Emerald

Ambition is very important for householders who are walking the path of embodiment. And I already mentioned that it's my desire to master my craft. So, I'm very ambitious. And my ambition is in service of other people. But the identity of being "the more conscious person" is actually the opposite of ambitious. It's saying, "I'm already far more conscious than others. And the average person has little to teach me." It's an anti-growth mindset because real growth and maturity comes from allowing yourself to be humbled by life... and to have such identity attachments challenged and occasionally ripped away for new wisdom to grow in their place. So, clinging onto such identities leads to disconnection and stagnation. And it also creates major blind-spots in your awareness when it comes to seeing the reality beyond the lens of practical human value hierarchies. So, you don't need to cook up some "I'm the top turtle on the turtle-pile" identity attachment to channel your ambition, as that kind of attachment creates a major growth ceiling and causes you to get complacent and closed-minded. And it honestly only gets in the way and calcifies you and stunts your growth. So, you don't need to believe that your craft is hierarchically more important than other crafts in order to be ambitious. And you also don't need to get so attached to the identities that differentiate you from others to be ambitious. And if your path truly is the path of transcendence... these attachments to your identities of differentiation and hierarchical specialness will be extra important to detach from. The reality is that from the ultimate perspective the "Leo Game" is not organized in a hierarchy with the "Chimp Game" or "The Average Person Game". All are iterations of the same consciousness playing horizontally through each iteration. And it doesn't seem to 'prefer' a more conscious avatar to a less conscious avatar. It probably gets infinite "value" by being a sea barnacle... and is humble enough to be fine with being a sea barnacle. So, the more you identify with the Leo Avatar's specialness within relative human value hierarchies as it pertains to your own valuation of human social specializations... you will stay stuck in the avatar perspective that you seek to transcend. You won't view it with the non-hierarchical neutrality that consciousness itself "sees" your avatar through. So, I'd just be very careful about ego inflation and being too attached to hierarchical thinking... beyond purely practical reasons. People can convince themselves that they're hierarchically above others in so many ways. To give a more concrete example, I used to think that artists were doing the most important and most intelligent kind of people because I was an artist. So, I worked to become great at art. And this enabled me to say 1. Art is the most important human specialization and 2. I am the best artist in this room. And for that time, I could feel okay with myself because I had differentiated myself and proven myself special and adequate. And I got really ego inflated about this... which eventually led to a great humbling which culminated around the time of my first awakening glimpses. But then, I was in danger of using my glimpses of awakening to recreate the same identity inflation... like 1. Spirituality is the most important human specialization and 2. I am the most spiritual aware person in this room. And that's what it seems to me that you're doing when you go into "People are chimps... and I am more conscious than them!" mode. There's also a more subtle hierarchical valuation of your specialization over the specializations of others... which is the real issue. It's fine to acknowledge practically that you're more aware in specific ways compared to other people. Just don't think that that awareness is a more important specialization compared to other human specializations.

There isn't inherently one. It's just that people often mistake arrogance for confidence. In fact, most arrogant people that I've met were lacking in the quality they were arrogant about. For example, back when I was 18, my best friend was dating this guy who was really arrogant about his level of intelligence. But he was average in intelligence. And my friend always tended to believe that she's stupid because she has dyslexia and can't spell at all. So, for the brief time they were together, he was always arrogantly bragging about how intelligent he was compared to her... and putting her down and asking her to spell things (and smugly correcting her on her spelling). He even said once when my friend asked him a question about something... "Oh. I guess she has to ask the smart one." And he was so smug about it. But it's clear to me that he might have been feeling quite anxious about his own level of intelligence.

As long as you're just focusing on hierarchy in the most practical way, that's fine. There are specialists that are better and worse at their respective crafts. And I certainly value excellence in my craft. However, my impression is that you tend to be quite attached to identities of being "the more conscious one"... or even just "the different one... who's different than the chimp-humans." And I notice that you can tend to project hierarchy in a more existential sense... rather than just in a practical sense. And that tendency may run in opposition to your goals.

That's not what I'm claiming. Differentiation in quality and ability exists. There are better and worse basketball players. There are better and worse brick layers. And there are better and worse of the kind of thing that I am in terms of how I express my talents for expanded awareness, accurate perception, intellect, and teaching/guidance. What I'm saying is that that's simply my specialization.... and there's nothing special about having a specialization. It's 100% chimp stuff! Having a specialization is an ordinary human quality. And some ordinary humans happen to have the gifts that enable them to specialize in bridging the gap between the conscious and unconscious mind and between the spiritual and material world in service to other ordinary humans. But there is a reason why there are so few people specializing in this: We just don't need as many of what we specialize in compared to mechanics, brick-layers, plumbers, or even basketball players. So, I recognize that I'm excellent at my specialization and there's a practical hierarchy there (as many would not be able to do this)... BUT my specialization isn't superior to the specializations of other human beings. In fact, it isn't even superior to the chimp and the roles the chimp plays in its own social context. Ultimately, specializations exist in service to other humans, animals, and the planet at large. And a specialization is only valuable in-so-far it is providing a service to yourself or others... as specializations are communally oriented. So, while I recognize that I'm better at consciousness than the chimp... and most individuals... it doesn't mean that my specialization and place in the world is more important than theirs. That's why I don't dwell too much on identifying with divergences and hierarchical identities. Instead, I view myself as a craftsman. And I want to be excellent at my craft... no better or worse than a carpenter who seeks excellence in their craft.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. But that's okay.

I am VERY confident in my talents/skills. Some may even say that I'm arrogant or narcissistic to acknowledge my strengths so plainly. But I disagree. It's just a fact that I'm really great at the things I am great at. In fact, in-so-far as a human can know anything, I know I'm among the best in the world at my specific zone of genius. And I trust my own capacity for accurate perception very deeply. Yet still... the consciousness of the chimp and my consciousness are one and the same. The same is true for the average human who has little talent for and no interest in consciousness work. The only difference between the chimp, myself, and the non-intellectual/non-spiritual person is what game God wanted to play in this iteration. And this time, it chose these specific stats for my avatar, which give me a very particular "game play". But it also chooses the chimp avatar. The "Chimp game" isn't better or worse than the "Emerald game" in any absolute sense. So, to conceptualize of myself in a consciousness hierarchy with chimps or other people would be frankly foolish, if my goal is to avoid contractions of consciousness. Identifying with hierarchical projections and differentiating projections in general, just creates disconnection from humans, nature, and the universe at large... and creates an attachment to having a special identity/ego concept. So, while it may be a fact that I'm great at what I do... it doesn't make me substantially different than or better than other humans. All ordinary humans specialize. And this is just my specialization. And my specialization is just me being an ordinary human that serves other ordinary humans... no different than a brick-layer or basketball player.

The consciousness of the chimp and my consciousness are one and the same. And don't you forget it! But take the chimpiest human you can image and compare them to myself... and there is not much difference. We're both ordinary limited humans, having an ordinary human experience.

What's your name?

If I'm understanding you correctly, I'm not sure that the best way to get through to him is by implying that he sounds like he's angling at something non-consensual... unless he actually were truly doing that. But I don't get that vibe. I think he's just kind of insecure and worried that women don't like him specifically... and that women don't like men in general. So, he seems to cope with that fear by posting unrealistic scenarios... either negatively or positively. Like, I recall one of his posts was expressing a fear that women are only attracted to gay men (he seemed very relieved when I told him that women tend not to be attracted to gay men, as there's an awareness that there's no possibility of anything romantic developing). And there were a few other posts like that too where there seem to be some anxieties about women's feelings about men as a whole group. Then, there are other posts that are generally kind of braggy. And part of me wonders if it's more for the sake of male approval in this space where 90-95% of the members are male... or if it's more of a way to frame experiences he had in the most esteem-boosting way that he can. So, whether or not he actually slept with the "Feminist" woman isn't 100% clear to me. It also isn't clear to me that she's actually a man-hater or a Feminist. But regardless of whether true or made up, he seems to create stories and interpretations that frame him as special to women... like a uniquely valuable person who does things most people can't. So, it's less, "I'm going to force a woman to do something against her will." and more, "This woman who hates all men, joyfully consented to sleeping with me, because I was the exception." But he also does a Motte and Bailey style of argument where he'll argue or say something outlandish... and then retreat to something more moderate like that had been his view all along. So, that's frustrating. Though, I think the plausible deniability that sets up could be another self-esteem thing... where he'll say something out there to test the waters and then retreat to something more moderate in order to avoid rejection.

I mean Leo especially.

This is spot on! Ordinariness is the key to horizontal connection and eye-to-eye communal connection with other humans... and that's also the true foundation of successful romantic relationships. But the ethos of this forum is about extraordinariness and vertical hierarchy regarding consciousness levels and Spiral Dynamics phases. It's very anti-mundane. And especially in the dating section of the forum... there's a tendency to think about dating from a hierarchical "maximizing the initial attraction" perspective with very little focus on the ordinary boring actual relationship stuff. So, ironically... this forum is 100% a regular social club... that's against being regular and against socializing. It's like a group of sheep that dresses up like wolves... and holds a "lone wolves" meeting where all the special sheep can get together and celebrate their differentness from the other sheep. And anytime I see someone going, "I just can't find someone on my same level of consciousness"... I look at that more as an internal connection issue that's based on polarizing too fair into things like extraordinariness, attractiveness, or "being a high consciousness person." It's a really common trap that people can fall into on here... and it stunts personal growth and calcifies people into a comfortable superior position (but a lonely one). Honestly, the most growth that most people on this forum could experience is being humbled a bit and brought back down to Earth by realizing "I'm just an ordinary person... and I am not better or more conscious than others." A good affirmation is, "I am an ordinary person. I am not above or below anyone. I am walking an ordinary path... and my life is ordinary."

I think they called it correctly. The woman basically said, "He rescued me, and I kept testing him by being unkind." And it seems like they are in a pattern where she's the abuser and he's the abused because he's just stoically absorbing her abuse and trying to prove to her that he loves her. So, it seems to be a problem dynamic with her as the aggressor and the one that needs to take responsibility. And it's not the case that, if he just deals with his people-pleasing, that she'll stop being abusive. An abuser doesn't stop until they actually take accountability and decides to make changes.

I get what you're saying. But I don't think it's that kind of abuse/non-consent thing. I do think it's more of a fantasy though... being projected onto the situation. Like, "I met this man-hating Feminist who hated all men. But she met me and was so attracted to me that, when I slept with her, she stopped hating men." That sounds like a fantasy to bolster the self-esteem because it emphasizes the specialness of the man in question. Like, "This woman hated all men, until she met me. Now she loves all men because they reminder her of me!" The greater likelihood is that he met and slept with a woman who identifies as a Feminist or has some vaguely Feminist views. Or maybe she's not even a Feminist (in principle or identification) and just has some milquetoast misandry and criticisms of specific sorts of guys that she's had negative experiences with in the past. (ie. Like women who make sweeping generalizations about men with their girlfriends while drinking wine at a girls' night... but it's really geared towards specific men she's dated in the past.) If the woman was a Feminist, then it's not a surprise that she slept with him. Most Feminist women are sexually attracted to men... and have boyfriends and husbands. And if the woman is the milquetoast misandrist who complains generally about men, those women tend to be often be the MOST obsessed with men. It's kind of a form of being boy-crazy, in a way... because men are always on their minds, even if in negative ways. (Similar to how misogynistic guys are the most obsessed with women)

I've been on and off with this forum since it began. And truth-be-told, even though I've met some cool people, I never really enjoyed the vibes in the culture of this place... at least not since the very beginning. It definitely isn't the kind of culture that I would cultivate if I had my own forum as it's a pretty combative space... and my philosophy on curating social spaces is about creating a safe container that enables people to be more open and vulnerable. And yet, I feel quite drawn to coming back here... even though I find it to be a bit draining. And I've been reflecting on this in the past couple days. And I think I figured out what it is. To give some context, I have always had issues with being aware of and expressing anger. When I was a child, I discovered that anytime I ever tried to stand up for myself it was futile and just made things worse... and it would just add insult to injury. And eventually, I developed this coping strategy of remaining stoic and unemotional in the face of boundary violations and things that I dislike. And anger became my worst enemy. And this was very empowering because those who might try to engage in verbal abuse towards me would have nothing to grab ahold of. I would just sit there and watch them jump up and down like a yo-yo and cuss and scream and insult me at the top of their lungs... and watch them completely buckle under the futility of getting a reaction out of me. So this worked a lot better than what was before. As a child, it was just embarrassing and demoralizing when I would try to stand up for myself and it would backfire. So, as a pre-teen, when I decided towards a stance of never getting angry and never showing anger, it was like this shield where people didn't mess with me as much.... and people couldn't get a rise out of me. So, it was a powerful stance to disengage and have a perpetual poker-face in combination with coming across as cool and laid back. And it also came with certain cherished identities where people would see me as this really chilled out person who's easy to be around. And I would receive people unconditionally without push-back on anything... which helped me develop the ability for me to just hold space for people. And this parlayed into something very near and dear to my life's purpose, which is the ability to exercise deep levels of understanding and compassion for why someone is the way that they are... and to see it as always logically understandable as to why anyone is the way that they are. It's a very merciful viewpoint to hold in a very unmerciful world. So, it's quite valuable to many people. But in the less aligned elements of this coping strategy (despite its many positives) it can enable a lot of terrible behavior and leave you without defense. And it puts a gag on anger and disgust... and enables all sorts of boundary violations. It's like having no lock on the door of a home with lots of money laying around in it. And if someone comes in and steals the money, I can't even say anything about it because it would feel like I was being un-stoic, disempowered, and no better than cruel plebeian angry masses. So, it put me in a place where I'd have no choice but to simply quit while I'm behind. And it would temporarily make me feel like a loser and very (whatever the gender neutral term is for emasculation), but I'd reframe it quickly as some kind of stoic strength that proved me stronger and more dominant than them... like a priest that says, "Oh my poor child... you are lost." And that is always how I'd responded when anger comes up... ignore it, it's futile anyone, let's quit while I'm behind... then reframe it as some kind of stoic virtue. And of course, a lifetime of that builds a lot of rage. But that rage gets turned always inward because it's me allowing these things to happen. And I had even (as a teenager) developed a cosmology where the concept of right and wrong is completely relativistic (for others) but absolute (for me). And I pretended for a couple years to have no strong convictions and that I was perfectly moderate in all ways. My philosophy as a 12 year old was always to stay in the middle of the road... which I framed as a wisdom that arises from detachment but was actually a coping strategy to avoid confrontation. So, it placed me in this elevated space of stoic superiority, where I accepted all things and was exercising god-like forgiveness to others for their short-comings and trying to practice unconditional love, receptivity, and acceptance of that person.... but if I were to show some kind of flaw (especially anger or disgust towards that person), I'd be very ruthless with myself because "I should do better than others." It was like, the world can be as angry, frenetic, emotionally weak, terrible, and cruel as it wants to be... because it will only draw emphasis to my own state of stoic detached grace. And by contrast, I will be the winner. And then there'd be all these fears that I've harmed a person if I even have a mild expression of anger or disgust on my face... not only for fear of falling from my pedestal of stoic grace but for fear of subjecting others to cruelty... as I so hated the cruel and the pain they cause. So, I built lots of filtering mechanisms that have made my anger and disgust even unconscious to myself. And I check my facial muscles constantly in conversation to make sure that I'm not hurting that other person with unconscious micro-expressions... be remaining hyper-conscious of my micro-expressions. And it built out this entire superiority complex in my teens around being the one super-human who can accept others without anger or disgust. And this put me in very vulnerable positions in my relationships because I tolerated so much to maintain that superior identity. But being the graceful one who unconditionally loves the cruel one was the way that I had always coped. So it made sense that this pattern would show up in my life. And I was frequently the target of cruelty... which would strengthen my identity because I built a philosophy of, "Even if someone comes up and beats the crap out of me, I will not land even a single punch on them. I will simply absorb it and stay stoic." Mind you, a lot of this broke down under the sheer weight of living life... especially when I entered the work-force at 16. But that foundation that I built between age 12 and 16 is still there. And I still have a hard time with knowing what to do with my anger. I've seen the value of integrating it now since my early 20s. But I haven't gotten over the fear of being the cruel sadistic woman who harms with abusive words and facial expressions... which is the origin point of this whole mess. I don't want to hurt anyone... which I feel is very easy to accidentally because I interpret people as very very sensitive, and like I exist as a tiger among bunny rabbits. And one wrong move (even a subtle facial expression that reflects a tiny bit of anger) and I will unintentionally split the bunny rabbit in half... even if I make the slightly wrong facial express or use the wrong word. That person will totally implode. And I don't want to be the 'cruel inferior plebeian' who is too weak to be stoic and kind. So, that's the context. But on this forum, there's actually space for this disowned part of me that is sadistic, angry, and cruel... and who delights in defeating others. And I don't need to show my facial expression or see theirs. So, I don't feel like I'm tip-toeing around bunny rabbits. Plus, my most effective and sharpest sword is my intellect. And on here, I can have all sorts of intellectual duels with people. So, what I do is that I channel my sadism, anger, and cruelty and I hook it up to my intellect... which is an effective weapon, and not futile like my childhood expressions of anger. And with my intellect, I can still maintain the image of stoicism because it's a cold process. And I can channel my sadism, anger, and cruelty through the stoic mask of my intellect. Then, I have certain rules for dueling that both cloak my sadistic tendencies and mitigate the harm of them, which are... I must remain intellectually honest I must not use ad hominem attacks I must not grand-stand or posture in empty ways (i.e. "You just don't get it the way that I do." or "Well, you're Stage Blue/Red? Green, so..." or (posturing myself like the authority who knows something the other person doesn't) "That's for you to figure out on your own." I must genuinely try to help the other person understand I must not use logical fallacies I must state the source of where my insight is deriving from so as to give my explanation the proper amount of authority in the eyes of the reader (i.e. a scientific study, an insight that I got, what makes logical sense to me, my friend experienced this, etc.) I must clean up what I've written to take off any personalized harsh edges... and keep my edginess purely in the intellectual dismantling of the topic at hand. And so, in this space, there's a ton of nerdy guys getting into combative intellectual arguments with one another to prove who is the most intellectual or the most correct. And I know that I can out-do most of them because of my fealty to intellectual honesty and reconciliation of many perspectives. So, this forum is like a big intellectual dick-measuring contest... and I have a really big one. And I like to win. And it's like bumper-cars... if you're going to participate, combativeness is par for the course. But in cases where the person has a cruel or ignorant perspective that muddies the water around or enables the plebeian cruelty that endemic in this world, I really take the gloves off. In my typical response to this, I receive that person entirely and seek to understand why the person had developed that perspective. But in this setting, I can just dismantle it... and defeat their perspective. And instead of doing the emotional labor of holding space for a person to be exactly where they are... I can actually express, "This viewpoint is a problem, because it would lead to x, y, z outcomes." So, I get to draw firm lines in the sand. But the sadism piece of this is also present, as there is a desire to cause some pain to those who have a more cruel perspective... or who act as enablers to cruel perspectives. And I recall once, when I was in an argument that was in-kind to arguing against cruelty, I was laying on the couch. And suddenly an image of myself came into my head of this queen that looks a bit like Helena Bonham Carter's version of the Queen in Alice in Wonderland... but much rougher and colder than that. It was this stoic, cold, sadistic mean queen. And she had a look of sheer hatred and disgust on her stony face. Her forehead was high... which fashionable ladies used to pluck their hairline to give themselves a really high hairline and around the renaissance. Her face was powdered. And she had thin black lips. And she was laying in the same position as me and on the same couch as me. She had medium-short curly reddish hair. It was like this image was showing me this part of myself. It's like, this forum is the only space where I can be her... but also hide her under the guise of the intention of intellectual helpfulness. So, at the top level, I can genuinely be trying to help... and I always am. But I am so angry about human cruelty, that there is this cold death mother drive that's somewhat akin to the idea of, "I brought you into this world... and I can take you out... that is if you can't play nice with your sibling or the family pets and you're destroying the house." It's like this, if you can't play nice, let's just set the world on fire and be done with it. And I can really channel that on here... especially when people are advocating for cruel/foolish perspective and/or perspectives that muddy the waters to enable cruelty and foolishness to continue unchecked. And it's like I made myself into a dormant volcano of cruelty where I hold it all in to cope with cruelty and defeat the cruel ones by denying them an outlet. But I have had no outlet for that cruelty and anger because the stoic method also gives me the same kind of powerlessness... but the forum gives me an outlet. And it's like I can keep running through the process that I needed to happen when I was a child... to have my anger actually win me the fight that I was in the right about.

The titles says it all. If you tend to use pick-up as a means of getting your sexual needs met whilst avoiding building actual friendships and acquaintance-ships with your peers... that's going to cause you problems. If you do decide to do pick-up (or even dating apps), it should be a supplement to your social circle... not a replacement.

That's interesting. The way I was interpreting it as a defense where you're trying to get the last word and "win" the interaction. And I would typically think of it as a sign of insecurity, and a fear of showing weakness. But I guess I was wrong.

Why do you always do this?

Silly reaction. There are women with boyfriends, you know?

Have fun being pretending to be someone else so that women will like you, then. But women will pick up on the neediness and lack of sovereignty behind the act... and the fact that you're taking her lead to determine how you should behave and socialize. Women don't tend to like it when men aren't independent-minded enough to act according to their own will. And it's quite repellent when a guy is trying to follow her lead on how he should behave just to earn her validation.

Don't start larping as a douchebag to try to get women to like you. That's just another way of being desperate and needy and saying, "What kind of asshole to I need to pretzel myself into to get women to like me?' The reality is that the woman you talked to had a boyfriend. And she probably enjoyed the flirtation and didn't want it to go further. So, she tried to diffuse it with a compliment because she didn't want you to get the wrong idea. And "You're sweet" is definitely a compliment. So, don't interpret this as "If only I were a douche, I'd get women". because that's not true. The woman had a boyfriend either way. Instead, just stop trying to mold yourself into what you think women want you to be... and just be yourself.

I'm not just talking about serial murderers. Probably half or more of people have been in a relationship with a toxic and abusive partner. And it's more often women who are on the receiving end of abuse... though many men also experience abuse. The statistics are the 1 in 3 women have been in an abusive relationship... and 1 in 4 men have been in an abusive relationship. So, when I'm talking about being predatory... I'm not just talking about the extremes. I'm talking about the mundane guy who will drag a woman's life down into the ground. And for an attractive woman, she will attract a lot more opportunistic men who are just trying to prove themselves good enough by getting her validation. They won't actually be interested in her. Honestly, probably around half or more people are going to be terrible partners. And women (and especially beautiful women) have to ruthlessly sort out those options... or she'll end up with a partner who will be a drain on her life. And that's not the extremes like serial murderers... as serial murderers are rare. It's more like avoidants, bread-crumbers, moochers, guys who can't keep a job, emotionally abusive guys, physically abusive guys (this sometimes actually does end in murder... it just doesn't make the national news), guys with anger issues, impulsive guys, misogynists, cheaters, gamblers, addicts, petty criminals, sex pests, beauty diggers, immature guys, irresponsible guys, dead-beat dads, power abusers, and other common types of negative partners. And these are very mundane examples. Most women have had a relationship with a guy who has qualities on this list. And probably half or more of guys fall into the categories on this list. (Half of women are often shitty too, just sometimes in other ways) So, women are very wise to be ruthless in their selectivity. And attractive women are especially visible to men who want to use her for sex, status, and validation without caring about her. And this tends to lead to many of her "leads" to getting into a relationship simply looking to extract value... and not just have a good relationship. So, the more beautiful a woman is, the more she needs to be able to protect her time, energy, and focus from predatory guys.

That's also a good point. If humans were put in a situation where agency was completely removed but all necessities were provided, there would probably be some really negative effects of that.

Those aren't common patterns in humanity though. It's very rare that a mom kills her kids. And it's rare if a man is only interested in grooming himself and not in having sex. Most men are deeply interested in sex.

You're not getting my perspective AT ALL. I literally said that all murderers should default to life sentences. So, I don't understand why you're talking about releasing a mass murderer.... as that's the opposite of my perspective. What I'm saying is that the philosophy needs to shift behind how we conduct the justice system to where we ONLY focus on justice... and not revenge or punishment. And the death penalty doesn't fit with that philosophy. Do you understand what I'm saying now?