Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
Comment
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Delusional Pedagoguery

Reply
- Sun, 09 Aug 2020 22:48:52 EST /YrP9whW No.904566
File: 1597027732924.gif -(5328B / 5.20KB, 368x160) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Delusional Pedagoguery
Why do people come to think so highly of themselves after using psychedelics?
This specific brand of eye-opener people, who are teachers and beings of higher nature. What possesses people to say the stupid shit they do?

With my own thinking I can only muster that they must be there, because there is ground for it. Psychedelics really do help us look at things in different lights, allow endless deep introspection, but of course even with an ego death, the ego will sneak in, pull a fast one on you.

One of our faults is that, I would assume, is being open to new ideas, and filling in the blanks of any charlatan-like ego driven, possibly delusional, mental person when they tell us something that is completely vague.
They will say the most nonsensical shit, but you will still give them the benefit of the doubt, simply because you are that open.

My bet is that anyone in the know, would not sound like these people.
>>903465

Am I saying that there is no one who has things more figured out? Absolutely not but do be sure to see ego where it is.
Keep the retards at bay.
>>
Augustus Druzzlegold - Mon, 10 Aug 2020 13:22:33 EST 3VZMKpBj No.904575 Reply
>>904566
I don't see a problem here. Listen to the folks that resonate with you, ignore the rest? Like yeah there are a bunch of dumbass people everywhere including among those who do psys. This is probably the norm rather than exception. So? What do you want us to tell you? Yeah, you have to be discerning of the information and of the sources. That's pretty much like everywhere, just that with psys people have a higher tendency to not handle the pattern recognition mechanism and let their definitions bleed, so the retardation sounds even more retarded. Dunno if what I said was worth it, dunno if this thread even has a point. nb
>>
Cornelius Drobberspear - Mon, 10 Aug 2020 16:41:49 EST /YrP9whW No.904578 Reply
>>904575
>there are a bunch of dumbass people everywhere including among those who do psys
My main point is that on the realm of psychedelia, there's gonna be some retarded gurudom. The kind you won't see anywhere else.
>you have to be discerning of the information and of the sources
Of course but not everyone seems to be aware of this. I am merely pointing to it and how malignant it can be.
>>
Ebenezer Dimbletot - Mon, 10 Aug 2020 23:06:53 EST arjZTCZG No.904582 Reply
Psychedelics are like cheat codes, and people who are unfamiliar to the experience will end up seeing you as "different" be it crazy, dangerous, shamanic etc. If you aren't surrounded by the right people (and most people aren't) you'll start to see how "different" you really are (from these people) and this can lead to Messianic delusions. The key is go through the deepest experiences alone or with people more experienced than you, otherwise you'll just be ego tripping.

For anyone currently struggling with those Messianic feelings YOU CANNOT SAVE ANYONE FROM THEMSELVES, especially not without saving yourself. And even if you do save yourself you can just as easily put yourself back in danger by trying to save others. Be smart. Yes you HAVE experienced otherworldly things that would change everything if you could bring them back. But 99% of the time you can't. Work on embodying these lessons, become a human psychedelic and the rest will fall into place.
>>
Ebenezer Dimbletot - Mon, 10 Aug 2020 23:08:37 EST arjZTCZG No.904583 Reply
>>904582
Basically the problem is with people not with psychedelics
>>
Doris Buzzshit - Tue, 11 Aug 2020 04:36:15 EST ol3lKwZ/ No.904587 Reply
>>904583
Oh, shucks, thanks for pointing that out. I always though the mushrooms are the retarded ones.

nb
>>
Walter Hindlestock - Wed, 12 Aug 2020 04:05:32 EST zOZos08p No.904599 Reply
I actually was thinking over something similar to this on my last nitrous oxide session.

I start with the basic assumption that I'm pretty much wrong about everything. Not entirely obviously, but I think that no matter what it is, no matter what I think, I could always be more right. So I was wondering what makes people think that they're "right"? As in, actually definitively right, like this one's done, don't have to think about it anymore sort of right. I don't feel that way about anything. This is taken from what I wrote that has to do with psychedelics specifically

Ironically, you could see this as me simply falling into the same trap whilst claiming to have found a way out of it. I think in a way I might have, but by tripping it rather than trying to avoid it. I've come to a point where I feel as though I'm the closest I'll ever be to having an "answer", I feel absolutely sure that I can't be absolutely sure about anything else. I've found a sense of peace through a sort of certainty about uncertainty that I can only imagine is how people who are devoutly religious feel.

In essence, I see the era of humanity that we have now entered in postmodernity as being defined by the idea that we now have full scope of the question of life. The project of philosophy can never be finished, we will continue to refine our knowledge of existence from now until the end of time, but at this point we know as much as is logically possible about what that project is. There are no answers, but the only thing we can possibly do now is to continue to strive for those answers we know aren’t there, to continue building knowledge for no reason, and in general to just persevere from now until the end of time in spite of there being absolutely no apparent reason to.

I think that great sense of enlightenment or revelation that people have experienced throughout history has been mistaken for the answer. In reality, I think we feel as though these bursts of inspiration are so profound because we misinterpret that sense of awe and ecstatic dread we feel when we’re confronted with the reality of our existence, as in during religious experiences and in any other altered state of consciousness, as being a result of somehow comprehending the scope of it.

In actuality, I think that feeling comes from having had the slightest comprehension of just how much we don’t know, how much we can’t know, and how much we just will never be able to know.

You can see how you can get into very dicey territory very quickly if you don’t start from this premise. If you’re a layperson who has just realized how unsatisfied they are with the answers given to them by the truth makers in society, and you start looking for a DIFFERENT ultimate truth or single cohesive grand narrative to life to replace the old one you’ve grown dissatisfied with, you’re barking up the wrong tree, and you’ll find nothing of value.

If you throw something like acid or nitrous oxide into the mix on this quest, however, there’s a good chance you’ll THINK you’ve found the answer though, which is where the danger lies. Again, because if you just feel that sense of wonder and panic, you will feel as though whatever god you’ve chosen to replace the old one is talking directly to you and telling you that you’re right, because without any background in philosophy at all, there’s no other reasonable conclusion you can make when confronted with such a profound experience.

I think this is rapidly changing though as postmodern thought becomes more and more ingrained in our culture. A lot of people now detest all the hippy bullshit and navel gazing and just do drugs for fun end of, and if they happen to learn something along the way so be it. I tend to fall somewhere in between these two groups. I think on a basic level you should approach the experience for what it is without any forethought and follow whatever threads your mind happens to send you down. I think you kind of get what you get out of it. This whole diatribe sprang forth from a single breath of nitrous oxide, I didn't set out to write this and use the drug to help me, I was using the drug to have fun.

I think despite not being able to explain it in these terms, and probably even while vehemently disagreeing with it when it’s laid out like this, most people now kind of implicitly recognize that no one has all the answers, there can be no one grand narrative to life, there is no such thing as absolute truth, and that we all kind of live in these different, interconnected, universes based on our individual and cultural interpretations of the incoherent mess of signals that make the actual noumenal universe as it actually is.

People already act this way no matter what they feel about postmodern”ism” (which is not an ideology at all, it’s descriptive not prescriptive). It doesn’t matter if you’re an orthodox Marxist, an objectivist, a Nazi, a Monarchist, Christian, Muslim, atheist, etc. and you think that you’re incontrovertibly right and everyone else is incontrovertibly wrong and must suffer for it. What you believe is not the same truth that your ancestors had inherited over the course of hundreds or thousands of years, it’s a copy of a copy of a copy, distorted into something wholly separate from its original nature through this game of ideological telephone.

We are living in the postmodern era and so by axiom all of our thought is postmodern thought. All of it is characterized by the sort of inconstant, syncretic, and seemingly contradictory nature people associate with postmodernism itself, because all postmodernists are saying is that this is where we are right now. Not that it’s good or that it’s what “ought” to be. The overwhelming majority of them are harshly critical of our current condition, but still realize the way forwards can’t be backwards.
>>
David Bollernick - Wed, 12 Aug 2020 06:41:36 EST 7uf0yPto No.904601 Reply
>>904599
you're mostly right, but most people won't even manage to obtain this most basal of perspectives from which to move forward. the problem is how do we get other people to get to the point you've reached?
>>
Hedda Chevinggold - Wed, 12 Aug 2020 12:34:34 EST /YrP9whW No.904602 Reply
>>904599
>when we think we figure it all out, we are deluded
yes
>postmodernism is not so bad, even if it is, it's necessary
you are retard?
>>
George Dullerperk - Wed, 12 Aug 2020 17:41:41 EST n5shj2K4 No.904603 Reply
It's like George Carlin said man, think of how stupid the average person is...now realize that half of them are even dumber than that.
>>
Nell Churryleck - Thu, 13 Aug 2020 06:32:22 EST zOZos08p No.904614 Reply
>>904602
>>postmodernism is not so bad, even if it is, it's necessary

I'm genuinely confused as to what part you're even referring to here. "Postmodernism" is an almost useless term to begin with, but in the way it's commonly portrayed as an ideology, I don't subscribe to it. I also specifically said that almost none of the thinkers who are called postmodern ever used or accepted the term.

It's not an ideology, it's not even any coherent strain of though. There are obviously some common ideas shared by most philosophers called postmodern, but the only thing that the word by definition refers to is the time period in which that thinker wrote. How can I think it's good, bad, or necessary? Those kinds of value judgement don't make any sense. Of course I don't agree with everything or even close to everything that's been lumped into this near-nonsense term, I never claimed to. I agree and disagree with different postmodern philosophers in the same way I agree and disagree with modern ones, and medieval ones, and classical ones. I just tend to agree with the postmodern ones most. Not any where close to entirely.

All I was saying was that I tend to agree the most with philosophers characterized as postmodern. As I said, I more or less agree with many of the ideas associated with postmodernism, but those ideas weren't just invented in the 60's. They go back much further. The basic idea that I said came before everything else, which is that there is an insurmountable gap between the phenomenal universe, which is the one we live in, comprised of our observations, and the noumenal universe, which is the universe as it actually is, independent of observation, is directly from Kant. Who was not a postmodern philosopher if I recall correctly. If you look at some ancient Greek skeptics like Pyrrho of Elis, parts of their work seem eerily contemporary. Even in various religions you'll see a lot of similar ideas expressed in different terms. "For now we see through a glass, darkly, but then face to face we shall see".

It would make for better discussion if you'd respond with more than 1 word for every 500 of mine. It's a shame because I don't get anything out of being wrong and I could've learned something. If you don't have any interest in an actual discussion why even bother responding at all? It's irritating.
>>
Alice Dribblefoot - Thu, 13 Aug 2020 13:47:32 EST /YrP9whW No.904627 Reply
>>904614
>We are living in the postmodern era and so by axiom all of our thought is postmodern thought. All of it is characterized by the sort of inconstant, syncretic, and seemingly contradictory nature people associate with postmodernism itself, because all postmodernists are saying is that this is where we are right now. Not that it’s good or that it’s what “ought” to be. The overwhelming majority of them are harshly critical of our current condition, but still realize the way forwards can’t be backwards.

Especially your last sentence points to your views on the "inevitability" of postmodernism.

>Those kinds of value judgement don't make any sense
You are doing your best to deflect and be reductive, but you are not very good at it.

>I just tend to agree with the postmodern ones most.
ahahahah, I though you didn't subscribe to it? oh of course not, you want it to be seen as the most rational choice, a necessary evil, how are we so blind and stupid amirite

>They go back much further.
Dude of course, postmodernism is based on ages of research, not the fashionable nonsense of today

>The basic idea that I said came before everything else, which is that there is an insurmountable gap between the phenomenal universe, which is the one we live in, comprised of our observations, and the noumenal universe, which is the universe as it actually is, independent of observation, is directly from Kant.
Alright, now I'm not saying the postmodernist scum are terrible for putting their own spin on things and calling it brand new, that they possess the "real, adult way" to look at things, but... they kind of are the scum of the earth, tbh.
Your arguments are all stemming from, "but we can't know", while you defend your depictions and perspectives as "truth in its most approachable form", while others' are the by product of a whimsical dart toss.
I think it is more than irony that you people attack and accuse people of what you personally do, I think it is methodical. You really are scum.

>It's irritating.
Get irritated faggot
>>
Nigel Wankinhan - Fri, 14 Aug 2020 15:40:14 EST zOZos08p No.904654 Reply
>>904627
Postmodernism. Is. Not. An. Ideology.

I'm don't want to keep going around in circles. Neither of us gain anything from that. None of what you're saying makes any sense at in light of the currently accepted definition of postmodernism with-in most philosophical circles. Saying the "inevitability of postmodernism" is like saying the "inevitability of chemistry". All postmodernism is is a method, a subject, a domain, an area of research, and that sort of thing and at a very basic level refers only to time. The word is used differently in different contexts. If you're using the definition of the word put forth by "thinkers" like Steven Hicks and Jordan Peterson which has taken root in right and centre-right circles then all I can tell is that I don't subscribe the their strawman depiction of postmoder"ism". End of. I mean that people who otherwise appear reasonably intelligent can say with a straight face that "postmodernism is a continuation of Marxism just in different terms (jay pee bee)" and characterize deconstruction with "the task of the literary critic, accordingly, is to desconstruct the text to reveal the author's race, sex, or class interests (hick)" is physically painful to me.

That second one is particularly heinous to anyone who's actually studied Derrida, because that is literally the exact opposite of what desconstruction is. Like the. ex. act. opposite. It's maddening because it's impossible to actually tell what of this is from an honest misunderstanding and what of it is deliberate bad faith argument. I don't think they particularly care or are even conscious of it the split, but it makes it particularly hard to dissect what the fuck they actually mean. I don't think at their core though they're genuinely trying to be deceitful, I just think they're wrong about a lot of things and at this point in their careers have no interest in changing course.

Its scope is far too broad and the thinkers with in far to opposed for it to be thought of as any coherent ideology. Think of the deep philosophical disagreements between figures like Heidegger, Sartre, and Foucault. All three share beliefs, obviously, but they also have other beliefs that are diametrically opposed. They have all said of one of the others basically "I think that you are wrong". They're still all considered to be postmodern philosophers. Most philosophers, as I keep saying, have moved away from the term and many never even adopted it to begin with. It would be more accurate say these three are continental or even European philosophers, which you'll notice isn't saying much more than "postmodern" does, given that postmodern at its core refers solely to a rough set of methods and a time-period in philosophy and inherently nothing more, despite how the word is used differently by different people but even still if you're looking for common threads you'll find far more in the set of philosophers characterized as continental as opposed to the set of all philosophers characterized as postmodern.

>>I just tend to agree with the postmodern ones most.
>ahahahah, I though you didn't subscribe to it?

What. What. What. I don't understand what you mean. Even starting from the premise that I adhere to whatever the fuck you think "postmodernism" is, you haven't really made that clear, at least establish a definition, do you think that one has to subscribe to an ideology absolutely, as in 100% of everything put forward by its thinkers in a kill or be killed for it sense, to agree with some parts of it? Life isn't like this. You don't have to pick "teams". Group identities are only meaningful insofar as they are useful. I can deny being a "postmodernist" by your definition while still being one certainly, if I meet the criteria you establish for the word, because you can establish whatever criteria you want for your own personal definition because its your understanding of the word, but it doesn't have any effect on the world outside of you brain if you don't convince others to use the word the same way. Words are tools, a means to an end, you have to get them to do what you want them to do. And you haven't even established the definition for "postmodernism" that you'd like us all to believe, so we're at an impasse.

There really isn't much more to be said without us establishing what it is that you are calling "postmodernism" because I can't begin to fathom what that might be. Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't using the basest definition some, mostly reactionary, people tend to use which is "everything I don't like/disagree with".

If I never used the term we wouldn't be having this argument. It was my mistake. I should've known to reword it in order to avoid using such an oft misunderstood word, which I could've easily done, almost certainly with no contention from you.

I mean, the SEP even begins its entry on "postmodernism"

>That postmodernism is indefinable is a truism.

and goes on to say in the vaguest possible terms

>it can be described as a set of critical, strategic and rhetorical practices employing concepts such as difference, repetition, the trace, the simulacrum, and hyperreality to destabilize other concepts such as presence, identity, historical progress, epistemic certainty, and the univocity of meaning

If you can truly tell the scope of my personal beliefs based solely on that you are a clairvoyant. Like I said. It can be best described as a method or a subject of inquiry, not an ideology, and most people accept the methods of more than one domain, since they all differ to some extent or another.

What's really getting me is that I just now realized you're OP, which is really interesting to me because for the most part I entirely agreed with you. I wouldn't have expected such strong contention. Maybe there's something to be found in that disconnect.

Also, I'm genuinely sorry for coming off so smug here. I'm not in a particularly good way right now and it's coming through in my writing, and for a forum post I don't really care to revise it. Plus, you don't come off so charitable yourself. The irony is not lost on me though, trust me. I can promise you that I'm not nearly as confident in my beliefs as my tone here might suggest.
>>
Simon Fonningford - Fri, 14 Aug 2020 22:19:49 EST /YrP9whW No.904665 Reply
>>904654
Big. Claims. You're. Making. There. You. Retard.

>None of what you're saying makes any sense
And you think that you do?

>Saying the "inevitability of postmodernism" is like saying the "inevitability of chemistry"
No, that is your unfounded claim, that is your wish of how you want things to be seen. It is not reality, you are brainwashed beyond belief.

>Steven Hicks and Jordan Peterson
This is where you have to get a strawman and beat it all day because some grifter makes money off of your retarded fashionable nonsense. I don't identify with right wing in any way, but you have to paint me as someone like that just so you can have some grounds to attack with, beyond that, you are nothing. A fucking clown.

>people who otherwise appear reasonably intelligent can say with a straight face that "postmodernism is a continuation of Marxism just in different terms (jay pee bee)" and characterize deconstruction with "the task of the literary critic, accordingly, is to desconstruct the text to reveal the author's race, sex, or class interests (hick)"
look at this utter bullshit and tell me I'm not supposed to take it as a strawman you absolute retard.
The fact is your level of pulling shit directly out of your ass, claiming it is as real as a hard science, is the equavilent of religious dogma. You are where you are today becauase you deliberately bury your head in the sand.

It is absolutely your fault that the right wing grifter is capitalizing on your lack of ability to make sense. Your faggotry knows no bounds, so of course some people will make fun of it.

>I don't think at their core though they're genuinely trying to be deceitful
Oh how thoughtful of you, those retards who don't subscribe to your retardation are clearly lost sheep who need guidance, you are such a heartful, charitable individual.
Wait you're not. You are a delusional retard.

>Its scope is far too broad and the thinkers with in far to opposed for it to be thought of as any coherent ideology.
At this point I have to actually step in and say, I am not even claiming it is ideology.
I'm just saying it is pure grifter shit, like the ones you attack. It is not carry any meaning. It is does not point to something. Its point is to be deliberately cryptic and pretend it holds deep value. Your "not ideology" is a façade.

But of course you come to see it equal to chemistry. And then you are surprised when some OTHER grifter comes and makes money off of your retardation. Big surprise.
The fact is they have their place to scam, you have yours. Being a true believer will only help to ruin your own cause in this case.

>Think of the deep philosophical disagreements between figures like Heidegger, Sartre, and Foucault.
You are retarded enough to actually namedrop foucault and expect me to give you the benefit of the doubt. At this point I cannot ask you not to jump in front of a train.
You are not only overexcited to think that I would say your nonsense has any form to hold ground to accommodate being an ideology, you come to say it is past it. It is something more than a simple groundwork of perspective and that is a sacred method. You are arrogant as you are delusional, too.

>It would be more accurate say these three are continental or even European philosophers, which you'll notice isn't saying much more than "postmodern" does
Then why are you saying it all? Possibly because you have nothing to bring to the table? You are not even bringing anything to the table in terms of your so called methods. You are defending your points, with eyes closed and ears shut, going on about incidental matters. The reality of the situation is that you cannot make sense, so you have to dodge everything the best you can.

>What. What. What. I don't understand what you mean.
You are having an aneurysm over something so simple or are you posturing so hard to as to once again claim grounds where you have none?
What I'm saying is you appeared as if you had nothing to do with postmodernism, and then came to defend it at length. And then actually said you agree with postmodernism the most.
If you want to bullshit, you have to actually use your words, I cannot do your charlatanism for you.
>>
Simon Fonningford - Fri, 14 Aug 2020 22:20:25 EST /YrP9whW No.904666 Reply
>Even starting from the premise that I adhere to whatever the fuck you think "postmodernism" is
I think that it is merely fashionable nonsense. I think that it is nothing alike a hard science such as chemistry. I think that your "not ideology" is based on first and foremost to being pompous, covering your nonsense with cryptic nonsense words in aims to be able to provide a façade of deeper understanding. And I think anyone who has made a name for themselves following those steps of your "not ideology" are charlatans.

>you haven't really made that clear
this part actually makes me laugh
I am merely attacking directly what it does, and you are somehow upset

>do you think that one has to subscribe to an ideology absolutely,
No but you said you tend to agree with postmodernism the most

>You don't have to pick "teams".
But I never did and you went on about Jordan Peterson before I, in your words, haven't even made a claim as to what postmodernism was. Was I the one picking teams here? No, I think you are this much upset merely because I am only a dissident to your "not ideology".

>I can deny being a "postmodernist" by your definition while still being one certainly
Ahaha, how familiar
It would be more accurate say these three are continental or even European philosophers, which you'll notice isn't saying much more than "postmodern" does,
Maybe it is merely because nothing you defend carries any basis in reality, you only pretend it makes so much sense that is a hard science, and you shapeshift and deny as much as you care to?

>but it doesn't have any effect on the world outside of you brain if you don't convince others to use the word the same way.
This speaks more to you than it ever does to me. What do you think most people see postmodernism as? Maybe with the help of those grifters you have mentioned? Any thoughts?
In academia you have place to bullshit, in the real world you have not.

>And you haven't even established the definition for "postmodernism" that you'd like us all to believe, so we're at an impasse.
A pretend school of thought that doesn't carry anything of value and only claims to do have the deepest connotations merely because they wish it to be that way.
Is that enough? Also your methods are bullshit and nonsensical. Full of false pretenses only aimed to one up other academics. It is literature that takes its bullshit to have connotation with reality.

>There really isn't much more to be said without us establishing what it is that you are calling "postmodernism"
Really interesting that you do not give a strict definition of methods either now, huh? Almost like you need this impasse to be a thing.

>Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't using the basest definition some, mostly reactionary, people tend to use which is "everything I don't like/disagree with".
Again with the strawman. And yet you say I am the one picking teams.

>I should've known to reword it in order to avoid using such an oft misunderstood word, which I could've easily done, almost certainly with no contention from you.
I could actually sit down and give you my problems with your original text and its pompousness and verbosity word for word. I did have many problems with, just chose not to get into it by directing my aim to the heart of the problem. And to repeat I don't identify with right wing. But it seems very much that you cannot handle a dissident to your beliefs that doesn't come from a demonized place. Which is dangerously solipsistic and I would bet that you would see the people you attack much the same way, calling you marxists or commies or cultural darwinist or what have you.

>I mean, the SEP even begins its entry on "postmodernism"
>>That postmodernism is indefinable is a truism.
>and goes on to say in the vaguest possible terms

How do you not look at this and think, wow that is convenient to not even have any attackable ground. First of all, my whole point is that it is fashionable nonsense, -not- anything with fertile ground. It only carries pretenses of being the harsh truth all the while being the most pompous garbage. Calling it a truism, (covertly) suggests, with the assumption that it is not bullshit, only stating boring facts, while maybe indeed boring and without point, it is still nonsensical and only claims to contain substance.

And again, how do you not see that calling it "indefinable" does not help your case in any way whatsoever?
Con artistry, without any solid ground to defend, always shapeshifting, always claiming to be so true that, anyone who has ever made a successful claim was actually practicing postmodernism.

>Also, I'm genuinely sorry for coming off so smug here. I'm not in a particularly good way right now and it's coming through in my writing, and for a forum post I don't really care to revise it. Plus, you don't come off so charitable yourself. The irony is not lost on me though, trust me. I can promise you that I'm not nearly as confident in my beliefs as my tone here might suggest.
You know what, fair enough. For what it's worth I am deeply engrossed in circles you seem to "tend to agree most" with, a bit of an occupational hazard in my case.

But repeating my point, it is not much past only having claim without any substance. Maybe only consider if you are yourself a bit brainwashed and partisanic before claiming somebody follows Peterson or whoever else.
>>
George Dellersag - Sat, 15 Aug 2020 01:32:14 EST zOZos08p No.904670 Reply
>>904665
>>904666
ok cool finally, thanks I got what I wanted out of this, I'll read this later and see if there's anything i haven't heard before

cheers
>>
Thomas Nacklespear - Sat, 15 Aug 2020 05:13:57 EST 7BUq0y5C No.904671 Reply
>>904670
Lmaooo that is the best response you could have possibly given, all it was missing was a ":)"
>>
Nathaniel Sushforth - Sat, 15 Aug 2020 17:47:24 EST XQgL03fD No.904687 Reply
Man, this discussion is proof that /psy/ is caught in an eternal thought loop.
>>
Phineas Gashman - Sat, 15 Aug 2020 23:49:55 EST 7BUq0y5C No.904692 Reply
>>904687
Especially considering OP specifically made this thread to bitch about a completely innocuous thread he just didn't like instead of letting it go and then immediately got into it with someone else agreeing with him the wrong way

OP just seems kind of like a no funner to me, and that other person, while also obnoxious in a different way, was exactly the right kind to get under his skin lol

They deserve each other
>>
Awe' !!Bwteoy2D - Sun, 16 Aug 2020 06:05:14 EST ol3lKwZ/ No.904697 Reply
>>904692
This all could have been avoided simply by checking the first reply. After that one every following ones should have been no bumped.
>>
Martin Buzzshaw - Sun, 16 Aug 2020 06:21:58 EST hICpLHAw No.904700 Reply
>>904692
What could've been avoided? You're acting like some big accident has happened. Two dudes had a discussion on the the internet. Even if you want to call it an argument, who even gives a shit? Why should everything that followed have been no bumped? If you don't like the topic, just Ignore you smug cunt.
>>
Fuck Chaddlelid - Sun, 16 Aug 2020 07:19:58 EST zOZos08p No.904701 Reply
well OP could've avoided being blown the fuck out for one
>>
Rebecca Bunhood - Fri, 21 Aug 2020 03:10:05 EST KUbOnIqu No.904760 Reply
Because they want to feel special. Narcissism. Special snowflake syndrome. Main character syndrome.

My highest dose was 12g (dried) Psilocybe. Psychedelics help you understand yourself and that's it. Everything else is grandiose egotistical delusion.
It was by eating shrooms that it helped me understand how retarded junkies are - and I do make a distinction between just using drugs and being a junkie. An addict doesn't need to be "in the scene" or in the "culture" surrounding it, like marijuana or shrooms.
I could understand why the fuck do these retards believe "the earth is breathing" and how "everything is connected", but since I'm plain aware it is just overstimulated receptors and serotonin, I never FELT the hippie crap they yap about but I could see how hippies interpret that as oneness.

And apparently I really like the color green and dinosaurs. So that was cool. And Digimons. Patamon is a recurrent character in hallucinations for some reason, not just with shrooms.

So yeah. I'm connected to Digimons. It's the universal digimoneness.
>>
Nell Gorringforth - Fri, 21 Aug 2020 04:54:07 EST zOZos08p No.904762 Reply
>>904758
Can't argue there lol, tbf after a point I was leaning into it specifically to be grating to OP, who just couldn't resist making the nth "look at these retards enjoying the thing I enjoy in the wrong way" thread we've had here this second and I couldn't resist being obnoxious in return.

but a lot of it really is that unrevised I legitimately am this pretentious and cloying, what can you do? better than nothing

>>904760
>Main character syndrome

You do realize you're kind of supposed to be the main character in your own life right? Like, that's not solipsism, that's just creating a narrative for your life. Most people tend to see their lives as a story or a project, or at least that's a goal. It's an easy way to make one's life make sense. There's a neat linear progression of time, it presents stable personality traits and gives the impression there's some kind of order or consistency to life and it isn't just some jumbled mess of discrete events. Usually the story is one in which they are a not the protagonist, not an inconsequential background character. Which apparently is the ideal for some reason.

"Main character syndrome" is such a telling fucking turn of phrase I can't get over it. What must it be like to have so little self-esteem that you think being actualized is a bad thing actually and that no one should do anything or be anything ever. It's all cringe. The highest virtue is "self-awareness" which you'll claim to have over these "snowflakes" who must not know how they come off to you (and therefor every single other person in the world) and can't possibly just not give a shit because most people nowadays feel relatively free to live their lives how they want to live and respect when others do the same in different ways and that is objectively a good thing.

I want to stop before this becomes genuinely mean. There's no point to that. If you want watch your life drift by in third person while you do nothing for fear looking silly to yourself that's fine. My vitriol is towards the implication that this is somehow the only reasonable way to live ones life. You don't have to be so self-deprecating you know. No one is making you be like this.
>>
Nell Sicklepot - Fri, 21 Aug 2020 05:20:59 EST IwuZNNfu No.904764 Reply
>>904762
There's a huge difference between being the main actor in your life and deluding yourself that you have a bigger role than you actually have, which is what the main character syndrome refers to and probably what OP refers to when these "enlightened" deluded junkies act in a Messianic manner, as if they're protagonists in other people's lives.
>>
Nell Gorringforth - Fri, 21 Aug 2020 19:27:29 EST zOZos08p No.904780 Reply
>>904764
you're right, i was very high and i think i was conflating the two

Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.