RendHeaven

a fixation on wanting to come across as humble is ironically a form of narcissism. the best thing you could do for yourself & others is to just try your best and love whatever results without criticizing it for being less than ideal

How'd that go

@Schizophonia I'm not - I just want to spectate his rizz!

Your question makes a lot of relativistic human assumptions, but I understand your point. The real answer is something like "both" or "there is no difference" However, "only when necessary" is more accurate to direct experience. The idea that atoms in stars have always existed independent of observation is a story in your human mind.

@ZenSwift We demand a PUA debrief!

Good points. I will continue contemplating Fuck

@Leo Gura A while back you framed unity and division as the engine that runs reality. This is of course still true. But forgetfulness and remembrance may be a deeper engine (or maybe the same engine with a more accurate label) As in - forgetfulness and remembrance is not something that Consciousness is doing; rather, forgetfulness and remembrance IS Consciousness, IS substrate. To forget IS to architect and mold this present moment from scratch out of yourself, and then to deny what just happened. But this denial is the key necessary ingredient for any of this to be possible. The fluxing polarity of forgetfulness vs remembrance explains everything; IS everything. Omniscience = knowing so thoroughly the Absolute nature of your shape-shifting Will, that in an impossible maneuver, you grok the infinite necessity of unlearning your Absolute nature, and then Willing it to be so, as you slowly slip into an ignorant slumber... thus losing your Omniscience... but this is all according to Omniscience! i.e. Omniscience KNOWS that it must not-know, and thus KNOWINGLY un-knows, rendering itself ignorant. But it KNOWS this Absolutely, despite genuinely becoming ignorant. Wtf. My head hurts. I'm also hyper aware that I'm laughably not awake as I'm typing all of this. Eager to go deeper and discover more...

The One Alone Consciousness is playing a game with itself here, where it uses other people and this forum to distract from the consequences of its own Oneness. A person's tolerance for loneliness basically comes down to the extent to which Consciousness is willing to end distractions and face the consequences of its own Oneness. If you go all the way into aloneness, it will feel like death, because it's literally death on all levels - physical, psychological, spiritual, conceptual, etc. Without others, you would literally fucking die (by which I mean awaken, but that's not something to take lightly). There is deep survival intelligence behind our social imperative instinct.

lol👺

@ryoko Don't put words in his mouth. Leo has explicitly said very recently that he no longer teaches unconditional happiness because it is a fantasy. If everyone else died other than Leo, he would probably be pretty bummed. The idea that he would run around with an unflinching smile is a cartoon in your mind.

When I said that nigh-superhuman development was required for monogamy, I meant specifically in terms of truth-alignment and freedom-alignment. I wasn't talking about the success of the relationship or even the health or outcomes of anybody involved. You can have a very successful monogamy and a happy family which is full of subtle fictions, lies, conformity, control, and restrictions. In fact, that's an accurate picture of my own parents and upbringing. It seems to me, the better the outcomes, the more fictions are likely involved. Because good outcomes = survival optimization which means skewed priorities and a biased lens with implicit defenses (not always, but often). I think non-monogamy is more truth-aligned and freedom-aligned by default in the absence of superhuman development, for the simple reason that it involves less bias and control. You don't build an identity around differentiating pussies, and she doesn't build an identity out of differentiating dicks. There is a certain truthfulness there which is potentially very threatening (but nonetheless true). This should not be overlooked. However, if we are to talk about maximizing survival, AKA the success/health/outcomes of a relationship model, then the script flips, and monogamy requires less development, as you've noted. Successful non-monogamy requires absolute honesty and transparency which is a tall, tall order. It's as you said - all boils down to what trade-offs each person is willing to make. My takeaways: undeveloped monogamy: most biased and sexually suffocating. decently stable, but often neurotic. constantly threatened. undeveloped non-monogamy: less biased, more sexually free. unstable, and often manipulative and hurtful. chasing sex. developed monogamy: minimal bias. sexually limited by sovereign personal choice. stable, but requires enormous development. developed non-monogamy: minimal bias. more sexually free. stability uncertain, needs more testing. requires absolute honesty/transparency. potentially chasing sex..? If you've ever lost energetic polarity in your past relationships, what was the driving factor?

I don't think the claim is that human connection has been or should be wholly transcended. The frame is more like: "This solitude stuff seems to have disproportionate rewards that nobody is talking about!" It's just a shift in emphasis. And the reason it sounds like he's shitting on socialization is because: he is reporting the results of his personal experience - that being alone is more rewarding than being with people he is verbally overcorrecting for a society which is enormously skewed towards socialization lol It's not a secret that he's eating. He's just saying that eating is #100 on his list of priorities, whereas his younger self (and the rest of society) is pushing for eating at #1. The forum clearly addresses some of his core needs as a human, but this doesn't contradict anything he said in his blogpost. If we give him the benefit of the doubt, he spends more time "locked in his closet" than typing on his keyboard. So there is no hypocrisy. I remember this one. I'm glad you shared with us. You're right. This polarization will lead to feeling alone. But again, feeling alone is not a problem unless you insist that it is. You've written twice now that Leo's recommendations will lead to "feeling alone" as if that's somehow a curse and a bad omen. Aloneness can be a beautiful thing. A breathtaking thing. A triumph and a celebration. Please consider this. No, I am not talking about "transcending the need for people." That would be dumb. I'm not talking about eternal isolation. That would be dumb. I'm talking about socializing whenever you have the need, and then naturally and authentically returning to your closet (lol) when you are genuinely called to be alone. Certain personalities will find disproportionate joy in their inward sanctuary, and Leo's blog post is about highlighting that possibility. Because nobody else in society will ever encourage this.

That was directed towards all of us since we're all doggin on him haha High five me too

This is an arena of nerds, what did you expect

@Emerald I agree with the majority of your post. This is the one thing that made me raise an eyebrow You seem to characterize "the sense of being deeply alone" as something unpleasant. That may just be your projected bias. What if Leo or I find genuine joy in this depth of aloneness? Not as a superiority complex, but as a real honoring of one's silent interior? I think you are quick to assume the worst of reclusive behavior. It doesn't compute for you that there may be genuine joy there, because, as you said, you tried that when you were 20 and it didn't go well. But at best, that only tells you that extended solitude is not right for you. But maybe it's right for Leo. How would you know?

I know my way around the functions. That's not the issue. The issue is about how well any of us can really know tesla. I don't know much about him, so I don't care about challenging the consensus typing (INTJ) But for you who seems convinced that he's ENTP, you have to acknowledge that you've never met him, all you have are handed-down stories of his behaviors and feats. You have no immediate window into his mind. It's literally impossible to definitively judge. There is no right or wrong here, that's the whole point. At best you have more or less accurate guesses. If you were arguing that ENTP is a more likely guess than INTJ, then I would be on board with you, but you're way too definitive in your conclusions. You actually think you're "right." I just did some more research into this specific tangle. It looks like the nerds are split between ENTP, INTP, and INTJ with no definitive conclusion. IDR labs (which is pretty reputable) has tesla as INTJ to this day, despite its footnote that others argue ENTP. https://www.idrlabs.com/intj.php So I'm open to your suggestion but I reject the idea that you're "right," whatever that even means. This whole issue is trickier than you make it sound. I personally don't see ENTP based on the summaries of his behavior (which, again, is all we really have access to). ENTP tends prioritize variety of insight and discussion. Apparently, tesla was hyper-focused on one project at a time and didn't care to convince people of anything. INTP holds more water if you want to reject INTJ.

Gotcha Thank you for leading us there

I'm just going with the overwhelming consensus because there's no way for me to know. Which is why I said I'm "pretty sure" he's INTJ. Whereas you seem absolutely convinced that he's ENTP, which is a losing position because you're really just speculating.

I appreciate the support but I"m pretty sure tesla is INTJ lol. So this particular example works against you. I think Leo is mostly correct - just overlooking certain nuances and speaking too plainly.

My point: It's not as clear cut as saying that "Extroverts literally have shallower minds" when "100% talking about Jungian cognitive functions." (Verbatim your words.) Because after rigorous digging, the ENTP (extrovert-dominant) mind is on average more resilient against group-think than the ISFJ (introvert-dominant) mind. Yes, this is the one exception which in some sense "proves" the rule. Your claim holds water with regards to the other function stacks. I'm just encouraging more accurate speech.

@Leo Gura please read the chatgpt link : ) especially the list at the end. An ENTP has more mental autonomy than an ISFJ i'm literally steelmanning you

@Leo Gura Hmm. Well then in that case you can't just extrapolate from "E" vs "I" and make simple claims about social behavior. Because as user @Myagooshki points out, the "E" vs "I" demarcation is a shorthand representation of Jung's 8 core cognitive functions: https://cognitiveprocesses.com/ The difference between an INFJ and an ENFJ is NOT how social they are. The difference is in how they process the world. https://chatgpt.com/share/679c4f03-af34-800f-9d3c-c48484b8a86e I hope you take the time to read this chatGPT elucidation. Your final conclusion may still hold water, but if you're going to invoke Jungian cognitive functions, then the rationale is more nuanced.

I agree. I will never "give up socialization" because I love people too much. But going forward I will cherish alone time more. Really sink into it as opposed to being vaguely antsy and distracted

You've got to wonder how many people in that study sample have mastered solitude. I would bet 0.

Yea when Leo uses introvert/extrovert he's not talking about jungian cognitive functions lol he means very simply are you surrounded by people all the time or not