halibetlector said:

I saw this today, and immediately remembered that you were banned from Roosh’s forums for advocating exactly what he’s enforcing now.
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bx0HjkEh_fC/

I suppose it’s better late than never, but he did cause a lot of damage before his recent conversion.

I still struggle to understand people. There are a few newly coined words, which are new useful memes. One is “normie”. Another is NPC, or non-player-character. Another has to do with confusing role play for real life due to social ineptness, I think… I forget the name of that one. (Update: LARP)

I’ve heard that there are biological big reasons that separate the highly creative from the normies. There seems to be classes or castes of humans, who have a very difficult time imagining what it could be like to have the others experiences.

I can’t wrap my mind around the attitude of following that is so prevalent on the RVF.

How they not only put up with the heavy moderation, but embrace it, and, here is the crazy part, how so many so easily flip flop right along in lock step with the leader.

I’ve never been any sort of follower. That sometimes doesn’t work out well in the short term, as I’m less socially agreeable, if being agreeable means accepting conventions and norms.

But the dark side of being overly agreeable seems to me a highly dangerous state of affairs. As exemplified in the group-mind think we see on college campuses.

Roosh kept banning and banning and getting more famous so he could replenish the forum users, and seems to have cultivated a group of extreme followers.  Extreme followers are like Non-Player-Characters, incapable of independent thought, willing to be programmed and reprogrammed as long as they get to claim social status and in-group expertise.  They don’t have the confidence to go against their group, because that means to them a loss of social standing.

It’s ironic that NPCs often consider themselves as social reformers, or as anti-establishment.  The bulk of people who consider themselves as anti-establishment are hyper conformist.  They merely conform to their own insular isolated clique.

As for his turn to “God” (I put it in quotes because it will be a personal subjective experience, not a turn to a “thing” that we can know what he is experiencing), I’m of mixed opinion.

As a guy with a long and deep history of contemplative study from a mostly Buddhist background, I tend to be snobby toward theistic approaches that emphasize dogma. It’s too easy, too certain, and too busybody. Also lacks the transformative tools required for great change – deconstruction and meditation for example. On the other hand, I have no idea what’s his subjective interpretation or personal path. Maybe that particular baby and bathwater is better than his last baby and bathwater. He talks about it as a type of evolutionary journey, so, that sounds positive.

And while his new approach does cut off some of the sickness, it also cuts off some of the insight.

I prefer a transcend and include attitude. Being so polar and extreme is not conducive to wisdom, in my opinion.

But for him, and how his mind works, it may be a better option.

Here’s the thing. Roosh leans cluster A paranoid schizoid. This means that he is not able to process some of his own emotions, and will deny them or project them out, sometimes as a twisted version.

So before he would deny any desire for intimacy. Then project out all sorts of reasons why he was denying his own desire for intimacy onto ills of society and women.

So his brain simply has a terribly difficult time knowing what his brain is thinking and feeling. That’s biological and hard wired, and that’s the hardware he’s working with.

What is the best software for that hardware?

He seems to think he’s found a better software.

That would not be the software optimal for how my brain works. I’m highly sensitive to my emotions and near constantly in a dance of mutual respect with aspects of my self some call the “subconscious”. I have a high tolerance for ambiguity and have learned to stare at death while still choosing to create meaning.

I’ve long had faith that in the long run, truth is the way to go. Roosh has decided that “the black pill” is too nihilistic, and he can’t psychologically handle all that despair. He is turning to a ready made constructed meaning to retreat from the truth of death.

I’ve found that you can stare death down, over and over, and that you wind up being able to create meaning still. You just choose love, because why not? Just because love is meaningless, doesn’t mean it has to be meaningless TO YOU. You can simply choose it to be meaningful. Create your own families. Contemplate and choose your own morals. They probably will wind up being very close to the common sense morals we were evolved to have, because we are evolved for those morals to make us feel the most content.

If you can hold more and more facts together in a coherent way, that is the direction of truth.

Religion often decides that truth gets in the way of contentment.

But some of us have a high tolerance for ambiguity and can stare nihilism down, and AT THE SAME TIME create meaning. We don’t have to run from death first. Don’t have to invent sky fairies first.

In my thirties I visited the Denver art museum and was very dissapointed. I had a disagreement with my date as to the exibits. They were all about deconstruction. She found them insightful. I found it amazing that people still considered deconstruction so relevant. That’s old hat. Of course as a Buddhist, to me, with years of rigorous training in deconstruction, it was old hat.

Deconstruction is simply a childs (or twenty-ager’s) new trick. The interesting work comes AFTER deconstruction. It’s construction. It’s MAKING beauty and art and love and worlds.

I consider it very lazy though, to not even bother with deconstruction, and to instead simply adopt dogmatic worlds. That is not insightful, and can be very damaging and harmful when contexts change and your dogma can’t keep up.

Update:  For a cluster A personality, religion will also be used in the service of denying their own emotions.  For example a person will look around and point at all the sin in the world, instead of embracing their own lust as a natural part of their humanity.  It must be quite frustrating and challenging to be so at odds with ones varied motivations.

So the pendulum swing from being a player who denies his own intimacy needs to being a religious man aiming for monogamous marriage is only a pendulum swing on the outside.  On the inside it’s still business as usual.

It’s been said that the core of Buddhist teaching is to “unify your mind”.  Another way to put that is to simply make friends with yourself.  Another way to put that is to be the opposite of cluster A.

Update: As for Owen Benjamin’s comment.  I laud standing up for your own opinion, and putting it out there.  That’s manly, and takes balls.  No waffling.  But that comment does show a limited theory of mind about what a man is.  “A dude becomes a man when he stops trying to please women and starts trying to please a woman.”

Some renowned Buddhist teachers claimed that enlightenment was impossible without tantric sex practice and relationship devotion practice, and some proclaimed that their main practice was tantric sex and devotion.*  A main consort is usually named.  In my own life, I do use relationships as a way to amplify and embody and work with what are key Buddhist practices, including compassion, and chi-kung.

So from that perspective I like what Owen is saying.  There is a lot of personal development that happens in the context of being with a woman, and for many if not most of us can ONLY happen in that context.

I think he’s not being generous to non-monogamous guys though.  With some good reason, but it’s still slightly arrogant.  Some non-monogamous guys are also open hearted and doing good work, and are intimate.

I’m not aware of monogamy being any part of Buddhist practice.  Traditionally it’s more the opposite, where Tantric sex is concerned.  More of not an issue, actually.

* I found that info somewhere on one of David Chapmans’s sites.  Probably this one https://vividness.live. I consider him to be one of the essential intellectuals to study for a rounded education, who has made profoundly important contributions to human understanding.

Update: Psychology and psychotherapy is often an inbred self-referential and muddled discipline.  But they do some useful studies, have some useful memes, and overall progress is made.  I expect the field to integrate more with neuro-biology and other sciences.  Lots of chaffe, but also lots of wheat.  Here is an interesting quote about Schizoid personality disorder: “”Only schizoid patients”, suggests Klein, “who have worked through the abandonment depression … ultimately will believe that the capacity for relatedness and the wish for relatedness are woven into the structure of their beings, that they are truly part of who the patients are and what they contain as human beings.”  However SPD has an inherited genetic component also, so this narrative therapy may be incomplete and one sided.  Another way to look at therapy might involve strengthening the underused self-evaluative and emotional richness wiring with positive actions, instead of delving directly into a barrier of pain that prevents self evaluation.  For example chi-kung, meditation, yoga, musical improvisation, devotional relationships, etc.  Dismantling the “false self” doesn’t have to be a sudden deep dive into a dark night of the soul.  It can be a gradual process of maturation.