RendHeaven

@ZenSwift This doesn't cut it. "Zone of Genius," strictly speaking, is the singular lane which ONLY YOU CAN FULFILL out of 8 billion humans. "Speaking" at face value is something that everybody has access to, so you can't claim monopoly or superiority over it. But even if you specified a particular kind of speaking, such as "philosophic discourse" or "energetic transmission," I bet I could find hundreds of people who do it better than you, even if you trained your whole life for it. Unless you really deeply believe you can be the best speaker of all time - in which case you must wonder to what extent you're fantasizing vs accurately assessing your abilities. Regardless, if even a handful of people are doing it better than you ever could, then that means it's not actually your Zone of Genius. And this isn't a dig against you or an attack on your capabilities, this is just the reality we deal with. I myself believed at some point that some form of "speaking" would be my Zone of Genius. I have been told by numerous people from a young age that I have a strong voice, that I should become a speaker (one time a substitute teacher in 8th grade said "you should become an orator!" this stuck with me because I remember asking "what's that?"). And yet, I was wrong. Speaking is my Zone of EXCELLENCE, but not my Zone of GENIUS. I can be very eloquent and convincing, but I'm not Martin Luther King Jr. It's just a completely different playing field. This is really key, re-watch Life Purpose Course module 24 if this is causing confusion. Which means my actual Zone of Genius cannot just be "Speaking," but rather is an idiosyncratic offshoot/intersection of various transmission frequencies. Maybe "speaking" is part of my Zone of Genius, but there are other adjacent (more important?) elements at work. There is an impact I can have that Martin Luther King Jr. could not. And it ain't "Speaking." You shouldn't be able to state your Zone of Genius in one word, unless you are a historical-level generational talent (or on the clear trajectory of becoming one) such as Usain Bolt, who's Zone of Genius was truly and simply "running." But nearly every other sprinter cannot claim that title, their Zone of Genius is an idiosyncratic blend of "running" with other important personal factors. If you take my words here seriously, this does complicate things and force you back to the drawing board. Which can feel very annoying if you just want to define yourself and move on with it. But I think it's not worth it to roll with a fake Zone of Genius, that will backfire down the road. We want to truly know ourselves after all. I also think it's not a bad thing to hold your Zone of Genius loosely. If you haven't figured out your ONE of ONE unreplicable lane, then saying "I'm discovering myself atm" is more honest than to shoehorn in something like "speaking" It's freaky to think that every single person alive has a certain mode of excellence which is unreplicable by anybody else. Most people are so busy conforming that they don't comprehend the sleeping giant that they are. Some people will unleash their Zone of Genius by conforming to premade social boxes. For example, Martin Luther King Jr's Zone of Genius was simply "speaking." And Usain Bolt's Zone of Genius is simply "running." Both highly saturated fields because they are simple, premade, socially accepted mediums of expression. It's not so simple for you and I, or for anybody on this forum for that matter. To us a metaphor, for the vast majority of us, we will not find our uniqueness by conforming with whole numbers (i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc...) but rather, we must dare to be an irrational number like √2. Endlessly embrace your uniqueness. Of course, when you finally nail it, it cannot be verbalized. When you truly sink into your Zone of Genius, it will be more like a silent felt sensation of trust and right action. But until we hit that point, it may be wise to question any simple conclusions that our mind may latch onto.

Yep, oral MALT works, but it's about 50% of the power of doing it plugged. So immediately there's a massive inefficiency problem. For oral, you have to double the dose to get the same effects. Or another way of looking at it: by plugging, you literally have twice as much stash relative to oral MALT also tastes like dogshit in your mouth. Might be one of the most bitter things I've ever eaten. This alone incentives me to stop eating it. Hypothetically you could mix it into a smoothie or something to mask the taste, but then you introduce complications by not having an empty stomach, and you make yourself prone to nausea, cramps, vomiting, etc. So all in all, rectal wins in basically all metrics.

I have no idea what you mean.

You're definitely more experienced than me with building social circle. But that doesn't translate to authority on poly relationships. FWBs and dating are two different beasts. If you said "I don't see why I can't have 8 FWBs" I would have agreed But you said "I don't see why I can't DATE 8 people at once." That's just a disastrous conflation. If you still don't see what's wrong with that, I guess you'll just have to try it and find out haha The reason harems don't "work" is because the man is ultraselfish and it eventually backfires. Yeah you can have your personal ideal sex paradise for a short period of time, but you have to maintain it across time and placate everybody involved if you want something more than a series of flings. You can try to get around this by being a saintly, selfless harem-haver, but at that point you're running into an oxymoron. The more girls you string along into your scheme, inherently the more selfish you are. This shouldn't be rocket science.

👺👺👺 I love this journal I understand deeply this discrepancy between average embodied day VS mental ideal. I face similar conflict semi-regularly, but I'm ever so slowly closing the gap. I think it's important to accept that you may never fully embody your ideal. That may sound defeatist or like a negative manifestation, but I see it as radical surrender and truth. However you turn out, you gotta love that. It's simply not in your interest to judge yourself for not living up to a standard. But that doesn't mean that you should do away with all standards. I think it's good to hold an ideal, and to approach it slowly in an asymptotic manner. If you even fulfill 80% of your ideal by your deathbed, you will have lived a truly rich life.

bro is configured alternatively (built different)

Don't be a nerd in front of people who aren't ready for it. Just vibe (yes, dumb yourself down) DO be a nerd in front of people who ARE ready for it. Talk about your journey, your insights, share, intellectualize, etc. Most people are in the former category, so if you're super social you may find yourself dumbing yourself down a lot. Unfortunately this can lead to feelings of putting on a mask and not being yourself if deep down you'd rather just be a nerd around the clock This leads to Leo's blogpost about solitude: https://www.actualized.org/insights/understanding-solitude Figure out the right balance for yourself : )

I agree on the principle of openness and not hoarding partners. I'm even on board with the idea of dating multiple people at once, and that this requires "emotional intelligence and communication skills" The 3 red flags for me are the phrase "having your own harem" the phrase "I don't see why you couldn't date EIGHT(!?!?!) of them at once" the phrase "your competition will be slim" These 3 phrases give away your intention to use the accumulation of women for pleasure and status. The needs of the women are clearly not being considered. By saying "your competition will be slim," you're basically saying "these girls don't have a choice but to follow my scheme" (this justifies manipulation and frames suboptimal terms for her as benevolent) You really can't see why dating 8 girls at the same time is an atrocious idea?? God, just imagine the drama, the energy drain, the in-fighting, the breakups, the instability, the damage control, and the unsustainability of the whole scheme. Even if you saw each girl on consecutive days, your rate of bonding per girl will still be <once a week, meaning you're not actually building a life together, you're just using each other to fuck. Not to mention this leaves no time for your life purpose or solitude if you're seeing a girl every single day nonstop. I'm pretty greedy for sex myself, as aurum has pointed out. But even I'm wise enough to rein it in because I actually care about sustainable long-term harmony and genuine win-win dynamics. It might be worthwhile for you to go through this whole thread and wrestle with all of aurum's points

👺👺👺

https://chatgpt.com/share/67a5e4f7-fa1c-800f-9ac9-697e903130c2

that's the critical lever. the secret sauce.

There's nothing better to do. The alternative is to try really hard to control the outcome (micromanaging how you are being perceived), which has a tense, dense and self-absorbed energy signature.

Neville had an extraordinary abnormal level of baseline Consciousness. All of his teachings hinge on the assumption that the practitioner is operating from nigh-psychedelic super-mind. He of course doesn't tell you this because I don't think Neville ever realized how braindead the average human is lol. He often talks of the masses as living under a conditioned spiritual sleep, but the assumption that you can rip through these chains with a simple flex of imagination is underselling the problem. His teachings will not work for average people with average minds. Much of the online fanaticism around law of assumption is echo-chamber ideology and group-think, placebo, hopium and an ego circle jerk. To actually invoke "law of assumption," you have to in some sense master consciousness which is an endlessly complex and personal endeavor. Gurus won't get you there, stories from other humans won't get you there, you must develop autonomous mind, and lower self must hand the reins over to higher self and merge into One Will, and it's not obvious at all how to reliably do this. Shitty human imagination does not have sufficient horsepower to influence the trajectory of this dream. It's our job to dig deep and unearth more horsepower. This is done in solitude with heightened consciousness. Books and gurus and advice from humans will hold you back.

a fixation on wanting to come across as humble is ironically a form of narcissism. the best thing you could do for yourself & others is to just try your best and love whatever results without criticizing it for being less than ideal

How'd that go

@Schizophonia I'm not - I just want to spectate his rizz!

Your question makes a lot of relativistic human assumptions, but I understand your point. The real answer is something like "both" or "there is no difference" However, "only when necessary" is more accurate to direct experience. The idea that atoms in stars have always existed independent of observation is a story in your human mind.

@ZenSwift We demand a PUA debrief!

Good points. I will continue contemplating Fuck

@Leo Gura A while back you framed unity and division as the engine that runs reality. This is of course still true. But forgetfulness and remembrance may be a deeper engine (or maybe the same engine with a more accurate label) As in - forgetfulness and remembrance is not something that Consciousness is doing; rather, forgetfulness and remembrance IS Consciousness, IS substrate. To forget IS to architect and mold this present moment from scratch out of yourself, and then to deny what just happened. But this denial is the key necessary ingredient for any of this to be possible. The fluxing polarity of forgetfulness vs remembrance explains everything; IS everything. Omniscience = knowing so thoroughly the Absolute nature of your shape-shifting Will, that in an impossible maneuver, you grok the infinite necessity of unlearning your Absolute nature, and then Willing it to be so, as you slowly slip into an ignorant slumber... thus losing your Omniscience... but this is all according to Omniscience! i.e. Omniscience KNOWS that it must not-know, and thus KNOWINGLY un-knows, rendering itself ignorant. But it KNOWS this Absolutely, despite genuinely becoming ignorant. Wtf. My head hurts. I'm also hyper aware that I'm laughably not awake as I'm typing all of this. Eager to go deeper and discover more...

The One Alone Consciousness is playing a game with itself here, where it uses other people and this forum to distract from the consequences of its own Oneness. A person's tolerance for loneliness basically comes down to the extent to which Consciousness is willing to end distractions and face the consequences of its own Oneness. If you go all the way into aloneness, it will feel like death, because it's literally death on all levels - physical, psychological, spiritual, conceptual, etc. Without others, you would literally fucking die (by which I mean awaken, but that's not something to take lightly). There is deep survival intelligence behind our social imperative instinct.

lol👺

@ryoko Don't put words in his mouth. Leo has explicitly said very recently that he no longer teaches unconditional happiness because it is a fantasy. If everyone else died other than Leo, he would probably be pretty bummed. The idea that he would run around with an unflinching smile is a cartoon in your mind.

When I said that nigh-superhuman development was required for monogamy, I meant specifically in terms of truth-alignment and freedom-alignment. I wasn't talking about the success of the relationship or even the health or outcomes of anybody involved. You can have a very successful monogamy and a happy family which is full of subtle fictions, lies, conformity, control, and restrictions. In fact, that's an accurate picture of my own parents and upbringing. It seems to me, the better the outcomes, the more fictions are likely involved. Because good outcomes = survival optimization which means skewed priorities and a biased lens with implicit defenses (not always, but often). I think non-monogamy is more truth-aligned and freedom-aligned by default in the absence of superhuman development, for the simple reason that it involves less bias and control. You don't build an identity around differentiating pussies, and she doesn't build an identity out of differentiating dicks. There is a certain truthfulness there which is potentially very threatening (but nonetheless true). This should not be overlooked. However, if we are to talk about maximizing survival, AKA the success/health/outcomes of a relationship model, then the script flips, and monogamy requires less development, as you've noted. Successful non-monogamy requires absolute honesty and transparency which is a tall, tall order. It's as you said - all boils down to what trade-offs each person is willing to make. My takeaways: undeveloped monogamy: most biased and sexually suffocating. decently stable, but often neurotic. constantly threatened. undeveloped non-monogamy: less biased, more sexually free. unstable, and often manipulative and hurtful. chasing sex. developed monogamy: minimal bias. sexually limited by sovereign personal choice. stable, but requires enormous development. developed non-monogamy: minimal bias. more sexually free. stability uncertain, needs more testing. requires absolute honesty/transparency. potentially chasing sex..? If you've ever lost energetic polarity in your past relationships, what was the driving factor?

I don't think the claim is that human connection has been or should be wholly transcended. The frame is more like: "This solitude stuff seems to have disproportionate rewards that nobody is talking about!" It's just a shift in emphasis. And the reason it sounds like he's shitting on socialization is because: he is reporting the results of his personal experience - that being alone is more rewarding than being with people he is verbally overcorrecting for a society which is enormously skewed towards socialization lol It's not a secret that he's eating. He's just saying that eating is #100 on his list of priorities, whereas his younger self (and the rest of society) is pushing for eating at #1. The forum clearly addresses some of his core needs as a human, but this doesn't contradict anything he said in his blogpost. If we give him the benefit of the doubt, he spends more time "locked in his closet" than typing on his keyboard. So there is no hypocrisy. I remember this one. I'm glad you shared with us. You're right. This polarization will lead to feeling alone. But again, feeling alone is not a problem unless you insist that it is. You've written twice now that Leo's recommendations will lead to "feeling alone" as if that's somehow a curse and a bad omen. Aloneness can be a beautiful thing. A breathtaking thing. A triumph and a celebration. Please consider this. No, I am not talking about "transcending the need for people." That would be dumb. I'm not talking about eternal isolation. That would be dumb. I'm talking about socializing whenever you have the need, and then naturally and authentically returning to your closet (lol) when you are genuinely called to be alone. Certain personalities will find disproportionate joy in their inward sanctuary, and Leo's blog post is about highlighting that possibility. Because nobody else in society will ever encourage this.