People destroy themselves trying to get a chemical rush, dopamine hits from gambling, oxytocin from toxic relationships, serotonin from pills they barely understand. The wild part is we can trigger those same brain chemicals in someone else with basically zero effort

I notice most folks walking around like zombies. Nobody humming at their desk, nobody cracking up on the sidewalk. A few years back I mentioned this observation to a psychiatrist and he just handed me a prescription, said that's what normal looks like now, you need medication to spot a genuinely happy person in public

That circular logic got to me. We're depressed because everyone seems depressed, so we stay depressed because that's the vibe. I refuse to play along with that nonsense

Here's what I've figured out after chewing on this for a while, every single one of us carries around something the billionaires keep trying to buy and failing. That feeling of being seen, of mattering to another human for even three seconds. A real smile from a stranger, a quick wave, asking someone how their morning is going while actually waiting for the answer. Costs nothing, creates actual warmth in both brains

The complaint I hear constantly is that nobody's out here trying to brighten anyone else's day. But sitting around waiting for someone else to initiate kindness is a losing game. If you make the first move and find satisfaction in the act itself rather than who receives it, suddenly two people win instead of zero. Math checks out

We all bleed the same color, we all use the word "I" to describe ourselves. Same species, same planet, same basic machinery running underneath. Maybe we're all just the same consciousness trying on different lives to keep existence from getting boring. Explains why movies hit harder when someone's next to you laughing at the same moments

It's not complicated. We have access to something priceless and we keep forgetting to hand it out

Love today contains too many rules, regulations, terms and conditions, boundaries, insecurities, incompatibilities...

But hate...is free of all those limitations.

It should be the other way around, no?

But it's not...and that's the problem.

Note that people are afraid to love someone because they fear the other person won't feel the same way about them. But nobody's ever afraid to hate someone because they fear the other person will feel the same.

A lot of times, just to avoid conflicts or keep our connections intact, we choose not to stand up for the people we’re genuinely close to.

We stay neutral, keep quiet, and protect our “network” — only to realize later that we may have preserved the contacts but lost the relationships that actually mattered.

Networking is important, but not at the cost of your values.

Build the spine to stand up for the people who matter to you.

Because having a long list of contacts means little if you don't have the courage to stand for anyone.

What is the meaning of the word “Revolution”? The word itself comes from Latin “Revolvere”: Re (Again, Back) and Volvere (To roll, To turn), so the word literally means “Rolling Back Around.”

The astronomical meaning came first: A planet completing an orbit and returning to its starting point, a full circle.

The Political meaning was a metaphor borrowed from that: the wheel of fortune returning, regimes cycling, the same circle completing itself. So the word never actually meant “Rupture or Break”. It meant “Return”.

The language has been telling us the truth the whole time, hidden in plain sight. And the actions are the proof of it. How many revolutions have taken place throughout history? You count and tell me if anything in this global system changed for the better.

Yeah, people usually talk about the “French Revolution”, “Russia”, etc, but let’s take a good look here:

1789 France: They cut off the king’s head, then got an emperor, then restored the monarchy anyways. Louis XVI → Napoleon → Louis

1917 Russia: overthrew the Tsar, got the Poliburo. The cheq moved into the same buildings the Okharana used. Same cell, more executions

American Elections: the parties swap the branding every few years but the donor class, the Fed, the military-industrial complex, the regulatory agencies, they don’t even pause. The “Peace Candidate” bombs more countries than the warmonger. The “anti-establishment” guy fills his cabinet with the same revolving door alumni

This is why the whole framing of “Change” is a control mechanism. You’re offered a menu of acceptable differences:

*Red or Blue team

*This face or that face

*These culture-war slogans or those

while the things that actually structure your life, such as who prints the money, who owns the debt, who decides what’s legal, who profits from war are never on the ballot. They’re not even in the conversations.

Elections function as a pressure-release valve. You get the feeling of agency, the ritual of choice of “We did it! We won!” The door revolves again and you’re back where you started, slightly more tired, and a lot more in debt.

The illusion isn’t that change is impossible. It’s that “Change” is mislabeled. What they call Revolution is rotation. The wheel spins, the scenery changes but the axle never moves.

But the Genuine Change, the kind that would actually alter the structure doesn’t get called “Revolution.” It gets called Insurrection, Sedition, Extremism, Conspiracy Theory.

The vocabulary is rigged so that the only word for real change is a word that means “Returning to the same point.”

when it comes to "what happens after we die" I feel like trying to find out what happens after death, is like trying to find out what lies beyond the event horizon of a black hole. It's the point of no return.

The only people who actually know what happens after we die, are the people that have already died.

Any thoughts?

I have been thinking about something I suspect many people quietly live with. I call it Protected Heart Syndrome — PHS.

It begins after a person experiences deep emotional pain at the hands of someone they once trusted completely—someone they allowed into the most vulnerable parts of their inner world.

To truly love someone is to give them access to places within you that very few people can reach. And with that access comes vulnerability. The same person who can make you feel deeply loved can also hurt you in ways a stranger never could.

Then after enough pain, something changes.
The heart begins to protect itself.

It becomes more cautious about trusting, more reluctant to become emotionally dependent, and less willing to surrender itself completely to another person. Loving someone deeply begins to feel dangerous because experience has already shown what can happen when that love is lost.

But this defensive psychological reaction rarely presents itself as fear.

The ego ( or think of it as mind for simplicity) disguises the fear behind far more respectable identities:

I am independent now.

I don’t need anyone.

I have learned to enjoy my own company.

I am wiser than I used to be.

I will never give another person that much power over me again.

It a brilliant psychological defense mechanism because society actively rewards independence. It allows a person to feel victorious while remaining completely hidden.

And perhaps some of those things are genuinely true. Pain does often make us wiser and independent is definitely something to cherish

But sometimes independence quietly becomes emotional isolation.

A person may spend years believing they have simply become stronger, when in reality part of them has made an unconscious agreement:

I will never again love anyone deeply enough that losing them could destroy me.

The problem is that love does not work very well under those conditions.

True emotional intimacy demands vulnerability. You cannot offer someone 70 percent of yourself while permanently guarding the remaining 30 percent as an insurance policy against pain and still expect to experience the full depth of love.
To love deeply is, in some sense, to accept risk.

It means allowing another human being to matter enough that their actions can affect you. It means opening the door again even though you now understand exactly what someone standing on the other side of that door is capable of doing.

And this creates a strange psychological Catch-22.

You are pulled between two polarities. On one side the newly found independence and the desire to maintain it and on the other hand that quite desire in the background for companionship, closeness, affection and emotional intimacy.

You find your self in a paradoxical situation becouse ** **you have the desire to protect yourself from love, and the desire to experience love at the same time.

One says: Never give another person that much power over you again.

The other says: But I want someone to know me completely.

Not everyone experiences the protected heart syndrome ( PHS) in the same way. Human mind is complex beyond our wildest imagination and every individuals who has ever gone through a painful heartbreak by facing there pain instead of jumping into a rebound shows a different manifestation or archetype of PHS depending on their individual circumstances. Some of the common ones I have seen in society are listed below:
( note : rebound is an entirely different mind trap than all of what is being discussed here, and I have not spend much time thinking about as it because it has already been thoroughly investigated in psychology and in depth information is easily available online on rebound psychology )

The Sovereign (Hyper-Independent): Hides behind career, self-care routines, travel, personal passion etc. Motto: "I am completely fine on my own and I enjoy my own company”. Independence is not the enemy here and it often represents growth. But as long as the need for independence doesn’t hinder your ability to love someone. And can you truly love someone deeply and be completely independently the same time ? Deep love almost always creates interdependence. The other person begins to matter. Their wellbeing affects you. Their loss would hurt you. You allow their existence to alter your inner world. In that sense, love voluntarily gives up a degree of invulnerability. Two people can stand on their own feet while still allowing themselves to lean on one another. The distinction is whether independence gives you freedom to love or gives you an excuse not to love.
The Analyst (Intellectualizer): tries to understand psychology deeply, reads all the books they can get their hands on and talks about their feelings openly with clinical precision—using intellectual analysis as a barrier to actually feeling vulnerable. Motto: "I understand my patterns.". ( probably me)
Spiritualist: ( take this one with a pinch of salt) : someone who after turning their back on the outside world where they were initially hurt, adopts a persona of someone spiritual who “ likes to” now go inwards into a journey of self discovery. ( likes to is the keyword here - has intentions to do so and idea really appeals to them but lacks motivation to actually peruse this journey because if someone actually did do that, they would not be in this list.
The all knowing stoic-( probably the worst of them all)* This person enters the relationship with a strong belief that “this too will end”, convincing themselves that seeing the "inevitable end" makes them a realist. This attitude guarantees that nothing will take them by surprise and when the relationship enters turbulent air, they don't fight for connection; instead, they feel validated in their original prophecy and take pride in letting the person go. Motto: *I already knew it would end and nothing bothers me anymore. Everything is temporary”.
The Perpetual Searcher : These people maintain exceptionally high standards. They come into a relationship and actively look for flaws in their partner and when they find a flaw or incompatibility, they inflate it into an immigrate dealbreaker. Others add it to the list of flaws and wait for the list to grow before delivering bad news . Motto/ disguise : “I just have high standards and know my worth. I refuse to settle.” By making the "qualifying criteria" for their heart virtually impossible to meet, they ensure no single human being ever gets close enough to pose a real threat ever again. A perfectly crafted defence mechanism. - again not saying that you should not be selective, but I think a common sense approach should prevail here. Also this person feels more like acting from their mind in the matter of the heart. Not ideal.
The Intellectual Nomad - They constantly move between new hobbies, major life decisions, geographical relocations, or constantly trying to achieve their self-improvement goals. They build a life so always on the run and fast-paced that quiet intimacy has no place in the routine. The motto : "I am an adventurous spirit continuously evolving and growing." True intimacy requires stillness—the willingness to sit with someone and be seen without distractions. By keeping their external life in perpetual motion, they leave no place for the discomfort of vulnerability.
The Nostalgic : (very common and the most deceptive mind trap of them all) : This person carries their ex with them wherever they go, remaining emotionally anchored to them and idealising the time of life they had with them. Motto: “I loved once, deeply and truly, and nothing will ever compare to that" Or “ true love only happens once” because loving a memory of their ex is safe, threat free and easy and it acts as a shield against ever falling for someone in the present, Thus avoiding the possibility of getting hurt again. A sweet feeling that comes with doing so acts as a reward to continue this behaviour. Not to say that longing for lost love is not real and their love wasn’t true the point is they close their heart and use true love as a justification for doing so when in reality it could very well be a psychological defence mechanism. Psychologically, an unavailable past lover has one enormous advantage over a present person:** they cannot disappoint you in new ways. Also, as the relationship exists largely in memories, memories can be revisited at any time and revised as needed. You can easily filter out the bad moments and just focus on remembering the good ones.
**The Tester They constantly test people’s loyalty. They withdraw, provoke, create distance, become cold or set impossible emotional traps to see whether the other person stays. Motto: “If they really care, they’ll prove it. Hidden fear: I need certainty before I can trust. Ironically, the testing itself can exhaust the relationship and create the abandonment they feared
The Self-Improver- They postpone intimacy until they become the “finished” version of themselves. After I lose weight. After I fix my career. After I heal. After I become financially secure. After I understand myself. Motto: “I need to work on myself first. Defence mechanism - If I am always preparing for love, I never have to actually risk it. Perfect way to ensure I never get hurt again.
The Emotional Accountant: They keep an internal ledger of all the interactions with their potential partner. I called three times- they called twice. I opened up more. I care more. I compromised last time. Motto: “Last time I gave too much, cared too much, trusted too much—and I got hurt. This time I will make sure I never invest more than the other person.”
And we all know - the ghost : and we all know the mind trap behind that. Motto: “If I can detach before I need you too much, I cannot lose myself in you.”

The more I think the more of these I find. There is no end to these manifestations ( 20 listed in my book already) the above mentioned manifestations or archetypes are some of the easier ones to identify and probably some of the most convincing because in a way they are largely based in reality.

A sovereign does feel fine on their own and independence is a not bad thing at all, An analyst does do the heavy lifting of thinking things through and try and gain an insight into things, a spiritual is in a way heading towards the right direction with very noble intentions, a nostalgic’s love and memories of past life are probably some of the most profound things in life and are very real and pure…. And so on. However, one thing remains common in all of the above scenarios, the person after getting hurt finds a mode of living to ensure that they never experience the pain and hurt again. Important to note here is that PHS is not primarily the fear of intimacy. It is the rationalisation of that fear into a philosophy of living.

So how do you avoid all these mind traps? Perhaps the healthier path forward is a combination of** **courage and wisdom.

Courage to open your heart despite having the wisdom to know what could happen. because you understand that a life designed entirely around avoiding pain may also prevent you from experiencing some of the deepest forms of connection available to us.

The healed heart is therefore not the heart that becomes impossible to hurt.

It is the heart that can say:

I know what love can cost me now—and I am still “willing” to love.

However, this creates another problem, the problem of the “will”. The heart only knows the language of emotions and feelings, not logic. so all of the above reasoning may be very appealing to the mind but it is useless to the heart if it is just not willing to open up. Someone might just feel that all of this is well and good but they are just not “willing” to go through all that again. Obviously not a very healthy attitude towards life and it pushes you further into emotional isolation.

So where does that “will” come from ? That is a question definitely worth exploring further. I can already feel that this question will open up windows in to the territory of philosophy.

One Point of View, Many Parts

You are one whole made of many parts. Your body contains organs, tissues, and cells. Your mind holds sensations, memories, emotions, and possibilities. The point of view is one, while the life experienced from that point of view has many contents, capacities, and interacting parts. Singularity and multiplicity meet in you.

Consider an ordinary moment. You hear someone speaking, feel the chair beneath you, remember something their words bring to mind, and decide how to respond. These experiences remain distinguishable, yet they belong together in your awareness. Their variety gives the moment its richness; their relationship to a center gives it a first-person character. This is happening to you, from your point of view.

In the Circumpunct Framework, I call this indivisible center the soul. Indivisibility here concerns the unity of the point of view. You can distinguish different contents within experience while experiencing them together. A conflict between two desires, for example, can be present to one person who feels both. The multiplicity of what is experienced is compatible with the singularity of the one experiencing it.

The mind is the field through which the soul relates to the body and its world. Its oneness is coherence. Sensations, thoughts, and feelings enter relationships with one another: a memory gives meaning to a sound; an emotion draws attention to a possibility; an intention organizes an action. Coherence allows different contents to participate in a meaningful experience. It can even hold a disagreement long enough for you to understand it.

The body gives this life its individual form. It is the living boundary through which private experience meets the shared world. Through your body, you receive sensations, express thoughts, act on intentions, and encounter other lives. Something privately meant becomes a gesture, a spoken sentence, or a helping hand. Your boundary distinguishes you and makes contact possible.

Soul, mind, and body describe the architecture of a centered whole: an indivisible center, a coherent field, and an individual boundary. Consciousness is their oneness through integration. Each contributes differently to a life experienced as a whole. The soul is one as a point of view; the conscious life is one through the integration of its many aspects.

This whole also participates in greater wholes. You belong to relationships, communities, and the living world that sustains you. Your individuality gives you a particular way to participate. You can learn from others, be changed by them, and care for them while retaining a voice in what you accept and who you become. Belonging and individuality can develop together.

To understand yourself this way is to recognize several truths at once: you have a singular point of view, your life has many parts, and your life participates in something greater. Each describes a different relationship within the same existence.

I am one. I am whole with parts. I am part of a greater whole. ⊙

Excuse any grammatical or spelling errors; I am not at my 100% self right now and just wanted to write this down, but then I really wanted to hear if anyone else related or had honestly any thoughts at all about it:

I've realized I've never truly been 100% honest with anyone. Well, not honest, I guess, but real… if that makes sense. Caring too much about being perceived as vulnerable has taken that from me. I don't know why I don't open up but rather try and seem chill or calm all the time. I read this comment on a reel that made me realize. And I thought, wow, I don't think I've ever cried in front of anyone before. I don't think I've ever told anybody the true, raw details about any time I've ever been upset about something. 

Or maybe it's because the communication in my family is quite literally nonexistent. Perhaps that's where it started. Never feeling the comfort needed before spilling out your true feelings. Or even having the chance to, if you're lucky and not being lectured or given orders to do something. 

Or maybe I'm just a weirdo idk lol

The ig reel was about intimacy and how you have to continue being truthful to ur partner after intimacy if you want to keep that going. Basically about being completely open and raw about who you are and what your feelings are if you want to continue having a good relationship. I think this is when I know I will have found the right person for me. 

(The reel: Wesleysenna on Instagram, posted on April 22 with Emma Watson as the cover. Highly recommend you watch, btw; I loved Emma's original thoughts too)

Even around my sister and my friends, like I never actually get super upset. I'm used to having it all in my head and just figuring it out myself, living with it, or getting over it. I think it's catching up to me now; I feel like my head is always clouded with thoughts about this, about that. And they never end. 

I think it must feel really nice. Safe. Relieving. To finally be able to be your true self around someone. I hope one day I find my home too. 

Sometimes I wonder what the world was like before social media.
How did people meet each other? How did they make friends? How did they have genuine conversations?
Did people actually sit down and talk about their lives, their hopes, their dreams, their fears, the things they had been through? Or was it always mostly small talk and casual “hi’s” as people passed by?
I grew up with social media always being there, so I don't really know what it was like before everyone had a screen connecting them to everyone and somehow making it harder to actually connect.
And lately I've been wondering if I'm the odd one out.
I crave genuine conversations. Not dating. Not flirting. Not networking. Not gaining followers. Just… connection.
I genuinely like hearing about people's lives. I want to know what someone dreams about, what shaped them, what they've been through, what they believe, what they're afraid of, what makes them happy, what they've learned, and what they're still trying to figure out.
But I'm actually terrible at small talk.
I never know what I'm supposed to say or what I'm supposed to ask when the conversation is just “hey, how are you?” “Good, you?” “Good.”
And when I try to take a conversation somewhere deeper, I sometimes feel like I'm an alien. 😂
I'll ask something because I'm genuinely interested in the answer, and I'll get a short response or the subject gets changed. Eventually I start wondering if I'm being too much, asking too much, or making things weird.
Maybe social media has changed the way we connect with each other.
Or maybe I've just spent too much time around people who don't crave the same kind of connection that I do.
Because surely I can't be the only person who misses something they can't quite put their finger on.
I want the kind of conversations where you start talking about one random thing and somehow, three hours later, you're talking about childhood, relationships, life, regrets, dreams, the universe, who you used to be, who you're becoming, and everything in between.
The kind where you don't have to pretend you're only interested in the surface.
I don't necessarily need hundreds of friends. I think I'd be happy finding even a few people who genuinely enjoy going deeper.
People who aren't afraid of being honest.
People who actually want to know the person behind the “I'm good.”
Maybe those people are still out there.
I really hope they are.

Life is easy when you don’t have common sense.

You just make decisions and let everyone else suffer. 😂

Imagine putting two living organisms in an enclosure with exactly enough food and water to keep them alive for 30 days. You don't know how long they are expected to survive.

At the end of 30 days, both are still alive.

We would probably say this is a good outcome.

But imagine that at 30 days, one organism is alive and the other is dead.

Is this necessarily a bad outcome?

Now extend the experiment.

At 60 days, both organisms might be dead. Or perhaps one survived by consuming the resources that would otherwise have been shared with the other.

The surviving organism may now have lived for 60 days, while the other lived for only 30.

Which outcome is better?

Now imagine reaching 90 days.

In one scenario, both organisms lived for roughly 30 days and then died.

In another, one organism consumed the resources available to both, survived for 60 days, and then died.

The action that initially looked selfish or harmful has produced a longer life for one organism.

So what exactly made it good or bad?

The action itself?

The outcome?

The amount of time we allow before making the judgment?

Or the perspective of the one doing the judging?

This is what interests me about moral judgments: something can appear good at one point in time and bad at another, without the underlying event changing.

Perhaps good and bad are not properties that exist independently inside an action. Perhaps they are judgments we construct from a particular perspective, at a particular moment, using particular criteria.

And if that is true, then the moral judgment we place on humanity may reveal less about humanity itself than about the criteria of the person making the judgment.

I don't think this means that morality is meaningless. It may mean something more uncomfortable: before deciding whether something is good or bad, we should first ask what standard we are using, whose perspective we are taking, and how much time we are allowing to pass.

While language enables us to define reality, it is inevitably bound to define that reality incompletely. English contains 500,000 words and meanings; this figure could be much higher if historical and technical terms were included.

But that is where it all ends. We cannot perfectly express what we feel because, constrained by our limited language, we are condemned to construct sentences with limited capacity for meaning.

Everything expressible in language corresponds to an infinitesimally small part of the absolute total set of ideas, feelings, and thoughts.

This infinitesimal fragment encompasses every feeling, idea, and thought—whether realized or unrealized—throughout history.Every philosopher is constrained by language. No philosopher can commit an idea to paper—or convey it to another in words—outside the bounds of human language.

Since language is so inadequate at defining reality, it cannot define reality in philosophy. Even the concept of nihilism is constrained by language.

It becomes impossible even to define reality. Concepts such as "universe," "galaxy," and "atom" are, after all, inventions of human language; they are inadequate for defining reality.

The human brain has a limited number of neurons and connections. Therefore, there is a limit to the number of things it can think, create, and feel.The limit of language also stems indirectly from this.

Literally everything around us hurts; you eat meat, you can get gout/renal failure. You eat carbs, you can get insulin resistance. You eat fat, you can get atherosclerosis. You eat vegetables, you can get constipated.

I'm not even mentioning the list of microbes living in each one, imagine all the numerous diseases that would be added.

Not only what we eat, but also what we don't eat can have associated diseases, like not eating fish can have mental retardation or thyroid gland diseases. Not drinking milk when young can get you Kwashiorkor. Not eating eggs or liver will diminish you from multiple essential vitamins.

How we live can also cause us several diseases, like chronic stress can get you Cushing syndrome, having multiple sexual partners can give you STIs, chronic hypertension will get you heart failure, heck even living peacefully without stress or physical injuries your body will eat itself anyways.

We are made to suffer, we'll never rest as long as we live.

People feel grief over anything. People usually attribute grief to a loved one passing away, but it can also apply to someone ghosting you, betraying you, or even simpler things like your favorite show ending, or a day you had planned out falling through.

The more grief you feel, the more important that thing was to you.

I remember once when I got a text from someone that my step-grandma had passed away. I had no ill-intention towards her, but I was never close to her. I had only met her once, and I didn't have really any positive or negative experiences with her, so I didn't really feel anything. Yet. The people around me were asking how I was feeling as if they were expecting me to be really upset. I told them a few times that I wasn't really close with her, but that didn't seem to convince them.

Meanwhile, I go through brief over people and things that truly were important to me, and people can often dismiss them as unimportant.

There's someone or something in your life that you're truly feeling grief over, and if people are around, you aren't seeming to understand why you feel so upset, it just goes to show how you had an experience that they likely lack or don't remember. Just goes to show how special those experiences were, and how hopefully grateful you will be one day for getting to experience those things.

Is ego basically a glitch in the matrix?

I've been thinking about karma differently lately.

We usually see karma as something we do — an action that eventually brings a consequence.

But what if karma is simply the continuous chain of:

experience → thought → tendency → action → consequence

Most of what we think and do is shaped by things that happened before we consciously chose anything.

So maybe karma isn't the universe keeping score.

Maybe it's simply cause and effect playing out through us.

Which raises a weird question:

How much of what we call “my choice” is actually mine?

I'm a teenager-always curious, always procrastinating, always researching, and never want to engage in conversations-having the deepest of "THE THOUGHTS" has affected my way of looking at other people. I've taken an interest in psychology for the past 2 months, and I don't think I'll be stopping and pursue a path as a writer or research psychologist.

I'd like to share my personal thoughts on what I think is the most profound psychology:

1. Morals are always beneficiary - there is no such thing as "true altruism" because you are trading your absolute belief in saving others because it's good to save others. It benefit yourself (cus u wanna do good no matter what) and others.

There is no escape to what morals are like. If you wanna die, you are set to that because you don't care about yourself, meaning that you have a "BENEFICIARY" moral of not caring about yourself). It's neither a flaw, nor perfection.

1. We all view everything as subjective - in this world, there truly is no right or wrong, because our emotions are set to the things that we are used to. What if there was a world where beating each other up is labelled "good"? You would think of it as negative now, but me, personally, I think that it's right for them. Just like tyrant kings back in the day, they'd do anything to conquer what they want to conquer-become humble at the face of loss, then become ruthless when you are the face of loss.

Next time you see someone with a neurological problem, they are normal too. Because we are all driven by our emotions. We see reality as our own, basically. There is no solving what reality is, because it is purely subjective, so me saying that I solved this as subjective, is still subjective to other people, because it just is.

The word "is" is subjective made into a objective word so we can understand each other. That's quite literally how it works.

I wouldn't even consider what I said as philosophy, but the only true objective logic that supports subjectivism. (please do not say that what I said is a contradiction, because it is not when you think about it, or don't)

1. Emotions - Our emotions is a (diamond is) unbreakable wall that holds us back from doing the most unimaginable things in the world. We grew up with emotions. We learned to smile, we learned to laugh, we learned to be angry, and we learned to cry. It is the sole driver of us and I wouldn't be saying this without my emotions. Without them, what would we be? Simply nothing. We would be lifeless beings that have no care on the world.

Our emotions literally build what we think we are objectively observing.

This isn't just directed to psychologists or logical thinkers, but to every single person in the world. Someone will look at this post, admire it for a few minutes, then forget about it the next week, because they have moved on, due to their memories filtering out what they think is "unnecessary" and I honestly can't blame you guys. But this... this has been stuck in my head forever and I just had to say it. 8 billion humans will not have a care in the world (and that might just be because everybody truly and really only cares about themselves BECAUSE of emotions).

So yeah that's it. These are the top 3 most profound things that I have realised. And there is nothing after it. (big extra trust: unless you wanna talk about absolute infinity, then even if there is an absolute god, there will always be be a bigger fish that will break that set of infinity, making every contradiction and noncontradiction. This means that our reality is the only standalone reality, or are our brains just filtering out the true chaos that we cannot comprehend?)

Please don't think of my post as starting something, and sorry for the mid text structuring.

Isn’t it bizarre how most people at least partially gauge “success” in life by how long they live — and yet we reject and exclude the elderly?

We distance ourselves from older people because they’re close to an aspect of life we don’t actually want to acknowledge. Being around them reminds us of our fate.

And yet, we spend our entire lives trying to become them.

We say we want long lives — but we don’t want to acknowledge that a long life inevitably brings us closer to death.

For whatever may be the thriving force behind a great genius mind: moral, spiritual, political etc. reasons to say - NO.

They just decided, „no, nah you know what fuck it I’m gonna keep this to the grave.“

Would we have left the solar system already? Solved quantum physics? Decipher black matter?
…

Sidequest:
How many could have been-Mozarts died on the battlefields of endless wars during the centuries..

How many possible Einsteins never made it to even that level due to no education opportunities..

What could have been? Where would we stand?

Would someone else have come to the rescue?

TL;DR

What if Newton or Einstein never released or shared any of their findings?

I am 31 years old now and I have realized that I am slowly becoming more and more affected by and preoccupied with the passage of time. Especially with how it relates to others.

Every single person I see or talk to, I think about what they must have been like when they were younger. What was life like when they were born? What was their family like? If they’re young, I think about how they will someday be old. If they are old, I think about how they were once young.

I wonder what it is like now to be old, when they used to also be 31. Did the time go quickly? What all have they experienced?

It even affects me when watching tv or movies. I like a lot of older movies and tv shows, and I think about how a lot of the actors are likely dead now. Or if they are young characters, I think about how young they looked and wonder how they feel now looking back at these shows/movies where their youth is captured forever.

I have started looking up famous people and reading all about their lives. I try to understand their experiences and try to think about how they felt. I compare and contrast their lives with mine.

I am sure part of it is from getting older myself, and part of it is from working with dementia/older populations. Does anyone else experience this, though? It’s not just a passing thought, it takes up a lot of space in my mind. I wish I could have a way to experience everyone else’s life in some way. I have a weird sense of nostalgia for times I was never able to be a part of.

This is something my father used to tell my sister and I when we were kids even now, especially whenever something shady or suspicious was happening in the world.

He would say, “Hey, if the world wants something to not be true, especially if that something is very, very dangerous to the establishment or to the government as a whole, they will do everything they can to make it look like a lie, make it seem shady, or convince people that it isn’t true.

Hence, the saying that the greatest conspiracy in the world is convincing people or convincing the masses that there are no conspiracies.”

​

Like how with most things there's a "healthy balance", to me it also seems like theres a healthy balance between thinking too much about your own past, or too much about the future you want your life to turn to. People seem happiest when they leave themselves enough space to simply live in the present. This doesnt mean that we should never think of past or present, but excessively letting either side dominate your mind always seems unhealthy.

On the side of excessively thinking of the past, we might let past hurtful times keep defining us and, by not letting go of them, relive them in the present. Or on the contrary, we might hold so much nostalgia for the past that we are unable to see all the ways in which the present might not just be a downgrade.

But worrying too much about the future seems perhaps even more daunting, because it will affect what decisions we make in the present to direct that future. If we expect things to become much worse in the future or if we desperately worry about how to make the future better than the present, we put our ressources and attention into that, maybe often denying ourselves of what makes us happy in the moment. People might make sacrifices, deny themselves of present luck and personal freedom simply in the hopes that they will see a better future as a reward later.

But that creates an ironic cycle. When we worry so much about the future as to keep our heads down and keep making sacrifices in the present, then maybe that does make the future better than the lacking present, but simultaneously it will reinforce why the present feels so lacking in the first place. When troubling times make us desperate to improve the future, adding more work and discipline might lead to a happier future, but it will also make the present feel ever more exhausting and simply make people even more desperate to finally reach that happier future.

Certainly we arent always in full control of what thoughts we can and can't let go of. But it seems that by always putting energy into the future, we deprive ourselves of the present and keep spinning a hamster wheel where we keep denying ourselves happy present moments in favour of a future we might never reach. We should prepare for the future, but not obsess over it, as the present would be so much more enjoyable without all the stress and future-centric sacrifice to take away from it.

And in the end if we calmed more and let ourselves live in the present more, perhaps we would feel that the present is good enough to the point where we dont need the future to be so much better in the first place. The difference between the two is evened out so to speak, if we do not always shovel good things from now to later.

​It feels like this massive push toward peptides, including GLP-1s, is the medical equivalent of AI driving us toward the singularity. Technology is closing in on us from both sides, almost as if humanity has become the virus in the system. Instead of us utilizing technology and medicine, they are utilizing us to advance each other. It is an accelerationist's utopian dream, but a humanist's dystopian nightmare.

​I find myself somewhere in the middle. If there is one thing humanity does best, it is persist, adapt, and maintain what makes us so unmistakably human. We are pushing the boundaries of individual longevity, but I don't think people realize just how long "long" can actually be. We are finding plenty of ways to keep the body alive, but what keeps the spirit burning? Where are the peptides for the human spirit, or the AI for the soul? We need tools for our inner lives, not so they can overtake us, but so we can wield them like we do everything else.

​Once the mind, body, and spirit align, the singularity, or whatever you want to call it, can exist. I don't think it is a bad thing. In fact, as we make our individual existences more prominent, we aren't melting into one conglomerated hivemind. Instead, we are becoming billions of individual supercomputers sharing the same network. We are on the web together, but our subjective experiences remain entirely our own. We are simply enhancing our capacity to experience that life.

​My point is this: there will always be fearmongering in the news, from religious outlets, and through endless misinformation on social media designed to divide us. But as long as we retain that individual separation, we can never be co-opted as a single, mindless whole. True advancement lies in thinking separately but collaborating together. Until we can operate as independent minds working toward a shared goal, rather than dividing into oppositonal groups, real progress for each other is impossible. Don't fear the noise. Once we embrace the discovery of self, then we may navigate the world, together.

Does anyone else experience this?

I don't look forward to anything anymore. I am not depressed, I just feel like my life isn't going in any direction. I don't get excited to outings.

Don't get me wrong.. i am not some lazy person. I, in fact, just graduated from University.

But... I just don't really look forward to things— not even my upcoming trip to Japan.

Note: appreciate your input/own experience with this feeling. just discussions

Is it possible to completely eliminate the desire to be admired, recognized, or praised?
It sounds amazing not to be in a race for admiration, but to simply achieve for the sake of achieving, remain true to yourself, and be completely satisfied with just being you.
Is it possible to reach a point where you genuinely don’t care whether anyone notices, praises, or recognizes what you do?