aurum

I can see you being that for younger women.

Everyone is inevitably influenced by their relationships to some degree.

The part about women not having proper role models for truth really hit me. I dated a woman like that. She was deeply ungrounded and suffered a lot behind the scenes. I cared for her by introducing her to actualized.org, showing her my ways of thinking, etc. But it's not clear whether or not it really helped. I wish I could have done more for her.

You will lose the vast majority of girls with that approach.

@Nito Good job on doing the approach on an attractive girl. That's already a big W. It's also good that you have a bit of a cocky, assumptive frame. Some things I would consider: Your response to her saying "maybe" was not great. She gave you a vague, noncommittal answer and you pushed for investment. Big mistake. Also, the problem with just leaving the ball in her court is that there's about a zero percent chance she will reach out to you. That will not happen unless she is already very into you. So yeah, you're filtering the girl for compliance. But you're filtering her in a way that is almost never going to lead to success. So it's not an intelligent way of filtering. It would be like if you said "I don't want to cold approach women because if she was interested, she would open me!" -> yeah okay, but that's never going to happen. Personally, I would shift away from the meetup at this point and build more rapport / value with her. You asked for compliance and she didn't give it, so now you've got to back off and get her invested before you ask for more again.

Any city with that many people should be good for cold approach.

You don't need to rely on any specific entity at all. Not Jesus, not Ra, no Leo, not Bashar, no one. Putting any outside entity on a pedestal is an immediate mistake.

Usually the money comes first. Then they leverage that into dating.

@Max_ I get it dude. Trying to align money and women at the same time is tough as hell. If you want three kids, it'd be good to meet someone and start building that life together now. You don't need everything perfect to get into a relationship. You can grow into it, which is someways can be more fulfilling and give the relationship purpose. If you meet someone in their early 20s, you could spend 3-5 years together preparing your financial life before you have kids. Even longer if she freezes her eggs. It might not be ideal, maybe you still both have to work. But you gotta weigh that with possibility of no relationship at all. Beware of putting off dating too long. You need to be consistently getting out there and taking shots in order to be successful in dating, which requires its own momentum. Trying to go from 0 to 100 is very difficult. You need to find a solid strategy and ride that wave of positive feedback.

This is not correct. Dating is literally a competition between potential mates, nothing more. Which is why all attempts to improve your dating life are about increasing your edge over the competition.

How could God be God if it couldn't imagine torture? You are biased against torture because torture is bad for your limited, survival agenda. And you want to impose that on God as a whole.

@Hardkill it sounds fine in theory. Maybe it would be successful. How are you personally actually implementing on this? Are you doing political organizing?

That actually feels backwards to me. People generally do not get rallied up by systems thinking. It's too complex and doesn't give a concrete enemy. If you're looking to be really pragmatic about winning, you're better off blaming individuals.

If kindness is more important than truth, that statement would have to be true to be worth anything.

Trump and Musk will die before that happens. 99.9% of people do not awaken, no matter how much material success they have.

That's certainly one interpretation. I say nothing is being over-intellectualized. I have no interest in holding myself to the intellectual standard of the average person or what they find acceptable.

The people in Vegas selling mushrooms are probably going to get shut down. We had people try that where I lived. They survived I think a few months before the Feds raided their place.

Perhaps, but then that would still only be relatively true for you. There is no getting around the fact that survival requires a self and a specific agenda, which makes it inherently subjective. Even if you can find some general trends that seem objective, we could break them.

Yes, survival is inherently amorphous and relative. That just comes with the territory. It doesn't invalidate it as a concept. That's fine, just acknowledge that the point I made was still correct. That's all I'm asking for. That's exactly right. You cannot value a need that is already met. The engine of survival is unlimited, unmet needs. You can never do enough survival. Survival is like a black hole you pour into that is never satisfied. Survival is about form maintaining itself, whatever that form is. I'm not saying you can't value your wife or your car. Just recognize that it's survival and subjective / relative, not because of some innate value. Market value is a subset of survival value. Yes, you can have value that transcends formal market dynamics. But market value can be a good way to quantify survival value.

I've already answered it in this thread. I argue masculinity is typically superior for creating survival value in the workplace. That's literally its function, to secure survival for the feminine. Enlightenment is not about survival. We are talking about survival. Yes, awakening is beyond survival. But almost no one cares about that. And even if you do, most of your time will still be spent doing survival. No they literally do not. To have a function first requires an agenda, which in turn requires a self. If they are simply good in of themselves, that is equivalent to saying that it provides no value to you.

There is only subjective survival value. Survival is completely amorphous because ego is inherently amorphous. That would be wrong. You only think that because you are imagining what would happen if you suddenly didn't have water. If you drank enough water, it would literally kill you. That's the relatively of survival.

We are not debating men versus women per se. We are debating the relative pros and cons of energetic polarities, which can be inhabited by any gender. And of course all people will have some of both.

What is the point of such a question?

Survival value = whatever helps you survive. Simple.

But that's just literally how survival value works. Value is ALWAYS about a need. And a need is always something unfulfilled, something you don't currently have. If I asked you to pay $100 for your heart to pump blood, you would not pay it because your heart is already pumping blood. It doesn't matter that if your heart stopped pumping you would die. It doesn't matter that you might be willing to pay millions if you had a heart condition. It doesn't matter that it's invisible to you and that you take it for granted. Right now, it's pumping. And so it's not a need for you. Therefore you won't even pay $100. If I invent a cure for cancer that no one else has access to, I will potentially make millions of dollars. But if in 50 years everyone has access to the same cure, it will be financially worth almost nothing. Money / value is based on scarcity, period. You could argue garbage workers should be paid more due to corporate corruption, but the reality is there is very little that is scarce about their ability to take out the garbage. Almost any man with basic physical skills and health could do it. So of course they get paid very little. Making money is COMPETITIVE. You are competing to add the most asymetric value to the marketplace to then get the most in return. Garbage workers are losing the competition.