Emerald

This is mostly what I'm pointing at. Learning things through these frameworks can create fast results in the short term. But these frameworks also create an invisible ceiling for men's growth that gets capped at the lowest common denominator of what low-discernment women are willing to sleep with. And they will eventually have to do some heavy duty paradigmatic and identity deconstruction to break through that ceiling... if they ever do. The reality is that they may never even sense that ceiling, simply because they went from "Not getting results" to "Getting results". So, they may not sense the collateral damage to their attractiveness in the eyes of women... simply because they believe that it's this paradigm is the only thing actually making them attractive. (Plus, the paradigm is comforting... and letting go will be uncomfortable.) And they won't perceive the loss of appreciation and admiration from high-discernment women... as the rejection happens silently in her mind when she feels the vibe of that paradigm on him. They also won't perceive the levels of development that they could achieve if they hadn't attached to this paradigm in the first place. Instead, their level of development gets capped because they molded themselves into what they believed that women like... instead of being themselves. So, it's sort of like, walking forward on a conveyor belt that's moving backwards. You feel like you're making progress because you are making steps. But the platform you're walking on is pulling you backwards in ways you don't notice. And it's fine to use a few social strategies here and there, if they're still authentic. The issue is the distorted worldview and identity that comes with those strategies... and how that creates so many blocks to genuine connection with women and personal growth.

So, two things can be true here. One is that your perspective may be genuinely different and un-relatable to many people. That's what I experienced growing up as a kid, and it was really hard for me to fit in before I developed some advanced level social skills that simply weren't attainable for me as a child. And chronically not fitting in can create this "I'm different in a bad way" shame dynamic early on. The other perspective is that, when people have these issues with fitting in early on.... they can begin coping with that issue by building the identity of the person who's "different in a good way" and trying to differentiate themselves more and more and more from ordinariness and averageness. And they can do that by being different in a hierarchical way (being better)... or being different simply in a different way. And I did both... and you seem to do both. And for me, this differentiation coping strategy helped in certain ways because I was able to develop an identity and MO for myself that was unique from others where I could challenge societal rules that I didn't agree with, find my particular values, and develop myself in ways that few others do. But this differentiation tendency had A LOT of collateral damage that I wasn't aware of until about 5 years ago... when I realized what my aversion to ordinariness and sameness was doing to me. The collateral damage was that it pushes away all parts of me that are common, ordinary, and average and repressed them in order to maintain the "Different from all others" identity that I used to cope with isolation and alienation. But this strategy also exacerbates the same kind of isolation and alienation from the original trauma... as the differentiation tendency causes a person to strive to become as superiorly alien as possible. And it carves us out as islands. And when I was a kid, this came through as me imagining myself as non-human mythical beings... and having all my classmates realize that I was actually an alien, vampire, or mermaid. And later on, it came as spiritual identities and intellectual identities to prove myself better and different than others. And this created a disconnect between myself and my humanity... with strong judgments towards the average human being. So, once I realized this, it's been very important for me to shed any identities or MOs that are geared towards differentiating myself from the rest of humanity. And this is why it's important for me to anchor myself in the "I am an average human being" perspective... and to cease attempting to transcend my basic bitch humanity to become some Ubermensch. This wisdom is in knowing that being a basic bitch is the best medicine for "different in a good way" people. And I suspect that your reaction to my acknowledgement of my ordinary human needs was part of that resistance to commonality and ordinariness... and maintaining the identity of "the different one." So, I would challenge you to question why you're trying to transcend your needs in the first place. Is it because you're trying to carve out an identity of being "different from the masses"? Or is it for some other reason?

That makes sense. My perspective is directly shaped by my experiences of ego transcendence and ego death. And it helped me realize that the avatar game was the preferred path of this iteration... and most iterations within humanity. Very few people genuinely prefer the game of immersing in the game to transcend it. And it took the direct experience of transcending it and dissolving completely to realize that that wasn't the presence... and that there was nothing to escape about the illusion. It's just that my understanding was, "Transcendence is always preferable over immersion within the illusion." And the dissolution challenged that hierarchy I had created in my mind. And I realized that I don't prefer the path of transcendence. I prefer the path of embodiment. And I'm always skeptical when a non-monk claims to be wanting to transcend the Earthly embodiment. I find it far more likely that there's an identity or experience within the Earthly embodiment that they're trying to attach to... sort of like a realization of the ideal self. But that's not what transcendence is about. Transcendence is throw the character and the book in the fire, and simply exist as pure infinite consciousness. And "I've" had some "experiences' like that. But even those experiences are only important and meaningful to me in relation to the Emerald story. And true transcendence is not that.

I think this framing misunderstands the level of detachment that's happening for someone who is actually on a path of transcendence. It's not about "going against your desires." That's more of a repression and "fighting with your humanity to maintain a spiritual identity and worldview" thing. It's about fundamentally seeing through the illusion of the character you're playing and the entire reality that you exist within as that character. It's realizing that you're a character in a story. And that character will never transcend the confines of that character... including the desires, needs, limitations, and attachments that come with that character. Instead, it's about realizing the entire book that you character exists in was always a falsehood... and even your desire to transcend your wants and needs is part of that story and is used to build and reinforce that story. When my story was thrown into the fire, revealing that the Emerald character and the entire reality she existed in was an illusion... I realized there was no version where Emerald would ever be enlightened, even if she became enlightened within the story. In the same way that Gandalf is written to be Gandalf... his enlightenment is fundamentally false, as Gandalf isn't real. It's just part of the story. The same is true of the Emerald character. She dissolved along with the entire existence she lived in. And there was pure nothingness. But Emerald never become enlightened... she ceased to exist. Then, the nothingness eventually reconstituted the Emerald story and avatar because that's what it preferred. And that's when Emerald the character stopped trying to be anything other than an ordinary human with all the ordinary human patterns, needs, and desires. So, I don't want to re-attach myself to the previous strivings to be desire-less... as all of that was just extra stuff in the Emerald story. And it wasn't even fun. Instead of being like Bruce Wayne trying his damndest to be Batman and transcend his ordinary humanity... I'd much rather be Superman performing the most convincing Clark Kent disguise that he can muster.

Well, it's less like a happily ever after... and more like, we can continue to build without incompatibility issues getting in the way. And it's not really hard to find. The main thing is developing discernment about what you want and need... and making romantic decisions on that basis.

If that perspective works for you, more power to you. But I think you're in denial about your own basic human needs... and that you have some kind of superior identity of being "The extra special person who is beyond human needs and who knows better than all the sheeple." That's the vibe that I'm getting. And that will almost certainly backfire on you in your friendships and relationships, because you lack the self-honesty and self-awareness to recognize that you even have needs in the first place.

Yes. And I'm a lay-person who has an inner work practice that's not geared towards transcendence. But it perhaps can be done if a householder commits themselves to monastic levels of detachment in this life with zero personal interactions with other humans. It's just a lot more do-able to commit one's self to monastic levels of detachment by living in a monastery... and I'm not sure if most householders can pull that off. So, I'm always skeptical of householders who claim they are. But it's not my preference to use this lifetime to play the game that monks are playing. I prefer a different game that has a lot more to do with immersion into the avatar perspective. So, I am not trying to transcend my humanity or talk myself out of having basic human needs. And I have no desire to "escape" the Maya as I don't see it as something that needs escaping. I am an ordinary human animal with ordinary human needs, patterns, and limitations, and I have no qualms with that fact. I am simple a sheep among other sheep. So, I have zero desire to use my inner work practice to mold myself into an ubermensch who is beyond the pull of basic human patterns. If I desired that, I would become a monk. So, you'll not find me trying to fight my Earthly nature to transcend my needs for food, water, safety, connection, or anything else. That's how you end up with people who identify as spiritual repressing their humanity... instead of truly transcending it because they didn't actually truly want to commit to a monastic life.

I scare off the wrong ones for me... and attract the right ones for me by being clear about what I want. That's always been my experience. Edit: The only problem is if a woman knows when she wants and expects it from a specific guy who isn't the type of person who wants to give it. Meaning... If you know you want pears, get a pear tree. Don't get an apple tree and expect pears from it.

First off, I'm not single. So, that's a non-concern for me. But if I were single... guys who aren't interested in driving the relationship towards those labels and milestones are not a good fit for me. I And if I lowered my bar, I would just end up in an incompatible relationships that are an anti-nutrient to my life and that make me feel anxious and put me through a lot of pain at the inevitability of needing to end the relationship when things predictably don't work for me. So, it would be a big waste of time and energy. And I need my energy to be going towards my children and life's purpose... and not towards doing a ton of fruitless legwork trying to make an unworkable relationship work. The reality is that I know myself and I know what I need. And what I'm looking for is reasonable and not too difficult to find, because I am great at sorting. So, I have no reason to relax my standards. And a woman who relaxes her standards to widen the pool of guys who she will accept affection from, will invite all kinds of unnecessary mayhem into her life. Bear in mind, women are always actively being pursued by a lot of spam guys. So, relaxing compatibility standards or quality standards is like taking down a spam firewall in your inbox... and your inbox comes flooding through with 90% spam messages. The main thing, is to know yourself and be very clear about your own needs and dealbreakers before choosing to get into a relationships with a man.

It is common for women to want these things... but definitely isn't something that ALL women want. And it's not difficult to find a man who wants the same things. Probably about half of guys are looking for the same thing. The only real difficulty from my past-self's perspective, is to be able to end (or avoid starting) relationships with men whose vision for their life is incompatible with my own. So, it's definitely not a "hands full" situation, as it's not difficult to find. And if I were single, I wouldn't need to convince anyone to operate the way I do. It's just a matter of finding someone who already wants to operate that way and is actively taking looking to take steps towards those milestones.

I wouldn't necessarily put it that way. I suspect that my friend has this view partially because of some avoidant tendencies. So, he could definitely do some examination with that... as I don't think it's serving him. But it also connects back to his views about connections and relationships, given his background in a traditional environment where everything was governed by labels and roles. So, he has a strong value regarding liberation from oppressive religious and traditional structures. And he sees marriage and the labels in relationship as part of those. And he really believed that no one should find them meaningful, as he found them to be oppressive and arbitrary. So, it makes sense to me that he'd be aversive to them. It's more of a matter of incompatibility. I'm the type of person who is very oriented towards devotion to a specific person who is mutually devoted to me. And I want the milestones and labels to reflect that mutual devotion. This is, of course, a common orientation to relationships. But it definitively isn't the only one. It's just the only one that's compatible with me.

It was the lack of labels and clear distinctions... and him having a belief that labels are unnecessary and are purely unimportant bits of social construction that shouldn't mean anything to anyone. But for me, if a guy doesn't want to put a label on the relationship and move towards marriage, it's just not a good fit for me. And I will never feel comfortable and satisfied with the relationship, as it feels like the level of depth has been permanently capped in a meaningful way.

That would be a dealbreaker for me because it's not going all in... and reads to me as a lack of seriousness and devotion. It would definitely sew seeds of doubt in me about how open he is to actually growing deep roots with me.

Thank you for letting me know.

The lack of labels is definitely a relationship dealbreaker for me. Labels and clear definition, enable me to feel secure enough in the relationship to open up and go deeper. And his value around not having labels, left me in a state of ambiguity where I didn't feel like the relationship could progress to a deeper level... and gave me the fundamental feeling of unsafely in the relationship. So, it honestly was the main issue we had irreconcilable incompatibilities with. It wasn't "Something I'm not telling you." It was an issue with labels. The reality is that labels have a lot of meaning to me. Like, a man I'm with being very clear that, "I want you be your partner." or "Will you marry me? I want to be your husband." holds a lot of meaning for me. And if a guy doesn't want that because labels feel too confining or arbitrary, I'm going to feel anxious and blocked the entirety of the relationships until I have not other choice but to end it. But I tried to operate his way for about a year, because I didn't realize how much of a deal breaker it was for me. And I never could get clear or comfortable regarding how he felt about me or what we were or where the relationship was going... or even where the relationship could go. That's not as to say that he's wrong or that you're wrong for not wanting labels. I'm sure there are some women out there that feel the same way. But to me, labels equal devotion... and have a lot of meaning. And anyone who's anti-labels just isn't for me.