RendHeaven

Good. Just to play devil's advocate further - "But isn't it similarly an assumption to assert that there must be NO objective 'thing' that is real outside of observation?" Plato's theory of forms is the easiest example of "objective being beyond apparent senses." People have, for millennia, been coming up with (much more than) "a single thing it could possibly be." What say you to that? I get it. But again, people who don't get it just won't. There are a million ways to pick apart every word you use and back you into an intellectual corner, simply because of the nature of proof. To prove anything, you must begin on a solid ground of first principles which themselves are unproven. These first principles are generally common notions held by culture - which you aim to deconstruct. And so your playing field of so-called "proof" is fundamentally different from the playing fields of everyone around you, and your words reach deaf ears. I mean seriously, "Sensing is done by nothing AKA consciousness. What is sensed is the something that consciousness manifests as, as in a dream." ^This is totally meaningless lmao. It's the greatest catch22 of spirituality... to unconscious people, stupidity looks like wisdom and wisdom looks like stupidity. So if you've got the wisdom, how do you convey it as wisdom?

Leo is unbelievably wise. Keep an open mind.

No, there is a clear leap in conclusion here. There is nothing here being "proved." Ok so are the sensors real then? You're being vague with what you mean by real vs unreal. ^Take these seriously. Especially the hypothetical academic. "I have shown you here the possibility that reality is objective despite all things relying on perception," he says

I see where you're going with this, but be wary of hinging a "proof" on the notion of "perception" as that implies an opposite "imperception" which is a transient construction. And if you're arguing for a kind of perception with no opposite, then you should admit upfront that you're messing with definitions. And I hate to be that guy but what you've written would not convince any materialist (a.k.a. 99.9% of humanity) otherwise - layman or academic. If you insist on riding the vehicle of proof-making as a means to change minds, you must cleverly anticipate and pre-address counterarguments, as Leo does I can already hear it, from the layman: "So what if everything relies on perception? There are still objects of perception that we all share! You can't tell me that the whole world disappears when I close my eyes! Look, I can still hear you talking to me even though my eyes are closed! And even if you proceed to cut off my ears, that doesn't mean you disappear entirely. In fact, especially in that scenario where you chop my ears off, now that's hard proof of your objective reality! No amount of wishful thinking will regrow my wounded ear and nobody else could of done it but you! That means you and I have objective reality independently of perceiving faculties!" The academic would be more shrewd: "You say that all existing things depend on perception, but then proceed to conclude that objective reality is impossible. But where in the two statements is there a necessary connection? What if objective reality is the case (in that there are objects "out there" beyond what appears) but our knowledge is constrained to that of the appearances, dependent on perception? In this alternative, your first statement is admitted, but it is shown that your conclusion has no necessary connection to the first, as there are alternative possibilities not accounted for. I have shown you here the possibility that reality is objective despite all things relying on perception." And so on and so forth... Proof is a dangerous game. If you're like me and you find that it's not your cup of tea, there are other vehicles for conveying the Absolute such as poetry, art, or music - which require no 5D-chessgames

@machinegun Do you resonate with my latest journal entry?

If I were Leo or a mod I'd close this thread immediately. The lack of quality and construct-awareness is unbefitting of this forum. "WhY dO GiRlS gEt aNgRy wHeN GuY tRy tO hAvE sTaNdaRdS???" LOL

And yet, insecurity is likewise bullshit. What remains...?

@Rinne How have you survived with 500+ posts on this forum with such decrepit epistemology?

ew wtf

The first 2 were not enough??

lmao your bar for intelligence must be buried beneath the floor. Willingness to deepthroat analysis and data does not automatically equal intelligence. If anything, being so eager to lap up data shows lack of intelligence. These "blackpillers" aren't doing a shred of independent unbiased case studies. Rather, they're just in a feel-good echochamber of prejudice-affirmation. Where is the intelligence in that? - Side tangent - The more intelligent you are, the more wary of data you should be. If you're the type to fling around data points to confidently make claims of certainty, you're dumb. It's unbelievable how slippery the field of statistics is. A true student of statistics knows that there is no such thing as 100% confidence in any conclusion of a sample study, unless we somehow conduct a population study (this is basically impossible) but even then the means of obtaining data from the population can contain the biases of the researcher. It's actually so fucking hard to arrive at certain and true claims using statistics lol (even within the relative realm). This is such an underrated topic tbh, Leo should make a video on it. Sometimes I wonder if it's possible at all to arrive at certain and true claims using statistics. Statistics done right is still a "best guess" of sorts. And I admit that there are great survival benefits that come from intelligent "best guesses." But culturally I notice that we conflate these survival benefits with Truth all too often, and more importantly we're quick to assume we are in possession of a "best guess" when we actually have a "mediocre guess" at best.

@Preety_India I understand. That was a strong response. I suppose the takeaway is just to understand that Leo is purposefully coming at it from a narrow "lower" perspective because he is catering to the needs of men who don't understand basic attraction yet. You're right that such a perspective lacks holism when we begin investigating higher degrees of intimacy & connection. @Peter Miklis She's not wrong per se. We just struggle to see each other's needs

You're conveniently assuming that the guy is already attractive, so you hand-wave that aspect of the equation away and fixate on the luxuries of "wonderful friend," "caring protective guide," "leader and companion," "falling in love," "bravery and graciousness," and "marriage." But what if the guy in question is sexually repulsive? Lmao. All of your fantasy fixations would turn to ash as you scramble to put a padlock over your genitals. Heck, I swear YOU YOURSELF wrote a journal entry about how you hate "beta males" or something along those lines. So really you already know the answer to your own question. Obviously a man can ascend and forgo myopic, degenerate sexual conquests. But that generally comes later after he has attained a solid grasp on basic attraction.

Bingo

LMFAO

lmfao

I've never had alcohol in my life (21 y/o), and I don't see that ever changing. It's absolutely possible to make strong friendships. Just seek the right people. It's ok if they drink and you don't. Be careful not to come off as judgey, and they'll still love you!

Right LOL

Mhm, when I read the first few pages of my own journal I die inside as well. What gives me hope is that I've had 2 people now DM me telling me that reading my journal has tremendously helped them through their own breakups. One guy even said he cried tears of feeling understood which is just incredible. Imagine if I had just taken down all of my posts out of petty self-protection... I'm glad now that I didn't! It's wild how little control we have over our long-term reach/impact, but that's a positive thing in my mind.

Personally, I've had my E and I ratings flip flop back and forth in the past. Pretty exciting!

That's literally my LP lol. "Leo but less serious"

Hah just wait for page 3 where I recall how I felt "replaced" when she immediately found a new boyfriend It's common practice for me to have chill 1-on-1 zoom/discord chats with forum members. I'm super down for that if you're feeling comfortable, either way DM me from my forum profile

I'm really not a fan of this "nice guy" vs "asshole" framing. These words are masks for what's really going on. You can be nice as fuck and simultaneously sexy. You can treat every woman as a queen and have your cock worshipped. (I recommend this) On the flip side, you can also be a degenerate asshole who repels women. The vice versa (common notion) can also be coincidentally true. It's possible that you can be "nice guy" trash or "asshole" king. So fundamentally, your "niceness" has no effect whatsoever on your attractiveness Stop associating "niceness" with attractiveness whatsoever! There is no causal relationship. If you're spiritually inclined, strive to be nice. It's good practice for getting in touch with the Love that you are. If you're concerned about your attractiveness, focus ENTIRELY on improving your sub-communications: tone of voice, eye contact, posture, smile, looseness, balancing your edge and humor, clarity of intent, freedom from outcome, embracing sexuality, holding warm sensual energy and gently teasing her into it, leading, being trustworthy, showing her your presence and attentiveness through small gestures in non-qualifying ways, learn to "read the room," feel her internal energies and apply pressure-on pressure-off in ways that make her feel good, have a beautiful rich internal world as an ever-present backdrop from which you extend an invitation of adventure. You're welcome, that's everything you'll ever need to learn if your goal is to have women with soaked panties fighting over your cock. Notice that none of that stuff - the stuff that actually matters - says anything about niceness. You can master the above list and be a saint or a devil. Or you can be a total noob at the above list and be a saint or a devil. So please y'all, drop the terminology of "nice guys finish last." That's like saying "men with cousins finish last." The claim just lacks substance. Whether or not you have a cousin doesn't mean shit regarding your attractiveness, just as your "niceness" doesn't mean shit. How about this for some nuance: Guys with shit tones of voice, shit eye contact, shit posture, no smile, body tension, no balance in edge or humor, no clarity of intent, total attachment to outcome, rejection of sexuality, cold calculating energy, inability to tease, inability to lead; men who are untrustworthy, who have no presence or attentiveness who self-qualify, who cannot read the room or feel internal energies, who don't have any regard to making the girl feel good, who do not have a rich internal world - these guys FINISH LAST. In fact, they don't finish at all. They get ruthlessly destroyed by women for being sexually repulsive yet acting entitled to sex.

oh my god lmao I... agree

Click below