LastThursday

How do you know your self worth? I want to go over one particular dimension of self worth, that of attractiveness. Before I launch I should add that being attractive has fundamentally nothing to do with self worth, but in every day life as it is, it does. Let's talk about the face. None of us can see our faces without looking into a mirror or a webcam. We a born not knowing how attractive we are facially. In any case, when we do look in a mirror we are probably not the best judge of our own attractiveness; what do we have to go on anyway? We look at magazine covers and say, well, she's attractive or he's attractive. The standard is set by our societal mores at any one particular period in time. That's it? Do we look at others and then judge ourselves? I'd say not. We still need a yardstick with which to measure. That yardstick is other people's reactions to attractiveness. It is the active reaction to attractiveness that we use to measure own attractiveness. I'd say 99% of the time we don't even think about our own attractiveness, we are actually neutral towards it. But if every time you walk into a room full of strangers some of those strangers stare at you, their pupils dilate and their faces flush - then even the most stupid person will eventually realise that they are invoking a reaction in others. What about me could be invoking that reaction, I think? Well... every time I see a good looking person, I have the same reaction. Bingo! I must be attractive. And so it goes. This reasoning is mostly unconscious, over time you build up a map of your own attractiveness: your face, hair, body, arms, legs, skin and so on. Sometimes it becomes overt and you will consciously obsess about your attributes, because you know deep down that attractiveness is variable and doesn't last and, that it's completely in the eye of the beholder (generally society at large); you could lose your attractive self worth at a moment's notice. What happens if you don't pander to someone's unconscious knowledge of their own attractiveness? i.e. you don't flush and dilate? I'd say it's nearly impossible not to give the game away, but there's still a slim chance of pulling it off. The reaction will vary between completely being blanked, or intense curiosity. But even the blankers will wonder what's wrong with you at least - you will get their attention either way. And, if you're in the attraction game (most of us are looking for sex or a committed partner), then getting attention is half the battle. This anti-attraction pattern only works on those who expect attention (even if unconsciously). What about all those average Joes and Janes who "know" they're actually averagely attractive? Indeed, what about them? What I mean is that these types probably don't obsess or even think about their attractiveness in any big way. And they have it right, we don't naturally know our own attractiveness, only other people can tell us that. We inherently don't care and nor should we. Self worth is illusory. How attractive was this post? I can only tell by watching the viewing numbers tick up. That way I will measure my self worth.

Personally I think you're over thinking the whole situation. Switch off your problem solving brain and go with your feelings. Actually give yourself a chance to enjoy the unique situation you're in. Every relationship is different whether that's friends, FWB or full on attached or anything inbetween. If the girl can't make her mind up or wants more, then just go with the flow. Just be very clear in your communication: if she breaks up with you, then you're going to go with other women - simple, straightforward. If she wants more, then say to her "ok" and give it a go - don't over think it. Or just set a time limit if you're daring enough: "let's date for one month and see how it goes after that". Or literally just flow with it, be like a leaf in the wind, enjoy the breeze. Let her test you and pretend you're not bothered, play the game.

@Pseudom more choice just means you can be pickier. If I only have two women to choose from, then if I'd like a girlfriend, then I'll probably have to lower my standards and pick one. If I have 18,726 women to choose from, I can afford to have higher standards, and I'm more likely to find "the one". But the reality is, even if you dated a different woman every single day, you'll only get through 364 a year (with a break for Christmas). That's over 51 years to get through your pool of 18,726. In reality most men have about 3 women to choose from at any one time - and one of those is probably their sister or mother, so 2. And the remaining women think you're an awkward dweeb or so intelligent you make them look stupid or too "unmanly" or they're already involved or a lesbian (or so they say). Even dating apps don't help, unless you have a PhD in taking photographs and a degree in English literature. That is why you're desperate for this one girl - your male brain already knows the maths without working it out. I've done both in my life. Full no contact is definitely the best most loving choice for all involved.

Just sleep in your car:

I work both ways, with and without music. Although if I need to focus on something difficult, banging EDM works well or anything with a repetitive rhythm. Music with singing of any sort puts me off. Slow music like ambient or some classical I avoid.

Minimalism is generally about owning things. An object is either useful and functional or it isn't. So definitely from an environmental point of view, owning useless objects eats up the Earth's resources unecessarily in their production and disposing of them can harm the environment. If being friendly to the environment is an ideology, then so is minimalism. You can take minimalism to any extreme you like, there are very few things you actually need to own. If you go travelling the world for example, just a backpack full off stuff can be good enough. You need enough to have a change clothes for different weather, shoes for different terrain, and stuff for hygiene; that's it. Minimalism is cheap, it's the antithesis of being rich. It's true that you have to pay for accommodation and sleeping arrangments, and you need to feed yourself, and that will always be the greatest outlay in surviving - but you don't need to be rich for that. Minimalism is definitely sustainable, but it requires a certain mindset. We humans do love our luxuries and pampering and if that's all you've ever known, switching to minalism for any length of time is going to be very difficult. It can get old very quickly if you're wearing the same shoes, pair of jeans and T-shirt every single day. It really depends on what is important to you. Some people want to express themselves through the things they own and wear. Some people need objects to stimulate them - I sure as hell need this laptop! But I'm also sentimentally attached to my childhood teddy, despite not actually needing it. There's also something to be said for not being mentally attached to objects you own, you'll spend much less time worrying and thinking unecessarily about them. If you own a swanky car, you'll spend inordinate amounts of time keeping it clean, servicing it, posing in it and so on. All that thinking time could be spent on self-improvement and being more focused on the real world and people. Owning too much stuff is a real distraction from living life.

I sometimes get the What The Fuck Is Going On symptoms. The main manifestation of it comes on when I'm listening to music, especially with repetitive motifs or rhythm. Music speaks directly to my being and unlocks that sensation of WTFIGO. To a large degree so does being blasted by nature. I've had some experiences where I nearly cried at the enormity and beauty of nature. I've not yet combined the two for a double hit. I'd say it was more sensation than thought. It's a kind blend of incredulity and directness, a paradox. I can't believe it's all happening, yet it's all happening. Despite what anyone tells me or says or expounds, I know very deep down within myself that there is actually no answer to WTFIGO. Saying it's all God or non-duality or other such thing is shifting the blame sideways. In fact I would say it's unhelpful, as you're simply adding another layer of indirection. It's like trying to explain a knot, by tying more knots. Another odd sensation I get is that I'm so analytical and in my head, that I wind myself up emotionally and yet it all passes away in the end. Then I do further analysis and come to the conclusion that I overreacted, and I lost myself to thought, I wasted my time, I tainted my experience of this. Analysis about analysis. The further I push myself with this line of reasoning, the more I think that I should give up reasoning altogether: I'm just spoiling my experience of reality. And yet, analysis and reasoning is just as much part of reality as anything else. The mind ties itself up in knots. What is a better way to approach WTFIGO? I know intuitively that giving up thinking about it at all is a step in the right direction. Some would think that was defeatist, but they would be the thinking types. Another is to actually goad myself into having more WTFIGO moments. Go out in nature, explore the world and people and cultures, steep myself in it. There's this idealised notion of mine that cavemen or hunter gatherers or our ape ancestors were always in this state of WTFIGO. There were less blinded by the paraphernalia of civilisation and modern living. "Closer to the source" some mystical types might say. One more situation in which I get WTFIGO is taking an afternoon nap. It's that feeling of something deeply familiar and cosy just as you wake up, that soon gets lost as (self-) consciousness takes over. And if any explanation held water then WTFIGO is simply a feeling or knowing of a deep familiarity with everything and that you are it.

You definitely shouldn't just conform if it goes against your values. To a certain degree it's a numbers game like it or not. Ultimately, you will find someone that ticks all the boxes or most of them. The higher the bar of perfection, the more people you will have to meet before you find that perfect person. It seems like there's an element here that isn't to do with sex at all, but more to do with compatibility? It's really a two sided conversation with each new partner, you both have to be compatible with each other's needs and values. Not all values are equal and some you may be willing to bend on if everything else fits.

Do you think that your ambivalence is at the root of your insecurity around sex? I guess I would ask myself: do I really want to have sex, am I really that bothered? If the answer is no, then I'd put my mental energies elsewhere, and let yourself off the hook. If yes, then get on with it in some fashion that suits you most and don't look back. I will add, that sex is different with each person, sometimes very different. Sometimes amazing, sometimes crap. To a certain degree, you will improve over time, but there's no accounting for the other person.

Always act immediately, if you don't you will talk yourself out of it or lose interest. But do your research first, that's a big part of it. You have to lay the groundwork before fully going for it. Find out whether someone else is doing it already and then find out how feasible (time/money) it's going to be. If it's looking good, then always have a plan of action with milestones and smaller steps. If you need to interest other people to get things done, having a tangible plan is huge. If you're no good at planning and researching, then get someone you trust to do those steps and give them a cut of the business (or at least pay them). I would say that learning coding is the least of the worries, and in fact you can pay someone else to do that - coding for commerce is very very complicated.

Note to self: walking on water...

I'd like to improve the way I offer advice or guidance or insight. I think and want to genuinely improve people's lives even in a small way. I see a lot of stuff in self help or other places that basically say: "you need to do this in that situation" or "love yourself more" or "let go" and so on. That's a prescriptive solution. I hardly ever see a descriptive solution: "you can love yourself more by pampering yourself", "you can let go by working on anxiety", "you can work on anxiety by meditating" and so on. What are some better ways to offer advice or help? How do I improve?

Self-referencing questions are delayed maybe until the next post. Instead I'll talk about thought. Ha! A self referencing topic: thought about thought. I just can't help myself. Can thought explain itself? Maybe, although I've spoiled the punchline. But I can at least give it a go. What can thoughts be? The most commonly accepted would be sub-vocalisation, or talking to yourself. This isn't so much muttering as more hallucinating. You hallucinate a disembodied voice which may match your spoken voice to some degree (or maybe not). This voice then gives a sort of running commentary either on what's happening "out there", or more of a ruminating sense of creating a story around a subject. Being linguistically based, sub-vocalisation is very structured. That is its primary strength and why its used for logical thought. Logic shares the same highly structured appearance, but adds consistency for good measure. Language is not necessarily consistent and hence not necessarily logical. So sub-vocalisation can be co-opted for logic: and that is what some people refer to as thought. What else can thoughts be? For those non-sub-vocalisers (me included sometimes), it's those sensations and experiences that don't emanate from the material world. This is a very vague definition and problematic. After all, how do we learn to distinguish the material world from the not-material world? Anyway, I'll carry on. It's totally possible to think visually, for example when mentally trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle. It's possible to think kinaesthetically, for example when threading a needle or making a cup of tea. Or auditorily when you have an earworm. You could even imagine tasting a lemon: that is thought. You could argue because all those non-sub-vocalising types of thought are not logical that they aren't thought at all. I would strongly disagree. In fact all of those other modes of thought can be logical and self-consistent. For example imagine thinking about arranging three differently sized blocks so that they support each other. There's an inherent logic about that puzzle, and it uses both visual and possibly kinaesthetic thought. But thought does not have to be logical at all. What else is thought? Memories. That is those sensations which you mark as having happened and you are somehow replaying now. The close acquaintance of thought memory is fantasy or thinking about the future. That is just thought you mark as not having happened. It's worth noting as an aside that it is precisely this "marking" system that goes awry in some mental health problems or is the source of episodes of Deja Vu. How far can thought be stretched? Anything which happens...now, is due for instant shelving into the near past. Once an experience has passed, it instantly goes into the realm of memory and therefore thought. In a strong sense the present moment is just thought: it is constantly slipping away. The whole world is a thought. And that, is why thought can explain thought, in exactly the same way a banana explains itself just by being itself.

@Godishere just to bring things down to earth a bit: https://logological.org/girlfriend, Although the pool is still quite large, time is against you.

The past occurred and it exists, you can even relive it and make stories up about it. But don't get confused. The past is indistiguishable from now. Even if you could build a time machine and fully relive a past experience, it would still be just the present moment. The past and the present are not separated by a wall, they are the same thing.

Acting Dumb to Teach Something pinged after posting the Offering Advice thread (https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/63985-offering-advice). This thread hooks up with a previous post in this journal where I was pouring my heart out about feeling helpless to help others (https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/50371-journey-to-nothing/?do=findComment&comment=863458). And for some quick background, hooks up with a part of me that really feels and wants to help other people actualize and boost them. I see so many people suffering even if in minor ways, and I often feel unable to help them even though it seems it wouldn't take much to do so. The style of my Offering Advice thread was actually typically and unconsciously @LastThursday. This is where I bring up a topic of conversation knowing (or thinking I know) full well what the answers are. This may seem pointless or even dickish. After all, could I just be doing it to seem cleverer than I really am? To boost my own ego. In other words I play dumb only to pretend to get sudden realisation and then show off my "new" found knowledge? The other aspect of the the thread was another also a very me thing that I do. I love the recursive and self-referencing style of posing questions. I think this basically comes from programming where this sort of thing goes on all the time - things referencing themselves - and is quite powerful if used correctly in that context. With reference to the thread, I was fully conscious that in answering a question about Offering Advice, the responders would actually be offering advice. The responders themselves would be exemplars of what good offering advice should be. In this way everyone would win; I would learn and they would learn by actually doing rather than opinionating. @neovox was clever enough to see through my ruse though, and I felt embarrassed. But having been caught out, and after cogitating for a bit, I realised I actually had no need to be embarrassed. I think the playing dumb technique (if I can call it that) has some value, especially if consciously set up, rather than in the slapdash way I do it. For some history, I think I do this all the time in my interactions, especially when I was a lot younger. It stems from always being two steps ahead of everybody else. People would try and teach me new things, and I would already know more than they did about the subject, cue eye-roll. I found that I would often dumb myself down so that I could relate to people on their level. It became an ingrained habit. Teachers often employ this mode of teaching. They will set up a topic and (transparently) pretend not to know anything about it, so that the pupils were at ease to engage their creativity and come up their own ideas about the topic. The teacher then guides the pupils by throwing out tidbits of new information, so that pupils come eventually to the "right" conclusion. It's a style. And, self-directed learning is a powerful skill to instill. The idea of playing dumb to put people at ease is an important one I think. People can get defensive around a clever dick, it engages their inferiority complex and can sometimes make people angry. In fact the terms "clever dick" and "smart arse" were coined exactly for this use, to bring down a clever person a peg or two. It's important though, if playing dumb is to be consciously done, that it's done with respect - as a style of teaching rather than an underhanded technique to gain some sort of advantage. The main thrust of playing dumb is to learn something new for yourself and for others. You set up the question so that anyone who answers may actually bring some novelty to the answers, it's a way of engaging creativity. Any new knowledge can then be integrated and synergised with the knowledge you already have. You in turn can offer back that newly synergised knowledge in a virtuous circle. In the process all the other responders learn something new and feel as though they have done so at their level. Contrast this with the usual way to expound on a topic: statements of (your) truth are given out to be digested by others. If there are objections or rejections to this truth, these may not even be stated, the responders simply lose interest and go elsewhere - everyone loses. I feel very sure that this playing dumb technique could be more formally polished, but I'll have to give it more thought. In the next episode I'll expand on how to ask recursive and self-referencing questions.

Sometimes I get strange thoughts. I've noticed a trend in so called enlightened gurus or masters that they come in ones. They always seem to be lone wolves. Why is that? If the ego is gone in these people, then what's to stop them inhabiting more than one body? Are there any cases of dual gurus, say one enlightened "entity" spread over two or more people? Why the attachment to a singular body acting like a guru? Or am I being ridiculous?

Some of mine: Feeling comfortable with being away from each other Having independent friends and pursuits Having some common interests and views Experiencing joy or happiness being around each other Finding each other attractive (whatever that means to each person) Working together as a unit, each person is in a symbiotic relationship with the other Not wanting to change or define the other person, but changing and defining yourself Being conscious of each other's needs, and stepping up if the other person is not able to

@neovox caught red handed! Blush. I still genuinely want know how to improve myself though. And if it helps others, then... @Roy I see that relating to someone on their level is important.

You unexpectedly bring up a good point about offering advice. Should it matter how I personally feel about the giving the advice? As long as I know the advice is sound? Is advice enhanced by not being personally attached to the outcome? Should giving help be an egoless activity? For example, say I ask for directions (i.e. need help). The guy says: "I've never been that way myself, but I hear that taking that mountain track is the quickest way up to the monastery.". And I thank him and say, "you're the only person I've found today who knows the way up".

So the enlightened entity already exists in this form, i.e. it is the whole Universe. And, metaphorically all "i" have to do is break free of the pig pen? And as "i" haven't done so yet, then enlightenment will continue to be a figment of "my" imagination. All that is happening is, is that the enlightened entity in its various ways is screaming at me to wake up?

I don't know either way, but does the ego have inner workings? Or to put it another way, is there commonality between the multitude of egos inhabiting bodies? Three things already come to mind I suppose: The need for ownership The need for love The need for identification I don't know if I would add "need" itself to that list, because that would seem to be there even without ego, but I could be wrong.

Note to self: acting dumb to teach.

@Michael569 it's not something that I've given deep thought to, but also not something I would dismiss outright. I guess I asked really for my own development and satisfaction. I've been in many situations were I've tried or wanted to help others, but not really had effective ways of doing so.

@Mason Riggle I think that's why I sneakily asked the question about singular/dual gurus originally. "I" could just as well stop using my voice and let the other "me"s do the talking it would make no difference. Or let "my" cat do the teaching.