bambi

No, what Im saying is: you simply dont understand at all yourself, and your deeply confused. Such that you trying to engage in any meaningful discussion around this subject is pointless, no offence. You haven't at all comprehended what Leo is trying to say yourself or thought for yourself about it, that much is clear. If you are struggling, why not use AI to help you develop your thoughts, and then post that

I am missing no point, I can assure you that. Send me your gpt-4 chat and Ill clear it up quickly for you. In regards to your message, that everything is God, or conciousness, or that everything is an act of God, act of Conciousness or an act of Love, doesnt address remotely the proclamation 'everyone always acts out of good intentions'. What you are doing is trying to make a basic tautological proposiion: A=A, which is obvious and self-evident, but says absolutely nothing meaninful or insightful about anything. Its akin to saying rape is an act of the universe, sure, everythign is an act of the universe, so whether thats rape, pooping or eating ice cream is meaningless statement

I dont mean to be rude, but you aren't comprehending things properly. That chatbot is basically confused I outlined it conclusively in my previous posts. What I think you and leo are simply trying to say is 'Everyone acts out of selfish intentions' or 'selfishlessly rationaionalised intentions' I finished your conversation with gpt-4 for you. Let me know if something still isnt clear https://chatgpt.com/share/670d85e6-2908-800a-871f-439e6ce2a072

Good post, very accurate, and appreciate the hints of hawkins

I already outlined this in previous posts. Ultimately, at their core, people may have good intentions (to ensure their surival agenda(s)), but these are often overshadowed by limited perspectives, ignorance, or emotional pain. Human behavior is complex, and good intentions frequently mix with fear, anger, pain, insecurity, and other factors, which can lead to harmful or destructive actions. To say 'everyone always acts from good intentions' is overly simplistic and misses the nuanced reality. A more accurate statement might be: 'Ultimately, people have good intentions deep down, but these intentions often become entangled with emotional pain, ignorance, or misguided beliefs, leading to bad intentions and harmful behavior

I would split out the agenda from the persons moment by moment intentions though. Sure most agendas are simply a reactive survival necassity. So in this case its bourne out of a common good intention: to survive Its how its acted out though, there is deep ignorance in a lot of these cases, and one cannot divorce the good intention of protecitng ones survival from contamination with other intentions. Its possible to want to survive, and to protect your survival you do x. But how you do x is not pure and categorial to me, it can be contiminated with tons of other negative shit, including bad intentions. Take Hamas, they want to protect palestinians from what they see to be as tyranny and genocide, so to them this is a pure intention. But there is no way there execution and implementation is not rife with tons of bad intentions, right? To me this seems reductive, and missing the complexity of how we enact our agendas into the world.

This is an erroneous perspective, not everyone always acts from good intentions, this just isnt true. Malice exists, ill will exist, disdain, hatredness exist. Hitler had a ton of those to different degrees at different times. Maybe Leo was trying to make that point that not all agendas come from the place of outright malice, there can be genuine concern for ones self, family, tribe, sect, nation or religion's percieved survival concerns, with a disproprtiante lack of concern for the percieved other group(s). So at its core its identity, tribalism and survival I havent seen his video, but maybe he was trying to say everyone has their justificaitons and post-hoc rationalisations for why they behave in atrocious and destructive ways. This is true, even Hitler and the Nazis needed this, else you'd have an almost immediate pyschological break down leading to a deep self hatredness, possibly leading to suicide. So these are just mere psychological protection and justification mechanisms. Otherwise there is just some linguistic semantical trick going on here

Literally everyone on this forum knows ken wilber, to post this thread shows a serious detachment from reality, you should do a root cause analysis here

This is an incomplete view. The root of most addiction is pain. Its just a stategy to deal with pain/discomfort, that only excarbates the pain in the medium and long term Yes their might be some element of lack or filling a void in the beginning especially, but theres a ton of pain, its pain medication basically. But in this case of addiction the medecine makes the pain worse The issue is, for serious addicts, the sheer amount of pain one has to face to get to homeostasis can be overwhelming. Can be 2-3-4 years in some cases of abstinence before they feel anywhere near normal. Thats a long time to be in a near constant state of pain and discomfort. Thats why support groups like AA are imperative in the first few years of recovery. Most people I know say 'My name is x, Im a recovering y', or at least 50%. I think this identity linguistic focus is a red herring in a lot of cases I agree that for long termers, who have been sober and thriving for 2-3-4 years and more, additional healing modalities would be good, and shifting away from the identification as an addict. The problem here is this is peoples lives at stake, and the severity of a relapse or return to addiction far outweighs any percieved benefit of non-identificaiton. Until we have guarunteed transitions and have the science of healing down and replicable, this is the best we have got. I notice most AA etc dont really do serious meditation, so this could be a core transitional modality, but lets face it most people cba mediating, even on this forum

Enjoy!

Do you purposefully obfuscate your language, what is the core motivation here?

She makes a good critique and correctly highlights a lot of the negative behaviors enabled by dating apps and online personas in general. Teal is a very dominant and logical/rational woman, which counters a lot of her own self-reflection. It is also in direct contradiction with her and other women's understanding of things like femininity and masculinity, but they can't see it, including many women on here. For me, this is great analysis material, but will simply cause further dissonance for most female members on here. Here’s my review in general: Her critique of dating apps and modern dating lacks sufficient context. We have nothing to benchmark it against. It's like critiquing oxygen and oxidative stress. Yes, it's a real downside, but oxygen is a necessary and essential part of sustaining life; simply pointing out oxidative stress means nothing about the overall utility of oxygen. There's always a type of romanticization of traditional forms of dating. This is a golden era fallacy or appeal to tradition fallacy. She commits this unknowingly throughout her critique. She needs to show objective data demonstrating that previous methods of dating were more successful or people were happier, but let's be honest: they don't exist. There are implicit suggestions constantly that dating apps are artificial and that natural/organic dating -serendipitously meeting people in the real world - is superior. I don't see conclusive evidence here. Overall, dating apps have pros and cons, and she does a good job of listing the worst behaviors enabled by dating apps. I don't necessarily agree that dating apps cause this behavior. And she downplays the difficulties humanity has faced in dating and mate pairing since our genesis. Most of the world had, and still has, arranged marriages. There is nothing more toxic than that for me. Dating apps and the internet are relatively modern phenomena, and it's not clear if they are providing a safer container for these negative attributes to be expressed, rather than generationally suppressed. This will only become clear in the next 50-100 years.

What is your perspective on this? Have you or would you consider being a sugar baby?

Andrew tate is INTJ 783 tritype ennegram, Im an ENTP 783 ennegram, we both share the same ennegram. The dude next to Andrew is an 783 ennegrsam too. Kanye west is this ennegram, the wold of wall street Jordan Belfot is this ennegram, Andrew Elliot, Grant Cardone , Mike Tyson (ISTP), and Conor Mcgregor (ENFP) etc etc. Its the mover shaker ennegram, is the most assertive, can do, conquering tritype out of all of them. Followed only by the 853 - bill gates, elon musk (538 sub variants) and then the 863 - the justice fighter, think someone like candace owens. https://wiki.personality-database.com/books/enneagram/page/378-the-mover-archetype I am immune to self hellp books, mindset building, as I naturally possess these qualities since a kid. I remember reading fixed vs growth mindset and stopping quarter way through and was perplexed why anyone would need a book to tell them this The point Im making is all this advice is not unviersal. You should learn your tritype/ennegram and figure out how to be the healtheist version of yourself. Stop trying to emulate people with my temperement when you are a totally different personality, it isn't going to help you. Leo is a 548 (The scholar) so is jordan peterson, so was jung for example. All of these questions about masculinty are totally misplaced, there can be some universal traits perhaps, but there are temperment speicifc traits that are much more useful. I am the world leading expert on this. I am working with AI models to produce a comprehensive theory and body of work to conclusively put an end the psycholgoical constructs and developments, derived from Jung, ennegram and tons of other work. The models are struggling to synthesize accuracy over long context windows, Im hoping this will be fixed in 12-24 months

I appreciate your explanation, but there are still some important issues with the argument. First, you're conflating "gender" with "biological sex." Gender typically refers to socially constructed roles, behaviors, and identities, while biological sex is about physical characteristics like chromosomes and reproductive organs. The two are related, but they aren't the same. Second, you're framing the argument as if there are only two camps: either gender is purely a social construct, or it's entirely based on biology. This creates a false dichotomy because many people—and much research—acknowledge that gender is influenced by both biology and social constructs in a complex and interconnected way. These perspectives don't have to be mutually exclusive. It might help to reframe the argument to reflect this complexity and avoid oversimplifying the topic. Would you consider adjusting it to make that distinction clearer?

This post is lacking clarity, Buck. The statement, "One can argue that gender is a myth and a product of social construct or one can say that there are definite biological differences," is illogical and doesn’t make sense. Can you see the false dichotomy here? Theres several other issues too I don't mean to be rude, but would you like to rewrite it so it's more coherent?

A normal human lol!

Sorry I dont, it's not super interesting. I self destructed consistently over a period of 10 years lol, and now recovering

I have shared my story several times, I am a chronic sex addict, in recovery. Also mixed with insane amounts of cocaine and alcohol! Being able to sleep wiht lots of women is simply a function of wealth, confidence (courage and experience) and biology, all of them can be optimised. Any one of them taken to an extreme or pass a threshold gives expontential returns, its really not that complicated.

Oh lol! I dont have any firm ideas on masculinity, I dont like the paradigm or the idea of artiificially replicating the ideal. I would much rather find authenticity then this masculinity.

I am aware of the thread starting feature, and my capacity to start that. Thanks for the suggestion My views are expressed repeatedly in this thread though, and I think my writing is clear and concise, and have verified this ad naseum with AI models. Everyone who's ever worked for me has indicated my ability to concisely articulate my point or idea. So it's strange how people are struggling to comprehend it

Understood

The solution is to simply speak your own perspective and let me and Leo speak ours. If I need your help, Im capable of asking you directly and explicitly. I can assure you there will be 0 ambiguity there. Why not share your view on the conversational topics? Where does the utility of masculine/feminine attributes lie, what are these to you? what about gender constructs are accurate or helpful? Whats you view?

Im not triggered, Im asserting my boundaries with a fool. Do you not see the irony here, you're giving me foolish unsolicated advice, while simulteanously asking me who do you think Im helping? LOL are you seriously this dense?

No, dont post stupid shit that has no bearing under the guise of trying to help me. If you think 'maybe he' is helping anyone you are a fool. No offence