Forestluv

There are underlying assumptions that women "are satisfied with top-tier men". This is a male-centric view of what counts as being "satisfied" and what counts as a "top tier man". This is correct from a particular male-centric view interpreting reality through a lens of desiring and valuing simple physical sex. There is nothing wrong with that, it's just a limited relative view. A man also has easy access to sex. It's easy for a man to get laid with other men. Does this mean that a man is privileged to have this easy access to sex? No, because that's not the type of sex he desires and values. That's not what he means by "sex". . . . Similarly, men have the privileges of masturbating or having sex with a pineapple. A horny dog does not have these "privileges". . . The view assumes women simply desire and value physical sex like the vast majority of young men do. A male is so conditioned into this perspective that it will be very difficult to perceive sex any other way. It's not fair to say "women are privileged" in this area because many women do not desire or value the type of "sex" being proposed. This form of sex not a privilege to these women, rather it is a hindrance preventing them from finding what they desire and value. As I said, I have several female friends that are frustrated because they can't find sex. And they have access to your definition of "top tier" men. Yet their relative definition of "satisfying sex" and "top tier man" is different than your relative definition. To a guy this statement might make sense: "If I was a woman, the first thing I would do is go out and get lots of sex!!". Yet this is a foolish statement because it assumes retaining a male-centric view and sexual orientation as a woman. And not all women have "easy access to top tier men". I've been on many dates in which the woman considered me a "top tier male" and tried to "catch me" (including invitations to sex). Yet I turned them down, because I'm not primarily in "easy access to sex". For me, physical sex is just one component of a broader and deeper experience of sexuality. If all she has to sexually offer is a vagina and boobs, it's not enough for me.

I've watched a couple of his videos and it's curious how he is immersed into a male perspective, yet is unaware of this. . . For example, he says "access to sex" is a female "privilege". Yet he is not seeing how the value he places on "access to sex" is going through his relative male lens. . . . When he mentions "growing a beard" is a male privilege, he doesn't place value on that. Yet when he says "access to sex", he is placing an enormous amount of value on that, through a male-centric lens - of which he is unaware. He is assuming there is a thing called "access to sex" that has objective, universal value. For example, I know many women that would perceive the value "access to sex" very differently than this male. I have several female friends that don't value "access to sex". They have dozens of guys on social media propositioning them for sex on dating apps. How is access to sex a "privilege" if the "privileged" person doesn't value it? . . I even have a couple female friends that are frustrated that they can't find a hook-up or casual sex on online dating apps (even though dozens of men are sexually pursuing them). From her perspective, how is this "access to sex"? I have a female friend that has been looking for sex for four months (she has swiped right and turned down dozens of guys). From a guy's perspective she has "access to sex" from a female perspective, she does not have "access to sex". To try and see it from another perspective. . . Imagine a guy in his 20s has "access to sex" with any female. With one catch - any female over 80 years old. Hmmm. . . does this still count as "access to sex"? Or the guy has unlimited "access to sex" but it needs to involve squeezing his testicles in a walnut cracker at some point during the sex. Would we say that this man is "privileged" because he has access to sex?

I'm reminded of a Tibetan saying in which there is a space of "being willing to wait forever". . . Yet this isn't a space that self desire likes to visit.

It's fascinating how Pete's new simple narrative is spreading through minds. This simple narrative would be considered a "meme" in SD theory. How an individual mind relates to the meme depends on one's conditioned filter and current level of consciousness. Pete's new meme he started pushing a couple weeks ago is "Bernie wants it 'my way or the highway'. Bernie is actually exclusive. Pete is the true 'inclusive' candidate. As a moderate, Pete can bring together progressives, centrists and moderate republicans". Various forms of this meme have arisen and dissolved over the last year. Yet recently, Pete has been pushing the meme that Bernie is exclusive and Pete is inclusive, hard. Corporate media has gladly picked up on this meme and now it is spreading through minds. One thing to notice about Pete: he is very amorphous and likes to speak in platitudes. Things like "Now is the time to turn the page on division to a new chapter of inclusion". That type of frothy language is fine if it is backed up with actual policies that the candidate is actually fighting for. Pete goes on and on with amorphous platitudes, without stating specific policies that he will fight for. This allows corporate influences to mold him - that is why corporate is ok with him. In contrast, Bernie talks about specific policies (against corporate interests) that he will fight for.

To me, this seems to be perception through a thought filter that is controlling the internal narrative. Would you think: "Just a few minutes ago, the sound 'chirp chirp' occurred. As far as I can tell, there's nothing wrong with that sound. It seems true enough". . . . Of course there is nothing "wrong" with the occurrence of the sound "chirp chirp", likewise there is nothing "wrong" with the occurrence of a thought - any thought. The mind can become attached/identified to thoughts relative to a "me" construct. Relative to me, "chirp chirp" is irrelevant. Yet relative to me, the thought "I don't know if I'll go for a walk today" is relevant. As well, are these thoughts necessary? And what do thoughts distract us from? . . . Yesterday morning, I looked out the window and it was snowing. There was a connection to the snowfall. There was no thinking "Maybe I'll go for a walk". There was no analysis of which thoughts about snowfall ore true or false. There was no analysis of whether such thoughts are harmful. There weren't even thoughts. There was simply "empty looking". This allowed space for other phenomena to appear. There was an appreciation for the snowfall's beauty. Each snowflake was so delicate and intimate. There was a sense of nostalgia that appeared. There was an attraction to be closer to the snowfall. This is all without thinking. Simply Being. . . .Then I continued my day - doing some laundry. Again, a sense of attraction to snowfall arose, without my mind thinking about it and defining it. . . And it turns out a couple hours later, my mind and body put on a bunch of winter gear to go outside. The feeling was like a child that has a snow day and gets to go out and play - yet there were no thoughts like this. The mind and body went out into nature. Snowballs were thrown at trees. A snow angel was made. Many nonverbal essences and energetics appeared. Intuition, empathic connection to nature - without thoughts trying to figure out what was happening or how to define it. . . . The mind and body can easily get along with 10% of one's current thoughts. A good experiment is to get allow the body to do it's thing without thoughts. Sometimes, my mind goes a couple hours without thoughts - miraculously the body does just fine. . . Yes, this is getting at something more fundamental. With the question "What is the nature of this moment when I'm not interpreting it?". . . Be aware if the mind tries to create a new thought story about the nature of this moment without thought stories. . . It seems like in that brief moment, a direct experience arose. A form of nonverbal connection/resonance. You say "I experienced a sense of peace" - then try to explain it as "the peace that passes understanding" - followed by "I can't be sure". What are you unsure about? Are you unsure of the sense of peace? Or are you unsure how to make sense of and explain that sense of peace? You may resonate with Leo's recent video on implicit and explicit understanding.

To me, this seems to be an explicit analysis of implicit. Quite often there is desire to control the internal narrative and resistance to letting go and exploring implicit phenomena. Ime, one of my strongest resistances was harm anxiety. Letting go of controlling explicit narratives in my mind was really uncomfortable and one of the hardest things to get over was "If I let go of the narrative, then who knows what might happen. I could harm someone without even knowing it!!". . . This is just a strategy to maintain control of the mental narrative. In the sentence "'Oh I thought that consent was implicit! It was so much fun for me that I wasn't paying attention to you." Here, the mind creates a scenario in which it is so completely immersed in itself. This is a self-centered contraction and the opposite direction of becoming aware of implicit. Here, the self-centered filter that is constantly calculating toward self-centered desires is reduced and a greater non-calculating awareness of Now is occurring. Not an analysis like "She just twirled her hair, that means XYZ and I should now ABC". Rather, there is an intuitive resonance that is transpersonal. It's not "me" vs. "her". There is now a shared resonance. Getting on this frequency is like a "flow state". Since the mind and body is not hyper-interpreting toward a self outcome, there is a very small chance of misinterpreting the essence of what's happening like you described above. . . It would be like a musician playing with the other band members. All the other band members stop playing, yet this guy keeps playing, oblivious to the fact that he is the only one playing. Afterwards he thinks "We noone explicity said to stop playing. How was I supposed to know?". . . . At a low conscious level, a guy may be the only one "playing" and interpret her actions as playing too. For example, she may mention "I had a dream of being overpowered during sex last night and kinda liked it". With a low conscious self-centered filter, the mind may think "Ah ha. She wants me to overpower her sexually tonight". This is a very limited interpretive / calculating filter that will limit awareness of various implicit cues. At this level of consciousness, it's important to get clear explicit consent. Perhaps 98% of men would be in this category. . Yet at a higher conscious level, the orientation is not hyper self calculating and greater awareness of "our" dynamics appear and there is an intuitive flow state that is naturally aligned with nonspoken cues and energetics - without interpretation and calculation. Within this flow state, the two of you are on the same intuitive / connection frequency. This implicit nonverbal frequency can be much stronger than a verbal explicit frequency - yet it can a lot of practice and development to reach this intuitive flow frequency. It seems different people have different abilities - some minds seem to immersed in literal, explicit explanations that they have a very difficult time recognizing and flowing intuitively.

This is a question that gets the attention of the self as it gets a peek of self transcendence. It is essentially asking "If there is self transendence, what's in it for me?", "How will this affect my life?", "Why should I live?". . . It would be like a character in a movie asking "Wait a minute. . . if I'm not really Indiana Jones, why live?'. . . Realizing this changes the energetic relationship to the "character" that appears. And the above question becomes recontextualized - because now the character is not the main show in town. . . If Harrison Ford realized he is not actually Indiana Jones, it completely changes the relationship of Harrison Ford to the Indiana Jones character. This gets into the relativity and fluidity of "meaning". There is no one objective, universal statement of "meaning". Yet relative meaning doesn't suggest no meaning. For me, this felt really ungrounded and uncomfortable at first. I just wanted to find a stable sense of meaning, a sense of "this is how it is". Yet anything I created turned out to be sandcastles that can be formed, unformed and re-formed. At first, this induced a lot of anxiety in the mind and body. Yet with surrender there comes a sense of freedom, beauty, magnificence, curiosity and creativity. We create our reality each moment.

@Beginner Mind This is another view. If it resonates, great. If not, dismiss it. One type of relationship with thoughts is that they are merely appearances. From this perspective, we wouldn't give anymore relevance to thoughts than bird chirps. . . . Which has more relevance: frogs croaking or birds chirping? It's a silly question. However, when we ask "Which has more relevance: my thoughts or bird chirps?", it is a very different question, due to our engagement, attachment and identification to the thought stories. Thoughts can be very alluring and mesmerizing. . . . Thoughts about right and wrong, thoughts about who I am, what I need to do, how life works and on and on. . . There is nothing "wrong" with thought stories, yet we cam become immersed within them that we miss out on other stuff. I think we've all had situations in which we become "lost in thought" and miss out on other appearances. Imagine walking in nature with a mind that is consumed with worrying over work or trying to figure things out. . . That mindset will miss out on a lot. Now imagine walking through nature for an hour without a single thought. An awareness would be revealed. Reality is not dependent on my thought stories. There is a lot more going on. . . This seems to fit in with Leo's latest video on implicit and explicit understanding. The mind is conditioned to try and figure things out explicitly through thoughts, language and logic. Yet there is implicit stuff that cannot be understood through language, thoughts and logic. Often this manifests as "Ah ha!!" moments of direct experience in which there is an understanding that cannot be explicitly explained through language. When this form of realization is revealed, the mind may think "wth just happened??!!. . . Maybe it means. . . Maybe that was what Tolle was talking about. . . Was it real? Or was it imagined?". This is the mind's effort to get a sense of grounding through explicit explanation, yet doing so can detract from deepening one's implicit understanding. The mind is often conditioned toward explicit understanding through thoughts, language and explanation. Ime, letting go of this mental tendency is helpful to allow space for implicit realizations. Yet at first, this can feel uncomfortable because the mind and body is so conditioned to figure things out explicitly.

How do you imagine a Trump vs Bernie debate would play out?

If Democrats win by a landslide and Trump doesn't stand down, that would be a huge escalation at a much higher level than anything Trump has done. I'm not saying that situation is impossible, yet it is an enormous escalation and we can't assume Republicans would go along with him. This situation is on the order of the "Civil War" scenario. Personally, I think it's a low probability, yet not impossible. However, I'd say the small probability is high enough to take some preparations to reduce the probability further. If it is a close election, I think the probability dramatically increases.

@Thought Art That's all good. I'm not saying those models are wrong. If they resonate with you, go for it. . . My mind isn't oriented to model it like that. Different minds model in different ways.

Great question. Part of the exploration.

I wouldn't use a model of horizontal vs. vertical to describe the relationship between science and spirituality. I'm much more integrated than that. My mind likes to make connections with the science within spirituality and the spirituality within science - such that the duality of science vs. spirituality is interconnected. They can be completely different, completely the same or an infinite number of connections. . . That's just the way my mind likes to work. Others can use a horizontal vs. vertical model if it works for them. For me, that is too much separation and too simple.

It's says belongs to "Us", not "god". The term "god" can be so loaded, yet humans love to go there.

Yes. Bernie is not a democrat, he is officially an independent. This will play very well in a general election. There is an enormous number of people that are sick and tired of both political parties. The biggest swing group, by far, is non-voter to voter. . . Bernie's independent status will be a huge asset. Bernie doesn't want help from corporate dems. They are part of the problem. Criticism from corporate Dems helps Bernie get stronger. It fuels the grassroots movement. People are sick of corporate corruption, including corporate dems. Bernie supporters can't stand corporate corruption and the Clintons. Bernie is the only candidate that cannot be labeled as corrupt. The best the repubs can do is label him a "socialist" and they have a big surprise coming when people realize what democratic socialism looks like. This will play very well in a general election. Consider that in Canada, even the most conservative politicians are fully behind M4A. Speaking out against M4A would be political suicide, even for a conservative. That's how popular this "socialist" health care is. Progressive dems will be fully behind Bernie with their heart and soul. Not hunger for power and money at any cost - like Repubs and corporate dems.

I think you had a nice insight. It’s best I don’t stroke the Ox too much. I'd get in touch with it.

Once this level of mastery is grasped, it's best not to let go. . .

@Amilaer--- It sounds like it isn't natural and effortless. If I am intentionally trying to maintain strong eye contact, it's distracting, and it can interfere with the vibe. It can also come across as creepy or too intense. This article seems to have some good suggestions https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/look-em-in-the-eye-part-ii-how-to-make-eye-contact-the-right-way-in-life-business-and-love/ Also, you might want to try eye gazing with someone - that way you can practice/experience the connection of eye contact without worrying about following a discussion.

Keepin' it Klassy

Seeing a distinction between an awful feeling and an interpretation of it is an awful feeling is a big realization. This gets into distinctions between pain and suffering. For example, a dog can experience pain, yet it is not thinking "this pain sucks. If that pitbull across the street hadn't bit my tail, I would be ok.". There are simply appearances of uncomfortable sensations in the dog without labeling. I'm also getting at something else that is unconditional. There is unconditional Fineness that is always present, regardless of conditions. It is unconditional. There is unconditional Fineness during laughter, boredom, joy and sadness. This is distinct from relative fineness that is conditional on emotions such as comfort and joy.

He is conflating two areas, which causes his whole train of thought to be convoluted. The question he is asking is: "If I want to increase a woman's interest in me, is it best to be open about my interest and let her know? Or is it better to try an be mysterious by not revealing my interest?". (However, this is not the question he actually asked women). This is a very narrow question toward a specific outcome. Yes, this may feel vulnerable - yet he extrapolates this early in the video. He frames the issue as "Do women like guys who are open with their emotions and willing to be vulnerable?" This is a much much larger question. This question involves forming emotional connections, intimacy, vulnerability and mutual support. Of course this level of openness is not appropriate during the first couple of dates. However, by limiting openness about emotions to only include whether or not to express your interest in a woman is a massive distortion. There is nothing wrong with the specific question about whether its best to be open about one's interest. That is a totally legitimate question. The problem is that he framed it broadly as "do women like a guy who is willing to be open about his emotions and to be vulnerable". Let's look at the actual question he asked the women. "Do you prefer a man that is straightforward and tells you he likes you or someone who holds back and you feel like you need to earn his affection?". Ugh. . . This question is a terrible way to ask either the broad frame or the narrow frame. A good picture frame question to ask women "Do you like a man who is able to express his emotions and be vulnerable at times?". A good narrow frame question to ask women: "Would you prefer a guy who opens up emotionally and tells you he is interested in dating you? Or a guy who is mysterious about his desires toward you?" Yet he didn't ask this. In particular, he added in "someone who holds back and you feel like you need to earn his affection". This is a major recontextualization and it distorts all his interpretations. Of course someone will choose the straightfoward option when it's phrased this way. To further emphasis this to make it more obvious. . . Imagine I asked a woman "would you like it if a guy made you feel like you are undeserving of his affection and that you need to earn his affection?". . . And after the woman said "No", I concluded that "women just say 'no', yet they actually like a guy who is mysterious by being emotionally unavailable and unable to express his emotions". I think the video is very misleading and the author has a low emotional intelligence. I've been on dates with women that were emotionally immature and couldn't express their feelings - this can be really annoying. I've also been on dates with women that were emotionally mature, in touch with their emotions and created flirtations emotional weaves that were so intriguing and intoxicating. When someone is emotionally mature and grounded, s/he doesn't need to literally say "I like you. I hop you also like me". There are ways to indicate indicate interest that in nonverbal and enticing, yet this guy aint on that level.

You might have seen an Ox footprint. Or, you may have touched an Ox hair. In that second in which everything was fine, did everything "feel fine" because the awful emotions went away? Or was a fineness revealed in the presence of "awful" emotions?

BS vs Non-BS is a relative question. I see them as both. Non-BS: In terms of a personality, I have been conditioned to have certain traits. For example, I tend to be more introverted and get lost in thought. There are also certain patterns of people, food, movies, weather etc. that I like. There are patterns that commonly appear in my life as well as very unlikely appearances. For example, it is very unlikely that I will wake up tomorrow as a Bollywood dancer. That is very very different than my personality pattern. For me, these personality tests can provide some helpful information, yet I don't take it 100% literally. For example, I score as an "I" on the mb test. This can be useful - for example, it can help me consider what type of job might be best for me. Something like a stand-up comedian is much too extroverted for me. . . Also, it can help explain patterns in my life. For example, at parties I've never been a "social butterfly". I tend to have deeper conversations with only 1 or 2 people. Other people have suggested their is something wrong with me. "You only had one conversation the whole party? That's weird". . . For a long time, I thought I "should" be more social. Yet reading about personality dynamics dissolved this. I then saw how its ok to have 1-2 deeper conversations at a party and that this is common for an introvert. BS: There is no static personality of "me". Creating a personality construct can lead to attachment/identification and all sorts of problems for the mind and body. For example, one personality trait that I had was being a "kind person". This was ingrained into me as a child and re-inforced throughout my life. I felt a lot of distress always trying to be a "kind" person. I analyzed wether my behavior was "kind", I was hyper self-critical and very sensitive to any suggestion that I was unkind. I would try to people please others to maintain my identity as a "kind person". I repressed emotions like frustration and hurt. I wasn't allowed to be grouchy or upset because I have to be a "kind person". . . In this context, attachment/identification to a static personality trait is BS.

@Leo Gura Hehee on the video. I like how it balances "real" or "imagined". After the experience, it's easy to get immersed into the serious "realness" of it. Yet it is simultaneously silly "imagination" as well.