Rafael Thundercat

It match with your last quote https://www.actualized.org/insights/actualized-quotes-736 I was watching again the Self Deception series and appaled with how pratical it is. Trully, when we think we got it, we just find out new levels of devilry in ourselfs or to be clear inmyself

https://www.actualized.org/insights/actualized-quotes-736 Read this. By this metrics you cant talk yourself into anything. How do you know you are not fooling yourself?

Tarot is conformity

@Olaf sometimes is just the trauma speaking.

This "frame" discourse shows up constantly in men's forums. Where this language comes from? "Frame," "leading," "not being used" — this is downstream of pickup-artist and Red Pill forums from the 2000s-2010s (Mystery Method, then RSD, then a wave of "high value man" content). It got laundered into more mainstream "masculinity coaching" language over the last decade, often stripped of its origin but keeping the same bones: relationships as status competitions, women as a frame to be resisted rather than a person to be met. The psychological pattern underneath it Reflexive "no" as a leadership strategy is a hypervigilance response dressed up as strength. It's built on an assumption that giving = losing, that being influenced = being controlled. Guys who organize their behavior around never looking like they're complying usually aren't secure — they're braced. Actual secure men (the ones who've done real work, not performance) can say yes without anxiety and no without guilt, because their sense of worth isn't riding on the outcome of every micro-interaction. Why it's popular anyway It gives men who feel like they've been burned or used a legible enemy (her "frame") and a simple lever to pull (say no more). That's genuinely appealing when you're hurting or confused about dating — clear rules feel like relief. The forum dynamic reinforces it too: agreement gets upvoted, and "just say no to everything" is a satisfying, quotable absolute in a way that "develop genuine internal stability" isn't. What it costs It can't actually produce intimacy — vulnerability requires letting someone in, which this framework codes as a loss of power. It teaches men to monitor the relationship instead of being in it. It's brittle: the first time reality doesn't fit the rule (she suggests something he genuinely wants), he either breaks the rule and feels like he "lost," or follows the rule and resents his own life. It scales badly as content — it's easy to teach as a slogan, hard to teach as actual discernment, so forums tend to flatten toward the slogan version over time. The more useful frame (if you want to offer men a counter to this without dismissing what's real in it) is probably: the opposite of being used isn't refusal, it's discernment — knowing your own yes and your own no, and having both be genuinely available.

There's a real insight buried in here, but I think you've pushed it into something that will backfire. What's actually true: A man without an internal locus of control — who only ever reacts, complies, and seeks approval — is exhausting to be around and easy to walk over. Having your own values, timeline, and standards that don't bend to pressure is real and worth teaching. That part lands. Where it breaks down: Turning "no" into a reflex is just a different kind of losing your frame — you've swapped following her lead for following a rule. That's not leadership, that's a script running you. A man who says "no" to "let's kiss" when he wants to kiss her isn't in his frame, he's performing power for an audience that isn't even there. Real frame is being able to say yes freely because you want to — not needing to prove you could say no. The "0 power even with sex" framing also treats intimacy as a transaction with a scoreboard, which is the same win/lose logic you're claiming to escape — it's just wearing different clothes. And "surprise her instead of following her lead" as a blanket rule kills something that's actually valuable: two people building things together, where sometimes she leads and it's good.

I am interested i knowing more abour this perspective

Like Saying that God is Isness, or is just the case, existentce itself. Infinitely Self Contained.

I started a convo with Claude about this last post about Cognitive Phenotypes: The Philosopher's Brain Type https://www.actualized.org/insights/the-philosophers-brain-type I did not noticed the final end Note, and then Claude gave me some stuff about that: Great term — "cognitive phenotype" nicely captures that cluster of traits in an elegant, non-clinical way. On the closing note: that's an interesting turn. If "properly done" philosophy requires you to check validity criteria — coherence, rigor, absence of contradiction, testability of premises — at some point you hit a limit: who validates the validator? Then three classic exits appear: infinite regress, circularity, or stopping at an axiom/foundation you accept without further justification (faith, intuition, or "God" as you put it). This is literally Agrippa's trilemma. It's not a weakness of philosophy — it's philosophy being honest about its own limits. The question "how do you know you did it right?" is itself a second-order philosophical question (the epistemology of epistemology), and it too will hit the same bottom. Of course I asked to tell me more about This Agrippa Trilema and about Agrippa himself: Agrippa was a skeptic philosopher (probably late 1st century BCE or early 1st century CE) about whom almost nothing biographical is known — he only reaches us through Sextus Empiricus, who summarized his five "modes" (or tropes) of Pyrrhonian skepticism. The trilemma is a later simplification of those five modes into three central problems, sharpened memorably by the German philosopher Hans Albert in the 20th century (the "Münchhausen Trilemma"). Agrippa's five original modes: Disagreement — philosophers disagree about almost everything, with no neutral criterion to decide who's right. Infinite regress — every justification requires another justification, which requires another, indefinitely. Relativity — things appear different depending on the observer, context, and conditions. Assumption (hypothesis) — at some point, to stop the regress, you simply assume something without proving it. Circularity (reciprocity) — A is proven by B, which is proven by A. The trilemma (condensed, modern version): every attempt to justify a belief ends in one of three outcomes, and none of them is fully satisfying: Infinite regress — you never reach a final foundation, you just keep pushing the question back. Circularity — the justification ends up resting on itself. Dogmatism (the "arbitrary cutoff") — you stop at some point and declare "this is self-evident" or "I just accept this" — without justifying why there and not somewhere else. The name "Münchhausen" comes from the legend of Baron Münchhausen pulling himself out of a swamp by his own hair — an image for the impossibility of a system grounding itself without outside help. Why this connects to what you said: when you ask "how do you know if you did philosophy properly?", you're asking for a validation criterion. But every validation criterion also needs to be validated — and then you fall into one of the three outcomes. Saying "you realize God" is, structurally, a version of the fourth mode (assumption/hypothesis): it's an undemonstrated stopping point, but experiential rather than logical — which is consistent with contemplative and mystical traditions, which historically resolve the trilemma not through proof but through direct realization (gnosis, satori, etc.) — shifting the problem from "propositional justification" to "knowledge through direct experience."

The partner if not already in a path of self knowing and discovery will resist being trained. Communication and openmindness is a must. Some will resist truth, becasusfor some truth is scary and change hurts.

curious to find out gaps on this explanation.

I feel that after to much engagement with deep abstract or intelectual something inside asks for sex. Is like the root chackra asking for a bit roots. I think that sex may be a good way to work with it. I cant believe the celibate bullshit. Having a woman with you may help the spiritual development better than celibacy. Of course i case of no woman Porn is a option, but is a fast release instead of the satisfaction of the real deal.

Great ideias

When will Leo finally release the reprograming Subconscious Course. That would tackle all this aspects that are for sure blocking a lot of people here.

Bro, check this. Ps: My ex also tried sucide 2 times. This pattern of saving the Danzel in distress need to be observed. In relationships we need to be aware. As much as aware as we would be in consciousness work. Maybe chill a bit and have fun, but watch your patterns and her patterns as a hawk because is all games till shit hits the fan and affects you money or even your physical security. And surprisingly I still felt guilty for what happened to her because I felt that I could do some stuff different, but maybe nothing you could do would help anyway. We cant save anyone from their own dramas. Get back to your energy. Self Study etc.. be creative, go have some time in nature and with safe grounded friends.