Rafael Thundercat

I am diving onto big emotions in relationships not only on man woman romantic relationships but with people in general. Emotions like Shame, Guilt, Rage, Fear. Patterns like people-pleasing, self abandonment and serveral relational Fuckery that is part of this game of life. I even found a nice test to find out one masculine wound I am looking for the best sources to go deep in Shadow work since I can see that is a very bypassed thing these days. https://dashboard.bylotemo.info/inventory.html

i would add Shame as a blockage to Authenticity. How many time I stop myself from acting from my values because I feel ahshamed for some reason. Again there is always the component of "Other" or the "Other who sees me" and I restrain myself from being myself from shame of what other will think, act of feel about it. Some points on Shame: Shame is a profound disruption of human being, fundamentally altering how a person experiences existence, time, and reality itself. While psychology treats shame as an emotion, philosophy and metaphysics view it as an existential crisis—a sudden, painful exposure of the self's vulnerability before the universe.Here is a breakdown of the metaphysical dimensions of shame:1. The Fragmentation of Being (Ontology)In a normal state, your conscious mind and your physical body exist in harmony. Shame violently shatters this unity.The Self as Object: Shame forces you to instantly see yourself from the outside. You cease to merely be; you become an object of judgment.The Desire for Non-Being: The immediate metaphysical reaction to intense shame is the urge to disappear, shrink, or cease to exist ("I wanted the earth to swallow me up"). It is a temporary flight toward non-existence.2. The Trap of the Present (Temporal Distortion)Shame fundamentally alters how you experience time.The Frozen Present: While anxiety looks to the future and grief looks to the past, shame traps you in an agonizing, eternal now.Immobility: The moment of exposure feels inescapable, paralyzing your ability to move forward or imagine a future free from the stain of the shameful event.3. The Power of "The Other" (Intersubjectivity)The French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre famously analyzed shame through the concept of "The Look" (le regard).Loss of Universal Mastery: Before being seen, you are the center of your own universe. When someone looks at you with judgment or pity, their consciousness re-centers the universe around them.Alienation: You realize you cannot control how you exist in the mind of another person. Your identity is suddenly held hostage by an outside observer.4. Cosmic Disconnection (Alienation from the Whole)At its deepest level, shame carries an existential weight of unworthiness.The Broken Threat: It whispers the metaphysical lie that you are fundamentally flawed, broken, or a mistake.Exile from Belonging: Guilt says, "I did something bad" (a mistake of action), but shame says, "I am bad" (a mistake of being). This creates a sense of cosmic exile, convincing you that you do not rightfully belong to the fabric of reality or the human community. https://open.spotify.com/episode/4wmi9o7PQB8ikytGk8LVvO?si=gVe3puHSQYuN_NZSjjrw6w&utm_source=copy-link

Somehow Vunerability match with this topic. From the context of this video I can see that in some situations with some people I simply cant and dont want to be Vulnerable. Authenticity is the daily practice of letting go of who we think we’re supposed to be and embracing who we are. Choosing authenticity means cultivating the courage to be imperfect, to set boundaries, and to allow ourselves to be vulnerable; exercising the compassion that comes from knowing that we are all made of strength and struggle; and nurturing the connection and sense of belonging that can only happen when we believe that we are enough. Authenticity demands Wholehearted living and loving—even when it’s hard, even when we’re wrestling with the shame and fear of not being good enough, and especially when the joy is so intense that we’re afraid to let ourselves feel it. Mindfully practicing authenticity during our most soul-searching struggles is how we invite grace, joy, and gratitude into our lives. Brené Brown, The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

@Natasha Tori Maru This connects directly to the self-deception work I am working with for a mentorship — same shape, different word. "Shrinking the gap between what I experience and what I understand myself to value" is functionally identical to reducing bias toward unbiased self-knowledge. Authenticity may just be what that process looks like when it's aimed at a partner rather than at truth in the abstract. A few pushes on your definition: The paradox dissolves if you separate congruence from disclosure. Your definition already has the seed of this in "as the situation deems appropriate" — but I'd make it explicit as its own axis. Congruence is internal: do I know what I feel and own it. Disclosure is relational: how much of that do I reveal, to whom, when. Most "authenticity is overrated" complaints are actually disclosure complaints wearing a congruence costume — people conflating "I withheld something" with "I was fake." You can be fully congruent and still strategically silent. That's not inauthenticity, that's discernment about timing, which your definition already gestures at but doesn't name. Overrated/underrated — both, at different layers. Overrated as a permission slip: "I'm just being authentic" has become the socially sanctioned excuse for low emotional intelligence, exactly the four bad definitions you listed. Underrated as an actual practice: almost nobody does the harder version — the "background practice" you describe, which requires tolerating the discomfort of not yet knowing what you feel, rather than defaulting to the nearest available impulse and calling it truth. Phases of connection matter, but not the way people usually mean it. Early courtship rewards curated congruence — showing real but selected slices of yourself, calibrated to a trust level that hasn't been built yet. That's not deception, it's pacing. The mistake is thinking authenticity means maximal disclosure at minimal trust. It's the opposite: authenticity early on often looks like restraint plus honesty about the restraint ("there's more here, I'm not ready to show all of it yet") rather than either full unloading or performance. On attraction specifically — here's the actual paradox worth sitting with: what reads as magnetic is often decisiveness, not congruence. Someone who's genuinely wrestling with ambivalence (real internal state) reads as less attractive than someone who's confidently wrong about themselves. The market selects for the appearance of your definition, not the practice of it. That's a genuinely uncomfortable fact if you're actually doing the work. Ps: I am using AI to help me write since it helps me to organize my thoughts better because english is not my mother language.

@Natasha Tori Maru the theme of my last relationship was Authenticity. We both are Leos, she actually have birthday one day before mine. So we somehow were mirrors to each other. Both able to detect fakery, very subtle fakery, but the thing is that we both fail to be out of integrity with ourselfs so I could notice when she was not being herself and she noticed me too. Even without words being spoken we knew when we were not being real. And was hard to deal with it. So autethicity plays a big role in relationship because is easy to play small, hide, people please and other ways to avoid being in integrity with who we deep know to be ourselfs.

Cell Biology is hallucination https://www.instagram.com/reel/Dc6JCdFxLeQ/?stkn=NzhhaG82endvNHA1

Check the IG page of Wisdom Economy. Is about being a Guide or Mentor. In the end is all one can offer. Like Leo, he cant give the territory, he only can show bits of the map or pointers. The real deal happens when who listen do the work. https://www.instagram.com/wisdom.economy?stkn=a2ZmZnljdnRsOHB2

How do you know that Omniscience was reached?

Imagine you are lucid dreaming, you meet a hot woman there, you desire her and become intensily focused on her form, you are basically desiring a figment of you own mind that you on the lucid dream mistake as being other than your own mind. Normaly for me when I become deeply attached to any part of the dream I wake up, lucid dreams at least for me have this feature of ending when I get to much focused in one aspect of the dream. Now in the daily dream one may keep attached with several aspects of the dream for long periods like desiring the same woman for years and the dream keeps intact. Consciousness is able to desire. If it would ot then we would not even be talking about it.

I am watching a lot of the videos of this guy nowadays. He deal with relationship dynamics, attachment patterns etc.. In this one he have very counter-intuitve insigths on Shame. A recent break up of mine made me realize a bit of how shame was involved on my dynamic. Also one can make the connection of how Shame and Psychological Survival are connected. Without Others one cant fear being Ashamed. Overall, where do one learn shame,from who? From others ( he explain how in the video) but you must know that started with your parents, siblings,relatives and so society later. So shame have a big grasp because in certain cases it can mean to be expeled out from the tribe or the relationship that can be seem as a sort of Death. This gives some insights about early conditioning. Humans brainwash each other into this shame game for eaons. If one can be ashamed and be fearfull, one can be controled. Who was the kid that was not manipulated with shame to become more like whatever the adults in their lifes wanted them to be. If you was born in a Evangelical Family you may know how shame is used to you accept mindlessness the beliefs of the family.

Remember, try not enter in Saving the Danzel in distress dynamic.

Found this text that match the blogpost about Spinosa The video talks about Explicatio and Bohm talks about the Implicate "WHAT A QUANTUM PHYSICIST FOUND AT THE EDGE OF SCIENCE David Bohm and the nature of reality." "PHYSICS MEETS ANCIENT WISDOM In 1980, one of the most significant physics books of the 20th century was published. Not about particles or equations alone. About the nature of reality itself. And what it described, arrived at through decades of quantum research, sounded remarkably like something written thousands of years before physics existed." "WHO DAVID BOHM WAS David Bohm worked alongside Einstein at the Institute for Advanced Study. One of the most rigorous and original theoretical physicists of his generation. And he spent the latter half of his career asking a question most physicists avoided. What is the relationship between consciousness and reality? Not as a philosophical aside. As a scientific question he believed physics could not afford to ignore." "THE PROBLEM WITH FRAGMENTATION Bohm observed something that troubled him. Modern science had become extraordinarily good at studying fragments: particles, forces, fields. But it had lost sight of the whole. And this fragmented way of seeing reality was producing a fragmented understanding of existence. One that was spilling far beyond science..into how human beings experienced their own lives." "THE IMPLICATE ORDER His answer was the theory of the implicate order. Two levels of reality. The explicate order: the visible world of separate objects, separate events, separate selves. The implicate order: the deeper, undivided wholeness from which everything arises, unfolds, and returns. 'The unbroken wholeness of the totality of existence, as an undivided flowing movement without borders.' The fragment is not the fundamental reality. The whole is." "THE HOLOGRAM Bohm used the hologram as an analogy. In a holographic image, every part contains the whole image within it. Not a piece of the image, but the whole. This, he said, is how reality actually works. Every apparently separate part contains the whole ..enfolded within it. The part is the whole, expressing itself locally." "WHAT THE VEDAS SAID FIRST The Taittiriya Upanishad describes Brahman as the ground of all existence, that from which everything arises, within which everything exists, and into which everything returns. The implicate order, the undivided ground from which everything unfolds, is what Vedanta calls Brahman. The explicate order, the visible world of apparently separate things, is what Vedanta calls Maya. Not an illusion, but an expression of something far deeper." "YAT PINDE TAT BRAHMANDE The Vedic tradition encoded this into a sutra. Yat pinde tat brahmande. As is the individual, so is the universe. As is the microcosm, so is the macrocosm. The same patterns, the same principles, the same consciousness, operating at every scale. What Bohm arrived at through quantum physics, that every part contains the whole, the Vedas stated directly." "ATMAN AND BRAHMAN And the most significant parallel of all. Bohm's hologram: every part contains the whole. Vedanta: Aham Brahmasmi. I am Brahman. The individual consciousness, the Atman, is not a fragment cut off from the whole. It is the whole expressing itself through a particular point of view. As is the microcosm, so is the macrocosm." "WHY THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING The fragmented worldview ..is not just a scientific problem. It is a psychological one. When you experience yourself as a separate self, cut off from the world, from others, from the source of everything, fear and anxiety are the natural result. The endless grasping for what might make the fragment feel complete, that is the natural result. The root of suffering is the belief in separation." "David Bohm arrived at the edge of what science could show him, and found waiting there the same recognition the Upanishads had described from the inside out. That beneath the visible, fragmented world, there is an undivided wholeness. That consciousness and reality are not two separate things. That the whole is present in every part. Yat pinde tat brahmande. As is the microcosm, so is the macrocosm. As is the individual, so is the universe."

Actualized Quotes #737 https://share.google/66LJ5POAlZcHltsaI Anyone will test this chainsaw contemplation of Hallucination? I am joking, but i love this quote. Today I was looking to candy in the supermarket, aware that in that moment due to the state of my consciousness I could not see that as an hallucination, but also aware that is possible to experience not only candybars as hallucination that but everything as hallucination. Anyone that think that this is easy to grasp is underestimating the power of the trick. For me is not about convincing myself that is an hallucination, is about knowing 100%, otherwise is not valid. Either I realise the Lucid Dream directly or better to not fake that I realized.

Sincerly I would prefer to see the book being published much more than any other video.

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.