RendHeaven

Being "good with women" vs being "bad with women" is the difference between women throwing themselves at you and saying things like "I love you," "lets hang out" vs being completely ignored or pushed away... maybe from certain perspectives, this distinction is "fake," but from other perspectives (mainly, the biased survival perspective of the typical hetero male) this distinction feels like life or death! Exactly. I'm advocating that dudes learn genuine charisma, not compensating charisma. I don't really make a distinction between charisma and lack of insecurity - these go hand in hand.

Just had my first needle hurty. It didn't hurt

You're right... at the same time though, I'd like to imagine that I at least have an *informed* assumption. Attracting straight women as a straight man is actually not rocket science(!!!), so even though we're all fundamentally assuming things about our dear Hardkill, I think we can still strongly point towards what needs work, without waffling in uncertainty. Maybe I'm naive but I sincerely believe that all guys can learn to "get good" with women because charisma is trainable & not static.

Just saying what needs to be said. The personality is clearly the problem, it's frankly a disservice that nobody has brought it up. You actually have to suck astronomically to not get women while "having the body of a fitness model"

lol yikes man your personality must really suck

Does gravity exist for a fish? I ask this sincerely on a literal, "physical" level. You see, as humans we would say, "Oh yeah gravity always exists for all beings, and any being that denies the existence of gravity is just not intelligent enough." But such a narrative is inextricably tied to our experience of being a human - and very conveniently so. I dare y'all to contemplate with extreme seriousness the possibility that if you were a fish, gravity would literally, "physically" cease to exist (such that it was never even there to begin with), and this "nonexistence" would have nothing to do with your "limited intelligence." (Sidenote: there's nothing actually physical about gravity but I'm just phrasing things this way to appeal to our common notion that gravity is independent of our minds) Or in other words, notice that the absolute conviction that we have of the mind-independent existence of a so-called "gravity" is necessarily relative to our frame of reference of "being a human." No human - No gravity. Period. Not even as a word game, but in terms of literal existence. Obviously, don't just believe me though, work through this yourself. Matters of Existence/Being are wholly on you to investigate - no scientist or external authority can bestow knowledge of Beingness upon you, for you yourself are Being first and foremost; the authority of the hypothetical scientist here in regards to Being is necessarily second-order. (Science will, however, measure and explain relationships between the preassumed existence of two or more things, and insofar as you also preassume the existence of these same things, the scientist has more knowledge and authority than you specifically with regards to measuring and explaining these aforementioned things.)

https://www.youtube.com/c/EPICKEI/videos this you?

pfffft lmao

"You have to realize that a dream is also a self. In true no self, even a dream is just consciousness." "So no matter how wholly you escape the dream, it's all within consciousness." "True God Realization puts an end to this simple binary notion of asleep vs awake."

Hehe... its true

Thoughts?

You're on your journey. These are good questions

Congrats

Lies

@DieFree There are no "facts," and all proofs are relative.

I can't tell if you're arguing against me or agreeing lol. I'm fully conscious of where these objections are coming from. I've been there myself. I'm just attempting to reveal that Truth with a capital T doesn't give a shit about our objections, nor our pleas for "proof" Truth with a capital T is possible to access, and (to anyone reading this, not just RMQualtrough) you simply can't argue otherwise before having encountered it personally!

Again, it can convincingly seem this way to someone who has yet to "peek behind the curtain." If you directly and immediately recognize that all othernesses (as well as any notions of proof) are transient, partial fabrications within the greater Oneness of Here-Now, there is Absolutely no room left for philosophic waffling.

No dude, you literally think that "else" is an actual thing. It's not a word game to you. The same thing with "proof." I am suggesting that if you stop giving these things actuality, they literally cease to be (not just on the level of words but on the level of literal existence). This possibility alone, if taken seriously, should alert you to the transient and partial nature of these things you give ultimate reality to.

oh my god

Good start. You seem very attached to this idea of "else." Investigate what that literally is.

Actually you can become directly conscious of all things that are - and in that process, realize that all things imagined to exist independent of perception are only real insofar as they are imagined to exist, and that these imaginations are not "real" in any way beyond imagination (certainly not more real than that which is Here-Now). I'm basically suggesting that you can literally peak behind the curtain yourself and find nothing, empirically. And then people who have yet to peak behind the curtain will claim that "it's impossible to know!" but this is simply not the case. Go peak! To whoever is reading this: nobody else will peak behind the curtain for you! It must be you who does it. Debating and slinging ideas back and forth won't cut it either. There is an epistemic difference between theorizing about what Japan is like without having ever been there vs literally booking a plane ticket to Japan and actually stepping foot on its soil

This IS your imagination... But, keep in mind that it is an INFINITELY INTELLIGENT imagination. So be wary, I'm not suggesting that it's some mere flimsy imagination that you can easily dispel. Rather, it is the deepest and strongest imagination conceivable, so yeah it's really no surprise that you don't see through it haha

As others have said, how do you know that ANYTHING isn't just "your subjective experience?" You seem to be disparaging "subjective experience" on the assumption that there is something, anything MORE than that somehow.

bruh