Books with life-changing qualities

comelately

Wild Horses
I probably should have said 'post-modern' not 'post-feminist' world because that's probably more accurate.

I was at said 'Path 2' evening last night - small affair in upstairs room. A longtime friend (and male social alpha within that group) beckoned the organiser lady (who he knows well, and I know a bit - she used to date a Path 2 guy but the man she lives with now is pretty Path 1) and said re: her dress - "Why have you come out in your dressing gown?". The girl goes into her 'I've been negged' smile and says 'you're mean' to my friend. I was shocked and told him as much, we kinda laughed it off and moved on. But maybe I was wrong to be shocked. Maybe Path 2 guys enjoy negging and that's why they end up overemphasising it in their pick-ups. I dunno, I just thought it was interesting.

The pick-up community needs to have some 'skeezy dudes' in it pretty much by necessity - they impress certain types of wannabe-PUA and often make convinving 'instructors'. For example, Owen 'Tyler Durden' Cook from The Game (who probably is some sort of megalomaniac, but is clearly very intelligent with regards to social dynamics) has a long-term girlfriend and although he does go out 'in the field', he has people instructors like Tim (whose 'you can be my girlfriend for the next 5 minutes' routine makes me ill) and Ossie (RSD's London instructor, clearly quite skeezy).

The other thing about the 'skeezy dudes' is that they do often seem to really want to help those less 'naturally blessed' in this department. I remember talking to a MM instructor about a PUA called 'Toecutter' who would run a cold-read palm-reading routine which *always* ended up with some line indicating that 'they're fertile' - he boasted that this would and did give infertile girls short-term hope if nothing else. I thought this was completely over the line. The MM guy agreed (though I'm not sure wholeheartedly I grant you), but said that Toecutter probably does more to help newbies out than any other mPUA he knew.

In my own life, I did use some 'comfort-building' questions that I took from a msgboard - it instructed you to be 'really interested' in the answers. Now this post came from a 'skeezy dude' who, according to mutual friends, probably does have some women issues. But his advice helped me without turning me into another skeezy dude. I'm not absolving them of their skeeziness merely rejecting the notion that the community turnhs nerds into cookie-cutter skeezy dudes, like somehow every guy who goes to a personal trainer will become a meathead bodybuilder or everyone who goes to a yoga class will end up renouncing everything and going to India.

I can see why people see the bromance as funny and ironic, but I met some good friends in that community who are often a bit more straightforward and genuine than some of my Path 2 friends - whose flippant bar-culture and status games (I'm talking about this circle in question) seems very strange to me, and I'm not really willing to play if there's no 'prize' for winning whatever that says about me. I didn't go much myself, but I know during the Summer there's one PUA/actor type who runs 'Improv' classes for wannabe-PUAs to just learn to 'riff' with eachother. And they were a lot of fun and it's only natural that people will bond.

I agree that there is a valid critique to be made with regards to manipulation. The grey areas are massive but yes some people in the community step over the lines. I guess what I'm saying is that you don't get to understand the community by looking merely at the so-called 'top guys'. Most people do not want to be that manipulative, so they'll take what they can use and that's *perfect*. If anything, the community is financed by rich people who will take bootcamps and not really put the 'practice' in - young newbs can certainly get a lot of free help in London from the community. Infact not just young, some old guy who lives in a tent in one of the Royal Parks (who had only ever paid for it) invaded the community and he was beyind terrible, stank etc - I think I was one of the first to encounter him but he quickly became legendary. Practically every London-based PUA offered to help him, I know that "AFC_Adam" spent several days with the guy. From what I understand, it was very much two steps forward, one step back but he certainly became a better conversationalist if nothing else.

While I think seeing pick-up as a spiritual quest is just questionable (and the period after the release of '300' was excruciating), you do find out a lot about yourself, and other people, 'in the field'. I believe Plato said that you find out more about a person in a hour of play than in a year of conversation, and so for those who have little recent experience of 'playing' the whole thing can be pretty mind-blowing. A lot of puas end up going on Vipassana Meditation retreats, doing lots of Martial Arts/Yoga. My thing is 5 Rhythms (as in 'Rainbow Rhythms' from Peep Show yes). It's probably because we get quite attached to this sense of 'mind-blowedness' that we found in the field - so I suppose it is akin to a spiritual experience, like a good gig or a good club-night can be. Also, in order for some dweeb loser to truly learn to love and respect women, he's going to have to meet and talk to a few *first*. In an ideal world, the 'pick-up fairy' would leave a new pair of shoes underneath the bed of the poor girls who have to suffer a lame approach from some guy who has no real clue what's he's doing or why he's doing it. Maybe there should be a greater emphasis on 'remedial work' before you actually go and put yourself out there. But I'm not convinced that much damage is being done and I'm pretty convinced that overall the community greatly adds to the sum of human happiness and is a progressive force in terms of deveoping understanding, interconnection and, yes, love.

Hmmm, what was I responding to again? If anyone has anything paticular they want me to respond to, please remind me and I will do so. One final point - although PUA 'terminology' does have its problems and consequences, I think the fact we ended up creating our own short-hand in this thread tells you that this terminology (HBs, AMOGs etc) wasn't just created for the fun of it.
 
Last edited:

zhao

there are no accidents
hang on a sec, is this path 1 and 2 stuff accepted terminology? i thought whatshisname made it up 2 pages ago.

i started chatting up this Czech girl last night at a party but quickly lost interest and just walked away. she hung about me and my friends for the next 10 minutes or so i think hoping to restart the conversation... what is that called?
 

comelately

Wild Horses
hang on a sec, is this path 1 and 2 stuff accepted terminology? i thought whatshisname made it up 2 pages ago.

Yeah he just made it up - it's not accepted. That said, I can definitely see scope for a Dissesnsus 'Enter the Path 1 World' bootcamp, followed by a "Bring your new skillz back to Path 2" bootcamp.

i started chatting up this Czech girl last night at a party but quickly lost interest and just walked away. she hung about me and my friends for the next 10 minutes or so i think hoping to restart the conversation... what is that called?

It just falls into the general concept of 'proximity'.

http://www.pualingo.com/2008/12/proximityproximity-alert-system/

Also worth checking the next entry:

http://www.pualingo.com/2009/02/pseudo-seeker-ps/

A guy called Jeremy aka Soul is one of the top MM instructors - he used to live in London and I met him a few times. Once was at a little pua discussion of Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj's 'I am That', I think afterwards he went to a dance class. I'm not saying that necessarily makes him an incredibly deep or incredible person, I'm just saying.
 
Last edited:

subvert47

I don't fight, I run away
so this nice thread has descended into a critique of The Game and PUAs :eek:

maybe some mod should split these posts off?

as for the book itself, I found it a very entertaining read, despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that almost everyone in it comes across as a total jerk — with the possible exception of Courtney Love
 

Tentative Andy

I'm in the Meal Deal
Everybody knows that if you really wanna score with hot girls, you gotta read Lacan.

zizek-wedding-photo.jpg

Zizek doesn't exactly look happy about his bride does he? :slanted:
The white suit with rose is a big look though.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
I don't get the fuss about Mrs. Zizek pictured above - to me she looks sort of like a pre-Raphaelite foetus.
 

martin

----
Er...if the PUA community wants to start devising strategies around the concept of 'paths', cool, my ego's stoked to bits, but I was pissing about when I posted that. Just thought I'd warn you, in case you don't get a shag out of it.
 
D

droid

Guest
...

The Power Of Pain

In his book, The Art Of Seduction, Robert Greene outlines a strategy for conquering romantic “targets”:

“The greatest mistake in seduction is being too nice. At first, perhaps, your kindness is charming, but it soon grows monotonous; you are trying too hard to please, and seem insecure. Instead of overwhelming your targets with niceness, try inflicting some pain. Lure them in with focused attention, then change direction, appearing suddenly uninterested. Make them feel guilty and insecure. Even instigate a break-up, subjecting them to an emptiness and pain that will give you room to manoeuvre.” (Greene, The Concise Art Of Seduction, Profile Books, 2003, p.167)

It is no secret that “emptiness and pain” can provoke desire. A key theme of advertising is the manufacture and exploitation of shame. If our hearts can be made to sink at the thought of our sagging bellies, our “Here comes pizza face!” complexion (the words were used in an actual advert), our personal hygiene - “Could you be cleaner?” - we can easily be made to crave the proposed solution.

In sexual, consumer, and political seduction it is crucial that the true intent be camouflaged. Greene explains that we should use "spiritual lures":

“Play up your divine qualities; affect an air of discontent with worldly things; speak of the stars, destiny, the hidden threads that unite you and the object of the seduction. Lost in a spiritual mist, the target will feel light and uninhibited.” (Ibid., p.161)

This also describes the art of political seduction - Clinton, Blair and Obama know all about these "lures".

Greene's strategy of seduction is doubtless successful within its own terms. The method is simple: on meeting an attractive woman, say, for the first time, one should direct a focused beam of flattering conversation, smiles and interest in her direction. She should be made to feel deeply interesting and welcome. One should then suddenly switch attention to some other person and ignore the first woman as if she had ceased to exist. The idea is that this sudden indifference will be experienced as a wounding loss - she will feel out in the cold - and this will create a needling urge to regain the lost attention. At this point, the “target” has begun to desire the seducer.

Alas, no matter how effective the strategy, relationships rooted in manipulation and pain must ultimately suffer the fate of all pleasure-based activities - boredom. If discomfort and its relief (pleasure) are the main focus, then the relationship will quickly be revealed as empty and hollow.

Moreover, the use of pain to manipulate desire and control will surely generate resentment. The Indian mystic Osho commented:

“There is constant fight between lovers and the reason is that you cannot forgive the lover because you know you are dependent on him or her. How can you forgive your slavery? You know your woman makes you happy, but if she decides not to make you happy... then? Then suddenly you are unhappy. Your happiness is in her hands and her happiness is in your hands. Whenever somebody else controls your happiness, you cannot forgive them.” (Osho, The Buddha Said..., Watkins, 2007, p.292)

Greene’s strategy comes as no surprise in a society that systematically treats human beings as means serving “higher” ends. It is a matter of legal fact that corporations the world over are obliged to prioritise shareholder profits above all other issues, including human and animal welfare - the reduction of pain is not allowed to impede the maximisation of profits. Anyone who thinks we live in a free society based on humanist values should try suggesting, in a business environment, that these priorities be reversed, and observe the reaction.

The exploitation of human “targets” for self-gratification is not particularly extreme by our society’s standards...
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
no no, i meant that her personality is beautiful, is what i meant, obviously.

But the concept of a 'beautiful personality' is an invention of Capital's cult-of-the-cosmetic, an internalisation of sublimated Freudian ideals forever seeking the - unobtainable, of course - approval of the Big Other.

Obviously.
 

zhao

there are no accidents
nice article. here is the second part:

By contrast, in his classic work The Art of Loving, Erich Fromm defined a loving relationship as one based on “care, responsibility, respect and knowledge”. We care for someone by responding to their needs based on our understanding of, and respect for, them as unique individuals. Fromm wrote:

“In the most general way, the active character of love can be described by stating that love is primarily +giving+, not receiving.” (Fromm, The Art Of Loving, Thorsons, 1995, pp.17-18)

Although in our corporate culture we are trained to believe that receiving is far preferable to giving - the assumption underlying Greene’s approach - this is badly mistaken. Fromm wrote:

“Giving is the highest expression of potency. In the very act of giving, I experience my strength, my wealth, my power. This experience of heightened vitality and potency fills me with joy. I experience myself as overflowing, spending, alive, hence as joyous. Giving is more joyous than receiving, not because it is a deprivation, but because in the act of giving lies the expression of my aliveness.” (Ibid., p.18)

What exactly is given in this sense?

“He gives of himself, of the most precious he has, he gives of his life... he gives him of that which is alive in him: he gives him of his joy, of his interest, of his understanding, of his knowledge, of his humour, of his sadness - of all expressions and manifestations of that which is alive in him. In thus giving of his life, he enriches the other person, he enhances the other‘s sense of aliveness by enhancing his own sense of aliveness. He does not give in order to receive; giving is in itself an exquisite joy.” (Ibid., p.19)

Greene writes that “The greatest mistake in seduction is being too nice.” This is correct, if we accept the standard misuse of language. Greene is in fact referring to greed +posing+ as “nice” - giving to get. An infatuated teenager may well shower phone calls and gifts on his beloved. But this will very often be motivated by his concern for the happiness the girl can provide +him+. This is ‘generosity’ as investment, a form of trade, rather than giving motivated by concern for the happiness of the other person.

It is certainly true that “being too nice”, in this sense, is a mistake. Who would not feel aversion for self-centred manipulation masquerading as ‘love’? When we consider Fromm’s key characteristics of authentic love, we can see that this attention will often have nothing to do with generosity, care, responsibility, respect and knowledge. Our ardent teenager may not give a thought to any negative impacts he might be having.

On the other hand, Greene is wrong if he believes that it is a mistake to be too “nice” in the sense of giving out of generosity and kindness. To be genuinely loving is to desire the happiness of another person: to feel happy about their happiness, delighted by their delight, and distressed by their sadness. To be “nice” to someone, in this sense, is to give out of concern for their welfare. This obviously does not mean bombarding them with attention regardless of their feelings. The attention will respect their needs for peace and privacy, and will be non-possessive, rooted in the awareness that no-one enjoys being imprisoned, not even in the name of ‘love.’
 
D

droid

Guest
May as well post the rest of it so - or try the link in my above post for less confusion :)

...Equalising Self And Other

This is not to suggest that a loving person will be completely selfless. She will of course also be concerned with her own happiness. The point is that this will not all be one way - she will +also+ feel a genuine interest in making the other person happy, will feel happy about that prospect. In my opinion, few words are more beautiful or revolutionary than those spoken by the 8th century Buddhist sage Shantideva when he asked:

"Mine and other's pain - how are they different?
Simply, then, since pain is pain, I will dispel it.
What grounds have you for all your strong distinctions?" (Shantideva, The Way Of The Bodhisattva, Shambhala, 1997, p.124)

The last line resonates across the centuries. To all the killers, torturers, racists, nationalists, religious fanatics, bigots and chauvinists, Shantideva asks: “What grounds have you for all your strong distinctions?" What is the basis for an Israeli feeling that the life of a Palestinian is worth so much less than the life of an Israeli (and vice versa)? What is the basis for the clear media presumption that the suffering of an impoverished, brown-skinned Iraqi is less important than the suffering of a wealthy, white New Yorker? It is nonsense: all happiness is equal. All suffering is equal. No person is more or less important than any other.

And this applies to ourselves in our personal relationships: what grounds do we have for thinking that our happiness is more important than our partner‘s happiness? I believe that if even a glimmer of recognition lights up in our hearts at the reasonableness of this question - though it involves taking the side of others +against+ our own self-interest - this is a wonderful moment in our lives. I believe we can transcend blinkered self-interest in the understanding that our happiness is not in fact more important than the happiness of others. We can come to see that this is simply crude prejudice. We can actually come to take the side of others against our own selfishness. Shantideva asks again:

“I indeed am happy, others sad;
I am high and mighty, others low;
I am helped while others are abandoned;
Why am I not jealous of myself?” (Ibid., p.133)

When I know others suffer as I do, when I know my happiness is no more important than theirs, how can I simply revel in my good fortune? How can I not feel aggrieved on their behalf?

When we accept and act on Shantideva’s premise, we can treat people with the same care, responsibility, respect and knowledge that we rightly afford ourselves. It is not that we treat ourselves with contempt - the important thing is to equalise our concern for self and others:

“Just as I defend myself
From all unpleasant happenings, however small,
Likewise I shall act for others’ sake
To guard and shield them with compassion.” (Ibid., p.125)

An interesting question arises. How do others respond when we place their happiness on a par with our own? What happens when we reject Greene’s strategy of maintaining interest through pain? What happens when we devote ourselves to making the other person happy? Do we become sorry doormats - the victim of every rampant ego?

This, in my view, is the second great wonder associated with the equalising of self with other. Our lives are full of difficulty, confusion and suffering - we are all seeking answers to the problems facing us. To find someone who genuinely cares for us - who feels happy when we are happy, who truly aspires to relieve our suffering - is an extraordinary boon. Most sane people treasure this human quality above all others. As the Ekottarika Agama noted so well:

“When you have found a true friend,
you have found the best thing in life
and life will no longer seem so evil.” (Hsing Yun, Being Good – Buddhist Ethics for Everyday Life, Weatherhill, 1999, p.103)

And this commitment to kindness creates the supreme foundation for mutual love. The 4th century Buddhist poet, Aryasura, wrote:

“For so it is that the brilliance of the virtuous [the authentically loving] attracts the peoples’ love as strongly as does their most beloved friend or relative - just as the smiling autumn moon in the heavens, showering its beams freely in all directions, wins the love of all.” (Aryasura, The Marvelous Companion, Dharma Publishing, 1983, p.333)

Our society gives us endless advice on how to become more loveable: get a clearer complexion, earn more, get smarter, dress better, tidy up the wrinkles, add a couple of inches to the penis. In truth, the best way is to equalise our concern for the happiness of self and other. Nothing is more loveable. His Holiness the Dalai Lama has commented:

“If you make yourself available to others, regarding them as of primary importance and trying to help them by all possible means, everyone will regard you as a friend and hold you dear in their hearts.” (The Dalai Lama, Awakening The Mind, Lightening The Heart, Thorsons, 1997, p.121)

And there are clear implications for the many quarrels that bedevil so many relationships, particularly those dominated by self-interest:

“Increasing like the moon, lovelier than moonglow, virtues [kindness, generosity, compassion] appease the ferocious, the jealous, the angry, and the proud - no matter how deeply their selfishness is rooted in hatred.” (Aryasura, op. cit. p.209)

A friend of mine, a Buddhist monk, told me of how he lived in a house with 50 other monks. Because they were all devotees of Shantideva‘s philosophy, each of the monks was genuinely focused on working for the happiness of the other 49 people in the house. My friend said it was a wonderful place to live and invited me to imagine the opposite scenario: where all 50 people were strongly devoted to making themselves happy with no regard for the other 49!

So many couples consist of two armoured egos waging a kind of trench warfare for their own happiness. But the war itself is a disaster and trenches are a miserable place to live. The tragedy of the metaphorical battle for the TV remote control is that, if the concern were reversed - if both desired the happiness of the other - the tiny loss of a particular TV programme would be offset by the huge benefits of a virtuous circle of kindness and happiness. In Tibetan Buddhism this is called “giving a hundred to gain a thousand”. The Buddha said:

“Victory over a thousand thousand enemies is not as valuable as victory over oneself.” (Hsing Yun, op. cit. p.14)

The rewards from any amount of selfish ‘victories’ are utterly trivial beside the triumph achieved in equalising self and other in our minds. If all couples fought for the happiness of the other, how different their lives would be.

As discussed, authentic kindness has the power to inspire love. To perceive another’s joy at our happiness is a transforming moment - we naturally feel inclined to return that love. Fromm wrote:

“... in giving he cannot help bringing something to life in the other person, and this which is brought to life reflects back to him; in truly giving, he cannot help receiving that which is given back to him. Giving implies to make the other person a giver also and they both share in the joy of what they have brought to life. In the act of giving something is born, and both persons involved are grateful for the life that is born for both of them. Specifically with regard to love this means: love is a power which produces love; impotence is the inability to produce love.” (Fromm, op. cit. pp.19-20)

It is easy to understand how there can be no more stable foundation for friendship than the shared awareness that both individuals are strongly committed to the happiness of the other. What room is there for jealousy, anger and resentment when we know that our friend or partner is deeply committed to making us happy? When we know he or she values our welfare as much as, perhaps even more than, his or her own happiness? Who inspires greater confidence in us than the person who truly believes that they gain more from kindness than from greedy self-indulgence?

As with so much that matters in human life, the issue revolves around where we locate the true source of happiness. Our answer cannot be faked: if we believe that self-interest delivers, that everything else is naïve wishful thinking, then that will certainly be reflected in our behaviour.

If this is what we believe, then we should attend more closely to how we actually feel when we prioritise ourselves over others. How do we feel when we win and others pay the price? How do others feel and react to us? And how do we feel in the moments when, in giving, we make someone else happy? How does this warmth, tenderness and joy compare to the chilly, diminishing return of self-interested pleasure-seeking?

The answers are clear, but only if we pay close attention to our reactions: to what is actually true as opposed to what we +imagine+ is true. This is particularly vital in our society, which never tires of persuading us that grabbing, getting, taking and receiving are everything. After all, what use does a corporate system have for the idea that kindness - which cannot be monopolised or bottled - is the key to happiness?
 

luka

Well-known member
im always baffled by this sort of thing. ive never read a book that came remotely close to changing my life. i forget them a couple of days after i finish them.

The Illuminations/A Season in Hell
The Duino Elegies
A Marriage of Heaven and Hell
Ubik/Valis
Thus Spake Zarathrustra/ Geneology of Moral/Beyond Good and Evil
The Underground Man
Burroughs Cut Up Period
Finnegans Wake
The Cantos
 
Top