Bird Larry

I've experienced it. I've done it. People show totally different sides to them through the internet or the dial. I wonder why. It's probably because I'm a dumbass in text, social media... etc. But I really experienced this with my friends, girls, teachers, mentors, etc. I feel like it's almost impossible to be honest, and good in these medias. I can do it in real life, but not here. In real life, I can control anyone doing anything over the line, doing something disrespectful, but I can't control someone being stupid in the phone.

Jiu Jitsu for now, or Judo seems to be the most practical, hands-on, reasonably (only reasonably) safe options for truly learning Martial Arts. Fighting can help you learn so much about social dynamics, and about who you are. Try to be safe and be respectful of everyone, so everyone will be the same to you. Boxing and kick boxing is good to learn, but I know that frequent hits on the head in their games can be detrimental to your intellect.

https://youtube.com/shorts/4ffR-petO3w?feature=share Recently listening to him, I get clarity.

@Leo Gura Your hate for Trump is pure, understandably so. Though, don't You find him entertaining.

You can't learn this from a book. Some books may help, but ultimately you'll have to rely on your own. One of the mistakes I made was that I tried to offend people on purpose to learn how to stop giving a damn what others think of me. Not knowing that is exactly something a person would do when he gives a damn what others think of him. So, whenever there is opportunity to do the 'right' thing, do it. Even so it will offend people. Even so it will not offend people, do the 'right' thing. But don't mistake doing 'anything' just to offend people. When we're done with outwardly doing the 'right' actions, you'll also have to have the right spirit. Actions may help with your mind, and sometimes your mind can help with your actions. It goes both ways. In terms of helping your own mind grow, it is twofold. One you read and put in effort. The other you contemplate and meditate. Putting in effort and knowledge is fairly simple as our schools have been teaching us to do this since birth. But the hard one is to meditate and contemplate. As you know the saying goes, better than the one who can kill 10,000 soldiers, it's the one who can win himself who is superior. This quote came from a Taoists script. So as you take on this quote, you needn't be too harsh on yourself if you aren't fully realized spiritually since doing so would be more difficult than beating 10,000 warriors alone.

@Sine Yeah, she might have the nicest tits. She may have a really beautiful face. But once you have sex a few times, it bores. You want to explore another one. So to get permanent she needs to do a little bit more than just nice tits or face. Girls aren't the only one at a disadvantage. It goes both ways.

Well, even Michael Jordan admits, Mike Tyson admits the best way to win the game is the mental part, not the physical.

Likewise, I don't think breasts and a nice face shows she is spiritually ugly or nice. Being hot doesn't say she's automatically ugly inside or good. Likewise, a man whose "strong", successful, socially popular, artistic doesn't automatically say he's ugly inside or good to the girl.

@something_else You must have a brain of an elephant.

physical game, body language. Body language is important

@Vercingetorix Girls treat men differently upon how he approaches her, and where you approach her. For example, Approaching her in a midnight street where only you and her exist vs approaching her in a cafe where she sits next to you. The reactions are different, although there is the same person. You gotta feel the place and feel how you approach, not be logical here. It seems like girls see context rather than logic much more

Start with the videos he has about getting sex from women. These are foundational.

Probably, it had been a theme of my early childhood, and an under-current of my life. Taking the test of the Enneagram, I've got the tri-type 386. The 3 is the dominant, 8 is the second, and behind it all, I have a six in me. Especially, I could see myself initially interact in the real world with boldness, 3, then be challenging and authoritative, 8, but in the undercurrent of it all, I'm afraid, terribly so I always seek authority, always find a "friend" to depend on. I certainly had this problem with actualized.org. I was overly reliant on this site, so as I did for many of my relationships, whom I deemed a bit more wiser and cleverer than me. The problem lies on this. Until I studied the Enneagram extensively, reaching down on the tri-type aspect of it, I have never acknowledged truly how fear-based I am. Of course, all of us are fearful. However, the problem lies on how I act with my fear. The ugliest part of Enneagram 6 is they are overly loyal, can act phobically on people, push away people, and cast violence to peaceful things. You can imagine a 3, 8, and then a fearful 6 being aggressive. I recall in this forum Leo telling me to snap out of idolizing people and authority. I didn't care to think of it deeply then, but now I do. Hitler was a 6. I understand what he went through. Loyal, but it is dependent on fearful loyalty, phobically loyal. Not only am I fearful, but with my fear, I rely on other people too much, to the extent where I can't live by myself or be alone. Maybe you may think my 3, and the 8 antidotes the fear, but when I'm in a situation where I'm not self-sufficient, I become violent, profoundly scared, and still constantly can't stop looking for authority. It's a real problem with me, being dogmatic. I never admitted it, and even reacted violently on dogmatic people, overly-loyal people, not realizing that it may well have been my shadow. I've seen people who don't rely on others. Usually, enneagram 5s are like that. I remember when my brother left to another country when I was a teenager and how reliant I was to him, his knowledge, how to act, and I told him what do I do if he leaves? I have never been independent before, never have taken care of myself before without him. Do you have any experience as a 6? I am not a dominant 6, but it is my dominant head type. The way my head, thinking works is tremendously like a 6. It's too apparent it feels gross to me even. My goal in writing this post is to become competent in my work, be creative with my work, be in relationships/friendships where I don't rely on anyone, any authority, or dogma, not even in my head-space. I want to be completely alone and virgin. Not be fear-ridden, and be courageous. The problem with me is both in my work and relationships, I become too loyal and dogmatic on one teaching, one teacher, one thing, where it becomes unhealthy, where no critical thought is given.

While I'm doing my work, having this turn on on an extra Television, turning off the video's volume and listening to Liszt had me appreciate this man's work more. It almost seems like an art piece when I'm watching. Makes me feel inspired to work. It's ironic how he just wants to show how he survives in his tropical island, without food or water, by hunting and gathering, but it doesn't look violent at all. His work seems artistic.

"Your desire is the giver of life, the gift of the Goddess. Legend shall speak of sacrifice at world's end."

I like how Bohm describes what I had gone through inquiring into myself. I used words and logic to restrict myself just as this man done, but then Bohm and Krishnamurti cuts in to tell the error that he has caused. Watch how the man says, "of course it is!" and then Krishnamurti, desipite him agreeing with him, he says "no! In actuality." He knows the psychologist doesn't really understand or truly see what Krishnamurti is saying, so he says "No, in actuality." So to Krishnamurti, he doesn't care if you understood something with words and with our appearances. He cares if we truly understand it with the heart, not with "words", not with mannerisms. No fear in front of the "fact".

@Michael Jackson Edit: lol

@gettoefl you're exactly the one who does not understand how words confuse

I get I'm open. 92%, where the average is 58%. I'm conscientious because I'm 71%, the average is 55%. I'm extraverted, 75%, the average is 51%. But I'm 56% agreeable, whereas the average is 63%. I'm 52% neurotic, whereas the average is 54%. I don't know if I have to label myself an disagreeable person or an agreeable person. A limbic person or not. So in terms of the SLOAN model, I'm definitely, S (social), O (organized), I (Inquisitive type) SxOxI But I don't know if I'm L or a C, A or a E To put it simply, do these results tell that I'm neurotic or not neurotic. Do these results tell that I'm agreeable or not agreeable. Since for both of them, I'm below average but still above the 50% line. I don't know what of the two types I'm in for those big 2, the interpreting of the SLOAN model.

I have a friend who makes a lot of friends. I am a bit of a polorizer. Not that I want to be a stalker for affection, but I was interested in how he was able to treat others without trouble, or at least have so many connections from all walks of life. Granted he is a bit older than me, but I was intrigued so I asked him what made him do this. He simply told me "energy work" helped him most. Not that I don't admit the universe is basically "energy", but I'm curious what is your experience in working with this. I just want to work on making connections without having someone try to be scared or find it hard to talk to me, that's why I'm curious about this. He said he learned all about this from Owen Cook's energy worker.

@Razard86 What do you mean

At least you understand any inauthenticity inside. I guess eliminate whatever is inauthentic in you, ruthlessly. Keep on doing it until the end.

@Breakingthewall that's nice to hear

Also having a blog is most important. Best to learn by doing. There are no shortcuts. So there are two options. Either write books such as on paper or on digital. Even if you were to write a book, most likely you dont have anyone who is motivated to read your book. And still, if you are motivated to write your book despite nobody reading them, it is your choice. It is all about what you enjoy doing. Second option would be to create your own website. Most likely, somebody is going to read your writing, either to educate themselves, or to know more about you, etc. Learn how to get people to read what you write. That's all. Here, you can't write something too personal. Why would anyone care about your personal matter? That is why people will read your blog. Because you wont write anything too personal. But that is okay. Learn to write things that are valuable to the customer, not what we think is valuable. Since someone is willing to read your text, you will be motivated. And the more you practice, the better you will be.

@eTorro Winston Churchill was a warrior/journalist when he was young. He hadn't gone to college. Educated himself. In fact, he boasted how bad he was in school. In fact, he was quite good in school, but he wanted to brand himself as a failed student. Who knows why, but maybe that's how it would make him more appealing. He won over the Nobel prize for writing. The main reason he became a successful politician was because people read his books, his journey in the Boer War, etc. He believed one must first move, before one writes, meaning, take action first, pen second, otherwise, one becomes a pedant. How do you think he rose to be prime minister? He was one of the first politician to identify Hitler and the Nazis to become what they arose to be in World War II, so he wrote ferociously as a failed politician and journalist the dangers of Nazism even so they seem too peaceful at the moment. His pen and paper had made him to become prime minister because most people thought he was crazy and was repeating to be a war-monger, as he was frequently labeled since WWI, but when the Nazis unleashed Blitzkrieg on the Eastern hemisphere, all of a sudden, people arose to accept Churchill's writing, and it lead him to become prime minister. He loved war, both as a soldier and as a leader, yet he documented all his experience as a journalist. Read ferociously. Have great ambitions. That's what he says, not me. Because he focused on oratory and writing, he took notes every time he went out to spoke, seeing how people reacted with his words, with his actions, with his mannerisms. So in writing also, he wrote so much it takes a life time for a person to read all of them. Even the biographer of Churchill couldn't read everything he wrote, so practice is essential. There is a reason he got a noble prize in literature. And there is a reason how his writing lead him to rise in power. I need practice as for my writing, too. However, I guess there are two elements to writing. One is the emotional and the other logical. With emotions, there are no rules, are there? As long as it moves the heart, there is no way or grammar in terms of writing. I don't believe for a second Jordan Peterson is a good writer. I've read him. He doesn't understand what it takes to change a person's life through writing, he's too educated for that, his writing is too static, and too pedantic. The best writers come from all backgrounds and cultures. At least, in terms of stimulating the heart, the common theme among the best writers seem to be they attempt to touch the heart of the matter, not its appearances. It's not about words, I repeat. They hit you so hard in the face, you are bound to change the way you think. Although this is my own opinion, I advise not only reading books written in Europe or America. For example, read a book from Confucius or Sun Tzu. When reading the Analects, one of the most read scriptures in Asia throughout history, the writing is so simplistic and such simple grammar. But it's about what he means that counts, not the words. Sun Tzu says, "etc. etc. etc." but if we are merely analyzing words, you have lost what's essential. Sun Tzu did not write this book to teach you how to be a good writer. He wrote this book to teach you how to win as a General. Confucius did not write his books to make you better merely with "words". He said so himself, "I hate the people who write and speak well, but have no action or are ugly with their actions." "The good man is slow with words, quick with action." On the contrary, Confucius was one of the greatest intellects, writers history has ever seen, and such a man says this. Reading Asian texts, one comes to think of how simplistic the Chinese writing style is. It's like 4 characters that is translated into 20 English words. And the difference of arrangement of those 4 letters completely changes the meaning of those English words, yet we still say the Chinese scripts are most simplistic. Why? Because we don't care how good you "write". If you understand these 4 Chinese letters, good. If you don't, then buck off. That was how the ancients in China thought. Don't try to make me tell you what the meaning of these 4 letters is. If you have the capacity for wisdom, you'll understand. At last, think of Machiavelli when he wrote the Prince. His writing is much more detailed than Confucius or Sun Tzu. Sun Tzu wrote for Generals and Kings for the battlefield. Confucius wrote for Emperors and Kings for the political social sphere. But there writing is simple and indirect. The prince is detailed and very direct, often the structure is much more complex than Asian scripts. But still, Machiavelli did not care if the reader become good with "words". He wanted the reader to unite Italy from being divided. He wanted to see a powerful leader arise, and make Italy different. Again, I'll have to tell you it's not about the words. It's what you do with those words that the greatest writers care about when they write. Think before you say having the public loves only scholarly writing. It's not so simple as it seems. In terms of stimulating logic. Just read the academic papers that changed courses in how people thought. Study science or economics, and see how they write. Also, it's not about "grammar". It's about how can we change how we see the world? Do you see. When Einstein or Turing wrote scientific papers, they weren't Jordan Peterson, attempting to impress people with words. They spoke the heart of the matter, science/computers, to change how people thought about these things. This goes same with poetry. Yes, it's like music. But at the same time, the play of words isn't just to play with words. Merely playing with words is a sign that among those people, they just do not understand.