Natasha Tori Maru

I find when I am not attached to what is being criticised I do not get angry or react. Just as an example - I submitted a claim for a lot of electrical work to a client. One of the consultants wrote an email back raising the lack of diligence in detailed costs and breakdowns. There were some hard words about levels of professionalism and diligence in the email. The consultant was having an emotional anger based reaction because the price was their design - so they felt partially responsible for the price. However, to avoid this feeling of shame for designing something of high price, he attempted to shame me by criticizing my work compiling the submission. I did not get angry due to his criticism. It was a poor submission and lacked detail. What the consultant did not know, was that I had no time for a detailed price; we had to begin the work asap prior to the ceiling being plastered. So the figures were lump sums simply to gain approval. The submission was not to my standard - but sometimes done is good enough under pressure. I gave the fella a call to clarify, and then later provided a detailed breakdown which was accepted. I was heavily criticised in email with the client, superintended, architect, consultants and qty surveyor. I think most people would feel shame in my shoes, but I did not. Even if I had submitted sloppy work with no excuse. So what? I submitted crap work. I just take responsibility regardless of fault. Just need a solution. For me, my work is what I do. It isn't who I am. It doesnt make me more valid. I just ' am '. I perform when I need to under given restraints. I am not attached. Similar to my thoughts & ideas. They happen, but I am not attached to them. Just ideas. The problem is, most people cannot detangle their emotions from their work. Their creation. They are entangled. I still experience being triggered at work, but much less so. A lot of deep, deep shame, trauma and emotional / feeling work has gone to get me into this space. Spirituality is beautiful for this process. I have problems when people treat each other cruelly, or display deep, deep hubris / bigotry.

You could also look at it as an opportunity to further refine your worldview regarding emotions / feelings. I suppose anger is both. Good questions prompt refinement and insight 😃 This forum in general is quite lacerated from emotion / feeling. Much more heady, ungrounded intellectualism here.

As in, will I engage in good faith? Or course! Why else would I discuss this? If someone presents a good argument I will concede a point for sure. That's why I engage. I am not so entrenched in an epistemic worldview like some here. Who insist, interject and correct incessantly. Clash of epistemic worldviews that ends up in constipated passive aggressive shit. I can agree to disagree in peace. But I know the context we come from given all the recent forum shenanigans.

@Joseph Maynor definitely disagree. You can be critical in assessment with discernment only, removing judgement. Judgement typically provokes the ego. Criticism tends to trigger anger when it hits at someones identity. Criticism can be received when it is not entangled with identity. Or we trust the others intentions IE in a good faith discussion. I suppose it depends if it touches at identity. Which is why I propose criticism isn't always ego related.

@Joseph Maynor Critisizm is for sure not the only source of anger - in fact - one can criticize without anger.

@Joseph Maynor When do you perceive anger to arrive from sources outside the ego?

@Lyubovagree with much of this. I'll add: Men are often socialised out of emotional connection, both with each other and with themselves. Stoicism, being strong, carrying burdens, being dependable for others; these are masculine ideals most men are exposed to from a young age. As children, boys and girls both experience the full gamut of emotion. Both seek comfort, reassurance, connection, and emotional attunement from parents and family. Culturally, women are generally encouraged to maintain and deepen emotional connection as they grow older, while many men are steered away from this. It can be discouraged in the face of the masculine ideals external to us. A lot of men learn that vulnerability risks shame, rejection, weakness, or social isolation. Emotional expression is then filtered, minimised, hidden. Over time, many are left without the kind of support networks that women are more often encouraged to build and maintain. I don’t think men necessarily have - more - emotional needs than women. I think many men simply have fewer socially acceptable outlets for those needs to be met. When in emotional pain, many men are carrying it with less support, less practice expressing it, and fewer people checking in on them. This circles right back to the male loneliness epidemic. And much of the toxic red pill idealogy recognises men's emotional needs - but fails to present a good solution.

Robert talks about his new book here - but this conversation was a good outline of his general view. It might help clear up some of the negativity around 48 laws of power. It supplies good context. I actually enjoyed this one from Huberman. I am, in general, not a fan. His new book sounds like it speaks to spiritual endeavours.

Rofl myself included. The same primordial slime 😃

Yeah, I mean. It is a leftover joy from younger days. Plus, when you have a motorcycle accident - it's generally not a little boo-boo. It's usually catastrophic. I'll avoid turning into a meat crayon just so I can return here to raucously rub brains with Carl - And the rest of the forum goers 🫠🫠🫠

@Zigzag Idiot I gotchu fam

Oh boy, new Boards of Canada!! https://youtu.be/74NluS3jzTo?si=A9l_cp9ZfKU6bPMB

@Breakingthewall I don't think anyone is wrong about everything. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. You misunderstand Ralston. Bit too austere for me. I won't converse over this.

The only apology I accept is behaviour change. You apologise to yourself by changing your behaviour.

Ducati xDiavel - nice low seat. It's heavy though, lots of power. Not a first timer bike I'm considering selling it. Riding is dangerous and I am getting to an age where injuries and health are my main concern going forward. Love it though

What kind of hands do you like in a man? NB most chicks have a thing for hands and forearms. Like, a legit preference. Type. Shape. Muscularity. Vascularity. Digit length, span etc It's weird. All my girlfriend's and family women have some distinct thing they find attractive in forearms/hands.

Damn bro - like maybe for some. I just love riding the bike. Speed. Power. Wind. Just the pure joy of it without making it about my gender

@JoshB appreciate you sharing your experience today. Thank you.

@JoshB the full moon shines light through the night sky; but it is our job to know it is an illusion. The moon doesn't shine as a true light source, it merely reflects the light from the sun 🌛

Oh that's not possible - you cannot kill the ego. You cannot kill something that never existed in the first place! Maybe deconstruct and to see through it is the intent. Not destruction.

@JoshB gotcha, you summarised much more succinctly what I was trying to express.

Oh, what I asked could be an error due to my understanding of pure OCD being off; normal OCD has the 'thoughts' and then, the compulsion or action performed in reality (IE washing hands due to germs to be cleaner) to relieve the thought. But acting out of the compulsion usually amplifies the obsessed thoughts, instead of relieve them. So I was wondering if pure OCD is like, an obsessive fixation on a topic, and the compulsion is driving and circling the thoughts ABOUT the topic to gain 'certainty'. Only instead of acting out an action in real life to relieve the anxiety, the action is totally mental - an attempt for conclusion. I might not understand pure OCD 🤔

We are talking relative matters, not absolute. Not that you claim anything I claim is wrong, just wrong domain.

Sometimes - I've met people in real life who were remarkably true in transmission to their online persona. It is just very, very uncommon. Witness, even, these forums. No one reveals any connection between their avatars and real life.

@JoshB do you think your thoughts/drive toward certainty are the compulsion, while the topic is the obsession? @Leo Gura Do you think the possibility exists Ralston is heavily compartmentalizing his feeling / emotional capacity & expression purposely? It seems strange to not be aware of emotions and feelings. If they are ignored or repressed, we run the risk of them governing our thoughts (and bias) in ways that aren't transparent. Regardless of Ralston's communication topics, he is often transmitting frustration, aggression and frustration in his expression. He does occasionally miss identifying limitation in others and continually underestimates his natural ability. It doesn't need to be called out (that someone is limited) but it genuinely appears to be pain point for him; how often do we see him incredulous that others do not " get it ". And then he vomits out a rant punctuated by frustration. I've seen people who repress or are unconcious to feelings / emotional affect be very close to becoming charged up and triggered. Emotional energy resides just under the the surface. If Ralston is doing any of this, Love as a concept could be a blind spot. Repressed. Overlooked. Discarded as nothing but human fantasy. Anyway just some random musings. We only have what he chooses to show / expound on, to work with.