aurum

You are mixing up a statement of ontology with the correctness of your beliefs. Try thinking about it like this: If your teacher gives you back an exam and you get 73% right, then that's exactly what is. When you look at the paper and it says "73%" on top, that experience is absolute. Even though you got a 73% on the exam. When you hear your teacher call your name, that's absolute. Your entire field of consciousness is ontologically absolute. But within that, you can have mistaken beliefs. It should be obvious that you can have mistaken beliefs and that you're not always right. If you've ever been wrong about something, then you know this is the case.

By perception, I just mean whatever is your field of consciousness. I don't just specifically mean a mental interpretation. Although that is also part of your consciousness. Use of the word "perception" here is mostly pragmatic. Strictly speaking, it's just Consciousness. No outside perceiver, no outside perception.

This one is not just specifically on MAGA, but it's still relevant. Donate to Trump campaign, go public:

I'm being a bit loose in my language. Yes, you can and should deconstruct the notion of perception, such that there's not even a perceiver. When I say "perception", I just mean what most people consider their field of consciousness. What's necessary is to deconstruct every overlay story that tells you that your field of consciousness is not Absolute as it is. "My field of consciousness is actually made up of atoms, molecules and subatomic particles" - No. "My field of consciousness is a survival-based interface, based on symbols of actual reality" - No. "My field of consciousness is generated by brain activity, which is what's real" - No. "My field of consciousness has optical illusions" - No. "My field of consciousness is a simulation / virtual reality "- No "My field of consciousness is being perceived by a physical creature" - No. "My field of consciousness can hallucinate and show me what's not actually there" - No. "My field of consciousness contains objects that are still there when I don't perceive them"- No "My field of consciousness is just one perspective in an external world I am participating in" - No. "My field of consciousness is just one field of consciousness among many field of consciousnesses" - No.

If you didn't identify with anything, you'd become Infinity.

But is that actually understood? Someone like Donald Hoffman does not actually understand what Absolute Perception means. They think no such thing exists and that it's just survival based interpretations. To actually understand Absolute Perception is earth-shattering. It's not "oh yeah, well I already knew that, duh". The scribbles are viewed perfectly objectively. You could not view them any other way, because there is only perfectly objective perception. Subjective = objective. And really we should say they are not even viewed at all. They just exist as is.

Perception itself is Absolute. Deconstruct the notion that there is a perceiver doing survival. There is just perception, full stop. Alternatively, you could say there's no perception at all since there is no perceiver. It's just Consciousness. Any notion you have of a perceiver is within Consciousness.

Well keep doing what you're doing. Seems to be working for you.

I want to make a general point about this social circle vs cold approach debate. "Social circle" and "cold approach" are constructs that we could deconstruct. They're often not that clearly distinguishable. For instance, if I'm in college and approach a girl I don't know from class, is that cold approach or social circle? She is part of the larger social circle of my college. Maybe she has seen me before in class. So it's not strictly cold, but it's not strictly social circle. What about if you're at a friend's party and you approach a woman you don't know? What about if you're in a VIP section of a nightclub with friends and approach a random woman from the general section to come join you? What about if you're at an eclusive business networking event and open someone? The line gets blurry very fast. Really this cold approach vs social circle debate is a continuum. Where at the one end, you're approaching a complete stranger who is at least a member of the same human species. And at the other end, you are having your closest friends or family directly introducing you to someone. Realistically, everyone is choosing some sort of hybrid strategy. The question is just how much. How much cold approach do you want versus social circle? What are the tradeoffs for each strategy? In what context does each work best? And how does it fit into your larger life goals? When you lean more cold approach, you get more anonymity, volume and directness. When you lean more social circle, you get more exposure, indirectness and compounding effects. Which is inherently better?

I was thinking that as well but didn't want to say it. Bro is playing on easy mode

My guess is that's because you just haven't done a lot of cold approaches. You seem to prefer smaller, more intimate environments. I think that the "escalating signals" thing has happened to me maybe once in my entire life. And it didn't even lead anywhere. It's the exact opposite of the movies.

1/5 guys reported to the authorities seems way too high. I also have some issues with his advice about "escalating signals before talking". That almost never happens. If you wait for that kind of thing, you will essentially never be able to approach a woman ever. You don't need flirty eye contact, you just need to know how to approach properly and walk things back if they're unwanted. Everything else he said was pretty solid.

@RendHeaven Well said. You are wise in the ways of the Spiral

I don't like having any sort of formal practice. I just contemplate all day on various topics.

I agree that getting some warm social circle experience would be ideal for guys if they've never had that. Otherwise, yeah they will probably be very cringey when they start to do pickup.

Green take on evolution:

You're confusing things. Yes, all beliefs are ontologically true in the sense that that occur in reality and therefore must be. But that is different from beliefs being "correct". Self-deception still occurs within reality. Just think about it.

You were already deceived. I just pointed it out to you. Being king of reality doesn't mean all your silly beliefs are now correct. Don't get it confused.

No, your perception is 100% reality. You can just still be self-deceived. Both are true. Your self-deception is ontologically still reality. But that does mean you're right. You are self-deceived that your perception of reality is not 100% reality.

You can still experience self-deception.

It is literally whatever you perceive.

This theory is badly wrong. Your perception of reality is exactly reality. Not an interface of any kind.

@Hojo you could just as easily claim the reverse. Near-sightedness = pulling your vision in, retracting from the world, hiding, fear Far-sightedness = relaxing into your field of vision, moving into the world, safety

And how do you ensure that your platonic social circle will even allow you to approach the women you want to date? Or that you don't give yourself golden handcuffs by placing yourself in the wrong kind of role? You have to think ahead about this kind of thing. It does not just happen. Again, you don't have to do "pickup". But you do need to plan and initiate conversations with people.

We did it guys we solved dating. Everyone get your meetup account ready and head down to your local dive bar, she's waiting.