind of splitting in the Rorschach test too, specifically in Card III, where one should see waiters or similar figures, but instead, the subject sees things in a fractured way—just a head, a neck, some hands—which eventually leads into what is called the "sword complex."

On the other hand, the descent—like when Orpheus goes down into Hades—belongs to a different set of symbols, more feminine ones. This stands in contrast to the schizomorphic types, who are associated with "symbols of ascent" and heroic themes. That’s why Plato accuses Orpheus of having "insufficient masculinity"; he didn't simply agree to die to be reunited with his beloved, but instead descends, "like a woman," trying to "trick the gods" to pull her back into the light. So, his loss of his beloved Eurydice is essentially the gods' revenge. It fits perfectly into the symbolism of the "cheated trickster," or the "bound binder," the "robbed thief," and so on. We see similar logic in American proverbs like "what goes around comes around" or "he who digs a pit for others falls into it himself." It really deals with the symbolism of the womb, libido, and a sort of double negation—a euphemism where the negative becomes positive. The descent becomes a path toward the Absolute, while the ascent actually destroys the Absolute. For instance, you could say Jesus' death on the cross becomes the very means to triumph over death itself and the evil that death brings.

Turning back would signify a lack of faith. It would be like someone being crucified and suddenly deciding the whole mission is pointless, choosing to save their own life instead of saving the world.

Upon further reading, I discovered that salt is actually the seasoning of life, suggesting that being transformed into a pillar of salt carries a much deeper symbolic weight than it appears on the surface. Yahweh could have just as easily turned her into a pillar of stone, yet he chose salt; perhaps because she wasn't made of stone, she was SALT—she was comprised entirely of a longing for a life she should never have looked back upon, a life that was over-seasoned and over-spiced by desire. I sometimes draw a parallel here to people who have a particular craving for highly seasoned, salty, and spicy foods.
That said, the question remains: why does looking back "kill"?

The act of looking back occupies a profoundly significant position within mythologies across the globe. In the Hebrew tradition, Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt simply by glancing backward; in Greek lore, Orpheus condemned Eurydice to an eternal residence in Hades with a single, fatal look; and according to legend, the final Milarepin teacher was an old man who refused to ever turn his head.

What is the true significance of looking back?

It is my understanding that this particular medication is utilized in the treatment of bipolar disorder..

Michael Ortiz68 said:Just finished watching Mia teaches statistics. It’s original and charming enough—I don't have any real complaints... but I still think Bruce Lee holds the throne.
Now I just need to get around to catching Warrior Time 🙂

It really is a fantastic little movie.😍

movie character

steelridge58 said:Honestly, I think we should focus more on teaching logic to elementary schoolers—but specifically *their* logic! We need to nurture that natural curiosity they have and use it as a bridge to introduce them to the actual world of knowledge. In that sense, I think the "step-by-step" programs some of our local public schools implement through fourth grade are actually quite wonderful for developing various skills, though the real headache starts when they move up because the curriculum stops supporting that creative, hands-on approach. It can make it pretty tough for kids to adjust to the rigid, traditional way things are done later on, but hey, I suppose that’s still better than overwhelming them with heavy-duty requirements that are way too advanced for their age right out of the gate.

Children need to be allowed to play, socialize, and learn spontaneously for as long as possible, developing the creativity and sensitivity that will eventually serve as both their toolkit and their weapon in the real world. I fear, however, that our American mindset tends to instill the exact opposite within our educational system. Children are practically being stripped away from their childhood, when we should truly be striving to let them remain children for as long as we can.

Naked Lunch

Based on the novel Gol ručak by William S. Burroughs. imdb link

Absolutely essential Pink Flamingos, along with all the films by Bele Tarar, Andrei Tarkovsky, Taxidermia, and those by the same director, G. Palfi Hukkle or The Hiccup🤣 (where not a single word is spoken throughout the entire movie, so you won't even need subtitles
).

dustyskipper3 said:Are you familiar with what mandalas actually are?
It isn't just limited to Buddhism; other belief systems touch on them too, I suppose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandala

The visualization and concretization of The mandala Concept is One of The most significant contributions of Buddhism to Transpersonal Psychology. Mandalas are seen as sacred places which, by their very presence in the world, remind a viewer of the immanence of sanctity in the universe and its potential in his or her self. In The context of The Buddhist path, the purpose of a mandala is to put an end to human suffering, to attain enlightenment, and to attain a correct view of reality. It is a means to discover divinity by the realization that divinity resides within one's own self.

Perhaps the Sirius collection could also become a sort of sacred thing, maybe... something that reminds us of how sanctity is always present in space and its potential within ourselves. But, there might come a moment where a mandala needs to be destroyed, much like a snake sheds its skin just to keep growing. Or perhaps to head in a new direction entirely. You can tell that moment has arrived when the mandala stops being an exit from suffering or a path toward enlightenment, and instead, begins to cause suffering, binding us to a cycle of illusion or samsara. Maybe the Sirius collection is one such illusion. I guess we outgrow our own works too, eventually. We aren't at that same spiritual level anymore once we've finished them. Many writers never even look back at their old stuff, and if they do, it's almost like they feel someone else wrote it. There are times when it feels necessary to burn one's own work—not literally, I mean, but internally. Once it's written, you've already let go and moved past it, moving in a new direction, kind of like... well, forgive me, but like when you relieve yourself. And then some editor comes along and packages it all up nicely so others might buy it and feed off it. Until they get bored of it too, I suppose, and just toss it all into the river.

According to Jung, a mandala serves as an expression of the self. They are typically circular, and I have always perceived them as a circular—or perhaps spiral—movement toward the center; or, to borrow once more from Jung, a movement toward individuation. Is the act of creation itself a form of individuation? I would argue that it absolutely is. 🤷

Here is a particularly beautiful one:



To expand further on the relationship between Jung, the mandala, and our attachment to our own creative output: circling endlessly around one's own body of work is essentially nothing more than circling the traces of one's own self.

Peter Phillips32 said:The thing is, creations can only ever have an assigned identity, because they aren't independent thinking entities capable of interacting with some other similar entity on their own.

It’s all ego, really—this idea that the ego is just a projection of the past and the future, which means it doesn't actually exist in the present. More specifically, the ego is just a collection of thoughts where we project our "ideal" versus our "real" selves, and you can only truly think about the past or the future; in the actual present moment, there is only action.

And another thing: ownership isn't some inherent right a person just possesses. It's more like a privilege where you can use an object, a plot of land, or a car for your own purposes as long as you remain in harmony with your environment.
So, you can't actually lose anything because you don't truly possess it in the first place—things just change. Ownership is just a temporary state, not some permanent thing.

I certainly grasp the essence of your point, though I find myself unable to agree entirely. It seems to me that people err when they attempt to identify themselves with their possessions, the works of art they have produced, or most frequently, their own physical bodies; consequently, they perceive any detachment from these things as a loss of self, which is fundamentally an illusion.