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


The Living Force
FOTCM Member
The more I think about it, the more I think that people shouldn't read the Bible at all without taking a training course in how to read and understand it. And I'd like to be the one to design that course!!!

I wish I had found your books earlier in my life but of course some of them you had not written yet. Just reading Secret History of the World gave so much information about how the Bible was pieced together from different groups was an eye-opener.

I think a course sharing your discoveries on how to read the Bible would be a great service to humanity.

You are already in my book. :thup:


FOTCM Member
That was my impression as well when it came to categorizing people as either Alpha or Beta. It’s too simplistic and if anything brings us down to the level of animals. Tomassi subtly twists it to say it’s just ‘a state of mind’ but every example he has given demonstrates this state of mind looks more like that of a very clever sociopath. It’s not something anyone should want to emulate.

Well, if you leave out the whole 'pick up artist' business, the rationale behind it isn't that everyone should be an 'Alpha' or that an 'Alpha' is the heartless, caveman 'get what I want' mentality. His thesis (and the general thesis in these types of books) is that men should be assertive when necessary, with the narrative being that too many men today have been 'feminized' and lost that 'natural' ability to be assertive when necessary. This is, IMO, a massive assumption that does not take into consideration the many other factors that make a person who they are. No man is "meant" to be assertive, he will or will not be to one extent or another based on many factor all of which involve his personal life lessons. It's not a bad idea for any man or woman to learn to be more assertive if necessary.

'Betas' are men who are "good home makers", responsible, caring, loving, and that isn't depicted in a negative way. Again, the narrative is that men need to be 'Alpha' in certain situations and 'Beta' in others. But again, this is a massive over generalization that misses the fundamental truth that people are the way they are and have the experiences they due to their level of knowledge and the lessons they need to learn. End of story.

The real problem with these kinds of books, IMO, (other than the PUA stuff) is that they implicitly require men to not be honest (on certain issues and in certain ways) with women, including long-term partners. This is justified by the detailing of 'scientifically proven' 'unconscious drives' that to some extent influence what a woman wants and doesn't want that she herself is often unaware of. In that respect this approach is pitched as a way for men to have more successful and happy relationships for both them and their partners. Whether or not that actually works is an open question, and I think the reality is that it may help in some relationships but not others.

But again, the way these nuggets of possibly useful information are packaged in what is essentially a PUA and 'how to positively lie to your wife' manual make it seriously problematic.
Last edited:

Approaching Infinity

FOTCM Member
I've spent many years studying Paul, so a few fun facts. Paul wrote about 20% of the New Testament - that is, the letters that I consider authentic. There is some redaction, but once you know the tricks of the thinking and writing of the time, you can usually spot it. The book of Hebrews was most likely written by a follower of Paul.

So, that would make about 25% Paul influenced writing in the NT. The rest is pretty much myth and theological manipulation, that is, about 75%.

I recently read a new book by a guy named RG Price called Deciphering the Gospels. It wasn't perfect, but it still had some great stuff in there. He's a mythicist, and his main argument goes that Mark used the Old Testament and Paul as sources, its purpose being to explain the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem using Jesus as the allegorical vehicle for Paul's teachings. Then, he shows that the other gospels obviously didn't get the memo, and wrote their gospels as if Mark was actually trying to do history, basically using Mark as a launching pad for their own 'histories'. (Though keeping in mind Engberg-Pedersen's argument that the gospel of John is essentially Pauline, with the same Stoic ideas.) Price argues that Mark wasn't trying to do history in the first place: it was allegory and intended as allegory.

This is compatible with the work of Adam Winn (Reading Mark's Christology Under Caesar and Mark and the Elijah-Elisha Narrative) who, while not a mythicist, argues that Mark was largely patterned on the Kings narrative and was written as a kind of counter propaganda against the stuff the Flavians were saying about their victory in the war.

And I recently saw this on Vridar: a couple posts on Jewish midrash as "true but not history".

Why the Rabbis (and Gospel Authors, too) Wrote Fiction as "True History"
Midrash: A Message from God, though not historically true

Concluding statement from the second article:

Does the author of the earliest gospel expect hearers to believe the story as genuine history or as a “message from God” which the Bible texts assert to be “valid” or “true” without necessarily being “historically true”? If the latter, it is surely easy to see why it would be understood and accepted as true on both levels: as a message from God and as genuine history.


FOTCM Member
I originally started reading this thread when 987baz first posted about it but when I got to this video posted that essentially condensed RFT’s 9 rules to relationships with women, didn’t bother to read any further or had any inclination to buy his books. Mainly because I thought to myself why in the hell would anyone want to be in a relationship like that in the first place? I deal with stuff like that all the time where I’ve learned the hard way I can’t be sincere with everyone because, like Gurdjieff said, that can be a weakness depending on who you are sincere with. But to play this cat and mouse game with someone you are supposed to be opening up to and learning to trust, and vice versa, seems so draining and not something I’d ever look forward to so my initial response was ‘eff that!’ I could care less about being beta this or alpha whatever according to any particular guidelines meant to turn me into a stud with the ladies. I’d rather just be myself and not play any roles and if that happens to be an attractive quality then so be it.

But I’m glad I got through the thread because a lot of insightful posts and in particular luc’s explanation of his relationship was inspiring to read. What I found fascinating was that in my mid 20’s I was in a long-term relationship and one rule that I was introduced to that she brought into it was that if either one of us was angry or upset at the other person we’d talk it out and discuss it by the end of the day so that neither person held on to any resentment the next day. Even though I was selfish and immature and the relationship fell apart because of my own stupidities, we ended up staying friends with no enmity or bitterness after the relationship ended, and now that I reflect on it, any relationship that I’ve been in since then that was worthwhile and full of lessons, had that kind of communication.


Jedi Master
I have not finished reading the whole topic. But I must say that it has been not only uplifting and educational. It has relieved me of many doubts, and internal conflicts. All this talk (I still read all the conversation, I'm on page 17) finally leads me to understand and know the answer to the question: What is the masculine ideal?

The answer was always there: Impeccability. As Castaneda pointed out. That and face the unknown with impunity. If I have perceived something when reading the history, the relations between men and women, the myths of the grail, and the history of the knights, what we know when the expulsion of the eden occurred ... that is to say we know that all the biological machinery obeys the STS program and that female energy was co-opted (if I remember correctly).

The situation and dynamics of the current sexes arises from this and that the woman has been disadvantaged by what happened in those times (correct me if I am wrong) and the man has consequently had to take the bull by the horns. Man apparently having better emotional control in the face of adversity is not so easy to "trigger" emotionally. So far where what I am seeing is that in the feminization of man the STS forces clearly seek to destroy this last bastion.

And those who have resisted to some extent but who during years of programming, have created emotionally unstable men, in the search for stability end up co-opted by any ideology or movement that guarantees them to recover some self-control, but it turns out to be the perfect mask to follow injecting STS program. Yes, I think I didn't say anything new, but I wanted to synthesize it.

TL: DR. Be impeccable, face the unknown, and there you have the MAN.


FOTCM Member
I thought this recent Quillette article that was posted on SOTT was very interesting and relevant to this thread:

"Oh, he's kind of cute." My friend at Yale, swiping through Tinder, leaned over and showed me his profile.
"Wait, no." She moved her finger leftward.
"Why not? He seems alright," I reply.
He goes to a local, less highly-regarded university, she explained. In other words, not Yale.

Swipe Right for a Master's Degree

The dating market for women is getting tougher. In part, this is because fewer men are attending universities. Why would male enrollment in higher education matter for women? Because women, on average, prefer educated men. One source of evidence comes from women's personal responses to dating profiles posted by men. Researchers analyzed 120 personal dating ads posted by men on the West Coast and in the Midwest. They found that two of the strongest variables that predicted how many responses a man received from women were years of education and income. Similar results have been found in Poland. Researchers analyzed how many women responded to dating ads posted by 551 men. They found that men with higher levels of education and higher income received more responses. A more recent study in Australia of more than 40,000 online daters found that women were more likely to initiate contact with a man if he had more education than themselves.

Still, young people today are more likely to use Tinder or other dating apps than Internet dating websites. Are things different on the apps? A study led by economics researcher Brecht Neyt of Ghent University found that, on Tinder, women were 91 percent more likely to "like" a man with a master's degree compared with a bachelor's degree. The researchers used the same male profiles, the only difference was level of education. They also tested how men would react to women with different levels of education, finding that men were only eight percent more likely to "like" a woman with a master's degree compared with a bachelor's degree. Both men and women preferred more-educated partners, but women had a much stronger preference.

In other words, all other things equal, a man with a master's degree is about twice as likely to get a match than a man with a bachelor's degree. Perhaps something to keep in mind, if you are interested in obtaining a graduate degree and are active on Tinder.

Some women do marry men with less education, though. These women tend to marry men who earn more than them. A study by Yue Qian, a sociologist at the University of British Columbia, found that women who had more education than their spouses were 93 percent more likely to be married to men with higher incomes than themselves. In other words, if you are a less-educated man, it is helpful to earn more than your educated male peers if you want to marry an educated woman. Better-educated women have a stronger preference for partners who earn more, especially if their partners are less educated than themselves.

This finding fits the overall pattern revealing that women who are more educated and professionally successful have an even stronger preference for successful male partners, relative to less successful women. The evolutionary psychologist David Buss, discussing his research on how professionally successful women select partners, found that "Successful women turned out to place an even greater value than less professionally successful women on mates who have professional degrees, high social status, and greater intelligence and who are tall, independent, and self-confident." The more professionally successful a woman is, the stronger her preference for successful men.

Getting Ratioed

Sex ratios matter for dating strategies for both men and women. Even seemingly small differences in sex ratios can be misleading. For example, in The Evolution of Desire, David Buss discusses the student body of the University of Texas at Austin where he teaches. In 2016, the student body consisted of 46 percent men and 54 percent women. That doesn't seem like a big difference, but it is. It translates to 17 percent more women than men on campus. The UT Austin campus has about 52,000 students in total. This means that if every student pairs up with someone of the opposite sex, about 4,000 women will be without a partner.

More to the point, the age range for the Tinder study cited above was 23 to 27. This is the age range in which women are far more educated than men, and where more women tend to be looking for male partners. In his book Date-onomics, Jon Birger revealed that according to the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey, there are 5.5 million college-educated women between the ages of 22 and 29, versus only 4.1 million college-educated men in the same age bracket. In other words, the dating pool for college graduates has 33 percent more women than men — or four women for every three men. Broken down by degree type across all ages in the U.S., for every 100 men with bachelor's degrees, there are 130 women. For those with master's degrees, for every 100 men there are 134 women. The situation for educated women seeking educated male partners isn't looking so good. Furthermore, more men identify as exclusively homosexual relative to women. Which suggests the dating pool for heterosexual women may be even smaller than the above numbers suggest.

But how do such imbalances manifest themselves with regard to mating strategies? When there is a surplus of men, men are more likely to adapt to women's preferences. When there is a larger male-to-female ratio, men are more likely to compete with each other to be what women want. And, on average, women tend to prefer longer-term relationships. In general, women report a greater desire for emotional investment than men. This is true across cultures. In fact, the sex disparity in this preference for emotional investment is greater in more egalitarian cultures. In other words, the difference in the desire for love and emotional investment between men and women is larger in societies that more strongly underscore egalitarianism and sociopolitical equality. In contrast, men, on average, are more likely to prefer more casual sexual relationships. Indeed, the sex difference in the male preference for casual sex and sexual variety is greater in more gender-egalitarian societies. For example, research led by the psychologist David Schmitt found that the sex difference for enjoyment of casual sex in Denmark, Norway, and Finland is higher than in less gender-egalitarian cultures such as Ethiopia, Colombia, and Swaziland.

And we see this on campuses with more male students relative to female students. Jon Birger, in Date-onomics, describes the dating scene on campuses with imbalanced sex ratios. On colleges with more men than women, such as Caltech, steady relationships are more widespread. Students go on dates, and men demonstrate commitment in partnerships. Men are more willing to do what women want in order to be with them. On the other hand, when there is a surplus of women relative to men, women are more likely to adapt to men's preferences. They compete with one another to be what men want. And this is what we see on campuses with more female students relative to male students. On colleges with more women than men, such as Sarah Lawrence, casual sex is more widespread. Hookup culture is more prevalent, and men are less interested in entering committed relationships. Women are more willing to do what men want in order to be with them.

Birger describes an interview with a female student at Sarah Lawrence:
Most straight men at Sarah Lawrence had no interest in a committed relationship. "Why would they?" she said. "It's like they have their own free harem. One of my friends was dumped by a guy after they'd been hooking up for less than a week. When he broke up with her, the guy actually used the word 'market' — like the 'market' for him was just too good."
If you have ever been around young men at elite colleges, many of them do speak in this way, especially if there are less-prestigious colleges nearby. This is because male students at top colleges can attract women at their own college, as well as other local campuses. On the other hand, women at top colleges are often only interested in dating men at their own college. For these women, the dating pool is less promising compared to their male counterparts.

Interestingly, women at colleges where women are more numerous trust men less. In a study on campus sex ratios and sexual behavior, researchers analyzed data from 1,000 undergraduate women from different U.S. colleges. Women's responses varied based on sex ratios on campus. For example, women at colleges with more women were more likely to agree that "men don't want a committed relationship" and that they "don't expect much" from the men with whom they go out. They also found that women on campuses with a higher female-to-male ratio were much less likely to report that they had never had sex.

The researchers report that, "women who attend college on campuses where they are more numerous tend to view men as less interested in commitment and less trustworthy. They are less likely to expect much from men, find it more difficult to locate the right kind of men, and are more likely to report that their relationships don't work out and that a woman can't have a boyfriend if she won't have sex." In other words, when men are in an environment where there are more women, they appear to put in less effort, and have less interest in relationships.

In contrast, in environments where men are more numerous, relationships are more likely to proliferate.
The Harvard psychologist Marcia Guttentag and her colleague Paul Secord examined census numbers, data on sex ratios, and historical texts dating back to ancient Greece and medieval Europe. She found that in societies where men were more numerous relative to women, the culture was more likely to stress courtship and romance. Men had to compete for wives and were thus more willing to make commitments to women. While women in such societies were more likely to be cast in stereotypical gender roles, they also, Guttentag reports, exercised greater control in their choice of romantic partner. She found that the opposite was the case in societies with more women than men. She writes, "The outstanding characteristic of times when women were in oversupply would be that men would not remain committed to the same woman throughout her childbearing years." Intriguingly, Guttentag posits that feminist movements are energized when there is a dearth of men in the local environment:
With a surplus of women, sexual freedoms are more advantageous to men than to women. Decreased willingness to commit oneself to an exclusive relationship with one woman is consistent with that fact... It follows further that the persistence of such circumstances would leave many women hurt and angry. Other women, not themselves without a man, would nevertheless often be aware of the unfortunate experiences of their women friends in relations with men. These circumstances should impel women to seek more power, and incidentally, turn them towards meeting their own needs. Most forms of feminism are directed to just such ends.
In short, environments with more women give rise to conditions that propel women to reduce their social, economic and political dependence on men. In part because men are less interested in commitment when they are outnumbered by women and therefore have more options.

Still, much of this is assuming that men in educated dating pools prefer educated women. And for long-term relationships, they do. Compared with women, though, men tend to be more open to pairing up with less educated partners. And less educated women tend to be open to dating men more educated than themselves. What this means, then, is that educated women are not only competing against other educated women for educated male partners, but also against less educated women. To use Guttentag's phrasing, the dating environment for educated men has an oversupply of women, and they are acting in line with Guttentag's original findings. As Birger puts it in Date-onomics, describing why educated men are often reluctant to settle down, "Why make a lifetime commitment to one woman when you can keep her as an option while continuing to survey the market — a market that, for college-educated men, has an ever-increasing number of options?" This point has also been stressed by David Buss. In an essay titled The Mating Crisis Among Educated Women, Buss observes that it is no coincidence that the rise of hookup culture on college campuses has developed alongside the growing proportion of female students. Even Tinder, he suggests, is a part of the same phenomenon. Fewer men means more hookups.

Why Don't You Get a Job?

Other factors don't bode well for long-term relationships. According to the Pew Research Center, nearly 80 percent of never-married women, compared with less than half of never-married men, report that having a partner with a steady job is "very important" to them. Employed men are more attractive to women. And given that successful women tend to value success in prospective partners even more than less successful women, it stands to reason that employed women place an even greater value on employment when selecting a partner. However, Pew has also found that among never-married adults, for every 100 women, there are only 84 employed men. If all employed men were suddenly taken, every sixth woman would be partner-less.

Why does any of this matter? Maybe relationships aren't that important, and people derive happiness from other things, like career success. But consider recent research led by Nathan Kettlewell at the Economics Discipline Group at the University of Technology Sydney. Kettlewell and his colleagues found that when it comes to cognitive and emotional well-being, job-related events such as getting a promotion or being fired doesn't actually have much impact beyond about three months. What does impact well-being? Negative factors on well-being were the death of a partner or child, separation or divorce, and major financial loss (e.g., bankruptcy). Positive factors were getting married, having children, and a major financial gain (e.g., inheritance or lottery winnings). Considering that few of us are going to inherit money from a rich uncle or win the Powerball, establishing a relationship with people we love is key to our sense of well-being.

Why are men falling behind when it comes to education? Several suggestions have been offered. One might be video games. In a
paper titled "Cutting class to play video games," the economist Michael Ward looked at a dataset of more than 6,000 high school and college students. He found that when video game sales increase, students spend less time attending class and doing homework and more time playing games. Furthermore, this "crowding out" effect was stronger for males and lower income students. He also found that the average amount of time spent playing video games was three times larger for males compared to females.

The economist Erik Hurst has suggested that leisure time has become so valuable to men that they are less willing to exchange that time for other pursuits.
In an interview, Hurst has said, "In our culture, where we are constantly connected to technology, activities like playing Xbox, browsing social media, and Snapchatting with friends raise the attractiveness of leisure time. And so it goes that if leisure time is more enjoyable, and as prices for these technologies continue to drop, people may be less willing to work at any given wage." This may be why fewer young men, relative to women, are employed or attending university.

Furthermore, Hurst and his colleagues found that from 2000 to 2015, labor hours fell by 12 percent for those aged 21-30. What has filled this free time for men? The researchers found that young men increased the number of hours dedicated to leisure by about the same number of labor hours they lost. And what kind of leisure? An article in The Economist reports, "For each hour less the group spent in work, time spent at leisure activities rose about an hour, and 75% of the increased leisure time was accounted for by gaming." Video games might be more appealing than other ventures, and many young men have decided to dedicate more of their time to gaming and less to education or work. Interestingly, these young men do not report being unhappy. Hurst goes on to say, "These individuals are living with parents or relatives, and happiness surveys actually indicate that they are quite content compared to their peers." However, the men surveyed are quite young. It is possible and perhaps likely that as these men reach middle-age, their feelings will change.

For now, many young men understand that women want educated and successful partners. Why not work harder to adapt to this preference? In their book, The Demise of Guys, psychologists Philip Zimbardo and Nikita Duncan suggest that the answer is twofold: fake war and fake sex. They argue that many young men have a natural desire for conflict, struggle, and accomplishment. Video games satiate this desire. They are designed to induce a sense of gradual achievement in the face of obstacles adapted to be just above the player's ability. Alongside this, young men also have a natural desire to seek sexual partnerships. Digital porn satiates this desire. Porn provides a virtual experience of sexual fulfillment with multiple different partners. Many young men may have simply decided to derive a sense of accomplishment from gaming, and a sense of sexual satisfaction from porn.

Sexy selfies and dating pools

In short, there are far more educated women than educated men. Educated women, on average, prefer men who are educated as well. And among couples in which the woman has more education, they tend to prefer men who earn more than themselves. But the reality is that fewer young men are graduating from college compared to women, fewer men are employed, and fewer men are seeking employment. The dating pool is shrinking for women who are interested in successful, educated, men with good career prospects. In such an environment, hookup culture becomes more widespread, which women tend not to like as much as men. The romantic landscape is rosy for educated men, who are more open to dating both educated and less educated women. But for women, the situation doesn't look as great. Research suggests in such an environment, sexual competition between women intensifies. In fact, a recent study found that the proliferation of "sexy selfies" may be due in part to economic inequality, as women compete to earn the attention of a shrinking pool of economically successful men.

The good news, though, is that couples in which both individuals are educated tend to be happier. Their divorce rates are lower and satisfaction with their marriages is higher. But as the incentives continue to shift, and imbalanced ratios continue to influence the dating pool for the educated, we may see fewer such couplings.


Jedi Master
I have not finished reading the whole topic. But I must say that it has been not only uplifting and educational. It has relieved me of many doubts, and internal conflicts. All this talk (I still read all the conversation, I'm on page 17) finally leads me to understand and know the answer to the question: What is the masculine ideal?

The answer was always there: Impeccability. As Castaneda pointed out. That and face the unknown with impunity. If I have perceived something when reading the history, the relations between men and women, the myths of the grail, and the history of the knights, what we know when the expulsion of the eden occurred ... that is to say we know that all the biological machinery obeys the STS program and that female energy was co-opted (if I remember correctly).

The situation and dynamics of the current sexes arises from this and that the woman has been disadvantaged by what happened in those times (correct me if I am wrong) and the man has consequently had to take the bull by the horns. Man apparently having better emotional control in the face of adversity is not so easy to "trigger" emotionally. So far where what I am seeing is that in the feminization of man the STS forces clearly seek to destroy this last bastion.

And those who have resisted to some extent but who during years of programming, have created emotionally unstable men, in the search for stability end up co-opted by any ideology or movement that guarantees them to recover some self-control, but it turns out to be the perfect mask to follow injecting STS program. Yes, I think I didn't say anything new, but I wanted to synthesize it.

TL: DR. Be impeccable, face the unknown, and there you have the MAN.

I quote myself. After writing this, I was thinking and remembering some things that I learned in one of the classes that I take in my university. I study brand and packaging design. And a particular class: Marketing. The teacher besides the class and its contents also gives courses on neuromarketing. I was able to take one of those courses and learned the following from the point of biology and neurosciences.

The first thing I learned is clearly the difference between the brain of the man and the woman.

Interestingly, (perhaps some already know here) the woman, with respect to her senses (vision, hearing etc) has a greater resolution. Example: while the man has a vision focused only on a portion of the visual field, the woman has her field of vision expanded. Another example is that women could see more shades of colors than men. Biologists and evolutionists indicate that this difference with respect to women is that it should identify which fruit was suitable for eating, which was not, and have a peripheral vision to detect potential dangers.

Now, if one applies this knowledge from the point of view and esoteric knowledge and also adding what we know as information and knowledge, and the associated feminine energy, what I seemed to understand is that women naturally have the ability to process much more information than man (Yes, it is not really new information, we already know that women are known for their multitasking ability) but there is something here that has escaped our understanding. Processing so much information requires energy, not only that, but it seems to me that such an ability to process information for women is of the heuristic type.

One of the definitions for heuristics says: Heuristics is seen as the art of inventing by human beings, with the intention of procuring strategies, methods, criteria that allow solving problems through creativity, divergent or lateral thinking.

But it happens that because of this heuristic, this sensitivity of course makes the woman more neurotic. But this neurotic condition (I guess) is because A) the fall of the previous STO condition. B) Having forgotten the STO modes. C) The biological machine is programmed to STS modes.

Let's put the situation in perspective. You fall into the matter and the conditions and rules of the 3D STS mode. However, you retain part of that capacity for high resolution and information management (in women) and therefore that latent capacity for creativity = emotional energy. When you are in such a situation and the stimuli of the new environment trigger that neurotic condition meteorically without knowing how and why (knowledge protects!) The emotional energy pumping happens.

I always found it curious that a woman reacts to bugs, spiders, etc. disproportionately. For a woman, it is much easier to put in such emotional states as fear.

That's when I seemed to understand, what is the disadvantage of women after the fall. And that consequently man having a narrower capacity to receive information, but with the ability to process it more intensely and for longer periods, there is a natural tendency to the proficiency of the use of emotional energy.

This makes man take the lead in the difficult situation of the new environment, for which man (adamic) was not made.

Years and years of living in this situation concludes the current dynamic of the sexes. The difficulty of men understanding women and vice versa.

The misuse of feminine energy, and that is aligned with the negative side, becomes evident: It is fear and ignorance mixed with the ability to absorb information in an extremely sensitive way and not knowing what to do with the byproduct of that interaction by Be the co-opted centers.

I think it makes some sense that there is a tendency in the Bible and other texts (but also literally) to blame women for this "sin." And then misogyny occurs. It is very sad that this happens ...

Curious Beagle

Padawan Learner
The Fall is the separation from the One, and at the same time a breaking into two followed by many further splits and fragmentations. Imagine the unified being, in which the male and female parts are integrated, in the shape of a ball. One side of the ball is the positive, masculine principle (yang), the other the negative, feminine principle (yin). The male element is the creator, the positive, active principle. The feminine, receptive principle, is what dissolves itself, slowly and continuously building, growing. It exists in nature as the mothering principle which does not create with one act but is continuously affecting everything, and that simply rests in its being. When they are brought into unity, they both work in complete harmony. As the splitting took place, the halves were rarely split apart exactly in the middle. The breaking apart was the result of the separation from God, and this was a chaotic event which did not belong in God’s perfect order. As a result, the break did not occur either in an orderly fashion. Therefore the fault could apportion to the feminine part what should be masculine, and vice versa, in an arbitrary fashion. What belongs to the masculine principle but has gone over to the feminine side has to incarnate in the opposite side, that is, as a man. The more irregular the splitting, the more often the entity has to incarnate as a man to establish the original balance. If you knew how many incarnations you lived as a male or a female, you would know in what manner your splitting occurred. To repeat: Every being represents fundamentally either the male or the female principle and either the one or the other dominates his or her being. It would not make sense for the healthy and harmonious feminine to change over to the masculine, for both are divine and each in its own way is perfect.

Curious Beagle

Padawan Learner
The aim of development is to find the way back into the original unity, or oneness. On the earth plane, one particular aspect of development is union between man and woman. The mating of the sexes has therefore a deeper meaning than merely procreation. In the relationship between the sexes so much can be overcome, so much can be learned; development can proceed so much better than in any other way. The relationship between the sexes offers more hurdles and friction than any other relationship because personal emotions are more involved. Therefore objectivity and detachment are lacking to a greater degree than in other human relationships. Hence, marriage is on the one hand the most difficult of all relationships, but on the other, the most fruitful, the most important, and the most blissful one.

There are two basic ways to approach life and the self. Or, to put it differently, there are two fundamental possibilities for human consciousness: the dualistic and the unified plane. The majority of human beings live predominantly on the dualistic plane, where you perceive and experience everything in opposites: either/or; good or bad; right or wrong; life or death. The unified principle combines the opposites of dualism. By transcending dualism you will also transcend the pain it causes. Few human beings transcend the dualistic plane, so most people experience only an occasional taste of the limitless outlook, the wisdom and freedom of the unified plane. The good, the right, the life that exist on the unified plane of consciousness combine both dualistic poles, so no conflict exists. This is why living in a unified state, in absolute reality, creates bliss, unlimited freedom, fulfillment, and that unlimited realization of potentials which religion calls heaven. The real self embodies the unified principle. Now, even those who have never heard of such a thing have a deep longing and a mostly unconscious sense of a different state of mind and life experience than the one they know. They yearn for the freedom, blissfulness and mastery of life that the unified state of consciousness affords.

Let us assume that you are quarreling with a spouse (or any other relationship). You are convinced, from where you sit, that you are right; therefore, immediately, the spouse becomes wrong. With dualistic understanding issues can only be either/or. The outcome seems to matter more than the issue itself, for when the intensity of emotions is truly tested it often has no relationship to the issue at stake. On the dualistic plane, your sense of identity is associated with the other person, not with your real self. As long as you experience yourself only as the outer ego-self, you will depend on others. Only when you have realized the center of your being, which embodies unification, does your life cease to depend on others. Hence, a slight quarrel truly becomes a matter of life or death, which explains the intensity of emotions when it comes to proving your right and the other’s wrong. The more you prove your spouse wrong, the more friction exists and the less you obtain what you thought you would by proving yourself right and your spouse wrong. You believe that by proving yourself right and your spouse wrong, your spouse will finally accept and love you again and all will be well. When you do not succeed, you misinterpret that and try harder, for you think you have not sufficiently proven that you are right and the other is wrong. The rift widens, your anxiety increases, and the more weapons you use to win the fight, the deeper your difficulties, until you actually damage yourself and the other and act against your own best interest. You are then faced with a further conflict, which arises out of the first dualistic split. In order to avoid a total rift, with all its real and imagined threats you are now faced with the alternatives of having to give in in order to appease your spouse and avoid further damage to yourself, or to continue fighting. Since you are still convinced that there is a right versus a wrong, such appeasement robs you of self-respect and you fight against that. Whether you use this “solution” or not, you will be torn between fighting or submitting. Both create tension, anxiety, and inner and outer disadvantages. “Who is right and who is wrong? Only I can be right. Otherwise all is bad.” The second is either giving in to a wrong that you cannot admit, for it is a total wrong, or continuing the fight. Admitting a wrong means death, in a sense. So you are faced with the alternatives of admitting a wrong, which means death in the deep psyche, in order to avoid dreaded consequences and the possibility of a real risk, putting your life at a grave disadvantage, The illusion that one side was good and the other was bad has brought you to the inevitable next step on this road of illusion, which is that all alternatives are bad. All dualistic struggle is fated to lead you into further traps, which are all products of illusion.

When the road to the unified principle is chosen, soon what at first appeared as one certain good and one obvious bad ceases to be so, and you inevitably encounter good and bad on both ends. When this road is pursued still further, no longer is there any bad, but only good. The road leads deep inside the real self, into truth that goes way beyond the fearful little ego’s interests. When this truth is sought deep inside the self, one approaches the unified state of consciousness. As long as you find yourself in this illusory dualistic conflict, you will experience hopelessness, for there is no way out on the dualistic plane of thinking. As long as your very existence is identified with the ego-self and therefore with the dualistic approach to life, you cannot help but despair, no matter how much this despair is covered up or momentarily alleviated by occasional success with the desirable alternative of the two opposites. The helplessness and hopelessness, the wasted energy of the dualistic struggle, rob you of your birthright. The real self contains all wisdom and truth you can possibly envisage. The truth is so far-reaching and so directly accessible that no further conflict exists when this truth is allowed to take effect. The ifs and buts of the dualistic state cease to exist. The knowledge of this inborn intelligence far surpasses the ego intelligence. It is completely objective; it disregards the small, vain self-interest and this is one of the reasons you fear and avoid contact with it. The truth that flows out of it equalizes the self with others. Far from being the annihilation that the ego fears, that truth opens up the storehouse of vibrant life force and energy that you usually use to only a minor degree and which you misuse in directing your attention and hopes to the dualistic plane.

The unified real self can always be contacted. The hardest act to perform in reality is the easiest act possible, is to ask, “What is the truth of the matter?” The moment you are more intent on the truth than on proving that you are right you contact the divine principle of transcendent, unified truth. If the desire to be in truth is genuine, the inspiration must come forth. No matter how strongly circumstances seem to point in one direction, you must be willing to relinquish and to question whether what you see is all there is to the issue. This generous act of integrity opens the way to the real self. What you then find out is always totally different both from what you hoped for and feared on the dualistic plane. You find that you are not as right and innocent as you thought, nor as wrong as you feared. Neither is your opponent. You soon discover aspects of the matter you never saw before, although they were not necessarily concealed. You understand exactly how the quarrel came into existence in the first place, what led to it, what its history was long before its actual manifestation. With such discoveries you gain insight into the very nature of the relationship. The more vision you gain, the freer, stronger and more secure you feel. This vision not only eliminates this particular conflict and shows the right way to straighten it out, but it also reveals important aspects of your general difficulties and makes their elimination easier through this understanding. The vibrant peace that comes from this extended understanding is of lasting value. The two most significant obstructions to the real self are ignorance of its existence and the possibility of connecting with it and a tight, cramped psychic state with tight, cramped soul movements.

The simple act of wanting the truth requires several conditions, the most important being the willingness to relinquish what one holds on to, whether this be a belief, a fear, or a cherished way of being. The dualistic plane is the plane of the ego. The unified plane is the world of the divine center, the larger self. The ego finds its whole existence on the plane in which it is at home. To relinquish this plane means to give up the claims of the little ego. But this does not mean that the ego has to be annihilated. In fact, the ego will eventually integrate with the real self so that there is one self, which will be fuller, better equipped, wiser. The separated ego thinks this development means annihilation. Since the limited consciousness ignores the existence of the real self, its living reality will be doubted as long as personal misconceptions are not eliminated — it fears letting go and relaxing its tight hold, the very soul movement that leads to the real self. This is the constant struggle of the ego until it ceases fighting against an opposite through repeated recognitions of a wider truth in every small personal issue. The real self cannot manifest as long as personal problems are not straightened out. As long as you are totally identified with your ego, you will continue to cultivate more separation, and self-idealization must be the consequence. The ego thinks, “If everyone around me considers me special, better than others, smart, beautiful, talented, happy, unhappy, or even bad, then I will receive the necessary approval, love, admiration, agreement that I need in order to live.” This argument means that somewhere deep down you believe that you can exist only through being noticed, affirmed, and confirmed by others. You feel that if you go by unnoticed, you cease to live. It explains why your idealized self-image is so destructive. You feel more confident when you make yourself noticed than when you make positive efforts.

Of course, all your reactions and beliefs can be ascertained only when you have learned to admit them. You will further come to see that your life does not depend on other people’s affirmation of your existence; that you do not need to be special and separate from others; that this very claim traps you in loneliness and confusion; that others will give you love and acceptance only when you do not wish to be better than they are, or special or different from them. When you have truly attained knowledge, your accomplishment in whatever field this may be, cannot have the effect on others that it has when accomplishment serves to set you apart. When you need to be better through your accomplishments, what you give to the world must turn against you because you offer it in a spirit of war. When you give of your accomplishments in order to enrich life and others, you and your life will be enhanced by it because what you offer is given in a spirit of peace. Whenever you believe that “in order to live I must be better than others, I must be separate,” disappointment is inevitable. This belief cannot bring the desired result because it is based on illusion. The dualistic concept is “me versus the other.” This illusory belief makes the transition from the dualistic to the unified plane of consciousness so difficult, for giving up this “fight against the other” appears to imply self-annihilation. The more you fight others, the less they will comply with your demand to affirm your self and the more you will experience this as a danger equal to giving up the fight itself. So every way you turn seems to be blocked. You make yourself utterly dependent on others with your illusory concept that unless they approve of you you are lost, while, at the same time, trying to overrun them and triumph. The only way you can truly enter the unitive state where you can truly achieve mastery, is by letting go of the false need to win, to be separate, to be special, to be right, to have it your way. Discover the good in all situations, whether you deem them good or bad, right or wrong. May every one of you comprehend that the truth is in you. Everything you need is in you. May you find that you actually do not have to struggle, as you constantly do. All you have to do is recognize the truth, wherever you stand now. All you have to do, at this time, is acknowledge that there may be more in you than you see, call upon this inner center, and allow yourself to be open to its intuitive messages to you.


The Living Force
FOTCM Member
We entered a age where simple solutions are non starters, but every thing has to be viruses, lock downs, harmones etc. People are so much scared and it opened a new opportunity, solution has to be outrageous. :headbash:


A Disturbance in the Force
Yes, exactly. That's why I find myself turned off by Tomassi's stance, some of his tweets are basically saying to men to avoid 'gold-digging women' and save your money, those hypergamous females are basically out to get men in his eyes it seems. But as you point out, the biological reality has worked out for humans for a long time. And it's a fair deal, the men who have their accomplishments and can provide security get to choose from the young, fertile and attractive mates. Those women get the security they desire to raise a family. The women..
What if the nature of biological reality is false, and as it has been discussed on here there is no such thing as evolution , I would even suggest that what we going through is involution. Starting from the beginning of our civilization women didn't really have a choice in whom to marry our ancestor lived in society divided by castes, which prevented women to be hypergamous, and now we see as it has been abandoned women chose whomever they want to be with, we see drop in IQ levels, among children and more fatherless household etc. We live in an world that was built on Aryan ideals and now they are being abandoned, society falling down. Idea of biological evolution is based on pseudo science.
Last edited by a moderator:
Top Bottom