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

goyacobol

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:
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
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

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
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.
 

Turgon

Ambassador
Ambassador
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.
 
Top Bottom