Feel Good

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Feel Good

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Gender


  1. The phenomenon of fragmentation
    The phenomenon of fragmentation
    Well, it doesn’t need a name. It’s all within oneself..To observe what-is without evasion to what should-be. The contradiction-limitation of escaping the fact to the abstraction. Movement of fragmentation(psychological time). 
    Some have found FREEDOM without ever searching for it. Without accumulating any knowledge, or routines.
    As for me one day I saw the futility in escape from the the fact, (fear). 
    Fact of fear perpetually evading it’s own movement and feeding that very movement itself. 
    I saw that the more “I” ran away from the fact of insecurity in search of the abstraction of  security, the more I nourished that fact of insecurity. 
    This can happen to anyone, they just have to see the whole of this movement of thought-self and its very very sneaky ways
    It takes a willingness to step off the cliff, and let go of the illusion of control??

  2. Jordan Peterson
    Jordan Peterson
    @Feel Good Perhaps the term "fake" is too strong. I just can't think of a better word offhand.
    As an example: Watch how JP talks about "inclusion" in the below video. A healthy green sees inclusion in terms of wellness for all. A healthy green would want to bring a marginalized group into the mainstream and also be mindful of the wellness of other groups within the mainstream. Deep down a healthy green is motivated to include marginalized groups even if they are not a member of the marginalized group. 
    A good example is with gender equality. One issue on University campuses is the use of pronouns for non-binary individuals. Some individuals that don't identify as either male or female don't like being addressed with male or female pronouns (e.g. he or she). A healthy green can see their point and can empathize with them. My gender identity is male and if someone kept calling me "she" it would irritate me. Although I am not a non-binary individual I can empathize with them and I support their inclusion. . . Non-binary students are asking for new pronouns that are neither male or female. On some University campuses, LGBT has called for many new pronouns (I think a couple dozen in some Universities). As well, some people are calling for new laws that mandate people use non-binary pronouns.
    Let's consider the mindset for Green, Orange and Blue on these issues:
    Healthy Green: the underlying motivation and worldview is about equality, inclusion and wellness for all. This is what it boils down to for Greens. So. . . Greens are aware that there is a marginalized group (non-binary gender individuals). The fundamental question for Greens is: how can our community include non-binary individuals while promoting wellness for everyone? This question is their lens as issues arise. . . One issue is that some community members will be upset about a law requiring them to use new non-binary pronouns. Some people will argue for their individual right of free speech (Orange). A Green will recognize that a law mandating the use of non-binary pronouns will raise an individual free speech issue for Orange WITHIN the larger, holistic context of creating an environment for the wellness of all (including upset Orange individuals). We go back to Green's fundamental question: How can we best include non-binary individuals with this individual speech issue present? A Green would ask: are there options other than a law mandate to reach the end goal of inclusion? A Green may propose that the University create an atmosphere of inclusion by stating that the new standard policy is the use of pronouns. They could require syllabi include non-binary pronouns. They could require student and faculty diversity training that highlights the importance of using non-binary pronouns. This may have much less backlash from Orange. . . . On the issue of the number of pronouns: imagine LGBT asks for 30 new non-binary pronouns to cover all non-binary identities. A Green can see this might not be practical - it could make communication really awkward and many Orange/Blue people will get annoyed. So, a green may propose to LGBT that they find a consensus among themselves to narrow the non-binary pronouns down to six pronouns. . . Again, for a Green it keeps coming back to inclusion of the marginalized group within holistic wellness for all. Greens keep asking "How can we resolve this issue so that non-binary individuals are no longer marginalized?". They keep brainstorming ideas of inclusion. They are willing to work with various groups for inclusion.
    The Orange stage prioritizes individual freedom and rational/logical thinking. An Orange person may say that they value inclusion and they don't discriminate, yet they will have a very different fundamental question than Greens. The Green fundamental question is "how can our community include binary individuals within holistic wellness for everyone?" In contrast the Orange fundamental question is "How will new policies affect individual rights and freedoms?" (with a focus on MY individual rights and freedoms). Deep down, an Orange will be motivated to protect individual rights and freedoms, not for inclusion of a marginalized group they don't belong to. Regarding a law mandating non-binary pronouns, an Orange will focus on individual free speech and 2nd Amendment rights. Rather than seeking other solutions for inclusion, an Orange will by hyper-focused on how they shouldn't be told what to say. Over and over, they will argue for their individual freedom of speech. Regarding 30 new non-binary pronouns, an Orange will complain that using 30 new pronouns is ridiculous.  "How will this affect ME?", "What an inconvenience for ME". They will be stuck on the individual. They will not be motivated to brainstorms new ideas for inclusion because they are individual-centered, not community-centered. They will likely argue against any new ideas that limit what they perceive is their individual freedom. They will use rationale and logic to defend their individual-first perspective.
    The Blue stage uses "either / or" thinking. Rather than the "individual-first" mindset of Orange, Blues have a "group-first" mentality. Healthy greens have a more holistic view of "group-first" than blues - Greens seek equality and inclusion for all in one holistic multicultural community. Blue seeks to compartmentalize groups into "us and them". We are straight, they are gay. We are Christians, they are Muslims. An ideological blue sees their way of life as normal, for themselves and others. "Men should act masculine and women should act feminine". Not just for me, but for everyone. These Blues will see non-binary individuals as being weird and perhaps immoral. They will not want inclusion of non-binary individuals - yet for a different reason than Orange. Orange wants to exclude non-binary to protect what they see as a threat to individual freedom. Blue wants to exclude non-binary to protect their group (binary male or female). They can't even imagine a person being non-binary. "How can someone not identify as being a man or woman?" They lack the capacity to see outside of their Either man Or woman thinking. They will see non-binary inclusion as a threat to their group (man and woman).
    To a solid, healthy Green, these dynamics are TOTALLY obvious. They can clearly see why Greens, Oranges and Blues are arguing they way they are. Yet Oranges and Blues cannot understand the Green perspective. They may use some Green lingo, yet deep down they are motivated by Orange or Blue urges.
    Are you ready to see if you have advanced to a solid, healthy green? Ready to test your level of consciousness? The below video is an interview with JP and a non-binary individual, debating over the use of non-binary pronouns at the University of Toronto (where JP is a professor). Notice how JP has Orange and Blue motivations (as described above). He is clearly not motivated to work through issues together for the ultimate goal of inclusion and wellness for all. He is not brainstorming for new ideas for inclusion. He is clearly motivated by individual rights and personal freedom (Orange). He has no Green motivation to seek inclusion for non-binary individuals. He keeps coming back to second amendment individual free speech and the personal inconvenience of using 30 new nonbinary pronouns (Orange). Greens see individual rights as an issue WITHIN the larger context of inclusion. Orange sees individual rights as THE issue. Also notice how JP relies on rationale/logical thinking (Orange) and is unable to use a relative mode of thinking (Green). His Orange is completely obvious. His Blue is a bit more subtle, yet apparent to an observant Green. Notice how JP is focused on protecting individual rights for HIS group (men and women). Is he equally concerned about what the individual freedom for non-binary individuals might be? I'd say clearly not. Non-binary are the "other" group. His disdain for "them" is palatable. He is motivated by a combination of personal individual rights (Orange) and protecting his group (Blue). Notice how the moderator opens Green doors for JP. Every time, JP retreats back to an Orange mindset. 

  3. A question about "Projection"
    A question about "Projection"
    Hey, what's up my friends ?
    If, let's say, I talk with someone and suddenly this thought comes in my mind: he is is cold-hearted and rude at me". If I turn it around "I am cold-hearted and rude at him". And then suddenly I realize that this is true. Why does my mind projects ? Why I project my own thoughts on someone else? What kind of game is this?

  4. A question about "Projection"
    A question about "Projection"
    The self-image projects an image of another, which serves as a reinforcement of the self-image.   "That person is rude" reinforces the self-image's "politeness."  "That person is unintelligent" reinforces the self-image's "intelligence."   "I respect that person's work ethic" validates-reinforces the self-image's "work ethic."  "That person has good taste" reinforces the self-image's "good taste." The ego, through comparison-labelling-acceptance-rejection, is able to validate-reinforce itself from projected image-making.

  5. Masturba****
    It can drain your life-force energy, but no-fappers who abstain for months aren't doing anything good either since you can get something which is called 'jing stagnation' in Qigong. According to Taoism, a man should ejaculate a certain amount based on his age and constitution: they say in your teens and twenties once every 4 days, thirties once every 8 days, forties once every 16 days, fifties once every 21 days and sixties+ once every 30 days. This varies though depending on the tradition and the constitution of the man in question.

    That's just ejaculation though. You also want to ensure that you're not generating particularly negative feelings from whatever porn you use.

  6. Abusive Family dynamic and the pick-up culture
    Abusive Family dynamic and the pick-up culture
    Hey guys! Its late at night and I just had such a clarifying insight for me that just seems like something so incredibly fun to share with all of you.

    I have always felt like there was an imbalance in the dating scene. It doesn't necessarily include everyone, but I am mainly talking about the pick-up culture, club and party culture, and regarding a lot of what RSD teaches and operates in.

    The imbalance was what it is often referred to as "high value females" having such an abundance in men, that they walk around telling guys how to be, how to act and how to approach them so they like them more. I always found that on some level slightly repulsive. The sense of entitlement didn't make sense to me, why wasn't there sexual equality, where there can be sharing one another freely when both desire.
    And of course, this isn't any type of rant telling women how to behave and who to date. They are absolutely free to like who they like, and date who they feel attraction towards. That's absolutely natural and necessary. It isn't even necessarily one of those "testimonies of a nice-guy" complaining why I could never get laid because "those stupid bitches only date assholes", this kind of INCEL type of vibe, not at all. 

    But from a young age I saw this kind of imbalance and I couldn't figure it out. Why was it that guys had to try so incredibly hard, why was it that the most effective dating advice is for a dude to get his life in order, to HAVE A PURPOSE, to BECOME confident, to conquer their life, to GO TO THE GYM and have interests, passions and hobbies.
    Why do dudes have to work so freaking hard to create attraction, and it doesn't flow automatically and naturally? I mean attracting your partner and having a relationship is one of the most beautiful things in life, to share yourself with another being is a privilege, joy and amazing opportunity to grow more than ever for both partners! Why does it require so much work on the side of the male? (Not to discredit any type of effort females put forth, but just speaking generally.) 

    After all, it is guys who often spend so much time on dating advice, seminars, coaches...

    And then there is the result of this type of work. If you look at RSD coaches, or other examples of dudes who "made it", who learnt the "skillset" to attract females. The scenario doesn't usually go "oh I worked on myself, I found the love of my life and had a fulfilling relationship for two decades building a life together with an incredible loving family". No, the result often times is that the man "learns the MALE skillset", he attracts women. And that's exactly where it stays, and then there is this weird thing where he attracts more, and more, and keeps on chasing after those women, as if it were never enough, after all that hard work that he has done on himself, there will never be enough of the sex, of the attention, or of the need to gain the female validation. 
    And this is just plain weird, it is a kind of loop that the man keeps spiraling in. 

    And today I had a holy shit moment, and it all clicked. This loop is created by a certain type of culturally accepted abuse towards children, especially towards boys, and it is done by mothers.

    There is a term that I recently found, that had shed a lot of light onto my own family dynamic, where this type of abuse was very tangible. (I will share my story in a bit) Covert emotional incest.


    You might think that it sounds kind of brutal. But I bet that most of you have almost certainly experienced this type of dynamic in your own family, even if only in a subtle way.

    The most obvious and extreme cases of this phenomenon are in ex. A mother asking her son to listen to the trouble she is having in the relationship with her father. The child then feels validated by the things it is being told, and it feels like it is being useful as a listener. But that's not at all an appropriate thing to ask of a little boy! He's a small kid, he is the one who requires their needs met and not the other way around. It is a complete role reverse. It is of course unfortunate when a child cannot have their needs met and is in a situation where it's neglected. But this is actually a totally new level of that. Not only doesn't the child get their needs met, but the child is put into a position where it doesn't even get to have needs. A situation where  a child doesn't get it's needs met is where it asks a parent, and the parent says "No, I am busy, go to your room." And that's a serious thing that affects us all. But in this scenario, the child doesn't even get to know it's needs. It is not even allowed to develop it's needs, because it is the one who is meeting the parent's needs.

    This dynamic doesn't often play out in the magnitude of a mother expecting her son to be a replacement for all she seems to lack in her romantic relationship type of situation. It is a more subtle dynamic. And even though it is an abusive imbalanced dynamic, it is so ingrained in our culture that you would NEVER imagine that this type of behavior could be considered inappropriate or abusive.
    I could continue with more examples surely, but I am a little lazy when it comes to studying these things from external sources, I just like to go with my own intuition and experience so feel free to do research if this strikes you as interesting. 

    All these examples have one thing in common. They are situations where the parents are putting the responsibility of their own personal fulfillment and happiness onto the child. In other words, parents have codependent relationships with their children. 

    In my own family, this played out on such a large scale and affected me enormously. My own mother subconsciously objectified me to be her own personal "humanoid" fulfilling her needs and expectations. She would say things in a way where she would present herself as a victim of a situation, asking me to be her savior. In fact I had a conversation with her once, and she actually told me that she expects me to fulfill the emotional hole inside her. Without flinching or second guessing herself, or a grain of self-awareness where she would look at what she was actually asking me to do. In my childhood, I was without knowing it often manipulated by her so she could get her way and come out victorious, when I didn't want to do something, she would sweet-talk me into doing what she wanted, making it look as if she was the most amazing and loving mother on earth. 
    In my own experience, I had NO idea why on some level I felt like I was a victim of sexual abuse. There was nothing in my history even remotely similar to any kind of sexual abuse, at least nothing I could understand. Not to minimize any type of sexual abuse, I am sure that the experience of it is horrific and beyond belief, however I can imagine that in the case of a parent abusing a child, one of the most significant aspects of the abuse is the sheer betrayal. The fact that your primary caretaker who is expected to care for you and love you unconditionally, supporting your needs and desires, out of everyone in the world, that this one person abused you in such a manner is a horrific experience of betrayal of the most serious degree. And that was the experience I had, there was a deeply betrayed part of me. The moment the child is expected to meet the parent's needs and is not on the receiving end of affection and love, while required to give it to the parent, a betrayal of the natural development is created.

    When I realized that this happened to me, I shared it with a friend. And the moment I mentioned that I always felt like I was sexually abused on some level he uttered "OMG ME TOO!" (Side note, we are both empaths so our ability to feel these things is amplified, these feelings may or may not be the same for the majority of guys who went through similar dynamic.)
    Then I would share some examples of this abuse happening in my childhood, and he would say "Wait but don't all mothers do that?", and I'd say "Yeah, I think this is real in many families, and that is a scary-ass thing to realize."

    Culturally, females are often viewed as sacred when it comes to the relationship with their children. it gives them oh so much power and almost immunity to all kinds of abusive behaviour, mascarading only as "good parenting", with excuses such as "Oh she is just doing it because she loves you so much.", while having almost absolute power to project all her unresolved emotional needs onto the child/boy. A Big FUCK THAT I say to that shit, for real...

    So to tie this back to the dating dynamic and pick-up culture. Guys are brought up in a dynamic being expected to meet the emotional needs of their mothers, and in extension then all the females they wish to date. This is the Nice guy. The nice guy who is there for their mom when she needs them, and who is then rewarded by their mom. When it comes to dating, suddenly this doesn't work anymore, and the girls don't respond to this dynamic with attraction. But let's not limit this to the Nice guy archetype. We can talk about the macho dudes, who can have trouble expressing themselves emotionally, or feel like crying is a weakness. That is actually the same wound, that says "I don't get to have emotional needs."  And because we all feel like deep down we don't get to have needs, it creates this whole imbalance where females who are comfortable having needs, hold so much more power in the romantic or sexual interaction. And so the guy (And btw nothing wrong with this, I love the fact that dudes go and take control over their life.) goes and learns all the skillsets to attract women, which is a difficult and a huge step. And I applaud to all the guys who have the courage to change and evolve in this way. However on a much deeper level, there is an enormous wound within your being, that is actually a part of your child-self, that is desperate to have it's emotional needs met, and it doesn't know how. Heck it doesn't even know it's supposed to have needs.
     In culture there is often the distinction between the feminine role and the masculine role, and then the polarity between the two. In reality, it is not about your gender. Feminine and masculine are aspects that we all have within us, and the trick is to balance both of them out, rather than play the masculine role, expecting the feminine to be your partner. From this space, you can actually create relatinoships of equality, rather than perpetuate the old wounded dynamic. 

    So that's that, I hope this resonates with you guys because this is actually such a big part of the illness of our society. It needs to stop being acceptable to abuse children in any way possible.

    This is the video that brought up the initial spark of clarity, check him out he's a therapist and a good guy with a heart in the right place.

  7. Toxic people and situations are not real
    Toxic people and situations are not real
    A mind not burdened by resistance to what is, is a mind that is indestructible...
    Anything in which causes a mind to suffer such as; desire seeking security in pleasure, sets up the invitation for pain and suffering. That mind constructs an image in hopes of securing its psychological needs, but does not see that to construct such an image inevitably out of that insecure motive, (fear), comes the unavoidable reaction that that image will be broken by another, or itself. 
    We create this image to bring about psychological security, not seeing that to have an image in the first place is the cause for psychological insecurity. 
    The mechanical responses of experience, knowledge, memory, as the psychological entity, (the i), are then adhered to. We hold to the past and invent these images as a reaction to what is, and what we feel should be, (the escape). 
    Why do we invent the image to protect this illusory psychological entity, (the self)? 
    Do we see that the image we invent is a reactionary response to defend this false division we are caught in between the experiencer and that which it experiences? 
    Do we see that this only preserves the fragility and the increased capability of being psychologically wounded? 
    Do we see that by having this negative image,(interpretation of ourselves constructed from past hurts), or a positive self image, (also form the past that projects a desired future), that we have then built a wall of “attachment” to “things-thought”, in which can be destroyed by circumstances, events, others, and ourselves??
    As long as there is this self forming image that implies division, and in division that always implies fear, in which that fear still determines course of action. As long as fear influences action, there will be this neurotic compulsion to form such images. 
    In division, which implies (fear-conflict), always follows this seeking pleasure in the image. As long as this isolated-alienated mechanical movement is in motion, so will be the feeding into this perpetual psychological pain and suffering. 
    Isn’t it absolutely necessary to NOT continuously invent an image about ourselves that can so easily be destroyed by “toxic people” or “toxic situations”?
    These “toxic people” and “toxic situations” will always be a part of experience, but do we see that we are responsible for whether or not we allow ourselves to be hurt in those experiences? 
    Is this possible to not form an image of ourselves???
    FIND OUT !!!
     I will tell you this with first hand experiencing, to be psychologically indestructible is of great importance in living. It’s only when we are incapable of being psychologically hurt, that fear ceases to influence our lives. And its only in the absence of fear that there is the possibility for true joy, and a revealing of the exquisite beauty of THE NOW.??

  8. This is how sneaky my ego is. Unbelievable bold.
    This is how sneaky my ego is. Unbelievable bold.
    When it comes to psychological matters...
    To seek security in a knowing, is the same as thought seeking security in itself. To seek security in pleasure, gratification, satisfaction, (thought), is a movement of fear attempting to evade itself. No matter what, to seek security in pleasure always leads to pain-suffering-insecurity. Desire seeking psychological security in pleasure, is no different than inviting pain, suffering, and insecurity. 
    Out of the contents of the self, (experience, knowledge memory), there is the invention of the abstraction. The self strives to fulfill that particular desire-abstraction to achieve a sense of psychological security in time. 
    As in; “I” am insecure, and “I” will depend on (experience, knowledge, memory), time, which is also that same movement of “i”,(self). The self-fear, is always insecure, and continuously strives to bring about a sense of security. This nourishes that division and strengthens that movement pattern. 
    This Fear in movement, (experience, knowledge, memory), is one and the same movement of time as the i. But we feel deep down that the i is separate from its contents. 
    This constant seeking shelter in thought, which is static, to anticipate that of the dynamic now, is also one and the same movement as seeking psychological security in time. 
    What we don’t see is there is no possible way to meet the unlimited-infinite nature of THE NOW, with that of the limited-finite static nature of thought(experience, knowledge, memory).
    The fragment(thought), can never contain the whole,(what is). Or the dead nature of memory can never anticipate the active and alive nature of now. 
    This frightens the self. It does all it can to maintain a sense of permanence to compensate for its own impermanent nature. The more it moves positively-negatively, the more it brings about disorder and insecurity in itself. 
    This false division or fragmentation is what ultimately causes psychological insecurity. The self, being a fragment of thought, seeks security in another fragment that thought has itself constructed. This whole process causes insecurity, but the self doesn’t see that, and still tries to implement thought as a means to secure itself. Like trying to put out fire with fire ? 
    As long as this false division is sustained by lack of seeing & holistic understanding, along with passive awareness to that understanding, there will be this inevitable contradiction, confusion, and therefore further psychological seeking. 
    Seeking psychological security is a side effect of division-duality. As long as fragmentation is taking place, conflict-suffering will continue. There will be this never ending self perpetuating battle between the “experiencer” and “its” experience, what is, and what should be. 

  9. This is how sneaky my ego is. Unbelievable bold.
    This is how sneaky my ego is. Unbelievable bold.
    Do we notice all the subtle disguised forms of fear that determine every single action taken in our day to day living?
    Do we see how fear will inevitably generate incomplete action, (divided action)? 
    Action influenced by fear-time will ignore the fact,(what is), and seek security in the abstraction,(what should be). 
    Do we see that as long as this pattern of fragmentation remains a mechanical-programmed impulse, we will only nourish that same movement pattern?
    Fear and the intellect,(self-thought), will work hand and hand to stimulate and nurture its own sustenance, which is the movement of TIME, (psychological becoming). 
    Can we be aware that as long as this self sustaining movement of psychological becoming is in motion, that all action taken in accordance to that will reinforce that very limit? 
    Do we have the awareness to know when movement within this finite pattern of fragmentation is in motion? 

  10. How to let go of thoughts
    How to let go of thoughts
    The effort, the "hard concentration" is nothing other than the movement of thought itself.  There is no task to let go, as that is a goal, and thought is nourished by tasks/goals.   Thought is always looking for something "to do", "to achieve/accomplish".    This is a passive, choiceless awareness.  Effortless, goal-less.  Observation for observation's sake.   Motives, effort, hard focusing, concentration, etc., is all thinking in disguise. 
    Can you see that is that is the very nature of thought itself to struggle, achieve, exert, seek, or escape; to either validate/justify or condemn/reject/resist its own (thought) movement? 

  11. Developing the "REAL" doing nothing technique
    Developing the "REAL" doing nothing technique
    What is meditation? 
    Can we start by saying what it is not?
    Meditation isn't passively observing the passing of thoughts in order to quiet the mind to attain enlightenment.  This is how the term "meditation" is normally intended or implied.
    True meditation is observing not only the passing of thoughts, but also even observing the desire/seeking in thought for enlightenment.  Total observation of all thought, including even the observation of volitional/desirous thoughts to quiet the mind.
    Total observation, which is true meditation, is therefore effortless, goal-less.  To be aware of the movement of effort means the meditator is not unaware in exerting it (effort) to "attain" something through meditation.   Total observation, in this sense, is observation without the conditioned/biased lens of the "observer"; meditation without the influence of the "meditator".  

  12. Doesn't Self-Inquiry Imply a Doer?
    Doesn't Self-Inquiry Imply a Doer?
    Whole insight into the nature of psychological time & whole insight-perception into the nature of thought-self, which is one and the same movement of time as the i. 

  13. Doesn't Self-Inquiry Imply a Doer?
    Doesn't Self-Inquiry Imply a Doer?
    In “my” case  
    First there was the necessity of FREEDOM without problems, conflict, suffering, (FEAR).
    This perpetual movement of time will continue to feed off of itself. This self feeding loop must end. Then there is freedom to inquire unbound by motive-volition, personal and collective authority; as in (spiritual authority).
    To be totally empty of any volition motivated and fueled by desire-fear. 
    Freedom; consciousness empty of problems comes first. Until there is freedom, inquiry is inevitably going to lead to self deception; thought seeking security in itself.
    For me inquiry was holistic understanding-seeing of the nature, structure, substance of thought-self. 
    For me psychological time, volition-desire ended first. Volition-fear then is not able to perpetuate the self feeding loop of time. Then inquiry can be maintained with a suspended bias. 
    After all, how can one inquire in an unbiased way when they are bound by a particular outcome-reward. Thought is very cunning. It seeks security in its own movement to self sustain. It perpetually moves to capture and maintain a certain degree of certainty, even though in its very nature it is, and always will be, inevitably uncertain. Thought mechanically seeks security-permanence in its own movement, even though in its very nature it is, and always will be, insecure and impermanent. 
    To me, freedom is in the beginning, not the end. 

  14. Experiencing "God", possible?
    Experiencing "God", possible?
    When you say god mode maybe you mean that which is immeasurable. 
    This is actualized when “knowing or experience” ceases to manifest itself as the veil of i. 
    This is what I refer to as healdessness. The cessation of experience, knowledge, memory). In this Is actually unawareness, but is only the happening. 
    There is absolutely no identification when the head goes missing. ?

  15. How to get laid with a hot girl in Highschool as an ugly/average looking guy?
    How to get laid with a hot girl in Highschool as an ugly/average looking guy?
    You don't have to avoid asking her friends out either. Just be sure that they know you well enough to where asking them out is not unusual and that you're getting clear signs of interest. Get to know them first. A good litmus test for whether or not you should ask someone out is, "Have we ever had a conversation that lasted more than ten minutes?" and "Have we flirted before?" And flirtation goes both ways. If those two answers are 'yes', then it wouldn't be inappropriate to ask them out in a polite and non-chalant way where you calmly accept their answer regardless of what it is. 
    But basically, you could ask out anyone but her by my advice. Her friends didn't say no to you and that they weren't interested in you. Her acquaintances didn't say no to you and that they weren't interested in you. They don't have a hive-mind. Only she told you that she wasn't interested in you. And you should respect that, and don't ask her again. Just try to accept that she said no and move on. 
    But I would also stress that you actually get to know them, so that it isn't out of nowhere. Out of nowhere stuff, works as an adult in a bar or club with random people who are out looking to hook up. But if you go to high school together, then random ask-outs are super weird. The setting makes it socially awkward to do. And most of that PUA stuff is just going to trip you up. 

  16. How to get laid with a hot girl in Highschool as an ugly/average looking guy?
    How to get laid with a hot girl in Highschool as an ugly/average looking guy?
    @Lorcan It seems like you have a really cartoonishly weird idea of what girls respond well to, based off of some caricature of an arrogant asshole man in a movie kind of thing. Maybe some kind of image that you're trying to emulate but failing at emulating. 
    I have to say, this type of thing just makes girls feel super uncomfortable. Also, if you're asking a girl out, don't TELL HER she's coming out with you. And don't make a bunch of jokes around it. Just be a normal person about it, and if she says she isn't interested then let her off the hook. Rejecting someone is difficult, so it just makes it all the more difficult and emotionally distressing to have to continue reaffirming her boundaries with you. This is especially true, if she doesn't really know you.
    And when you were on the bus, and you looked at her and intuited that she was going to see you as less dominant if you didn't do it. That totally was not going through her mind at all. That was just your projection onto her. She was just cold and didn't want the window open. She wasn't thinking about you at all. And she definitely wasn't sizing you up for dominance. Women don't consciously randomly size up men's dominance level, at all. Attractions come up spontaneously, and there's the only conscious sizing up has to do with looks. The rest all happens subconsciously. 
    So, I recommend just trying to get to know a girl that you have things in common with. That's what needs to happen for a real relationship to spring about. You have to connect on a deeper level that just liking the way she looks. Looks-based attractions will only sustain you for a few weeks MAX. Then, even if she accepted you (which she never will), if you had nothing in common, you would get bored of her in less than a month. 
    And if you can only get attractions to the hottest girls, it means that you're not mature enough for a relationship. There are so many more layers to attractions than looks, that really need to be there for a functional relationship to happen. You have to experience feeling based in the heart and not just the loins to be mature enough for a relationship. Many young men tend to have quite a bit of trouble with this. 
    But bottom line is, she will never be interested in you. And if you ask her out again, you're just heading for another 'no.' Also, you'll be making her feel extremely uncomfortable in the process. 

  17. How does one build self-esteem?
    How does one build self-esteem?
    Escape from negative emotions, wanting to stop them, is a reaction out of fear. It (fear) is a resistance/struggle against what-is. This resistance/struggle against what-is is thought/self (fear) in action, being perpetuated. Thought/self and fear are one and the same movement.
    And the mind goes “what to DO about it?” - but this very desire to do, this movement of effort/volition, is also a subtle expression of this fear/thought-self. Effort/volition is a movement away from what-is, just like fear is.

  18. How does one build self-esteem?
    How does one build self-esteem?
    We can also see that lines of “development” such as; “enlightenment-waking up”, “growign up-personal development”, “cleaning up-emotional work”, are also all one and the same movement of fear. An escape from the fact of what is actually the case, to what should be, (abstraction).
    Anytime we introduce this division that the idea is more important than the fact, contradiction is bound to manifest. 
    To solve practical problems in life the idea,(abstraction), is useful, but psychologically simply staying with the fact is the only way to prevent this perpetuation of divison-duality, which only nourishes psychological insecurity. 
    The self loves to seek security in the abstraction, “improve”, which is the self seeking security in thought. 
    The self does not want to stay with what is. Which is why the problem is never understood holistically. If we cannot stay with what is, there will never be understanding. To build a positive self image,(improve), is an escape. Instead of not improving or improving, perhaps instead simply understand. Understanding requires communion with the problem. Not any means necessary to escape it. 
    Ultimatly we may find that seeking psychological security;escaping to what should be, leads to and breeds psychological insecurity. 
    To be aware of the abstractions, “enlightenment”, “personal development”, and such, instead of understand what is actually happening in oneself.
    In this is whole action in which freedom flowers. 
    Psychological freedom is not the result of cultivated thought, (pursuing abstraction), but the holistic understanding of thought-self as one unitary movement of time, (psychological becoming). 
    The staying with and understanding of what is, ceases to feed that movement of fear seeking security in its own movement. Then we see the futility in seeking security in this self feeding loop that depends on attachment to certain type of image in which we seek shelter in. 
    This message has nothing to do with enlightenment, personal development, and so on.
    It is direct towards the importants of understanding the nature of living. To live a healthy life of order. 

  19. Self Analysis implies abstraction, which nourishes division-duality
    Self Analysis implies abstraction, which nourishes division-duality
    Specifically having to do with @Feel Good‘s question yesterday. 
    Sorry for late response. I spent yesterday without a head. 
    To analyze the self-thought loop, that implies we are separate from that which we analyze. Only then is there this formulation of concept accumulation, (abstractions), that follow, in which then are adhered too by control and imitation. Thought-self has then created an abstraction out of a fact, then is either compelled to accept or condemn certain abstractions in accordance to its own accumulated bias-prejudice, and so on. 
    As far as the content we attempt to analyze, “We are it”. There is nothing “we” can do about “it”. To do anything about it will ultimately causes contradicting action because you’re going into the observation dividing yourself from the fact from the very beginning. What is observed,(the fact), and “you” are one and the same movement of the fragmented nature of thought. 
     Can we watch without any movement of division-abstraction as “the i”, fear-time, (psychological becoming)?? 
    Can we see (holistically), the fact of it all without accepting or condemning according to our machanical impulse to self sooth the psyche-self. 
    Holistic understanding will not come from analyzing your self. If there is any form of duality taking place, (contradicting desires, seeking psychological security), will then prevent actual understanding of the fact,(what is the case).
    Nothing I write is meant to be a conceptually accumulated, or treated as an idea to be pursued, but is only a pointing to something that can be observed in ourselves. Only if this (analysis), being abstraction based understanding, is not being employed of course. 
    In observation without analysis there will be no form of abstraction. As long as we see “the i” as being separate from that which it is observing there will be positive and negative action of the self, (volition-desire), that will inevitably evade what is, to what should be.
    An example of action influenced by this false notion the perceiver being separate from that which it perceives. 
    The majority of ‘my’ posts are only to point out the inner ongoings of thought-self for the most part. But we have to be able to observe free-of this accumulation,(experience, knowledge, memory), which is inevitably bias in its very nature. 
    Ultimately yes, (FEAR-TIME), perpetuates this self feeding loop of itself. Thought seeking security in itself. 

    Quite so.
    accepting/denying of knowledge --> perpetuates this "entity"/"I"/knowledge censor, which is one and the same as perpetuating the movement of thought-self/mind.

    Don’t accept or deny knowledge, as the entity that accepts or denies, is in itself a movement of (experience, knowledge, memory), as the i, (time). 

    You probably meant this but to be clear and for the benefit of others reading, the "I" doesn't accumulate the past.  The "I" is the accumulated past; they are one and the same.

    The veil that blankets BE-ING 
     Are we aware that “the i” is a veil of conceptualizations, or the accumulated(experience, knowledge, memory), that responds to the now with that content-movement of the past??
     That being one and the same movement as “the i”, or “the knower-known”, that seeks security in time, which prevents actual timeless be-ing.
     All this being a movement of fear with the agenda of self preservation. To evade the fact to the abstraction in order to capture and maintain a sense of psychological security-psychological permanence. 
     Do we see that as long as there is this neurotic compulsion to adhere, and project, that which has been accumulated through the movement of thought, (experience, knowledge, memory), that in so doing, we are preventing actual present moment be-ing??
     Do we see that we meet the dynamic happening of “the now”, with that accumulation of the past,(thought as the i)??
     The alive and dynamic action of be-ing, is then blanketed with all that movement of the i, (memory), which projects itself in place of “what is” in accordance to its own static content of what should be. 
     In this movement of time as the i, there is then an interpretation of that static content, which influences the projection, which then follows an action in accordance to that projected image. 
     Again, that action is the response of an interpreted-projection, which is the response of memory, registering, recollecting from the past-thought. We then apply that finite veil of experience to meet the challenge of the infinite -active dynamic now. 
     In the actual “action of be-ing”, there is no choosing between the opposites. Actual be-ing implies the absence of choice as the chooser, who chooses between two opposing concepts, or any content-movement from the past whatsoever...Choosing, or deciding between, is one and the same movement as the past that acts according to the false notion, that ‘the chooser’ is different from that which it chooses. 
     This is an example of the dualistic nature of thinking, when “the thinker”, thinks, it is separate from that which it thinks. 
     Even, “present movement be-ing”, can be the product of conceptualization if this accumulated movement-contents, as the i, which is the past, meets the present active and elusive now. 
     In that, the active happening of now is then deduced by the deadness of the past, (memory), and (thought as the i), then becomes projected again as a future barrier to “the be-ingness of now” 
     Here I have utilized thought, (a conceptual expression), that points to a fact that is common to the conditioned consciousness of human kind. Pointing to the actuality that the psychological accumulation of “the i” distorts, and makes for this (deduction), that diminishes the beauty, joy, and creativity of the dynamic, aliveness, of now. 
     When we can observe without the observer, which is void of (experience, knowledge, memory), or time as the i, only then is there a timeless dynamic/stillness of be-ing. 
     This is what I have been exploring over the last  four months or so. How to explain this “ending of experience”, more efficiently....What it boils down to is the ending of experience in and of itself. Freedom to me, implies the absence of experience, or(measure), acting as a veil to that which is immeasurable. Experience has its place in practical affairs, but psychologically it has none.  
     When all psychological experience as the i ceases to be carried over onto the living movement of now, only then that which is mysterious, (THE SACRED), is actualized. This is what I would refer to as BE-ING, or consciousness empty of its conditioned movement-content of time as the i. Or what I refer to as headlessness. 
     As I have said before, to me, this is the most creative movement that can take place. This movement is not found within the realm of time. 
     Nor is this the invention of thought, but an actualized emptiness void of the conditioned nature of thought, consciousness empty of its contents-movement so that there can be communion with WHAT IS. 

  24. Actualized.org Values
    Actualized.org Values
    This community is built to enable self-actualization. More than just a place to hang out and blabbermouth, this is a call to transform your life. Make your life count, seek the profound, inspire others to do that same, and die with a smile on your face, knowing you lived well.
    Self-actualization is a nuanced attitude towards life.
    Here are our community values -- the things we care about most:
    Practical, no-bullshit, results-driven personal development Self-improvement as a way of life Truth/Reality/Consciousness/Enlightenment Openmindedness Authenticity/Honesty Developing awareness & mindfulness Emotional awareness & mastery Understanding of diverse viewpoints, treating them with all with equanimity Meditation & deep introspection Embracing paradox & uncertainty Being vigilant of our infinite capacity for self-deception in all its forms: Dogma Black & white thinking Superstitious thinking Warping of our worldview due to ego & personal bias Narcissism Vanity Hedonism Group think & social conditioning Arm-chair philosophy Academic snobbery or technical argumentation Debate Acting superior Judging/criticizing others 100% responsibility: holding yourself to a higher standard than anyone else Concern for the well-being of humanity and the larger ecosystem Passion for life Being a positive leader & role-model Walking your talk Hard work: recognizing that it takes massive effort to become successful Long-term thinking: investing in yourself Finding your true life purpose Staying on track with your purpose after you've found it Becoming world-class at what you do Creating financial success, creative autonomy, freedom, and lasting fulfillment Unleashing your full potential Helping others unleash their full potential

  25. Non duality is too easy!
    Non duality is too easy!
    Struggle, motive, effort, and choice are some of the engines upon which the mind runs.  So observation influenced by any of these factors suggests that the mind is only cunningly self-perpetuating.  The observation is corrupted.
    In fact, struggle/motive/effort IS the mind.