Starting To Realize Literally Everything In Life Is Related To Energy/nothing Else Really Matters

[Broken man]

You can't just say that it's not true and that you don't know if you agree and then not explain lol

Oh sorry, I started with the first half (upper) yesterday but was thinking about it more deeply and wrote the second half today. My bad. I fixed it.

 

[Broken man]

You can't just say that it's not true and that you don't know if you agree and then not explain lol

I see energy as a tool to function, to live, see and do. The way I see and imagine really "high metabolism" person is a person who is doing his work to accomplish his goal. Even when you see him not doing anything physically now he is thinking about his goal and how he can accomplish it. He is always doing something and is thinking in innovative/ingenious way. When you see energy as a tool, you will find that there are 2 ways how to improve your energy levels. First is through increase in production, second is through better utilization. After this finding, I think that hypothyroidism starts in the head to be honest. I have so many friends that were energetic but ended without energy because of society. So for me, the most important thing is innovation. That is the only way how to produce the most energy while utilizing it as best as it can be. But this type of personality isnt marked as "winner" or "cool" in today's society because state or other leaders want to praise type of people which is dependent on society and promoting their goals. About if he is angry or calm it depends on the situation, you will not be able to make some deal with people that will be shouting on you until you will calm them somehow. So "independent", "curious", "ingenious", "playful" are tags that will make sense for me.

 

[DaveFoster]

Completely the opposite in my case.

When I wake up rested and feel like I have high energy from morning to evening, I experience no fear whatsoever, calm, relaxed, assertive, and my empathy towards others is high.

When I have low energy, my muscles feel and look flat, I have brain fog, I have a fear response to even the slightest stare in the street, I snap at people for no reason, and I couldn’t care less if they died.

I think we're defining words differently, so it's a problem of semantics. I'll use the definitions from the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Sympathy is defined as "the act or capacity of entering into or sharing the feelings or interests of another" along with "the feeling or mental state brought about by such sensitivity."

Empathy is "the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner."

For empathy, "vicariously" refers to a mental construction, so you're quite literally imagining yourself to be them. It's a falsity because you can never know the experience of another. You may only relate it to your own trials in the past.

We see this confirmed in the second part of Merriam Webster's definition of empathy: "the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it."

Within the empathy response, the differentiation between the two beings diminishes into one experience. This may be thought of as a degeneration of the individuated into a basic, monochromatic state. With that said, sympathy does not entail a disunity of the two entities, but rather that each being retains its identity as they merge into a relationship with one another.

Here's the Merriam-Webster's definition of the difference between sympathy and empathy:

"Sympathy may refer to "feelings of loyalty" or "unity or harmony in action or effect," meanings not shared by empathy. In the contexts where the two words do overlap, sympathy implies sharing (or having the capacity to share) the feelings of another, while empathy tends to be used to mean imagining, or having the capacity to imagine, feelings that one does not actually have."
​

In other words, empathy abrogates the genuine experience of each person in favor of a reuse: a non-existing equivalency between the two, each distinct in their own way.

 

[Regina]

I think we're defining words differently, so it's a problem of semantics. I'll use the definitions from the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Sympathy is defined as "the act or capacity of entering into or sharing the feelings or interests of another" along with "the feeling or mental state brought about by such sensitivity."

Empathy is "the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner."

For empathy, "vicariously" refers to a mental construction, so you're quite literally imagining yourself to be them. It's a falsity because you can never know the experience of another. You may only relate it to your own trials in the past.

We see this confirmed in the second part of Merriam Webster's definition of empathy: "the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it."

Within the empathy response, the differentiation between the two beings diminishes into one experience. This may be thought of as a degeneration of the individuated into a basic, monochromatic state. With that said, sympathy does not entail a disunity of the two entities, but rather that each being retains its identity as they merge into a relationship with one another.

Here's the Merriam-Webster's definition of the difference between sympathy and empathy:

"Sympathy may refer to "feelings of loyalty" or "unity or harmony in action or effect," meanings not shared by empathy. In the contexts where the two words do overlap, sympathy implies sharing (or having the capacity to share) the feelings of another, while empathy tends to be used to mean imagining, or having the capacity to imagine, feelings that one does not actually have."
​

In other words, empathy abrogates the genuine experience of each person in favor of a reuse: a non-existing equivalency between the two, each distinct in their own way.

Ahhhh ok. These are important distinctions. Empathy now seems rather malignant to me.

 

[LUH 3417]

I think we're defining words differently, so it's a problem of semantics. I'll use the definitions from the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Sympathy is defined as "the act or capacity of entering into or sharing the feelings or interests of another" along with "the feeling or mental state brought about by such sensitivity."

Empathy is "the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner."

For empathy, "vicariously" refers to a mental construction, so you're quite literally imagining yourself to be them. It's a falsity because you can never know the experience of another. You may only relate it to your own trials in the past.

We see this confirmed in the second part of Merriam Webster's definition of empathy: "the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it."

Within the empathy response, the differentiation between the two beings diminishes into one experience. This may be thought of as a degeneration of the individuated into a basic, monochromatic state. With that said, sympathy does not entail a disunity of the two entities, but rather that each being retains its identity as they merge into a relationship with one another.

Here's the Merriam-Webster's definition of the difference between sympathy and empathy:

"Sympathy may refer to "feelings of loyalty" or "unity or harmony in action or effect," meanings not shared by empathy. In the contexts where the two words do overlap, sympathy implies sharing (or having the capacity to share) the feelings of another, while empathy tends to be used to mean imagining, or having the capacity to imagine, feelings that one does not actually have."
​

In other words, empathy abrogates the genuine experience of each person in favor of a reuse: a non-existing equivalency between the two, each distinct in their own way.

I thought empathy involved mirror neurons and actually sharing a feeling. Interestingly Colin Ross explores a link between trauma and psychic insight in “The Osiris Complex”

 

[sunraiser]

I think we're defining words differently, so it's a problem of semantics. I'll use the definitions from the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Sympathy is defined as "the act or capacity of entering into or sharing the feelings or interests of another" along with "the feeling or mental state brought about by such sensitivity."

Empathy is "the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner."

For empathy, "vicariously" refers to a mental construction, so you're quite literally imagining yourself to be them. It's a falsity because you can never know the experience of another. You may only relate it to your own trials in the past.

We see this confirmed in the second part of Merriam Webster's definition of empathy: "the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it."

Within the empathy response, the differentiation between the two beings diminishes into one experience. This may be thought of as a degeneration of the individuated into a basic, monochromatic state. With that said, sympathy does not entail a disunity of the two entities, but rather that each being retains its identity as they merge into a relationship with one another.

Here's the Merriam-Webster's definition of the difference between sympathy and empathy:

"Sympathy may refer to "feelings of loyalty" or "unity or harmony in action or effect," meanings not shared by empathy. In the contexts where the two words do overlap, sympathy implies sharing (or having the capacity to share) the feelings of another, while empathy tends to be used to mean imagining, or having the capacity to imagine, feelings that one does not actually have."
​

In other words, empathy abrogates the genuine experience of each person in favor of a reuse: a non-existing equivalency between the two, each distinct in their own way.

I don't really understand the need for such a distinction, especially one defined via a science experiment.

In common usage empathy is simply a feeling that arrives from a lived and shared hardship, where as sympathy is something a person on the outside might have when seeing a person go through something they haven't lived.

Empathy is completely and utterly human and I think it's sad to demonise such a word via semantics. Obviously you can't know another person's experience despite sharing a similar circumstance but it's far more likely you'll be able to share deep and distinct parallels in understanding.

Empathy, as commonly used, is absolutely not a sign of poor health for me. I think it's a beautiful and imperative part of life and a healthy mind.

 

[rei]

Starting To Realize Literally Everything In Life Is Related To Energy/nothing Else Really Matters

Yes, we need energy to stay alive, and the process to make it happen is what shapes us. What you eat, how you eat, the environment you exist in, it all shapes you constantly. There is no such thing as the best food. Just foods with different properties for different needs. Sometimes what you need is such tricky to use that we call it a poison. Yet it might save you from certain death when used correctly.

 

[lampofred]

I don't really understand the need for such a distinction, especially one defined via a science experiment.

In common usage empathy is simply a feeling that arrives from a lived and shared hardship, where as sympathy is something a person on the outside might have when seeing a person go through something they haven't lived.

Empathy is completely and utterly human and I think it's sad to demonise such a word via semantics. Obviously you can't know another person's experience despite sharing a similar circumstance but it's far more likely you'll be able to share deep and distinct parallels in understanding.

Empathy, as commonly used, is absolutely not a sign of poor health for me. I think it's a beautiful and imperative part of life and a healthy mind.

Not 100% sure but I think Dave might have been trying to say that what is unhealthy is taking other people's pain to heart and unnecessarily imposing other people's suffering onto yourself in your head, not that it's a sign of poor health to be a caring and helpful person

 

[Cirion]

Also I think there is a "fake" kind of empathy, and that IMO, the "true" kind of empathy is rare.

"Fake" kind of empathy on the outside they say all the right things and it seems like they are empathetic but when push comes to shove they can be the meanest and most selfish people imaginable. These are the low-energy low metabolism types. They often project their morals on other people forcefully, and also like I say often hold inner demons which are just waiting to unleash. And like @lampofred said, they also tend to unnecessarily impose other peoples' suffering in their head. You can empathize with someone without letting their low energy ruin your high energy state of mind. In fact you should. It is not wrong to be happy while your friend is down, but most people think it is. In fact, your friend NEEDS you to be the strong anchoring point at this time.

"True" kind of empathy is what people should be striving for. The high-energy high metabolism types. These people practice genuinely care. The low energy fake empathy types usually are "nice" people who are only out to get approval from others. The high-energy type are genuinely good and hold no strings attached.

 

[opethfeldt]

High energy, empathic, sociable, kind, high metabolic people are generally excluded from society.

Are kidding me? It's the exact opposite. I used to be a total loser. Since upping my metabolic rate, I'm a winner now. Sure, people may not always like me (misreading my self confidence as arrogance I'm sure) but I'm definitely not excluded. In fact, im called upon whenever a leader is needed. People love when there's an individual who can handle difficult situations. You can't do this without metabolic energy.

 

[GreekDemiGod]

Empathy does not derive from a high energy state. It's related to the fear response. When you feel scared and uncertain, you empathize more with others.

I often feel scared and uncertain, but I am for from being an empathetic person, because I have blocked that side of me (childhood trauma).

 

[DaveFoster]

I often feel scared and uncertain, but I am for from being an empathetic person, because I have blocked that side of me (childhood trauma).

Thank you for the honesty. Right, sociopaths wouldn't be characterized as empathetic, so empathy, by definition, requires a shared traumatic experience, but trauma does not always lead to empathy. Empathy should be a more preferred pathology, and indeed probably resulting from a more mild, chronic exposure to stress. Comparing a sociopath to an empathetic individual might be analogized to the comparison of a narcissist and co-dependent. The former would be less preferred, but neither would be ideal. If we had a strong, cohesive society rather than the degenerate, atomized collection of the wounded, then we could potentially avoid both, but it's hard to imagine such a different way of life.

I don't really understand the need for such a distinction, especially one defined via a science experiment.

In common usage empathy is simply a feeling that arrives from a lived and shared hardship, where as sympathy is something a person on the outside might have when seeing a person go through something they haven't lived.

Empathy is completely and utterly human and I think it's sad to demonise such a word via semantics. Obviously you can't know another person's experience despite sharing a similar circumstance but it's far more likely you'll be able to share deep and distinct parallels in understanding.

Empathy, as commonly used, is absolutely not a sign of poor health for me. I think it's a beautiful and imperative part of life and a healthy mind.

If neither person experienced the trauma, then there would be no potential for an empathetic connection. Should we idolize trauma, then? No. On the other hand, Schopenhauer reigns as the more accurate descriptor of human life, which he describes as a painful, arduous struggle.

 

[Herbie]

@DaveFoster

I read a book called the wisdom of psychopaths by Kevin Dutton and he claimed that psychopaths are more empathetic than regular people and more likely to stop and help change a flat tyre then a regular person.

What do you think about this?

 

[DaveFoster]

@DaveFoster

I read a book called the wisdom of psychopaths by Kevin Dutton and he claimed that psychopaths are more empathetic than regular people and more likely to stop and help change a flat tyre then a regular person.

What do you think about this?

Well, given that we rarely distinguish between the terms sociopath and psychopath, these individuals still experience normal human emotion but in a diminished capacity, which may be context-specific. In other words, a sociopath might relate very strongly to animals, for instance: moreso than a normal person. Since sociopathy and the capacity for emotion varies among all individuals, we all, by definition, have a varying degree of anti-social tendency. If stressed, or colloquially, "having a bad day," an individual might drive aggressively, endangering the lives of the people around him, and such a person will not be as willing to lend a helping hand to others. Take a person who "has a bad day" every day, that is, a chronic state of psychological malcontent, and we witness a possible decline into habitual anti-social behavior, which may be difficult to distinguish from a personality disorder, albeit there's still a difference.

A sociopath might also project strong negative emotions toward specific demographics; take the frequent targeting of promiscuous women or prostitutes by serial killers, for example. These killers might view their actions as actually pro-social. Their own mothers may have abused them, and so, in their view, their murder of immoral women offers justice to themselves or even benefits society as a whole.

It's possible that those with anti-social personality disorder (APD) have periods wherein they have a relief from their pathology, and they must then contend with the havoc that they've caused in their interpersonal relationships, which can bring intense feelings of regret, guilt and sadness. In a way, an isolated altruistic act, such as the changing of a flat tire, provides catharsis to the sociopath and justifies continued destructive acts.

A sociopath may also respond to a request for aid as the latter offers an opportunity for him to assert control over another. Similar to a co-dependent, sociopaths enjoy feelings of empowerment. A needy person momentarily renders himself vulnerable to the will of the sociopath, who feels dominant over the other party.

 

[michael94]

Well, given that we rarely distinguish between the terms sociopath and psychopath, these individuals still experience normal human emotion but in a diminished capacity, which may be context-specific. In other words, a sociopath might relate very strongly to animals, for instance: moreso than a normal person. Since sociopathy and the capacity for emotion varies among all individuals, we all, by definition, have a varying degree of anti-social tendency. If stressed, or colloquially, "having a bad day," an individual might drive aggressively, endangering the lives of the people around him, and such a person will not be as willing to lend a helping hand to others. Take a person who "has a bad day" every day, that is, a chronic state of psychological malcontent, and we witness a possible decline into habitual anti-social behavior, which may be difficult to distinguish from a personality disorder, albeit there's still a difference.

A sociopath might also project strong negative emotions toward specific demographics; take the frequent targeting of promiscuous women or prostitutes by serial killers, for example. These killers might view their actions as actually pro-social. Their own mothers may have abused them, and so, in their view, their murder of immoral women offers justice to themselves or even benefits society as a whole.

It's possible that those with anti-social personality disorder (APD) have periods wherein they have a relief from their pathology, and they must then contend with the havoc that they've caused in their interpersonal relationships, which can bring intense feelings of regret, guilt and sadness. In a way, an isolated altruistic act, such as the changing of a flat tire, provides catharsis to the sociopath and justifies continued destructive acts.

A sociopath may also respond to a request for aid as the latter offers an opportunity for him to assert control over another. Similar to a co-dependent, sociopaths enjoy feelings of empowerment. A needy person momentarily renders himself vulnerable to the will of the sociopath, who feels dominant over the other party.

Dave, leave the psychoanalyzing to rodents in Universities. You have nothing to gain from it.

 

[michael94]

Dave, leave the psychoanalyzing to rodents in Universities. You have nothing to gain from it.

It's not that one cant make factually accurate and interesting observations through means of psychoanalysis... that's not the issue here. The problem is that it is profane and borders on robotic... an annihilation of beauty in attempt to understand it! The Stomach of the Abyss which can ensnare and ferment!

Gesamtkunstwerk - that word explains everything I'm trying to say. Be careful who and what you make part of yours.

 

[Barry]

Unfortunately, I came to realize it isn't quite this simple. I spent 6 months eating an abundance of calories and all that happened is I got fat. 90 lbs of fat. For some people just eating more very well may work I suppose. And now that I'm fat I'm screwed because that is 90 lbs of aromatizing mass that is making me extremely estrogen dominant. I have to eat virtually zero dietary fat now in an attempt to make the fat budge.

Calories is absolutely needed but if it were this simple we wouldn't have so many problem cases (like myself) on these forums. I was misled by others like Nathan Hatch who just say eat more too. Does not work. At least not for me.

Now I am going for more reasonable calorie levels and trying to optimize the types of foods (low protein low fat, high carb).

Yes agree. Particularly once you are past, say 30, you need to moderate your calories. I am 51, 5'11", 135 lbs. My weight is low because I have spent the past 7 years basically poisoning myself on a low-calorie vegan pufa diet. I am still vegan, but I am now convinced of the metabolic approach, that I believe, has to include a large amount of fruit. I think, for me, around 2300 calories is sufficient to have an extremely high energy life, but not to overburden my body with excess calories.

If you are overweight, just include more fruit, while maintaining around 2300 calories per day. this will remove extra weight. And get red light and sunlight when possible. And the TV should be disconnected.

 

[DaveFoster]

It's not that one cant make factually accurate and interesting observations through means of psychoanalysis... that's not the issue here. The problem is that it is profane and borders on robotic... an annihilation of beauty in attempt to understand it! The Stomach of the Abyss which can ensnare and ferment!

Gesamtkunstwerk - that word explains everything I'm trying to say. Be careful who and what you make part of yours.

Indeed, maybe I should distance myself from the academy altogether. Such a shame. I don't know, thanks.

 

[boris]

That was a pleasurable read, great write up

Very nice lamp of red. Thank yoy

Omg I always read it as lampo-fred

 

[milkboi]

That was a pleasurable read, great write up



Omg I always read it as lampo-fred

Haha me too.