e13c7r0nic
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2007
- Messages
- 8
- Reaction score
- 0
Sometimes we pursue a woman, or a woman a man,
simply because of competition. If the level of interest
towards someone is bellow 50% but an opponent is
introduced, the interest level goes up, not because
anything about the target changed, but because of
their increase in value, because of the competition for
the target's affection.
This is not unlike economics, supply and demand. There's
only one of the target, but now the demand for the
target has increased. This increases the targets value
in our eyes. The target is still the same, but the
value we ascribe to it rises because of the competition.
Why does the value of the target increase even
though the intrinsic value provided by the target doesn't?
The only thing that changes is the subjective value
of the target, the value ascribed to it by its suitors.
The answers seems to point in the direction of competition.
We live in a predatory universe--I first read about
this in Carlos Castañeda's The Teachings of Don Juan: A
Yaqui Way Of Knowledge. What is meant by a
predatory universe is that competition between two
things, usually opposites, is the nature of all things.
When two suitors compete for the affection of one
target, what's at stake is not winning the target,
but the competition, the battle of forces (the two
suitors), over the final outcome of exerting superiority
over another.
Attraction is a sophisticated system in which value
is determined by the estimation of possible competition.
This is largely based on social conventions. For example,
someone beautiful is assumed to be sought after
even if one is not personally acquainted with the
other competitors. In American society, this social
value is largely based on a person's beauty and social
adeptness. We base a person's value-demand based
on how much we feel they are sought after. Since the
factors that guide the valuation of a person's social
value are largely dependent on society, than the only
thing that remains constant across different social
groups is the fact that we compete. Competition is
where the value lies. When we win the target's affection,
we effectively exert our superiority onto our former
opponents. It is the modern--covert(props to Rollo)--way
of dueling.
The spirit of the Don Juan lies in the realization that
the winner is not the suitor who competes for and "wins"
the target, but the target who the suitors compete for.
That is, the winner is the person who was the "prize" all
along. And herein we come back to the "being the prize"
philosophy, as Swinggcat says. It also ties into Pook's
"being a man" school of thought. A man knows that since
he's the one that can provide food and protection--Is this
still true in modern american society in which most women are
financially independent?--omen should compete for
him and not the other way around.
Thoughts? Comments?
I know that not much material is new, but it is, perhaps,
a new paraphrase of things.
The reason for the narrow column is that according to
Paul Graham, "text is most legible with no more than 70
characters per line." I happen to agree.
simply because of competition. If the level of interest
towards someone is bellow 50% but an opponent is
introduced, the interest level goes up, not because
anything about the target changed, but because of
their increase in value, because of the competition for
the target's affection.
This is not unlike economics, supply and demand. There's
only one of the target, but now the demand for the
target has increased. This increases the targets value
in our eyes. The target is still the same, but the
value we ascribe to it rises because of the competition.
Why does the value of the target increase even
though the intrinsic value provided by the target doesn't?
The only thing that changes is the subjective value
of the target, the value ascribed to it by its suitors.
The answers seems to point in the direction of competition.
We live in a predatory universe--I first read about
this in Carlos Castañeda's The Teachings of Don Juan: A
Yaqui Way Of Knowledge. What is meant by a
predatory universe is that competition between two
things, usually opposites, is the nature of all things.
When two suitors compete for the affection of one
target, what's at stake is not winning the target,
but the competition, the battle of forces (the two
suitors), over the final outcome of exerting superiority
over another.
Attraction is a sophisticated system in which value
is determined by the estimation of possible competition.
This is largely based on social conventions. For example,
someone beautiful is assumed to be sought after
even if one is not personally acquainted with the
other competitors. In American society, this social
value is largely based on a person's beauty and social
adeptness. We base a person's value-demand based
on how much we feel they are sought after. Since the
factors that guide the valuation of a person's social
value are largely dependent on society, than the only
thing that remains constant across different social
groups is the fact that we compete. Competition is
where the value lies. When we win the target's affection,
we effectively exert our superiority onto our former
opponents. It is the modern--covert(props to Rollo)--way
of dueling.
The spirit of the Don Juan lies in the realization that
the winner is not the suitor who competes for and "wins"
the target, but the target who the suitors compete for.
That is, the winner is the person who was the "prize" all
along. And herein we come back to the "being the prize"
philosophy, as Swinggcat says. It also ties into Pook's
"being a man" school of thought. A man knows that since
he's the one that can provide food and protection--Is this
still true in modern american society in which most women are
financially independent?--omen should compete for
him and not the other way around.
Thoughts? Comments?
I know that not much material is new, but it is, perhaps,
a new paraphrase of things.
The reason for the narrow column is that according to
Paul Graham, "text is most legible with no more than 70
characters per line." I happen to agree.
Last edited:
