aurum

Both lobotomies and dead people are imagined within the field of consciousness YES that's what awakening is. You are God Mind, absolutely no where, imagining that you need a body, a brain, biology and physical space. It's not metaphorical, it's metaphysical. I mean exactly what I am saying. There is nothing beyond what you call perception. It's the other way around. If perception was the result of biology, then your perception would not be absolute. Your perception would be merely a representation of deeper biological processes, happening somewhere in the brain. Which it is not. It's precisely because perception does not require a body or biology that it is absolute. Everything is One, whether you cuss out drivers or not. Everything is One, whether you believe it or not. Everything is One, whether you are completely unconscious of this or not. Everything is One, whether you are asleep or awake. But yes, to your point, embodiment work still matters.

Yes, pickup can become an endless chase which becomes toxic and immature. But the reality is that most guys have no choice but to be somewhat content where they fit in. Contentment is forced upon them by the lack of their own ability and effort, not because they're more healthy. If you're a 6 aiming for a 10, their motivations are likely mixed. There will be some lower motivations, but also potentially some higher motivations. You can use the pursuit of women to grow yourself as a man because your attractiveness is highly dependent on self-investment. There are many valid lessons and growth opportunities you can gain from doing so. Ideally, you will also end up contributing a lot more survival value to society. The reason many guys have such poor results with women is that they contribute so little value to society. Which is also partially why they're broke. I'm way more impressed with a guy who chooses to not sleep with a 10 for higher purposes, than one who is contributes so little value that they couldn't do it if they tried. Most guys have never even met a 10. Part of the point of this forum is to talk about achieving minority-level results. Less men will ever spiritually awaken than sleep with a 10, but here we are anyway. I agree with that advice. But also, physical beauty is legitimately rare. If it wasn't rare, it wouldn't be valuable.

Been waiting for this!

Yes, attraction has a relative component. But it's not that hard to find general trends of what is attractive. You're relativizing attraction way too much.

If you want to question the validity of my experience, then I'll just question yours. Why should I trust your insight is valid and not just a belief? Two can play that game. My insights do not exclude survival. And even if my insights were corrupted by survival, they would still be true. Whether you move out of the way of the bus or not, that's just dream-content within the field of consciousness. You still don't have a body.

Yes and yes. That's the whole point of spiritual work.

I've done various forms of spiritual work for over a decade. No. You do not need a body at all. I don't assume you're talking about a "self". You are talking about physical biology, which I am denying.

I don't have a body or eyes. I'm not a biological entity. There is nothing prior to experience. Experience is all you have. Interpretation is part of experience. Both the object and any disliking of the object would appear in the field of consciousness. Both are subsets of consciousness.

Someone is going to date the 9s and 10s. If you're a guy who is very attractive or otherwise brings a lot of value, dating less than what you're worth becomes untenable. It'd be like having a PhD and then going to work the cash register at McDonalds. You won't even get hired for being overqualified. It has to be a match. People end up dating someone who is roughly equivalent in value to them and who is convenient. Almost everything else is noise.

They are not the same thing. But mental interpretations do occur within your field of consciousness. And so we could and should collapse the distinction between them. It's a nuanced point. I don't define perception that way. Metaphysically, perception is not a biological process. By perception I just mean your entire field of consciousness. Anything you can experience, including all mental interpretations.

Why do you say that?

That IS dropping the distinction. To realize that the unchanging source (total openness) is actually everything (infinity) is to collapse the two. Which is exactly what is needed.

Yes we've had this debate before. I think this is where my understanding at least slightly differs. Ultimately you have to drop the distinction between the unchanging source (nothingness) and the changing manifest.

Yes that's correct. The absolute is relative. As of course it must be. There is just infinite consciousness.

I am not arguing that at all. I don't care about that. The only reason for that comment was to point out that you could just as easily create an alternate interpretation that would also make sense. What I think is self-deception is Donald Hoffman's understanding of consciousness.

You are mixing up a statement of ontology with the correctness of your beliefs. Try thinking about it like this: If your teacher gives you back an exam and you get 73% right, then that's exactly what is. When you look at the paper and it says "73%" on top, that experience is absolute. Even though you got a 73% on the exam. When you hear your teacher call your name, that's absolute. Your entire field of consciousness is ontologically absolute. But within that, you can have mistaken beliefs. It should be obvious that you can have mistaken beliefs and that you're not always right. If you've ever been wrong about something, then you know this is the case.

By perception, I just mean whatever is your field of consciousness. I don't just specifically mean a mental interpretation. Although that is also part of your consciousness. Use of the word "perception" here is mostly pragmatic. Strictly speaking, it's just Consciousness. No outside perceiver, no outside perception.

This one is not just specifically on MAGA, but it's still relevant. Donate to Trump campaign, go public:

I'm being a bit loose in my language. Yes, you can and should deconstruct the notion of perception, such that there's not even a perceiver. When I say "perception", I just mean what most people consider their field of consciousness. What's necessary is to deconstruct every overlay story that tells you that your field of consciousness is not Absolute as it is. "My field of consciousness is actually made up of atoms, molecules and subatomic particles" - No. "My field of consciousness is a survival-based interface, based on symbols of actual reality" - No. "My field of consciousness is generated by brain activity, which is what's real" - No. "My field of consciousness has optical illusions" - No. "My field of consciousness is a simulation / virtual reality "- No "My field of consciousness is being perceived by a physical creature" - No. "My field of consciousness can hallucinate and show me what's not actually there" - No. "My field of consciousness contains objects that are still there when I don't perceive them"- No "My field of consciousness is just one perspective in an external world I am participating in" - No. "My field of consciousness is just one field of consciousness among many field of consciousnesses" - No.

If you didn't identify with anything, you'd become Infinity.

But is that actually understood? Someone like Donald Hoffman does not actually understand what Absolute Perception means. They think no such thing exists and that it's just survival based interpretations. To actually understand Absolute Perception is earth-shattering. It's not "oh yeah, well I already knew that, duh". The scribbles are viewed perfectly objectively. You could not view them any other way, because there is only perfectly objective perception. Subjective = objective. And really we should say they are not even viewed at all. They just exist as is.

Perception itself is Absolute. Deconstruct the notion that there is a perceiver doing survival. There is just perception, full stop. Alternatively, you could say there's no perception at all since there is no perceiver. It's just Consciousness. Any notion you have of a perceiver is within Consciousness.

Well keep doing what you're doing. Seems to be working for you.

I want to make a general point about this social circle vs cold approach debate. "Social circle" and "cold approach" are constructs that we could deconstruct. They're often not that clearly distinguishable. For instance, if I'm in college and approach a girl I don't know from class, is that cold approach or social circle? She is part of the larger social circle of my college. Maybe she has seen me before in class. So it's not strictly cold, but it's not strictly social circle. What about if you're at a friend's party and you approach a woman you don't know? What about if you're in a VIP section of a nightclub with friends and approach a random woman from the general section to come join you? What about if you're at an eclusive business networking event and open someone? The line gets blurry very fast. Really this cold approach vs social circle debate is a continuum. Where at the one end, you're approaching a complete stranger who is at least a member of the same human species. And at the other end, you are having your closest friends or family directly introducing you to someone. Realistically, everyone is choosing some sort of hybrid strategy. The question is just how much. How much cold approach do you want versus social circle? What are the tradeoffs for each strategy? In what context does each work best? And how does it fit into your larger life goals? When you lean more cold approach, you get more anonymity, volume and directness. When you lean more social circle, you get more exposure, indirectness and compounding effects. Which is inherently better?

I was thinking that as well but didn't want to say it. Bro is playing on easy mode