Raphael

Going through the spiral

753 posts in this topic

5 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

I found myself more or less defending the "male side" simply because I've been repressing the desire to correct the mischaracterizations coming from the "female side" for a while, and that sort of just exploded.

It's funny because growing up I had highly toxic masculine examples which cause me to defend more the "female side". Have you ever felt something like this before? I feel like this is something that can happen at stage Green.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

MELODY-OF-THE-NIGHT.jpg

painting-in-the-park.jpeg

SUN-OF-JANUARY_1.jpg

Edited by Raphael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Raphael said:

It's funny because growing up I had highly toxic masculine examples which cause me to defend more the "female side". Have you ever felt something like this before? I feel like this is something that can happen at stage Green.

All the time. I genuinely find that women are more misunderstood and unheard by men rather than the other way around. The poor listening epidemic among men is widespread and cultural.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

All the time. I genuinely find that women are more misunderstood and unheard by men rather than the other way around. The poor listening epidemic among men is widespread and cultural.

Agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Selfishness = Selflessness

The only difference is a matter of interpretation.

 

Selfishness range from low conscious selfishness to high conscious selfishness.
Selflessness range from low conscious selflessness to high conscious selflessness.

There's nothing better than living a high conscious selfish life or high conscious selfless life.
There's nothing worst than living a low conscious selfless life or low conscious selfish life.

Egoic selfishness isn't that different from egoic selflessness.
Spiritual selfishness isn't that different from spiritual selflessness.

 

In the end, or the beginning, or the now, what is is what is.

Edited by Raphael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shame is used at stage Green too. To transcend stage Green, show how dirty you really are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unhealthy Green uses shame similarly to stage Blue to portrait itself as being good.
Healthy Green shows its vulnerabilities and dirtiness and works through them. After that, it gets into Yellow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thoughts are going everywhere, yet I'm always there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About Genders Perceptual Discrepancies: The Penis and Vagina as an Analogy for Psychological Differences

While thinking about differences between men and women recently I came out with the idea of using the penis and vagina as an analogy for psychological differences.

It is impossible for a man to understand what it's like to have a vagina, to be horny as a female, and to be penetrated. For example, if I ask a man to penetrate me to see how things are from the female perspective, it will still not match the female experience because I’m not a female. Same thing for a woman. It is impossible for a woman to understand what it’s like to have a penis, to get hard several times per day, and to want to fuck like an animal. If a woman penetrates another woman with a strapon to see how things are from the male perspective, it will still not match the male experience because a woman is not a man. It’s impossible to understand the sexual experience of the other sex without being the opposite sex. We can use our imagination to some extent, but it will always be incomplete and something will be missing.

It’s similar with psychological differences. Whether an individual is a man or woman, he/she will not be able to fully understand some elements of the opposite sex. This is simply because this individual isn’t the opposite sex, because psychology is interconnected with biology, and because men and women have different biological structures. The two genders are naturally emotionally calibrated a bit differently: there’s a self vs other psychological orientation. Men are naturally more calibrated towards self (survival) and women towards others (nurturing) which is the reason why in ideological gender debates men argues that relationships are selfish where women argues that relationships can be genuine. Men thinks that women aren’t realizing the truth that relationships are entirely selfish because this is true from the masculine perspective. Women thinks that men aren’t realizing the truth that relationships can be genuine and spiritual because this is true from the feminine perspective. However, very few individuals are able to step back and acknowledge that because: 1. they are naturally emotionally calibrated differently. 2. they are attached to their gender. 3. they aren't aware enough

The only solution that I find out regarding these psychological discrepancies is simply to respect and listen to the opposite gender (it applies to both men and women). To step back and say: “Ok. There’s something that I cannot fully understand and will never be able to fully understand about you because I’m not you, so I’m going to listen to you.”. This is not about one gender being the slave of the other gender, but about being open when we already trust someone. It’s really important to accept differences that we cannot understand even if it is weird from a limited male or female perspective. There will always be a part of mystery in the opposite sex and no amount of imagination is going to fully represent the experience of the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Structure Behind Ideological Debates

Recent debates in the Dating sub-forum made me want to contemplate the structure behind ideological debates. There's always a structure behind these debates whether they are about politics, gender issues, etc.

Here are a few points that I noted:

  • They are deep similarities between the two sides.
  • Both sides ultimately want the same thing.
  • Both sides disagree about how things should be done.
  • Both sides don't understand some deep truth about the other side.
  • Both sides don’t understand some deep similarities about the other side.
  • Both sides don’t understand some deep differences about the other side.
  • The two sides aren't necessarily equals. One side can be more advanced than the other, however, if one side is more advanced, it will not be advanced enough to understand that it is more advanced and to step out of the debate.
  • The inability to have the other side's experience is what get people stuck in debating.
  • An ideological debate always results in both sides feeling dirty and unsatisfied. It's similar to an addiction.

Why Debates don't Work

Even advanced people: Leo, Emerald, etc. have difficulties finding a common ground when it comes to masculine/feminine dynamics. It's interesting to observe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about my own understanding? Am I able to fully connect the content to the structure and see the big picture? No, because I never dated anyone and therefore lack enormous experience and education in this area. I'm just observing and theorizing for the moment and can be wrong at any moment.

However, what is my general feeling concerning debates here? My feeling is that Leo’s and other males perspective is behind on many points compared to some advanced female members. How? By applying Leo’s teachings on himself. He talks about qualities of interpretation in his video “How Your Mind Interprets Reality” and masculine perspectives that I see are many times much more judgmental than feminine perspectives.

I sense that Leo absorbed some toxicity during his PUA years and has difficulties overcoming them. In fact, he already recognized that some of his views were shallow.

Quote

I was wrong about some of my dating advice for women. I now realize my advice was too shallow and male-minded.

 

Quote

I was wrong about some of my dating advice for men. My view of the topic was negatively affected by pickup, and today if I were giving dating advice for guys, my advice would be much more conscious and holistic. You can see this pivot by comparing my first How To Be A Man video and my second one: How To Be A Man – Part 2. Part 2 doesn’t completely negate part 1, but it is deeper and more authentic.

Leo, Things I've Been Wrong About

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Raphael said:

The Structure Behind Ideological Debates

Recent debates in the Dating sub-forum made me want to contemplate the structure behind ideological debates. There's always a structure behind these debates whether they are about politics, gender issues, etc.

Here are a few points that I noted:

  • They are deep similarities between the two sides.
  • Both sides ultimately want the same thing.
  • Both sides disagree about how things should be done.
  • Both sides don't understand some deep truth about the other side.
  • Both sides don’t understand some deep similarities about the other side.
  • Both sides don’t understand some deep differences about the other side.
  • The two sides aren't necessarily equals. One side can be more advanced than the other, however, if one side is more advanced, it will not be advanced enough to understand that it is more advanced and to step out of the debate.
  • The inability to have the other side's experience is what get people stuck in debating.
  • An ideological debate always results in both sides feeling dirty and unsatisfied. It's similar to an addiction.

Why Debates don't Work

Even advanced people: Leo, Emerald, etc. have difficulties finding a common ground when it comes to masculine/feminine dynamics. It's interesting to observe.

Exceptional post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Raphael said:

The Structure Behind Ideological Debates

Recent debates in the Dating sub-forum made me want to contemplate the structure behind ideological debates. There's always a structure behind these debates whether they are about politics, gender issues, etc.

Here are a few points that I noted:

  • They are deep similarities between the two sides.
  • Both sides ultimately want the same thing.
  • Both sides disagree about how things should be done.
  • Both sides don't understand some deep truth about the other side.
  • Both sides don’t understand some deep similarities about the other side.
  • Both sides don’t understand some deep differences about the other side.
  • The two sides aren't necessarily equals. One side can be more advanced than the other, however, if one side is more advanced, it will not be advanced enough to understand that it is more advanced and to step out of the debate.
  • The inability to have the other side's experience is what get people stuck in debating.
  • An ideological debate always results in both sides feeling dirty and unsatisfied. It's similar to an addiction.

Why Debates don't Work

Even advanced people: Leo, Emerald, etc. have difficulties finding a common ground when it comes to masculine/feminine dynamics. It's interesting to observe.

 

"In all intellectual debates, both sides tend to be correct in what they affirm, and wrong in what they deny." - John Stuart Mill


My website: The Inward Morning

Dei nostri templum terrarum orbus est

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

Exceptional post

Thanks.

12 hours ago, flume said:

"In all intellectual debates, both sides tend to be correct in what they affirm, and wrong in what they deny." - John Stuart Mill

Awesome quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Structure Behind Ideological Debates: Application to Gender Issues

  • They are deep similarities between the two sides.
    • Men and women are basically the same. They are two sides of the same coin. They are part of the same specie with just a few physical and psychological differences.
  • Both sides ultimately want the same thing.
    • They both want love.
  • Both sides disagree about how things should be done.
    • Men thinks first about sex to get love.
    • Women thinks first about romance and relationship to get love.
  • Both sides don't understand some deep truth about the other side.
    • Men don't understand the need for romance, relationship, security, and genuine connection that women wants.
    • Women don't understand the high sexual needs of men and how much important sex is for men compared to relationships.
  • Both sides don’t understand some deep similarities about the other side.
    • Men and women aren't understanding that they are both seeking love, but in different manner.
  • Both sides don’t understand some deep differences about the other side.
    • It's the same thing as the responses for Both sides don't understand some deep truth about the other side.
  • The two sides aren't necessarily equals. One side can be more advanced than the other, however, if one side is more advanced, it will not be advanced enough to understand that it is more advanced and to step out of the debate.
    • Some female perspective that I saw on the forum are definitely more advanced, yet not advanced enough to step out of the debate.
  • The inability to have the other side's experience is what get people stuck in debating.
    • A man is a man and therefore cannot experience what it's like to be a woman. Because of that a man want women to think like him.
    • A woman is a woman and therefore cannot experience what it's like to be a man. Because of that a woman want men to think like her.
  • An ideological debate always results in both sides feeling dirty and unsatisfied. It's similar to an addiction.
    • This is self-explanatory.

Debates on gender dynamics are even more difficult than normal debates because the biases aren't only cultural, but biological.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Structure Behind Ideological Debates: Application to Left / Right Wing Politics in the US

  • They are deep similarities between the two sides.
    • The Left and the Right are the same, they are society. They are two sides of the same coin and cannot exist without each other. The Left cannot exists without the Right, the Right cannot exists without the Left.
  • Both sides ultimately want the same thing.
    • They both want love. This love in politics is about having a great country, both Left and Right wants a great country.
  • Both sides disagree about how things should be done.
    • The Right thinks that the country is going to be great with more freedom, less regulations, more protection and security from outside threats.
    • The Left thinks that the country is going to be great with more regulations, more respect for human rights and the environment, and by integrating outsiders and integrating marginalized groups.
  • Both sides don't understand some deep truth about the other side.
    • The Right doesn't understand that regulations are necessary because too much freedom is backfiring on the global system as it allows abuses.
    • The Left doesn't understand that the concerns of the Right about outsides threats are legitimate because most other countries are less advanced than the US. If China for example become the main superpower, this could have some serious damaging consequences of the global economy because China is spirally speaking less developed.
  • Both sides don’t understand some deep similarities about the other side.
    • They don't both understand that they all want a great country which offer great and fair opportunities for everyone. However, the notion of "fair" is different between the Left and Right. For the Left, "fair" is equals opportunities with the appropriate help for everyone. For the Right, "fair" is working as hard as possible to strive in life no matter the conditions someone is in.
  • Both sides don’t understand some deep differences about the other side.
    • It's the same thing as the responses for Both sides don't understand some deep truth about the other side but it's still possible to add more elements.
  • The two sides aren't necessarily equals. One side can be more advanced than the other, however, if one side is more advanced, it will not be advanced enough to understand that it is more advanced and to step out of the debate.
    • The Left is overall more advanced, but is stuck with debating with the Right, and even when it wants to get outside debates it gets dragged down into it by the Right.
  • The inability to have the other side's experience is what get people stuck in debating.
    • People have different life experiences which cause them to be either more for the Right or for the Left. They have difficulties understanding the experience of the other side even if the Left have a better compassionate ability.
  • An ideological debate always results in both sides feeling dirty and unsatisfied. It's similar to an addiction.
    • This is self-explanatory.

The amount of items that can be added to this list are enormous. I don't have the time for that, but you can have fun and do it too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Raphael said:

The Structure Behind Ideological Debates

Recent debates in the Dating sub-forum made me want to contemplate the structure behind ideological debates. There's always a structure behind these debates whether they are about politics, gender issues, etc.

Here are a few points that I noted:

  • They are deep similarities between the two sides.
  • Both sides ultimately want the same thing.
  • Both sides disagree about how things should be done.
  • Both sides don't understand some deep truth about the other side.
  • Both sides don’t understand some deep similarities about the other side.
  • Both sides don’t understand some deep differences about the other side.
  • The two sides aren't necessarily equals. One side can be more advanced than the other, however, if one side is more advanced, it will not be advanced enough to understand that it is more advanced and to step out of the debate.
  • The inability to have the other side's experience is what get people stuck in debating.
  • An ideological debate always results in both sides feeling dirty and unsatisfied. It's similar to an addiction.

Why Debates don't Work

Even advanced people: Leo, Emerald, etc. have difficulties finding a common ground when it comes to masculine/feminine dynamics. It's interesting to observe.

This list can be refined a lot. I will definitely refine it in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now