Baller

My question to ascertain where you are stabilized is "how do you currently experience "I""? Is there a center that you experience? I'm not talking about intellectual knowledge but actual subjective experience. Can you find a center that implies a separate self, ever? Sometimes? Never?

It's virtue signaling for the most part. It's absurd to think your gf's individual actions make a difference when China is building 247 GW of coal plants. It's simply feel-good crap for people who feel guilty for some - any - reason. Sure, I'd like to see electric cars and non-fossil fuel power plants dominate as soon as possible, but I can't take that kind of asceticism seriously: it's more about personal psychology than results.

LOA is simply "remove the inner resistance to what you would like to manifest." Why is there inner resistance? Because of unintegrated aspects of the psyche which are in conflict. You may consciously want something, but your unconscious is against it. So you need to get the unconscious onboard.

The Enlightenment For Dummies answer is that "no, that's Leo's bullshit." Solipsism is the philosophy of psychic inflation, i.e. The Cosmic Ego. Enlightenment is seeing through the ego, the local or the cosmic.

Yeah, the whole "I am God" thing is very much a Leoism, i.e. an artifact of psychic inflation. The thought "I" ceases to exist internally at some point (although one still obviously uses it in conversation, but it is understood to be a social construct, not an existential reality. You understand it as just a social avatar.) I know I used to be able to think "I" and it used to mean something but now when I consciously try to think "I" all that triggers is the experience that there's only one field of awareness permeating everything, or however you want to call it. There is ONLY GOD if you prefer -- not I AM GOD.

Nope. Nope. Sure. But they cannot have both freedom and simultaneously demand a special environment that imposes on others. That's called "asking for privilege." See #3. Everyone is "sensitive, traumatized or vulnerable" to some degree. I am as well. The difference is that I'm not asking for special treatment because I feel I'm entitled to it. If I don't like what someone is posting, I can block them or stop responding. You first. Your comments on this subject reek of entitlement and victim privilege. They are a form of passive bullying, i.e. CRYBULLYING. You should recognize that the world doesn't owe you anything -- only then will your mental health begin to improve.

In my opinion, it really does depend on the physiology of the individual. It's for some people, not for all or even most.

Vulnerable people shouldn't go online. They need to be seeing a psychiatrist or psychotherapist, who can assist them in making connections with supportive people. "Well, they can't because..." Sorry, no. The world cannot be childproofed for a small minority of people. This idea that anything good can come from "treating yourself" by going on forums needs to die already, it's utter BS. Even if there isn't outright triggering or abusing, the potential for really bad advice is massive.

Absolutely not true. Kentucky has just passed a bipartisan due process law, as one example. https://www.thefire.org/kentucky-governor-signs-historic-bipartisan-campus-due-process-bill-into-law/ So this is the state government stepping in and addressing the lack of due process on college campuses. Oh please, don't give me that cant. Go take a look at the FIRE website that I linked above and then tell me that attacks on free speech are somehow indicative of students becoming "more open to other points of view." You're pretty much proving my point about indoctrination. There is zero in that statement that a person who thinks for themselves would utter, it is so cut-and-paste.

Universities are not the real world, they are little indoctrination factories for impressionable young minds. Places that suspend all due process to train little totalitarians.

OK, cool. Have you ever been to a club?

I don't think there's anything clear about it unless you have their alcohol blood levels. They could be pretending to be drunk for whatever reason (to give themselves permission to act out, whatever.) I'm just not a consent extremist, sorry. Let's stop pretending that club girls don't go to clubs to make out with guys if there's an opportunity.

You're assuming that they're drunk by how they are acting. How do you know they are even drunk then?

I love to trash Leo as much as the next guy, but those are a nothingburger. The girls are not incapacitated, just drunk. One kisses him back and the other tells him not to use tongue. That is not "inablity to give consent." Don't see anything illegal. Look up Nevada laws on consent if you want.

Do you have a link?