Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well despite the fact that I'm not religious many of the philosophical questions I grapple with are theological in nature and the thought experiments in questioning God AS IF he did exist are worth asking. For what purpose would a perfect God create an imperfect universe, is free will worth evil. And so Christian existentialists like Pascal, Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky have greatly influence my thinking.
Kierkegaard incidentally wrote Diary of a Seducer based on Don Juan and Casanova. He saw the seducer as the prototype of the aesthetic stage of life. Chasing beautiful girls becomes an end itself, an art form. The problem is that once you have progressed to ethical life, or religion it becomes impossible to slide back down to aesthetic life without Sartrean bad faith. The aesthetic man is not unethical, in the sense that that category does not even apply to him. He is in a Nietzschean way beyond good and evil. But an ethical man who embraces the aesthetic life is not aesthetic he is a fallen ethical man. And there is a big difference.
Kierkegaard ironically played a role in my one attempt at sarging. My wing had this PUA math magic trick. And the girl he tried it on had read the Game and knew all about PUA and called us out on it. She said I don't think drunk sluts at bars are going to be able to do math. She happened to be an artsy-type lesbian with a nose ring. It turned out she was a philosophy major and I said "you know Kierkegaard wrote a lot about seduction", to which she responded "didn't he commit suicide?".
I think the transition to sargining could have been made back in high school from being a military buff to embracing the strategy and tactics of sarging. I was a quiet kid in elementary school and had a chance to reinvent myself as wild and crazy when I moved to a new town in middle school. I actually had popular attractive girls literally chasing me, calling me cute saying they liked me. And I had some playful flirting with the popular girls all throughout middle and high school. Although I realized that they were just joking playing around with me, and didn't actually like me. I value humor so I didn't mind it, but I knew better than to make a fool out of myself by taking their comedy act seriously. The self-help guru's mantras have a grain of truth in the sense that my delusional overinflated ego and confidence with no basis in reality, led to some genuine accomplishments I was elected to student government, nominated for homecoming king, briefly held the benchpress record, and played football, wrestling and swimming (although I sucked at sports). Throughout high school I wavered between aesthetic and ethical life. I regarded girls as a distraction from the "mission" although I delusionaly believed I could have any girl I wanted if I chose to pursue that path. In college it became impossible to waiver and I embraced a rather uptight puritanism. But as I studied philosophy I came to see truth in Hegel's concrete ethics as opposed to Kant's abstraction. Ethics governed by the actual society you live in.
Hegel writes: "The fact that I must direct my conduct by reference to others introduces here the form of universality. It is from others that I acquire the means of satisfaction and I must accordingly accept their views. At the same time, however, I am compelled to produce means for the satisfaction of others. We play into each other’s hands and so hang together. To this extent everything private becomes something social. In dress fashions and hours of meals, there are certain conventions which we have to accept because in these things it is not worth the trouble to I insist on displaying one’s own discernment. The wisest thing here is to do as others do."
In that sense conformity and peer pressure are actually the highest representations of freedom. The difference between the individuality of a citizen and a rebellious teenager. Hegel says the real is rational. So I made a rather intense study of popular culture. I was interested in studying the way in which pop culture expresses the values and duties of our society. In that sense the highest duty and virtue was to pursue PUA sarging. But it was very hard to truly embrace that life with good faith. It is just as impossible to travel back in time intellectually as it is physically. In some sense I maintained my semi-religious ethical views while realizing that they were not grounded in biological man as he actually was. In a sense my pessimism derives from having Christianity without Jesus.
Well the inclinations that come naturally to everyone in our society (eg wanting to get laid), don't really drive me. So what is first nature to everyone else, has to be made a rational argument to me, and so I see PUA as sort of a Hegelian duty as opposed to others who feel it internally. I suppose it was necessary that all spiritual illusions be blown away before I could truly see the world biologically.
I look back and regret that I read the Don Juan manual back in 2004, and just concluded that I was already using its tactics naturally since I "played hard to get". Development is evolutionary, which is why "confidence" and "alphaness" is the sum total of life experiences and not just an attitude you can decide to have. In that sense the lost time 2004-2010 is a shame. But I think theres an analogy with the football team. I SUCKED at football. Most boys play street sports and some organized sports from the age of 7 till college. I never played any sports outside gym till 10th grade. I was on the football field a grand total of 3 times, the 2 years I was on the team. And yet I consider my lackluster athletic career one of my greatest achievements. It was a case of the will determining destiny over nature. So PUA is a lot less secret than it was in 2004. But if PUA has one show on VH1, sports has 20 whole stations. So PUA is a much bigger "secret" than football ever was. And anyway the basics of PUA aren't new. Jerks get girls, nice guys finish last has been a mantra for the last 3000 years. In that sense I was far more backward in sports than I'm in PUA. I made 2 weak attempts to join school teams in middle school and quit both times. I spent 2 years of high school letting my body turn to sloth. I could have just said look at all those wasted years, why bother with sports? So I made one weak attempt at sarging 2 years ago. While not successful, it was kind of fun doing improv. In some sense the PUA team is the same thing as the football team. A group of guys organized and practicing for 2 hours every night after school. And I may suck just as much as PUA as I did at football, but the team could become an end in-itself. And like HS football its a team with no tryouts and no cuts, open to all who want to play.
While I might not naturally be inclined towards the values of 2010 US pop culture, as Spinoza said "freedom is recognition of necessity".
My life is kind of a mess right now, since I kind of took a scorched earth policy to wreck my own life, to make sure I couldn't chicken out from nihilist apathy. But I think for too long I've put the cart before the horse. That I've got to solve everything physically through exercise and social success will follow, as opposed to pursuing social success even if not at full-attractiveness as the most powerful motivation for exercise. And there are ways to "fake" attractiveness, while no way to fake strength.
I guess the other thing is my career prospects which look bleek. But I guess I regret I didn't major in something like business or computer science. But the idea that I could force myself to love math is a fantasy/ Wishing to love, and loving are not the same thing. If I couldn't force myself to love working out after 10 years, I will NEVER love math no matter how much I say its the realization of reason and logic. Despite what I may wish I liked, theres nothing I hate more than math. Which means theres pretty much nothing harder to convince me to love. It would in fact be far easier to convince myself that working a grill at McDonalds was the true realization of human freedom and destiny and the authentic human life.
By the end of your post (which, as an INTJ, I forced myself to read) I was ready to bang my head on a brick wall.
The way you think, the way you write and the way your mind works, I think you can pretty much forget ever having any success as a "pick-up artist". Talk about trying to cram a square peg into a round hole!
Envisioning you trying to master the art of picking up women is like trying to envision my cat making me coffee in the morning. I can wish, hope and dream, but it ain't gonna happen
You're too brainy for such a lowly approach.
Join MENSA, check out typelogic.com . . . or something. You are an unconventional guy and need an unconventional approach.
By the end of your post (which, as an INTJ, I forced myself to read) I was ready to bang my head on a brick wall.
The way you think, the way you write and the way your mind works, I think you can pretty much forget ever having any success as a "pick-up artist". Talk about trying to cram a square peg into a round hole!
Envisioning you trying to master the art of picking up women is like trying to envision my cat making me coffee in the morning. I can wish, hope and dream, but it ain't gonna happen
You're too brainy for such a lowly approach.
Join MENSA, check out typelogic.com . . . or something. You are an unconventional guy and need an unconventional approach.
Well in some sense the PUA mechanistic model is well suited for someone who pursues sarging not out of any innate drive, but out of a rational understanding.
You're too long winded. The successful PUA is typically good looking with little to say. That way women will believe that he is anything they want him to be.
They get what they want and he gets what he wants.
Well in some sense the PUA mechanistic model is well suited for someone who pursues sarging not out of any innate drive, but out of a rational understanding.
Perhaps. But you don't seem the type that would be attracted to the type of woman that would fall for the PUA crap. Most intelligent women spot it a mile off. (1.6 km off in some countries) You obviously have a brain. Why would you want to hook up with someone who is stupid enough to fall for the PUA mechanistic model in the first place?
You said that the "inclinations that come naturally to everyone in our society (eg wanting to get laid), don't really drive me."
Succesful people don't try to use big words and psycho babble to try to make themselves look clever.
You do of course realise that spouting such nonsense is going to instantly alienate much of the population ?
Most girls are just gonna look at you and say "huh ?"
Then, as you walk away with your tail between your legs, you may hear giggling, and words such as "dork", "geek", or "loser".
In fact, your quasi-intellectual friends may relate to you tales of the girls making the shape of an "L" against their foreheads with their thumbs and forefingers.
you wanna be succesful ?
Keep it simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by enamdar
Well in some sense the PUA mechanistic model is well suited for someone who pursues sarging not out of any innate drive, but out of a rational understanding.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
