Gesundheit2

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.

The inevitable cascade effect: Success ==> Security/Stability ==> Relief/Confidence ==> Arrogance ==> Naivety ==> Softness ==> Weakness ==> Death/Slavery. Which is why Green is the final stage in society before it collapses.

Forget about farming. What about other occupations? It isn't about physical effort per se. It's about the time required to get certain tasks done. Certain jobs are still very far from automation, e.g. programming. If I work 10 hours a day, when will I have the time to reflect and raise my consciousness? Also, you probably have a natural inclination towards intellectual type jobs. So, it's easy for you to suggest education as the ultimate solution. For me, it's the opposite. I would rather work in a physically demanding position than in a position that requires serious thought or innovation. Unlike intellectual people, I don't particularly find it joyful to understand everything. If I ever have an insight, it's because it was forced on me by God. As well, learning and thinking in a systemic/academic way is even more difficult for me. Because it's easier and more enjoyable than formal studying, at least for me. And I don't think of it as slavery. I think it's something that needs to be done because of division of labor. But people abuse and put each other down because they're evil. In this case, people with higher intellect commit the abuse, and others just perpetuate it with their silence and low consciousness.

@Etherial Cat High status guarantees sex while high consciousness doesn't. That's the difference, which is what matters most to us here. You might have matured beyond mere high status, but most women haven't, and won't likely. The average woman (like the average man) is deeply unconscious. Even if you teach her your hard earned wisdom, she will still repeat your past mistakes. It's an illusion that won't break without breaking your heart.

Last touches... My perfect ideology... Tougher than ISIS. Smarter than the devil. And better than God. Something I will never share with anyone. It's mine. I created it. Nobody deserves it.

Then you did not waste money on VR porn.

Maybe consider using the term "my sexuality" more often instead of "female sexuality".

@TK2021 We're all a work-in-progress.

New phase. New breath. Feeling psychologically refreshed. New faith.

Wisdom.

Sounds terrible. Depending on your location, there might be feminist seminars that teach you how to self-defense against predators. They teach you stuff like hitting weak points (crotch) and running away, developing quicker reactions, using available tools, etc. See if you can find something like that near you.

but unfortunately, dead ==> Her value equals zero. Nothing objective here. Similarly, and put him in one class with 10 single women, 9 out of those 10 women will be attracted to him, because he's in their reach as a potential partner, which was not the case in your hypothetical case. You've ruled out his presence and made him an abstract concept with no actual value. You've ruled out the most important factor in attraction; the medium that makes attraction possible in the first place. Male and female sexuality sure are different, but the comparison you've proposed here is very simplistic and unfair in many different ways. I can't even begin to describe how wrong it is.

You only reap what you sow.

@Emerald You're basically just saying that it's impossible to attract all women. Well, duh. It's fruitless to even attempt that. Everyone is different, and no one can cater to everyone. I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm disagreeing with the relative importance you're attributing to the objective attraction in comparison with the subjective. You're saying the subjective attraction rules and dictates female sexuality, and you're marginalizing the objective as secondary. It's like saying the conscious mind rules and dictates the subconscious mind. Well, it might do for highly conscious people, but only slightly. And for the majority of people, it doesn't do anything at all. In fact, it only reinforces the objective as absolute truth. You might be relatively highly conscious among women right now after years of experience, and you might have gained a little bit more quality control over your sexual choices, so your subjective attraction might be able to override the objective, at least sometimes. But most women are unconscious as fuck, and they are deeply enslaved by their subconscious mind, which is why they make bad choices all the time. No intuition and no being in touch with feminine core works. Unconscious human is still unconscious human. Machines are harder to hack. Women are biased because they want to be hacked. They co-operate

@Emerald Pick up advice works on creating the subjective attraction as well, it's called building rapport (early phase attraction) and attachment (later on). Female sexuality is not so sophisticated; A low consciousness self construct that responds positively when stimulated right, and otherwise negatively. That is all. 99% of the times unconsciously so. By the way, subjective vs. objective is a duality you're creating. It doesn't really exist, except in your mind.

A cynical attitude would be to think that the collective is doomed either way, which is my perspective. I am cynical, Peterson is only delusional.

If you feel doubt/confusion in your experience, or if you feel lost, that means you aren't aware of the truth, which means that you care about it, because subconsciously, you know it will uplift your experience and levitate you.

Observe. Recognize. Question. Repeat.

Lol.

Most of the video is correct, but there are a few wrong information. For example, polygamy in Islam is not restricted to war times. That's just trying to separate moderate Islam from radical Islam. The truth is that the lines are not that clear. A radical Muslim is simply a Muslim who takes their (could be female, too) version of Islam very seriously. A moderate Muslim is a Muslim with half-assed dedication. Which explains why radicals are few, because not everyone can be fully dedicated. But generally the core is very similar, although it might somewhat differ.