Unrequited Love?

[EyeOnThePrize]

@Epic Days @stormrider

I think it only seems ruthless to me because I'm still holding the ex on some kind of pedestal, albeit a small one at this point(I think). From a place of higher value the act of dismissing is a no brainer, it doesn't seem ruthless at all, there's just natural aversion. I think as a man comes from higher and higher value he dismisses more and more either directly or indirectly, eventually even sub consciously. This results in the feeling of the universal symmetry as you've all alluded to.

If the symmetry theory is as I've described it then as a man's value increases he'll naturally be single most of the time since he will only feel attraction to a smaller set of women. Women will raise their vibration to be with him but will be dismissed if they don't sustain it, so he may go through many STRs.

An LTR and starting a family will only come about if the woman can sustain a symmetrical vibration. This will naturally filter out frauds.

So the key is to be of high value and giving, since smug entitlement will only attract the same as you've mentioned storm.

So the world is full of mostly dysfunctional families where men compromised on their value to start one, and a minority of healthy families where the man didn't compromise.

I'm guessing this sounds obvious and boring to you guys but I'm writing to help myself understand and let you all correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[guru1000]

@EyeOnThePrize

The greater your intent serves beyond yourself, the higher your wavelength. The greater your intent aligns to give value to the world, the higher your wavelength. This is the law of the Universe. To those who don't like this law, then continue to live in self-delusion or take it up with Mother Nature. I didn't create these laws. I only experienced them having been on both sides of the spectrum to truly understand them.

This is a very difficult concept for some. Because they get burned (especially here in the forum) and believe if they don't strip value from others as their default operandi, then they will continue being the victim of being stripped from. It then becomes a Me Vs. You world, and every party is out to serve themself alone to the detriment of everyone else. Thus the creation of ego, the "protective" armor and game to the "battlefield" of the world.

The problem with this paradigm is the Universe will fulfill exactly that desire, men and women who are of the mental origin to be stripped from (but also who desire to strip reciprocally); low value, insecure, broken/damaged, undermining, entitled men and women. Then man bemoans that the world is filled with trash or inauthentic people not even aware that his own contrived identity is what drove such a reality.

Do you know what it feels like to have over 100 friends, and not one with good intent for your well being? I do. I met the worst of the worst and willingly embraced them because I was of the same origin. I was the facilitator and creator of that circumstance.

Only when you come forward in the world in full vulnerability, without your armor, a value-giving intent, zero contrivance, and Fearlessness--CAN you meet people who are of the same origin--and then you will find and form REAL bonafide bonds with both men and women.

I've dated all different types of women. The great ones I was unable to see as great in my previous state because our wavelengths diverged. I attracted, as the rappers, say the "hottest bad bltches," because I too was of the same mental origin. It was only when I changed my intent and went into full vulnerability, did my reality change. I no longer was a value stripper nor desired my next hot bad bltch conquest. I simply existed in my vulnerability and surrended my armored self. I felt no need for armor and recognized armor as a self-contrivance, a fear-based self-created protective mechanism, a Weakness to shield my self from the pain others could potentially bring.

It was a paradigm shift. Instead of entertaining relations with low level value-strippers, all trash and inauthentic women evaporated from my awareness. Almost as if they no longer existed. I could meet one, but not even feel her presence, a natural aversion to that which no longer resonated. I remember going on a date with this girl who was a physical 10 to my previous standard a few months back, and can't remember one word she said. My attention and thoughts were directed elsewhere. I can't even remember how the date ended. I hold on to this memory as it was my realization of my own paradigm shift. Otherwise, complete obliviousness in that encounter. Total amnesia to that which is beneath. And that is exactly what happens when you raise your vibrational state, the people of lower wavelengths cease to exist in your awareness. They exist as shadows in the periphery of your consciousness.

There is no need to fear any man or woman. No need for armor. No need for contrivance or game. Come exactly as you are. There is no failure. He or she either exists in your wavelength or they cease to exist. You will naturally avert that which does not resonate. And if they are a good actor or actress and one day try to capitalize on the value that you willingly and so freely give, then you drop them with zero regard. They vanish like a passing dream once experienced but forgotten completely.

Allow the fearful--the spiritual children--embrace their egos with the illusion of strength. When you transcend to higher wavelengths, you view reality with a different lens and almost feel embarrassed that you too once acted that way.

 

[BeExcellent]

To me this is a thread that is diving deep into everything that meaningfulness of existence IS.

It is this type of thinking and self examination & realization that frees us to bring into reality the greater and higher purpose we are created to embody.

But it all starts with a willingness to trust in one’s self. Release ego. Ego cannot serve you as you actualize.

“The first half of life is devoted to forming a healthy ego...the second half is going inward and letting go of it”

- Carl Jung

 

[stormrider]

@Epic Days @stormrider

I think it only seems ruthless to me because I'm still holding the ex on some kind of pedestal, albeit a small one at this point(I think). From a place of higher value the act of dismissing is a no brainer, it doesn't seem ruthless at all, there's just natural aversion. I think as a man comes from higher and higher value he dismisses more and more either directly or indirectly, eventually even sub consciously. This results in the feeling of the universal symmetry as you've all alluded to.

If the symmetry theory is as I've described it then as a man's value increases he'll naturally be single most of the time since he will only feel attraction to a smaller set of women. Women will raise their vibration to be with him but will be dismissed if they don't sustain it, so he may go through many STRs.

An LTR and starting a family will only come about if the woman can sustain a symmetrical vibration. This will naturally filter out frauds.

So the key is to be of high value and giving, since smug entitlement will only attract the same as you've mentioned storm.

So the world is full of mostly dysfunctional families where men compromised on their value to start one, and a minority of healthy families where the man didn't compromise.

I'm guessing this sounds obvious and boring to you guys but I'm writing to help myself understand and let you all correct me if I'm wrong.

I don’t know about being single or devoid of women most of the time. It’s more like romance will seem petty and you can’t help but pity people stuck on the romance train. Especially when you are able to discern the wavelength of the women they have in their lives.

It’s like really man? Just go to the damn strip club and pay for it. You get the same damn wavelength.

Having said all that, in 2018 I was in a year long open relationship with an 18 year old girl. I met her at the gym. All I did was sat on the bench press chair and stared into blank space. She approached me and asked me how to use some machine. She pulled the “damsel in distress helpless” routine. She’s in the west coast for college now.

It was a crazy year for me. I left my car downtown and ended up having a fling with a female lyft driver. I could be walking in an alley way at 2 am and a 9 would pop out of nowhere.

It felt like women on my wavelength were frozen in suspended animation waiting for me to show up.

As long as your intention, focus, state, and expression are clear, you can manifest just about anything at anytime and anywhere.

I know what the universes version of romance looks like. It’s free love and sex, and noncommittal. Love, by definition, cannot be captured. It must circulate. Love is freedom. And freedom cannot be contained by human social constructs.

The romance most experience is the Disney needy and neurotic variety. That’s why I call it petty. It has nothing to do with universal consciousness.

Now if two people make a decision to commit, then that’s on them. But they shouldn’t project their version of romance to everyone else.

We live in a world full of projection by people who are insecure about their world views so they want others to adopt it to validate them. This is petty.

Live your life the way you want to, and give people freedom to live their lives. And stfu about your projections. Nobody wants to hear it, lol.

The version I experienced was me as the constant and an infinite amount of women coming in and out. An ecosystem of women on my wavelength.

I don’t even have a type. Why would i have a type? That’s limiting my experience of infinite possibilities and free love and sex.

And the women don’t even care. They have a duplicitous nature where if you are a guy on the “in”, it’s just love and sex experienced freely with no boundaries. But for guys with disney programming, they’ll play a different role.

Infinite. Love. Freedom. All of these universal elements are synonymous and cannot be contained by petty human social constructs.

My version of romance completely shattered when I met 5-6 women in my wavelength that I had perfect serendipitous chemistry with - all at the same time. And some of them even knew about the other. And none of them cared. The universe didn’t care about any one-itis or “soul mate” theory, it just kept pumping in abundance.

Once you experience this world, you can’t go back to Disney illusions.

The closest I can come to describing it is that I felt like I was constantly meeting one soul - but in many different bodies. They all had the same exact connection and chemistry with me. Almost the same look in their eyes too.

In ultimate reality, it’s totally possible that all these women share the same soul. Perhaps our idea of “soul” and “soulmate” is very limited.

 

[Epic Days]

@Epic Days @stormrider

I think it only seems ruthless to me because I'm still holding the ex on some kind of pedestal, albeit a small one at this point(I think). From a place of higher value the act of dismissing is a no brainer, it doesn't seem ruthless at all, there's just natural aversion. I think as a man comes from higher and higher value he dismisses more and more either directly or indirectly, eventually even sub consciously. This results in the feeling of the universal symmetry as you've all alluded to.

If the symmetry theory is as I've described it then as a man's value increases he'll naturally be single most of the time since he will only feel attraction to a smaller set of women. Women will raise their vibration to be with him but will be dismissed if they don't sustain it, so he may go through many STRs.

An LTR and starting a family will only come about if the woman can sustain a symmetrical vibration. This will naturally filter out frauds.

So the key is to be of high value and giving, since smug entitlement will only attract the same as you've mentioned storm.

So the world is full of mostly dysfunctional families where men compromised on their value to start one, and a minority of healthy families where the man didn't compromise.

I'm guessing this sounds obvious and boring to you guys but I'm writing to help myself understand and let you all correct me if I'm wrong.

And you should post your thoughts.
This thread is actually getting some value. The ying yangs quit mucking it up.

 

[Spaz]

Been away for a few days and you guys r playing truant?

@guru1000 seems that u r very brave to answers those bottom feeders but somehow manages to come up with a hundred and one excuses not to debate with me?

Anyhow @BeExcellent, according to Carl Jung what is Ego?

Let's see if a female has more balls then you.

 

[guru1000]

Been away for a few days and you guys r playing truant?

@guru1000 seems that u r very brave to answers those bottom feeders but somehow manages to come up with a hundred and one excuses not to debate with me?

Anyhow @BeExcellent, according to Carl Jung what is Ego?

Let's see if a female has more balls then you.

You already lost the argument on ego in the ego thread by your inability to rebut any Actual positions made. You dont get a Round Two. But you are welcome to challenge any post I wrote on ego (its meaning, its application, and its weakness) in this thread, which by the appearance of you, you can't.

 

[Spaz]

You already lost the argument on ego in the ego thread by your inability to rebut any Actual positions made. You dont get a Round Two. But you are welcome to challenge any post I wrote on ego in this thread, which by the appearance of you, you can't.

A Bridgestone tire salesman wants to pitch the benefits of using tubeless tires but yet doesn't want to talk abt tires that uses tubes.

Sounds like he doesn't know tires at all.

I think I'll use @BeExcellent to spur the debate on egoless since u r too cowardly.

 

[guru1000]

A Bridgestone tire salesman wants to pitch the benefits of using tubeless tires but yet doesn't want to talk abt tires that uses tubes.

Sounds like he doesn't know tires at all.

I think I'll use @BeExcellent to spur the debate on egoless since u r too cowardly.

You assume you have a position TO debate. You don't. You just want attention. Instead you should pay attention.

 

[Spaz]

You assume you have a position TO debate. You don't. You just want attention. Instead you should pay attention.

Seem u r devoid of shame or perhaps so shamed that u keep using the same excuses rather then just state once and for all what is Ego.

Either way it doesn't matter now.

You're proved beyond reasonable doubt that u r indeed a coward who despite being given multiple opportunities by me to state what is Ego, is still refusing to do so.

Let's see how BeExcellent responds, this should be fun.

See, guru, I'm already giving you face, be grateful and say thank you to Spaz now.

 

[guru1000]

@ Spaz your words only demonstrate the fragility of your ego. They don't even originate from YOU, your vulnerable self. They instead are operative words intended to make you appear tough, but does a truly tough man need tough words?

Think about that for moment.

Does the Universe walk around saying, "Hey I am the Universe, and I'm giving you face so be grateful for my presence and you are all cowards because you can't do what I say?" LOL.

Those words demonstrate the fragility of the speaker, not his power. Power is silent as it requires no affirmation outside of itself. << Read that again. Powerful if you understand the essence of that statement.

When you reach a state of true vulnerability, of true power, all the words in your quote appear faux and contrived, a vehicle of protection, of frailty, a man with a chip on his shoulder as he STILL has something to prove to everyone, and to himself. So if you wish to truly understand the detriment of an overreactive ego, start by reading your own words and study the fear motivations prompting the faux persona you project to the forum.

I come to you straight. You come to me in armor. But do you need armor if you were not threatened?

You can only be triumphant once you stop trying to be. Thanks for the contributions here though. They have served as the perfect vehicle to demonstrate the frailty of the ego armor which has always been my position.

 

[Epic Days]

There are dead monks who had no “ego”. In the context of what is being spoken, it is being the effect and little to do with cause. A man must be cause. Or he doesn’t accept the truth that all that happens to him, is his cause. Until he masters this thought, he is relegated to base impulses.

if a man have no “ego” as it is being called, His drive towards optimum survival is relegated to an opposing opposite polarity. Dead monk. Dead monks serve no one. Only hisself.

a hard charge at life requires the correct impetus. Now if one says, be the one who serves, then this is more correct. Jung (pronounced “young”), is combining many things with “ego” (Id), he misrepresents identity.

Try again.

 

[Spaz]

@ Spaz your words only demonstrate the fragility of your ego. They don't even originate from YOU, your vulnerable self. They instead are operative words intended to make you appear tough, but does a truly tough man need tough words?

Think about that for moment.

Does the Universe walk around saying, "Hey I am the Universe, and I'm giving you face so be grateful for my presence and you are all cowards because you can't do what I say?" LOL.

Those words demonstrate the fragility of the speaker, not his power. Power is silent as it requires no affirmation outside of itself. << Read that again. Powerful if you understand the essence of that statement.

When you reach a state of true vulnerability, of true power, all the words in your quote appear faux and contrived, a vehicle of protection, of frailty, a man with a chip on his shoulder as he STILL has something to prove to everyone, and to himself. So if you wish to truly understand the detriment of an overreactive ego, start by reading your own words and study the fear motivations prompting the faux persona you project to the forum.

I come to you straight. You come to me in armor. But do you need armor if you were not threatened?

You can only be triumphant once you stop trying to be. Thanks for the contributions here though. They have served as the perfect vehicle to demonstrate the frailty of the ego armor which has always been my position.

So u r still desperately trying to worm ur way out debating ur egolessness by refusing to state what Ego is.

Right now, in my eyes, u r just a nonentity that's even managed to lower himself even further.

Stop embarrassing urself, I'll wait for BE response.

At least for now you can hide behind her skirt.

 

[Killakittie]

Are we still slinging sh!t in here or has it turned productive?

 

[guru1000]

There are dead monks who had no “ego”. In the context of what is being spoken, it is being the effect and little to do with cause. A man must be cause. Or he doesn’t accept the truth that all that happens to him, is his cause. Until he masters this thought, he is relegated to base impulses.

if a man have no “ego” as it is being called, His drive towards optimum survival is relegated to an opposing opposite polarity. Dead monk. Dead monks serve no one. Only hisself.

a hard charge at life requires the correct impetus. Now if one says, be the one who serves, then this is more correct. Jung (pronounced “young”), is combining many things with “ego” (Id), he misrepresents identity.

Try again.

In this thread, I bifurcated identity into two distinct I's: the ego covering and the vulnerable self.

You state or infer that without ego, a person's drive toward optimal survival is not present. So by default then, your diametric claim is the vulnerable self has no drive toward optimal survival? This is false. The vulnerable self has a greater drive toward optimum corporeal survival than the ego, but also possesses a much grander purpose with its roots in spiritual growth, not limited ONLY by self-serving corporeal needs but perpetuating its wholeness upon all including itself and its own corporeal survival to continue to do that. The vulnerable self operates by love with self-love as its drive toward excellence, not for personal relevance, but rather to be of relevant use to all IT connects with.

TLTR: I cannot lift you if I am not lifted.

 

[BeExcellent]

On way out for drinks with the man. I will respond in the morning.

Cheers

 

[TyTe`EyEz]

Many words, zero meaning.

Stole your operating procedure. And @stormrider's.

 

[TyTe`EyEz]

In this thread, I bifurcated identity into two distinct I's: the ego covering and the vulnerable self.

You state or infer that without ego, a person's drive toward optimal survival is not present. So by default then, your diametric claim is the vulnerable self has no drive toward optimal survival? This is false. The vulnerable self has a greater drive toward optimum corporeal survival than the ego, but also possesses a much grander purpose with its roots in spiritual growth, not limited ONLY by self-serving corporeal needs but perpetuating its wholeness upon all including itself and its own corporeal survival to continue to do that. The vulnerable self operates by love with self-love as its drive toward excellence, not for personal relevance, but rather to be of relevant use to all IT connects with.

TLTR: I cannot lift you if I am not lifted.

Perfect example of????

What the fvck are you even talking about?

 

[TyTe`EyEz]

I laughed at that...

@rando5495

 

[TyTe`EyEz]

We already know you have a reading comprehension problem. This usually happens when one's own words are non-sensical and thus he cannot understand the words of others.

Next time you make an accusation instead of saying you think you read it somewhere, POST the evidence.

I'm sorry that I crushed the Fraud objectives in your own "game." But if it's gotta to be, then it's got to be.

Always a pleasure laughing at you though Deesade.

I remember your history, too.