Natasha Tori Maru

Ha! You are kidding yourself

Understand my meaning. Not just surface analysis where you think because a mechanism is "explained" their behaviour, intentions, meaning and experience are known. For example - with a passage like this: What are you trying to achieve, other than to advertise an analytical observation of mechanistic behaviour? It substitutes analytical interpretation for relational understanding. Your action here appears to take Leo's observed rhetoric and convert it to a model of Leo's inner state and motives. That model/analysis may be partially or entirely correct. Do you think you might be trying to produce insight? This is unlikely, by itself, to produce the kind of self-recognition that facilitates voluntary change. Especially as this sort of analytical model-push has been repeated by you many times (and others) on the forum, over a prolonged period. Again I make no comment as to whether I think you are correct or not. If you want to achieve a change in Leo, you need to create the possibility of affecting recognition from him. He needs to recognise himself in your representation of him. There is very little relational connection occurring in the interaction as described. Connection needs to have this relational aspect to be transformational. Hit from both axis (insight "There is a pattern here" + recognition "Yes, I see this pattern occurring in me"). Your analysis of Leo denies his meaning before discovering it. Imagine Leo responds to the above "That's not what I'm doing at all. I'm actually trying to articulate something I think people are misunderstanding." Often the response will be: "That's exactly what someone with a superiority complex would say." (in fact, I can imagine you writing this - and maybe you wouldn't, but my mind took me there!). But that is a self sealing model where anything Leo says is more evidence for the model. That is the opposite of relational understanding. This the other dataset you are overlooking by focusing so much on analytical understanding (mechanistic explanation) then the "mind reading" epistemological leap. And that dataset is found in relational understanding. By avoiding relating in this way, you subtly dehumanise Leo (you may not intent to do this at all, it is just this mode of relating can have dehumanising effects regardless of intention). You can remove yourself from the relational experience of what you're saying, and therefore from what it may be like to repeatedly have someone interpret your inner world through armchair psychology. Stripping someone of their humanity like this is just going to block your message from being recognised. Relational knowledge and understanding is part of the pathway by which another person can actually receive and integrate a message. Explanation is not understanding. Having said all that - this is why I am confused as to what you are trying to achieve. If you just fancy your ability to diagnose and play psychologist, or if you are genuinely trying to get through to Leo and aren't aware that you have more tools available to you. And if the case is the latter - the dehumanising effect your persistent comments can cause is shooting you in the foot.

An insight is “true,” or it is not really an insight. An insight is not simply an opinion or a guess. An insight is an authentic experience. An insight is beyond any belief—it is instead something personally encountered and understood. An insight is self-validating, since the truth or validity of the realization lies inherent in the thing realized. An insight is authentic, and a person who has one will speak with authority since no guesswork is involved. With insight, a clear and personal grasping of the subject matter is the authority Do we agree with the above? Do you have any body, emotion, or feeling sensations along with an insight that indicate the experience for you? I do. Tell me what you experience adjacent to your insights.

You think you can grab or claim a woman without paying conscious attention to emotions?

I would start off by approaching the discovery of someone's values and their value structure by spearheading toward relational based questions. Lean into relational over analytical (you need both though). Analytical understanding is good to uncover someone's stated values - but people can lie, virtue signal or simply be telling themselves a story they want to believe about what they value. Relational understanding give you access to an often overlooked dataset that isn't often seen when we analyse. This delves into what actually has meaning for the person. Relational based questions often need us to understand meaning - the persons meaning - to fully grasp. But they result in that person feeling seen and sharing a sense of belonging and being. Powerful. - What makes life feel really worthwhile to you? - When do you feel most alive? - What sort of experience leave you feeling deeply fulfilled? - What do you care about so much that you actually feel hurt when it goes wrong? - When do you feel most yourself? - What do you admire in someone that makes you think "I want to be just like that!" - What kind of things make you angry? Not just irritated, like morally angry? - What makes you feel deeply connected to someone? - What do you wish there was more of in the world? Often times you will discover many people haven't done the work to brainstorm and identify their values. You can ask them directly what the value through analytical questions, but I have found this can be a minefield of self deception! IE someone states something is important to them, but their actions show communicate something completely different. Relational questions can get to the meat of the person in a more effective way. By analytical questions/insights I mean: What are your values? What principles do you live by? What do you prioritize? What qualities do you admire in others or what would you never compromise on? While these can be more direct - they are often not the total truth when it comes to humans. Our values are deeply connected to our emotions, feelings, desires and experiences, and these often reveal themselves through our preferences and behaviour... So I find it more helpful to address these types of topics by relating to the meaning of the person. Driving toward their emotions and feelings to uncover what their actions might show value toward. And not just words. Sometimes this can also illustrate where a commitment overrides a preference - which gets SUPER interesting as how the person deals with the conflict between feeling and value can itself reveal so much about a persons character! You could then split this into stated values, lived/revealed values and overriding commitments. This is why listening and observing others is a real epistemic skill & talent.

@Inliytened1 I am telling you - people would rather contemplate what a cup is that actually try to contemplate an emotion and what THAT is. Most people are terrified of their emotions. I can't think of anyone who isn't using some method to escape feeling something Half the shit we get ourselves into is simply trying to avoid them.

You need to educate yourself and purge your mind of this backwards thinking. My post is being sarcastic and returning your rhetoric against you.

Men must be a huge genetic mix of women's particles inside them then, they must be passing down all the genetic particles from the women that have gotten into their bodies and brains. Mens children must have all the traits from the women they have had sex with.

Not needing closure. Or Resolve. Settled. Residing - none of these are resistance to knowing. When I am in dialogue with someone I don't always feel like I need to come to a conclusion. In any event - I suspect you did not attempt to relationally understand me here - which is more what I am pointing to. My comment quoting you could have been a comment illustrating Leo's behavior. I don't think you asked me what I meant before assuming it applied to you (at least, this is what it how it appears) - and then defended. Relational understanding vs analytical understanding. Go too far one way we tend to retard the other.

Sometimes we have to inspect why we are motivated to respond. In fact - it is always beneficial to do so. Especially when we are analyzing someone's behavior rather than relating to them

Fear, anger & jealously are the poisons we drink expecting the other person to die. Don't drink.

This is what I call "provoking" an answer to an unspoken question (assumption, in this case). It can be a supremely powerful technique to prompt willingly given information from a person. It has the effect of drawing out information without the person feeling interrogated. It usually creates curiosity around what sort of context you are approaching someone from - hence the questions from the other party. The secondary affect is a useful proxy: you are essentially prompting a person to "correct" your assumption. This can be a pleasant agoic experience and reveals how YOU respond to being wrong & corrected. How you react here is important. If you can be corrected and remain open, curious & untriggered, you project calm safety signals which women immediately register. The context underneath this form of interaction is where the meat of the info is 😁

This is a broader topic that can also apply to many users issues with understanding women ❤️❤️❤️

If connection and the concept seems daunting - try thinking of just receiving. Receive her. All of her. Her totality.

I haven't watched it - but I will. Thought I would share. Despite my issues with Jubilee and it's format (+turd moderation)... Discuss

For someone who submitted such a poor research thesis for his PhD, I cannot say I am surprised AI was used in such a lazy way with very little review (broken down in the video). I think the overall points Mike makes encourage much greater attachment to the physical body, and there isn't enough emphasis on "this body matters, so I will look after it". The issue isn't caring about the body - but making the body into the foundation of identity / value / psychological security. Similar crossover to some of the more problematic extreme views within the looksmaxxing movement (hardmaxxing). I don't think it is good to encourage our wellbeing, identity, worth or security to depend on our bodies being a certain way.

@Olaf shit... I don't think you can escape logic! Maybe that's not the mechanism that blocks understanding. Understanding a woman isn't having an explanation but it IS being able to accurately reproduce the woman's personal meaning. You can be highly logical and deeply relational. Just can't jump into reasoning before you know what you are reasoning about. I use this sequence as a relational foundation with anyone, not just women. But it works for me: Connect (and I mean be with her, rather than trying to figure her out) -> observe -> clarify (questions) -> understand (get meaning from her perspective) -> reason (now assess with logic and rationality, critical thinking) -> respond Ideally, you end up in a positive open and mutual relational loop where she reveals something, then you reveal something, then she responds, then you respond. The error I see people fall into is they observe, theorise, classify then explain the women. What I don't ever do is use my explanation of a person (woman) as a substitute for a relationship with them. You want connection through intellect, feeling & empathy. Especially applies to women. But this also appeals to the feminine - so men will respond also (as men and women both have varied amounts of both qualities). The model you use can cockblock you if you aren't open, honest and prioritise new input with sound critical assessment. Logic isn't the enemy but locked down, closed models are.

Do you find new ways the book applies to you as you return to it at different life stages? It did for me, certainly. New messages jump out I missed before. I am not sure why people dismiss it as too elementary (maybe because it is simple). I think it's fundamental. ------- I really have a lot of respect for how open, transparent and vulnerable you are with your process. You can really see how powerful your inner voice is becoming through the work. That ends up translating to positive behaviour when authentically expressed. It's been my experience, anyway ☺️

I am not sure if you are consciously aware of what you are doing @Miguel1 . Your rhetoric has a recurring tendency to sidestep the user's actual point by moving the conversation onto a conceptual frame where you have already established the terms. You are dismissing through reframing. Not engaging with what is said. You did this to Xonas in your exchange, and with myself. It's this strange move toward epistemic positioning: you take the role of the person who identifies the deeper principle, correct the users framing, distinguishes the percived “real” issue from the superficial one, and explain the other's misunderstanding. This is subtly patronising and is not beneficial for the type of relational discussion you want. You position everyone as a subject to be corrected. I know this isn't your intention. But it is what is happening.

Bit of a grey area : Doxxing or DDoS The whole intent behind doxxing is to instigate groups to harass. And DDoS while it can be automated, is a similar groupthink frenzy when done via users.

Of course it's just the first few moments - but if it never gets beyond smalltalk, or smalltalk is that person's substance, then you know it's not the person for you. You are putting me down, you just can't see it. You are condescending. I don't care if you don't claim it. It still happened. Never said feelings are the whole truth.

Thanks for being patient with me

But all those questions are proxies - they show tone, intonation. Bring out body language. Expression. Spark further conversation into deeper subjects. Neutral small talk is a safe template to begin rapport. Eye contact. What topics they like. You can't avoid small talk. It only leads no where when you fail to see someone's eye twinkle on a topic and question more. Show real interest. Don't try to use your rhetoric to put me down like I don't know what depth, maturity and self awareness are. Stop that now. Feelings are part of your truth. You really want to avoid this topic.

Sarcastic condescending rhetoric. I just asked a question for further nuance as it isn't 100% clear to me based on how frequently you switch domains

Well you profess to do all this inner work but you won't even launch enquiry into these two questions. You keep avoiding both of them while they stare you in the face. Instead you judge the questions which as I raised above blocks a feeling. There is something you are avoiding feeling. I dunno what it is but I can't help you if you won't ask yourself the questions. If I were in your position it would be pen and paper. 2-3 hours of relentless "how what why if when" enquiry.