The closer you follow the letter of these commandments, the easier you will find and keep real, true unconditional love and happiness in your life.
That’s just sickening. Also, it’s a list of attitudes, ways to manipulate your lover into being obsessed with you, mostly by exploiting the addictive effect of “unreliable reward”.
I’m surprised that as a “longtime PUA student” you haven’t come across that before, and even more surprised that you’d describe it like that, unless you recently had a huge change of heart regarding PUA/game stuff.
Regardless of ethics, I think something like what I linked would work better for most people (for creating a good, hurt-free relationship) than an overly-complicated fault tree analysis. (I’m still confused about the practicality of such a tree, can you give a small example?)
And my change of heart over PUA was a long and painful disillusion after the original discovery. I’m not a Pachinko machine; if I have to keep my partner addicted, obsessed, and insecure, it hurts me. When I have to refrain from showering my beloved with affection and kindness, it tears me apart. The kind of shit PUA suggest is something I am incapable of doing with someone I truly care about. And as for someone I don’t care about, those do not make it to my bed. I only f—k when I I give a f—k. I tried the alternative, and it found it disgusting and hollow.
if I have to keep my partner addicted, obsessed, and insecure, it hurts me.
You should note that PUA does not advocate this, at least not necessarily. There is an extremely broad spectrum between “trying to keep your partner insecure and obsessed with you” and “boring them to death until they up and leave you for someone else”. Many of the posts on Chateau Heartiste seem to be written in an over-the-top way for the sake of stirring up controversy; he is far from being representative of all of seduction/‘PUA’.
All I ever see of PUA is around this tone. The art as it is commonly understood and practised is a method to pick up chicks and get laid, not an ethos to build satisfying, durable relationships. If you compare it to actual martial arts, I see a lot of Krav Maga and very little Aikido.
That sounds great, I’ll give it a good look. And Sturgeon’s Law applies to literary genres; if it applies to socio-political movements, then we have a problem. We certainly can’t judge, say, the Catholic Church or the Objectivist movement by their 1% of most virtuous fellows.
if it applies to socio-political movements, then we have a problem. We certainly can’t judge, say, the Catholic Church or the Objectivist movement by their 1% of most virtuous fellows.
If you ask an average Catholic to to explain you some things about their religion, and if you ask a Pope, you will find a lot of differences. You may also find Catholic theologists saing that Pope is actually not a Catholic.
This is not merely a criticism of Catholicism… this is what happens when you have a sufficiently large movement. It happens to other religions, it happens to policial movements, it happens everywhere. I guess even Ayn Rand couldn’t prevent it. This is what humans do.
We might ask what is the true Catholicism? But that’s assuming that words have a meaning on their own, instead of merely being labels attached to meanings, inconsistently by different people. If you would look at people’s beliefs as points in the belief-space, you could empirically find a few clusters: there would be current version of the official belief (or a few competing versions) that only educated theologists know, schisms and heresies, various kinds of folk interpretations, etc. That’s the territory. It’s your choice whether you apply the label “true Catholicism” to the opinion of the current Pope, or to the most popular folk version. Either way, someone will insist that you are using the label incorrectly.
I believe this is a source of many hopeless arguments about politics. For any political label X, you get many people self-identifying as X, with many different beliefs, sometimes contradictory. Now are the “true X” the most educated of them, or the most numerous ones, or those most visible in media? How about those who are very educated, but controversial within the group; how much weight to we assign to their opinions? How about those who try to follow their leaders, but misunderstand what the leaders are trying to say; is their true belief what the leaders believe, or the most frequent misinterpretation of the leaders? -- And in real life, most people will use “what most of my neighbors who self-identify as X seem to say”, which is a different answer for different people.
Should alchemists be considered part of the same group as chemists? Today most of us would say “no”, but what if we lived when chemistry was new? Etc.
I am not a theologist, and I only met one Sedevacationist in an internet forum and he didn’t seem quite sane to me, so I don’t know how much his opinions are official. He said something like “the Pope has implicitly excommunicated himself by...” I don’t remember what exactly was the reason, but probably because of the alleged heresy.
(Makes some sense to me. I mean, if you are serious about a religion and serious about the religious hierarchy, because you believe that the bishops are literally the messengers of God and the whole Church is the God’s living body on Earth, or something like this, then… being a heretic, not being a Pope, but still pretending to be a Pope… that seems like an insanely serious offence. It’s a religious equivalent of falsely pretending to be a King.)
That’s just sickening. Also, it’s a list of attitudes, ways to manipulate your lover into being obsessed with you, mostly by exploiting the addictive effect of “unreliable reward”.
I’m surprised that as a “longtime PUA student” you haven’t come across that before, and even more surprised that you’d describe it like that, unless you recently had a huge change of heart regarding PUA/game stuff.
Regardless of ethics, I think something like what I linked would work better for most people (for creating a good, hurt-free relationship) than an overly-complicated fault tree analysis. (I’m still confused about the practicality of such a tree, can you give a small example?)
I already did; look at the whole thread.
And my change of heart over PUA was a long and painful disillusion after the original discovery. I’m not a Pachinko machine; if I have to keep my partner addicted, obsessed, and insecure, it hurts me. When I have to refrain from showering my beloved with affection and kindness, it tears me apart. The kind of shit PUA suggest is something I am incapable of doing with someone I truly care about. And as for someone I don’t care about, those do not make it to my bed. I only f—k when I I give a f—k. I tried the alternative, and it found it disgusting and hollow.
You should note that PUA does not advocate this, at least not necessarily. There is an extremely broad spectrum between “trying to keep your partner insecure and obsessed with you” and “boring them to death until they up and leave you for someone else”. Many of the posts on Chateau Heartiste seem to be written in an over-the-top way for the sake of stirring up controversy; he is far from being representative of all of seduction/‘PUA’.
All I ever see of PUA is around this tone. The art as it is commonly understood and practised is a method to pick up chicks and get laid, not an ethos to build satisfying, durable relationships. If you compare it to actual martial arts, I see a lot of Krav Maga and very little Aikido.
There are probably some parts you have missed.
Also, remember the Sturgeon’s law.
That sounds great, I’ll give it a good look. And Sturgeon’s Law applies to literary genres; if it applies to socio-political movements, then we have a problem. We certainly can’t judge, say, the Catholic Church or the Objectivist movement by their 1% of most virtuous fellows.
If you ask an average Catholic to to explain you some things about their religion, and if you ask a Pope, you will find a lot of differences. You may also find Catholic theologists saing that Pope is actually not a Catholic.
This is not merely a criticism of Catholicism… this is what happens when you have a sufficiently large movement. It happens to other religions, it happens to policial movements, it happens everywhere. I guess even Ayn Rand couldn’t prevent it. This is what humans do.
We might ask what is the true Catholicism? But that’s assuming that words have a meaning on their own, instead of merely being labels attached to meanings, inconsistently by different people. If you would look at people’s beliefs as points in the belief-space, you could empirically find a few clusters: there would be current version of the official belief (or a few competing versions) that only educated theologists know, schisms and heresies, various kinds of folk interpretations, etc. That’s the territory. It’s your choice whether you apply the label “true Catholicism” to the opinion of the current Pope, or to the most popular folk version. Either way, someone will insist that you are using the label incorrectly.
I believe this is a source of many hopeless arguments about politics. For any political label X, you get many people self-identifying as X, with many different beliefs, sometimes contradictory. Now are the “true X” the most educated of them, or the most numerous ones, or those most visible in media? How about those who are very educated, but controversial within the group; how much weight to we assign to their opinions? How about those who try to follow their leaders, but misunderstand what the leaders are trying to say; is their true belief what the leaders believe, or the most frequent misinterpretation of the leaders? -- And in real life, most people will use “what most of my neighbors who self-identify as X seem to say”, which is a different answer for different people.
Should alchemists be considered part of the same group as chemists? Today most of us would say “no”, but what if we lived when chemistry was new? Etc.
Sedevacationists believe that the Pope is a heretic. Is that the same thing as not being a Catholic?
I am not a theologist, and I only met one Sedevacationist in an internet forum and he didn’t seem quite sane to me, so I don’t know how much his opinions are official. He said something like “the Pope has implicitly excommunicated himself by...” I don’t remember what exactly was the reason, but probably because of the alleged heresy.
(Makes some sense to me. I mean, if you are serious about a religion and serious about the religious hierarchy, because you believe that the bishops are literally the messengers of God and the whole Church is the God’s living body on Earth, or something like this, then… being a heretic, not being a Pope, but still pretending to be a Pope… that seems like an insanely serious offence. It’s a religious equivalent of falsely pretending to be a King.)
I’ve read the thread. I mean an example of one of the trees, drawn out in whatever software that is.