Gesundheit2

@Emerald Is (Masculine and Feminine) the ultimate duality/non-duality? Or is there something beyond?

It's both/either.

@Inliytened1 There is a range, of course. I was just illustrating the concept in simple terms. A man starts life in weakness (closer to death = weaker), and then gradually grows into strength, and then gradually loses it (again, closer to death = weaker). That's life, it's a struggle against death.

The opposite of strength, just like death is the opposite of life. Weakness is perceived closer to death than to life. Man is strongest in his midlife. And he's weakest otherwise (infant, elderly).

Yes, and I also said don't ignore your weaknesses. That means a man should integrate and embrace his weaknesses but at the same time not let them control his life. But that's another topic entirely. Weakness is not feminine. That's a popular cultural misconception. Weakness is repulsive to all people, not only women, because it's anti-life. People dislike weakness in general, whether in men or women. And strength is always worshipped. Therefore, you should show people your strengths and hide your weaknesses, whether you're a man or a woman. That is, if you care about what they think. If you don't care, then simply be yourself and that'll work too. But you'll generally have a harder time than if you followed the first advice.

I think she's put it accurately and eloquently. I have learned a lot just watching Emerald's videos. Did you see her YouTube channel?

Absolutely We are one.

My little sister sends this message to our Whatsapp family group: "I fear you all. I wish I would die tomorrow to relieve myself from you and you from me." Turns out, my parents are giving her a hard time because of her hygiene OCD. It's exquisite! I told them yesterday that everyone has an OCD of some kind and explained to them what it is and how all people have it in some form. I told them that it's just that certain forms of OCD are marginalized and demonized by society while others are accepted and even encouraged; e.g. Society praises people with high ambition, even though technically ambition is a form of obsession. I showed them examples from their lives how they have OCDs too; e.g. My mother is super concerned about what other people think, and is super overly-protective of her possessions, and she considers her children her possessions, and that's why she's way too concerned about my sister's OCD. She wants to have everything under her control. She's way too judgemental. Overall, I was completely understanding of my sister and supported her fully against our harsh parents. The message came as shocking to me, though. She fears me? I understand how she must be feeling, but to throw away my efforts like that, why? I guess people, and especially women completely stop seeing nuance when they're in fear mode. I wonder: What more could I have possibly done?! I guess I shouldn't give it too much thought. I actually hate my parents to begin with, but what can I do? They're still my parents. They've raised me and everything. I have debts to them that I can't even begin to count. But also they're abusive. It's complicated. But even in my worst times, I always had the sense that I would take care of them when they're old. Not even once have I thought about abandoning them. My brother will move to another city in two years. My mom will feel torn apart. They're all unconscious. I can't have an intelligent discussion with them for the most part. When I talk, they think I have some alien knowledge. They don't know my real place among others. My best friend is a lot more intelligent than me. Most of "my intelligence" is borrowed from him actually. Otherwise, I would have just been another chimp. Bad genes. Bad luck. But things will change.

It's controversial.

Humans have an infinite capacity for delusion. If they could imagine superiority in certain skin colors and agree to that delusion on a collective level, what else can't they imagine and share? And you're telling me that there is a way to fix humanity?! You underestimate the devil, because you are an unconscious devil. It's me against humanity. I will crush them and make them pay for their mistakes. At least I will be fair with everyone, and maybe I'll even kill myself after that. Come on, Kim. Be a good boy. Hurry up and gimme those nukes, before I come and shove some of them inside your ass.

Says who?

Also when Oranges think they're Yellow.

That's peanuts. Me, I wasn't even born, and I don't even have a brain.

Tell her to join a gym to fix those PMS pains.

Hahaha, nice!

LMAO!

Again, I would have to call nonsense. Like I said earlier, I can make the exact same case and apply it for men. I can say that men are not selective primarily based on objective factors. Subjective attraction plays a much bigger role. Subjective here means how they feel sexually about the women, whether consciously or subconsciously. A man doesn't judge by waist to hip ratio. Who cares about an abstract number? Have you seen a guy jerking off to a piece of paper with a bunch of numbers on it? Do you know of any men who fantasize about the abstract concept of D cups? We, men, are attuned to our sexual feelings, and we only determine a woman's attraction worth through our "subjective" feelings. Just lose that mental identification and you'll see the truth in what I'm saying. And you can take this as a counter example: A woman can grow her tits infinitely (surprising image attached below, not really sure why I have it on my PC lol) and still not be able to attract a certain guy that she wants. Why is that the case? Aren't tits objectively attractive? Can't women just seduce any guy they want with bigger tits? I don't think so. I have seen girls chasing after dudes who don't give shit about them, and these girls have these "objective" features you think are the only thing that matters to men. You can't just lure any guy you want. Sure you might have a relatively large pool to pick from depending on how attractive your looks are, but you still can't have a guy outside of your pool. I assume most guys find Kim Kardashian super attractive. I find her super boring. Do you see how useless saying that would be? It's just common sense what you're saying, not anything mysterious or profound. Btw, I haven't once seen Kim except in pictures. And based on my purely visual experience, she's totally boring. Now that might change if I see her in video and get a glimpse of her personality. But for now I'm not attracted to her, and I didn't even feel the desire to check her out in video. I think there's a sentimental component of polyamory vs monoamory in your arguments. I get the sense that you're confusing the female tendency for a single partner for some "subjective attraction" concept, while at the same time confusing the male tendency for multiple partners for some "objective attraction" concept. Just how far can I go with deconstructing this worldview? lol

I get that you're saying that you and your friends are not hypergamous. Well, I can agree with that. I understand that not all women are hypergamous. Pick up teachers disagree about this, though. Some of them (pure red pill) believe that all women are hypergamous. Others are more moderate and acknowledge nuance and variety across women. Now, what percentage of women is hypergamous? I don't know. I don't think there are surveys or research for such things. But I can tell that it's a real phenomenon. Men with higher access to resources are generally more attractive. But of course that doesn't mean they're universally attractive to all women. Everyone is different and unique, but there are general trends, and we are mostly concerned with those, not with the rare cases outside of our control or ability to obtain.

I've worked very hard to develop that understanding. Right now, I'm just sharing it casually. Yes, it is a social construct for the most part, but there are nuanced differences. I didn't say male and female attraction are the same. If anything, I gave examples, and showcased the opposite case multiple times. You can re-read what I wrote earlier if you want. And I'm not denying your experience, perspective, or observation. I just think you're not presenting it perfectly correctly because you're possibly a little bit biased. Strictly logically speaking, this doesn't suffice as enough proof for your case. It could be the case that all of you are wrong and that we are right. Of course we don't want to feel powerless. Who does? Why would anyone want that? Everyone wants to feel empowered, and knowledge is power. Pick up is knowledge, and therefore power. We are using pick up knowledge to empower ourselves instead of whining like victims. We are stepping up to the challenge, not running away from it. Where exactly do you perceive insecurity? I think it's more possible that you are giving a misrepresentation of what's happening. If anything, it is an established fact that women operate mainly from fear, not men. You always say that it's men who are insecure and fearful (at least targeting the men here), but isn't the opposite case generally truer? I can't speak for all men, but I can confirm to you that I am not in a fearful or an insecure mode. I'm in a perfectly logical mode, while at the same time being in touch with my emotions as I'm discussing. This gives me more clarity about my perception and possible biases, as I always try to be perfectly objective. Haha, I like the backhanded argument. Enticing. I don't want to prove you wrong. It just happens that I disagree with you. Why insert assumptions into a neutral disagreement? Think about it. And I can tell I've already integrated your perspective. I used to be insecure, but not anymore. I know what works and what doesn't. And I couldn't care less about rejection at this point (self-inquiry: who gets rejected? lol). My goal is not to attract all women, and I understand that that's not how it does or should work. I can't ever cater to all women, or people for that matter. It's basic pick up knowledge. Is there any other lesson you're trying to deliver here? Can you see that there's a chance that this isn't entirely about teaching, but possibly more about something else? You should know by now that even "truth" is a relative linguistic construct. And therefore it can be as flexible as you want it to be. We can expand or limit our concept of truth to include or exclude anything we want. But to put things in proper context, what we're mostly concerned with here as men is what works with women. We don't care about the rare cases where pick up knowledge doesn't work. You can stick to your little concept of "truth". But you'd be wise to understand that it's not really truth. It's more likely a way you're using to shake our confidence in our worldview or reaffirm yours in your worldview, or both. The truth is that not a single worldview is absolutely true. It's all relative to you as God. This is not the same thing as writing you off. I already acknowledged the truth in your perspective. What's left is for you to acknowledge the truth in mine.

I think the heart of the issue is not precisely in the information itself, but probably in how you're drawing the distinctions between subjective and objective attraction. I needn't to tell you that we can play with these constructs all day long, deconstruct and rebuild them however we want. Just like sand, we can make anything out of it. The truth of nonduality is important for this understanding. It seems that you have a strong identification in your mind with this distinction you've created between subjective and objective in regards to attraction. And you don't seem to be willing to let go of it or at least show a little bit of flexibility in how you're using it. You seem to think that there's an actual physical thing called "subjective attraction" in contrast to another actual physical thing called "objective attraction". And you seem to have a desire to idolize the subjective element and put it on a pedestal, or as something beyond the reach of men, possibly to make yourself feel special or protected, or maybe because it's just something you picked up from somewhere as a dogma. That is my speculation based on how you seem to be in favor of the "subjective" attraction nonsense. But the truth is that none of that is true, except in your mind. You can dream up any concepts you want and identify with either sides of any duality. It doesn't change the fact that all dualities are made up concepts. I know you're big on the Masculine vs. Feminine duality, but ultimately, it's still a duality, and there's no real difference between masculinity and femininity except in our minds. Ultimately, the Masculine and Feminine are inseparable, and it's delusional to think otherwise. And I don't mean to dismiss the obvious polarities or the observable differences or their importance in our lives as humans. All I'm saying is that things are not set in stone, and they can be as flexible as you want them to be. For example, being is generally considered a feminine quality. But can the masculine not be? Does the masculine exclude being? As well, doing is usually associated with the masculine. But is the feminine dead or paralyzed? Is the feminine opposed to movement or doing? See, it's just a matter of how you choose to draw the distinctions and where you choose to draw them. Anyway, I don't know if you've ever heard of this concept before, but there's something known as "pre-selection", which means that a man is a lot more likely to be attractive to new women he meets if he's already established as attractive by some women, or even only one (of course the more the better). It is a well established fact that a pre-selected man is a lot more attractive than an ordinary one. This just shows how little role the subjective element plays in female attraction. It's mostly unconscious herd mentality; a man who is attractive to other women is usually attractive to the woman who's currently making judgement. When a woman is judging a man's worth, she's not just judging him purely by herself, but by all the other women she knows. It's a form of confirmation bias and appealing to authority, both of which are logical fallacies caused by following the opinions of others instead of oneself. In other words, the subjective element is marginalized in this case in favor of the "objective". And that is enough proof for my case, because we can't eliminate other women or their opinions. A woman does not make a scientific study into whether this man is worth her. She mostly uses her emotions, and her emotions are mostly driven by the bigger collective first, and then by her social circle. I would say ubringing has nearly nothing to do with this at all, because in early childhood we don't pick up very nuanced desires or distinctions, mostly very general and broad ones. But I can play your mental game, too. I can say that because ultimately it's always the woman who has the final say in the matter, that means it's her subjective decision, she doesn't judge by already made up criteria. But you'd probably laugh at me for saying that. Just remember that concepts are flexible and nonduality can flip anything upside down. Truly, I can use your language to make the exact opposite case out of the same arguments. By the same logic above, I can say that men also are mainly driven by subjective attraction. After all, isn't the man deciding, whether consciously or subconsciously, whether a certain woman is attractive or not? The metrics used to assess attractiveness are irrelevant in both cases. Because are they subjective or objective? Or both? Or neither? There are various ways we could deconstruct the mind. But that should be enough.

Maaad respect! Hahahahaha

@Emerald You seem a little bit confused, or just biased, or both. I realize I'm being direct here, but please understand that I have nothing against you personally. I'm just mad at what you said, because it's not true in my experience, and because it will hurt the younger guys here. Personality can be improved to the extent where it becomes an "objectively" attractive quality (using the quotation marks to imply that I'm using your framework here). I have improved my personality like to a hundred folds, and I can still improve it more. I used to be totally repelling, and now I'm a lot less repelling. I'm angry at what you're saying because in a way it reinforces victimhood in the minds of young males here. Please stop spreading that nonsense. Anything can be improved with dedication and hard work. And we're here to learn how to improve. Do you, on some level, feel a need to be special or above others? Or do you just like being unpredictable? Well, guess what! Women are not special, and their behavior is pretty much predictable. Although, of course, less linear or predictable than men, but overall it is still in the realm of human understanding. Also, there's nothing special about any one man per se, like you're claiming, and for the most part, women can't differentiate or detect quality or find a matching partner (quote divorce statistics). Women are not attuned to seeing "The God" inside of men, it just happens that most women like men with exciting personalities (humorous, charismatic, leader, etc.) more than men with ordinary or less than ordinary personalities. And to be more clear, it's not just women who like those people. Most men also like the company of a man with an exciting personality. It's just natural to be attracted to excitement. Now, the difference between men and women in this regard is that women tend to romanticize that attraction more and develop an attachment to it. When that happens, it's hard to break that attachment and replace it with another. A different man who might have similar a personality will not likely be able to penetrate through her heart until the original one is at least almost out. But still, that's not necessarily always the case, because evidently, women cheat as well. Side points: Women don't have any special abilities, just get that idea out of your head. Women are just humans. There's no such a thing as "real connection" with a certain person because they are "special" or a "perfect match", and there's no such thing as a "soul mate". Again, I don't have anything against you. In fact, I respect you and like and resonate with a lot of your posts. But in this case, I think there's something going on inside you that you're not addressing. But maybe I'm wrong. In any case, make whatever you want with what I said.

You might be right. I am generally cynical and pessimistic, and so what you said doesn't make sense to me, especially the butterfly thing. But I can see that it might make sense for others.

Meditation.