The "Rational Male and Female"? - Biology and Programs in Relationships

[BlackCartouche]

But just think we can choose! I wouldn't say we have to worry about STS being wholly removed from us for quite awhile yet

Worrying about STS wholly removed??? Now there's a juxtapositional turn in the journey's course toward thought-evolution of consciousness for STO candidacy!

materiality as "focused, imprisoned knowledge"

I rather thought the fall doesn't actually introduce choice or increases free will, but does the opposite, it limits.

Yet learning to break free of imprisoned knowledge and limitation is the greatest of all "Learnings" - thus making free will all the more... Meaningful.

But isn’t that just the point? To be able to choose what is difficult, over what is easy? Isn’t that the exercise in free will?

Like the vid-clip, below, reminds us: the higher the densities we progress, the more limitations are removed thus things get "easier"... But "easy" also equates to learning lessons lesser (hmm... now there's an interesting similarity of 2 words?)
Its the difficult lessons that teach us the most about ourselves. I wonder... When the C's say 4D STS can be enlightened, could this be what is meant: For someone has to remain in STS-land to keep the school running 'lessons'?

I don't think you would or you have to exercise free will in pre-fall conditions (exercise not as in training but only as in applying).

In retrospect, I think its both. The concept of applying free will that comes of "choice" is denied to Jesus because he is without Original Sin aka STS. The Abrahamic religions teach that it was our free will that caused us to "fall" into sin because, it would seem, we didn't know what we were doing, therefor it must also be the other way round too. We had to "fall" to "Learn" how to use free will in actual actuality. Without the "fall" into STS we couldn't learn the experience of exercising - as in applying - Free Will in a meaningful way. The "fall" is what it means to going to school.


Anyhow... I love this vid-clip. I found it quite recently though it was made a few years ago. I play it to remind me when I find myself feeling a bit lost and cast adrift... I think its apropos because it sums up the core of what everything IS - as this thread has taken a turn (its apropos for just about any other thread here then... Heh)
The music goes very well with it too I thought. Im sure the C's would approve

 

[Approaching Infinity]

The Cs once confirmed that more knowledge equals more free will thus with this imprisoned knowledge, there's less free will after the fall. As has been discussed a lot here over the years, the horrible part is that the imprisoned knowledge isn't all false. That adds to the enticement. The book in this thread isn't all wrong about our machine; it isn't even always wrong about things we can do with our machine to make it happier.

Yep, it depends on what level of analysis and practice you're using. You can be happy as a pig following certain 'rules', because they're pig-level rules. Tomassi and guys like him (there are guys 'worse' than Tomassi out there) think they have it all figured out, and they may actually have a bunch of things figured out. But instead of transcending the muck, they revel in it, convinced that's all there is, and convincing others that's all there is. There's a line in Paul to describe it, I think: "They know God's decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them."

 

[goyacobol]

"They know God's decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them."

Yes, that's from Romans 1:32. Now, is that from the 70% disinformation or the approximately 30% valid information in the bible. That chapter has much to say about sexuality but in light of many things the Cs have said how does it fit with a bigger information database.

I can see that much of what Tomassi applauds is on the "pig-level" but saying who deserves "to die" is a little above my level.
I don't know, it is not so black and white for me and I don't have all the answers.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Yes, that's from Romans 1:32. Now, is that from the 70% disinformation or the approximately 30% valid information in the bible. That chapter has much to say about sexuality but in light of many things the Cs have said how does it fit with a bigger information database.

The basic idea being that there's a difference between love and completely self-interested sexual gratification and abuse, OSIT.

I can see that much of what Tomassi applauds is on the "pig-level" but saying who deserves "to die" is a little above my level.
I don't know, it is not so black and white for me and I don't have all the answers.

Well, maybe you can either chalk that up to him being dramatic - he could be quite the fire-and-brimstone preacher. But who knows, he often used 'death' metaphorically. But here he's using beliefs his opponents hold against them, so maybe he is just using their own logic, as in, "by your own beliefs, these things are punishable by death, yet they do them anyway, and revel in them. Paul wasn't the type of person to call for people's executions. Their own lives were punishment enough, if they refused to own up to their behavior and get with the program.

 

[John G]

Yes, that's from Romans 1:32. Now, is that from the 70% disinformation or the approximately 30% valid information in the bible. That chapter has much to say about sexuality but in light of many things the Cs have said how does it fit with a bigger information database.

I can see that much of what Tomassi applauds is on the "pig-level" but saying who deserves "to die" is a little above my level.
I don't know, it is not so black and white for me and I don't have all the answers.

It fits with the Ezekiel idea of the sin of Sodom being a lack of hospitality which fits with the human-cosmic connection idea here. Obviously if lots of people spend lots of time wallowing in pig-level enjoyment then hospitality towards others in need can suffer. Hopefully too, thinking about others leads to thinking about other things above the pig-level.

 

[goyacobol]

The basic idea being that there's a difference between love and completely self-interested sexual gratification and abuse, OSIT.


Well, maybe you can either chalk that up to him being dramatic - he could be quite the fire-and-brimstone preacher. But who knows, he often used 'death' metaphorically. But here he's using beliefs his opponents hold against them, so maybe he is just using their own logic, as in, "by your own beliefs, these things are punishable by death, yet they do them anyway, and revel in them. Paul wasn't the type of person to call for people's executions. Their own lives were punishment enough, if they refused to own up to their behavior and get with the program.

As long as you are confident that this verse is one of Paul's lines and are confident that others will interpret Romans Chapter 1 as you do and realize even Paul's contribution is possibly 30% tampered with according to one of the Cs sessions I see no reason to make any issue out of it. I know you have a genuine interest in how the bible was really put together and how the life of Caesar has been used as a composite model for Jesus.

Session 9 April 2011:

(L) Did Paul of Tarsus put the new testament together?

A: Nope.

Q: (Burma Jones) Did Paul of Tarsus actually exist?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Are parts of the new testament composed of Paul’s actual writings?

A: Yes.

(L) How close are they to what he originally wrote?

A: 70 percent.

 

[goyacobol]

It fits with the Ezekiel idea of the sin of Sodom being a lack of hospitality which fits with the human-cosmic connection idea here. Obviously if lots of people spend lots of time wallowing in pig-level enjoyment then hospitality towards others in need can suffer. Hopefully too, thinking about others leads to thinking about other things above the pig-level.

I liked Ezekiel's wheel within a wheel story better and maybe you can find some meaning from that Sodom and Gomorrah passage but what if it is not totally accurate.

Session 9 June 1996:

Q: (L) Why is Jesus described as being a priest after the order of Melchizidek?

A: We told you that 70 per cent of the Bible is false.

Q: (L) Well, 70 per cent would equal an amount that could consist of the entire old testament.

A: Yes.

I am not disagreeing on pig wallowing or wallowing in physicality just don't have the fondness for quoting the Bible like I used to do.

 

[luc]

I'd like to bring up something for those who might still be tempted by this "Alpha" and "Beta" nonsense. There's the old saying "The rich get rich, and the poor get children". And it's true. So if you think that turning into a girl-chasing "Alpha" ape is the way to go, consider this: the REAL alphas, that is those guys living in castles and mansions looking at you and your apeness with nothing but contempt, have less children than "commoners", have more stable marriages, cheat less, and highly value a conservative lifestyle. It's just that in the media, you only hear about silly and vulgar celebrities or of those upper-classers that are complete moral failures. They simply are not representative.

This silly ape-"alpha"-stuff is partly due to Darwinism and its utterly false theory that you'll have more offspring if you are "succesful" or that promiscuity is a sign of "success" - nothing could be further from the truth. It's the miserable poor, the "betas", who do that kind of stuff. Finally: Newton, Faraday, Mendel, Vivaldi, Handel, Beethoven, Gibbon, Macaulay, Carlyle, Plato, Aquinas, Bacon, Locke, Leibniz, Hume, Kant, Mill, Copernicus, Swift, Adam Smith, Samuel Johnson, Haydn, Dalton, Galton: all childless men. But I'm sure they're just weak Betas, right

 

[Siberia]

It was said somewhere at the beginning of this thread that Tomassi's book helps one to "wake up" and turn from a "sheep" into a "wolf", i.e. become a "true Alpha" instead of some "miserable Beta" or something to that effect.

Well, interestingly enough it is known that wolves tend to be socially monogamous animals. It means that they form social pairs for life:

With canids, social monogamy is unusually common. Virtually every species of canid has some form of social monogamy. In most species, males and females form a pair bond, and the male helps the female raise the pups or kits.

Unlike wolves, sheep and most other cattle are socially polygamous animals, i.e. they don't create a bonding relationship for life.

So when we are told that men should turn from "sheep" into "wolves", should this aspect of "wolveness" be also taken into consideration? It deserves admiration, imo.

 

[dugdeep]

I'd like to bring up something for those who might still be tempted by this "Alpha" and "Beta" nonsense. There's the old saying "The rich get rich, and the poor get children". And it's true. So if you think that turning into a girl-chasing "Alpha" ape is the way to go, consider this: the REAL alphas, that is those guys living in castles and mansions looking at you and your apeness with nothing but contempt, have less children than "commoners", have more stable marriages, cheat less, and highly value a conservative lifestyle. It's just that in the media, you only hear about silly and vulgar celebrities or of those upper-classers that are complete moral failures. They simply are not representative.

This silly ape-"alpha"-stuff is partly due to Darwinism and its utterly false theory that you'll have more offspring if you are "succesful" or that promiscuity is a sign of "success" - nothing could be further from the truth. It's the miserable poor, the "betas", who do that kind of stuff. Finally: Newton, Faraday, Mendel, Vivaldi, Handel, Beethoven, Gibbon, Macaulay, Carlyle, Plato, Aquinas, Bacon, Locke, Leibniz, Hume, Kant, Mill, Copernicus, Swift, Adam Smith, Samuel Johnson, Haydn, Dalton, Galton: all childless men. But I'm sure they're just weak Betas, right

I'm not sure I totally follow your logic here, luc. I don't think that 'Alphas' and 'Betas', as Tomassi is using them, really has much to do with rich and poor or how many children a man has (in fact, he specifically states it doesn't have anything to do with money - there are rich betas and poor alphas). I think it has more to do with subservience as a mating strategy (or life strategy, for that matter), like the current memes of the male feminist and 'soy boys'. I'm not saying the terms have value, necessarily, and I'm not defending the perspective of the manosphere, but I also think there's something to this and that we shouldn't simply throw the baby out with the bathwater. In fact, the impression I got from Tomassi was that 'Alpha' was more akin to having strength of character rather than external trappings like a large bank account or notches on the bedpost.

 

[Starshine]

Just watched a great movie yesterday called Alpha (2018) - IMDb. It's a heroic journey where loyalty, companionship, and strength in the face of the dreadful Nature are king.
Alpha is just a term that fits well into a hierarchy of wolves and many other types of animals hierarchies. And I think it's a term that should remain in the animal kingdom because as humans, it would be more appropriate to share your meal rather than serve yourself first and make others wait until you're finished if you want to be socially accepted.
Let's not talk about the cruelty apes can display to become the Alpha.
Alpha qualities are mostly bestial attributes.
As a human, you either are an example and we want to mimic you because of the qualities you display, either you're not and you can't expect people to follow you. And well, you can be pathological and dump everyone too. Too often.

 

[Pierre]

It was said somewhere at the beginning of this thread that Tomassi's book helps one to "wake up" and turn from a "sheep" into a "wolf", i.e. become a "true Alpha" instead of some "miserable Beta" or something to that effect.

I tend to take this alpha / beta hierarchy with a pinch of salt.

First, because in our individualistic competitive Western culture, the two terms are heavily loaded and one (alpha) is considered as definitely better. But if you look at it from a group perspective, both alphas and betas are necessary, even complementary: there's no good leaders without good followers and vice versa.

Second those alpha and beta 'hierarchies' seem very relative and context specific. In other terms, an individual can be a leader in one social environment and a follower in another social environment. That's what is suggested by the following experiment:

The 6 rats experience from Didier Desor

Didier Desor is a scientist, at the time of the experience he was studying animal behaviour at the Nancy University.

Here is the experience :
6 rats are in a special cage made of 3 different parts, one is a platform where the rats can eat, sleep and... fight, another is a pool filled with water and the last part is a small shelf with some food in it.
The cage is made in such a way that a rat who want some food have to swim underwater from the platform to the food shelf.

When the 6 rats are in the cage they tend to organise in this way :
-1 is an autonomous rat, swimming underwater to get the food, swim back and consume the food himself. He is strong enough to fend off any food thieves.
-2 are exploited rats, they swim underwater to get the food but upon return they get beaten by exploiter rats until they drop their food, when the 2 exploiter are sated then the 2 exploited can get food for themselves.
-2 are exploiter rats, they do not swim and just beat the 2 exploited rats to get some food.
-1 scapegoat, who cannot swim, is not strong enough to exploit another rat and mainly get beaten by all the previously described rats. He mainly feeds over other rats leftovers.

The experience was done in 6 different cages and the organisation described above would repeat itself in the 6 cages.
At some point, the 6 "autonomous" rats, 6 "scapegoat" rats, etc. were put together in the same cage and after some time the rats would organise just as described above.

 

[Adaryn]

I'm not sure I totally follow your logic here, luc. I don't think that 'Alphas' and 'Betas', as Tomassi is using them, really has much to do with rich and poor or how many children a man has (in fact, he specifically states it doesn't have anything to do with money - there are rich betas and poor alphas).

Yep. Tomassi says that, if she had to choose, a woman will prefer a poor "dark triad" Alpha (the 'manly', risk taking, thrill-loving "dark and mysterious" bad boy) to a rich, despondable, successful (career wise) but "boring" Beta-"loser". Besides, one of the RedPill/PUA community's main goal is not to make children, but only to use women for sexual gratification. So, even the biblical, somewhat justifiable goal of procreation goes down the drain here. It's pure hedonism, "my needs first and to hell with everybody/everything else" philosophy.
NB: I don't give much credit to that whole Alpha/Beta thing either, I'm just describing Tomassi's stance on the matter.

Newton, Faraday, Mendel, Vivaldi, Handel, Beethoven, Gibbon, Macaulay, Carlyle, Plato, Aquinas, Bacon, Locke, Leibniz, Hume, Kant, Mill, Copernicus, Swift, Adam Smith, Samuel Johnson, Haydn, Dalton, Galton: all childless men

Well, we can't really be sure about that, can we?

 

[mkrnhr]

Besides, one of the RedPill/PUA community's main goal is not to make children, but only to use women for sexual gratification. So, even the biblical, somewhat justifiable goal of procreation goes down the drain here. It's pure hedonism, "my needs first and to hell with everybody/everything else" philosophy.

I's funny how arguments or theories of "reproduction strategies" are used to promote non-reproduction. There is no place for responsibility, commitment or honour. Usually all what these theories can be reduced to is "because animals do its, so we should as well, it's natural". Well, animals do what they do on the street, why do these theoreticians of human behaviour use toilets?

 

[Cosmos]

I think the fundamental problem here is materialism applied by Guru type people for whom (in their mind/being) really nothing higher than themselves exists (even though it does in reality, it just doesn't register for them, since they are essentially soulless) and everything is relative to their own pathological desires, and then publish those pathological writings and create "schools" to promote their darwinistic/materilistic thinking and pathologize normal humans into thinking in that direction and becoming "one of them". Again, I think Lauras post from Łobaczewski applies here, more than anything. They essentially spread a materialistic "I'm god" mind virus that people can easily fall into. And apparently that works out just fine with stuff like this. Thinking of that sort started long ago by people like Darwin, or more specifically people who capitalized on it and similar writings/outlooks, due to their impoverished view of reality and human relations, to the point now that everything in our societies is governed and directed by those pathological thinking patterns about reality and life in general.

As Laura said:

This stuff is just materialistic filth.

There is just so much wrong with Tomassi that it's not worth the time and effort to weed through it.

I'm not "leaving an impression", I'm stating clearly that his material is not worth looking into mainly because it is corrupt and the average person cannot defend their minds against ponerological influences of this type. Again, read Ponerology.

If you think it is worth looking into, "especially for young men", then I'm afraid that you are exhibiting signs of the first criterion for ponerogenesis:

Don't even go there. Book is closed.

So I think there is no point to further indulge in theories from Tomassi and Co. and what he "said or didn't say" and instead focus on far less corrupted stuff. Maybe it's time to discuss some other works instead, that are worth looking into?