WillCameron

I think the range of attractive behaviour is larger than pickup can often make it seem to be. It is one process for getting sex fast, but that can sometimes fall for goodhardt’s law. Sex as a measure of quality relationships is only a good measure for sex. Queer theory, feminism, and postmodernism more broadly can help round a lot of overly modernist pickup theory out.

The Integral Stage with Layman Pascal and Bruce Alderman. I think they’re two fantastic mystic philosophers who use Integral Theory while not being contained by the business of Integral and the leadership of Ken Wilber. They primarily have conversations with various people aligned with or adjacent to Integral, or who have a roughly 2nd tier perspective. This is a conversation of them talking about their respective metatheories:

If you want me to delete this I can. I make videos about post-patriarchal masculinity using neo-piagetian psychological development, Jungian psychology, metamodernism, and solarpunk. In this playlist I discuss my model of masculine conformity in our culture. The conformism of traditional masculinity fights the anti-conformism of progressive masculinity, powered by Epithymia, the algorithm-driven nihilistic hedonism that has us addicted to stimulation and outrage. https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEIR0Pct14Ek2nkKOkwXKBAnP0SgfB-48&si=BtgTk8pPilY5nzr9 In this video I finished a multi-part critique of Red Pill using Cook-Greuter’s model and Gilligan’s work on sex differences in moral reasoning. https://youtu.be/e1JGk266P9c?si=QIZqGrOGcXmR57Sl

Mind if I share my own? I make videos about post-patriarchal masculinity using neo-piagetian psychological development, Jungian psychology, metamodernism, and solarpunk. I’ve very much been influenced by your thinking.

Ah my apologies. I use a proxy. I didn't realize it would link that.

I got into an exchange in my youtube comments. I was talking about the interaction of science and myth, and the commenter criticized that view. Their perspective was that science is an empirical process and attempting to talk about myths of science doesn't do justice to how the process actually comes to discover truths about the world. There view was that viewing science as a process is not a myth about science, as you'll see below I disagreed with this. I wanted to share what I said to get your perspective on whether or not my understanding is actually up to par. I appreciate the help! Here it is: The idea that myths are value-laden stories is not my original redefinition, but comes from the work of many from disparate fields that have converged on something to the effect of the following idea. We have to remember that the human mind is narratological, and so we construct meaning about the world in the form of narratives. Values are what arranges the landscape of things into a forum for action. If I am hungry I value food and so signals of food are going to be highlighted within the landscape of things so that it can become a forum for useful action. Whether through the use of images, tastes, and scents, or with actual language, the organism will then remember the trail and process applied in a narrative sequence so that it can get to that food again in the future. Myths then are not merely collections of allegorical and symbolic fantasy, but specific representations of a specific forum of action given a specific set of higher order values. I can have a myth involving the symbolism of the Hero, but the superficial features of that Hero can change drastically depending on the culture I'm in. From heroic dictator who uplifts our noble people through conquest of "barbarian" peoples to low-born rogue who steals from the rich oppressors. The purpose of such myths, or value-laden stories with symbolic representations, are again, to guide us through the landscape of things such that it becomes a useful forum for action toward the fulfilment of certain goals. If I seek a heroic dictator I am going to be inspired toward very different ends than if I seek a liberator from the dictator. What's more, the scientific process, however empirical, is going to be used for very different ends. Think about how that might change the funding of various areas of research. Sure our science is discovering provisional truths, but of the provisional truths it could discover, it has now been directed in a very different direction. With this definition then we can better understand how both science as absolute truth and as process are myths - value-laden stories with symbolic representations for transforming landscapes of things into useful forums for action. You've said that I am conflating myth and science, but I am differentiating and then re-integrating them. Yes, science is not myth, but the moment we begin to use science we have inevitably re-engaged science with myth. We need to distinguish between them if we want our science to work well, but my point is that they do inevitably interact. For example, if I value reliability, accuracy, and falsifiability then those are turning the landscape of empirically observable things into a forum for action as scientific inquiry. We then have not-entirely-true symbolic representations such as the atom as a solar system, we also have heroes as the humbly exploring scientist, villains as the plagiarizing data fabricator, and even god as the objective, material world that exists beyond our rational view-from-nowhere and can be accessed unmediated for the discovery of truth (not saying every scientist believes exactly that, but just making a point). However empirical, rational, and scientific that myth may seem, it is still a myth - a value-laden story containing symbolic representations meant to transform the landscape of things into a forum for useful action. And that's really my point in making this series - to highlight how we are a mythologizing species and however empirical our methods, our cognition is mythological. We have to reckon with those aspects of our mind if we want our science to work as intended because we inevitably shuttle our myths into the process of science. Even though they should be thought of as different things (notice the value statement there), you can never remove the scientific process from myth as long as humans are using it. Thanks again for reading. How could I be less wrong?

Somebody already talked about this today in this thread - actualized.org/forum/topic/103971-women-don’t-love-you-they-love-the-life-style-you-can-provide/?__cpo=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYWN0dWFsaXplZC5vcmc My response to their post follows: I think the mistake that people often make when discovering tragedy is that they start thinking everything is "really" tragic. One of the ways that the neuropsychologist Iain McGilchrist has talked about the left brain hemisphere's dominance in our culture is in the left hemispheres need for perfection. So for example, the Platonic Forms are envisioning some metaphysically "more real than our reality" realm in which the perfect form of everything we see exist. All chairs we see are the baser instantiations of the perfect Platonic form of "chair". How this manifests in our culture can often be seen in terms of morality. People realize that perfect altruism can't exist because even in the case of self-sacrifice you do it because you believe it is a good thing to do, and so you feel good knowing you sacrificed yourself for a worthy cause. This realization makes them nihilistic because they think that at base everyone is selfish. The issue here is that we've become so hooked on the "perfect" altruism, that anything less is interpreted as being the worst opposite. We're either perfectly altruistic or we're all the basest form of selfish, which makes sense because it is the mirror image of perfect. It's like the anti-Platonic form or anti-perfection. The truth is that this perfection that the left hemisphere is focused on cannot exist and so comparing ourselves to an impossible perfection we can never reach is foolish. The reality is that true altruism cannot exist, but that doesn't take away from the very real ways in which people asymptotically approach altruism. If someone does something good for you they didn't just do it because they were selfish, but because they actually wanted to help you, even if they also benefitted from that. While selfishness is one motivator, reducing all of our motivators to mere selfishness is to deny the complex reality of all the various reasons we do things. Again, it is the left hemisphere that breaks the world down into parts and hyper-fixates on the one that it believes matters most. It is the right hemisphere that is able to hold reality at complexity, and see that just because one motivator is selfishness, doesn't mean there aren't other motivators that matter just as much and sometimes even more. We have to take in the gestalt, the whole, if we want to understand human motivation. So applying that to the question you have, yes women obviously have standards, but so do you. Are there women whose physical appearance would have you reject them no matter how good of a person they were? Does that mean you love the beautiful woman you marry any less? Our standards create the conditions by which we can create a good, satisfying relationship and it is within that context that "true love" can flower. However much there were standards that needed to be set, that love is no less real because what you consider "real true love" is a perfection that cannot exist. Why create resentful, bitter ideologies around non-existent realities?

It can't be forced, but it can be cultivated. Here's a simple exercise I did when I was recovering from body image issues. I'd stand in front of the mirror after weighing myself and say, "I love you no matter how much you weigh" or "I love you no matter what you look like". A negative thought would arise and rather than hating or rejecting that thought, I'd say, "thank you, I love you even if that's true. I appreciate you trying to help." You have to recognize that even the most hateful thoughts in your head are just trying to help. They have been splintered off and given self-negative or other-negative roles based on the experience that fragmented them. From that perspective then, they really do deserve your love, appreciation, and forgiveness. In some cases you must even ask them for forgiveness. We think we should respond to self-hate with hate, but that just becomes more self-hate. Love your self-hate and you are adding more love. That doesn't mean you agree with those parts, but you just calmly thank them and love them, and then continue to love whatever part you feel you can't love, whether that's weight, a lack of money, a lack of social skills, a lack of intelligence, a lack of whatever. One thing to be careful of is whether or not this exercise becomes overwhelmingly dysregulating for your body. If you find that this happens then take a break and go meditate, trying your best to recenter yourself and calm your agitated body down. It'll be hard work no matter what, but know and honour your limits. Self-love is a verb, so do the actions that make you feel more loving of yourself. One thing I do is take a hot bath with a book and relax as best as I can. Learning to love yourself won't make your dating struggles magically go away, but when done in tandem with nose to the grindstone action, this self-love will absolutely help you improve faster, and help you attract and be attracted to value-aligned, conscious women. By the way, I just wanted to commend you for your response to this thread. You put yourself out there to express your concerns and when people responded to you in sometimes hostile ways you kept your cool and took in their criticisms. Definitely feel proud and self-loving for that. Being assertive and standing up for your perspective is an indispensable tool in life, but so is knowing when to soften and integrate the perspectives of others. I think you've demonstrated that well here.

I feel like that would be spiritual bypassing. Not all problems can be solved through ego dissolution. Sometimes concrete solutions like going out and learning how to meet value-aligned women is the best approach.

For the past year I've been using the plus version of ChatGPT to have it measure short to long essays on their complexity using the Model of Hierarchical Complexity. You can find out more about that here - https://metamoderna.org/what-is-the-mhc/ The prompt I use is - Using the model of the hierarchical complexity, please identify the highest stage of performance that is demonstrated by the following: As to what it's reliability or accuracy is, I don't think it's the best. Unfortunately at this juncture you have to take its word with a grain of salt. However, it can give you a general sense of what you're looking for. Engage it in conversation to get a sense of what is missing, what could be added, and to argue with you about your position. The point is to increase the complexity of your reasoning by having more nuanced and well-thought out understandings of things. Another note is that this is only enhancing cognitive development in the form of essays. This may not necessarily track with "lived development", as in what you're able to produce on the fly or in other domains. I think there is slow crossover over time, but don't take this as gospel. It's one exercise among many that you should be engaging. I also recommend having an embodiment practice like yoga or something similar, along with other spiritual practices. Cognitive development is obviously important, but it is only one facet of development. The most effective development is holistic. You can have the biggest brain but be incapable of going out into the world and enacting that increased capacity. In that situation, what is the point of all that cognitive development? You may as well not have it.

You can't take everything any dating guru tells you as true, but someone like Todd V can help you get a better skillset at meeting women. Remember that cold approach advice is for the section of dating including "meeting and sleeping with" not "in a relationship with". That confuses a lot of guys. Once you have that skillset to a good enough degree it will not only help you meet a woman who aligns with your values, but also help you earn more money in pretty much any field that has even a tiniest sliver of a requirement for soft skills. A friend of mine was literally the first University student intern a company had ever hired after the internship because he had the soft skills. His starting wage is 80k immediately after graduation. Don't discount the power of rapidly connecting with people in a socially and emotionally intelligent way.

Great response, Marshall Rosenberg would be proud. To add to this point, I just released an article that goes into the psychology of the succubus and how it has defined a lot of how we think about sex. Myths are the stories cultures use to explain their reality and orient them through that reality, and even when that mythic language is gone the way they shaped our cognition remains. The manosphere is in many ways a response to the history of the Goddess being murdered by a male hero God, how that is reflected in agricultural societies becoming increasingly dominated by elite males, and the fertility Goddess being recast as a sexual demon. When viewing women through the lens of the succubus much of the manosphere's advice makes sense. For those interested you can read it here - https://metamasculine.substack.com/p/psychology-of-the-succubus

I'd like to hear your response to my own.

I think the mistake that people often make when discovering tragedy is that they start thinking everything is "really" tragic. One of the ways that the neuropsychologist Iain McGilchrist has talked about the left brain hemisphere's dominance in our culture is in the left hemispheres need for perfection. So for example, the Platonic Forms are envisioning some metaphysically "more real than our reality" realm in which the perfect form of everything we see exist. All chairs we see are the baser instantiations of the perfect Platonic form of "chair". How this manifests in our culture can often be seen in terms of morality. People realize that perfect altruism can't exist because even in the case of self-sacrifice you do it because you believe it is a good thing to do, and so you feel good knowing you sacrificed yourself for a worthy cause. This realization makes them nihilistic because they think that at base everyone is selfish. The issue here is that we've become so hooked on the "perfect" altruism, that anything less is interpreted as being the worst opposite. We're either perfectly altruistic or we're all the basest form of selfish, which makes sense because it is the mirror image of perfect. It's like the anti-Platonic form or anti-perfection. The truth is that this perfection that the left hemisphere is focused on cannot exist and so comparing ourselves to an impossible perfection we can never reach is foolish. The reality is that true altruism cannot exist, but that doesn't take away from the very real ways in which people asymptotically approach altruism. If someone does something good for you they didn't just do it because they were selfish, but because they actually wanted to help you, even if they also benefitted from that. While selfishness is one motivator, reducing all of our motivators to mere selfishness is to deny the complex reality of all the various reasons we do things. Again, it is the left hemisphere that breaks the world down into parts and hyper-fixates on the one that it believes matters most. It is the right hemisphere that is able to hold reality at complexity, and see that just because one motivator is selfishness, doesn't mean there aren't other motivators that matter just as much and sometimes even more. We have to take in the gestalt, the whole, if we want to understand human motivation. So applying that to the question you have, yes women obviously have standards, but so do you. Are there women whose physical appearance would have you reject them no matter how good of a person they were? Does that mean you love the beautiful woman you marry any less? Our standards create the conditions by which we can create a good, satisfying relationship and it is within that context that "true love" can flower. However much there were standards that needed to be set, that love is no less real because what you consider "real true love" is a perfection that cannot exist. Why create resentful, bitter ideologies around non-existent realities?

Yeah I would agree with that. I don't think that masculinity or attraction are purely socially constructed, and biology definitely matter. As I said in the third paragraph of the essay, there is evidence of biological causes for psychological sex differences and the final section on transperspectivalism also states that. However biological the definition of masculinity may be it is not purely biological, nor are our attractions. Sure there are biological constraints and affordances on what we might find attractive, but again, we can't reduce to the biological. Our attractions are the effect of a complex system of causes that can be described by Integral Theory's quadrants.