The Logical and Emotional Models in Brief

[Illuminatus]

Hunger is a physiological response. It is not an emotional one however (which is a physiological response to values), although it may be accompanied with some sort of emotions depending on circumstance.

Ah, okay. I get "this" now. We are having a semantic debate here. That means we are quibbling over the words we are using rather than what we are actually attempting to describe.

The physiological response you describe, is the kind of responses I am talking about in the "emotional model". So re-read the post bearing that in mind.

That should have been obvious anyway, since I did explain that language arises as the bridge between the physiological response and its "meaning".

I specifically wrote all of that out in my definitions, which leads me to question whether you really read the post at all, or just skimmed it with your arguments already in mind.

A baby may feel hunger and cry

Physiological, as per my "emotional model".

but this is not the same as a man grieving over the loss of a family member.

Yes, and I covered why this is the case in the post.

In my model, family bonding can and does occur in the emotional model. With death of a family member, someone who has been imprinted in the emotional model suddenly needs to be erased. It represents a loss of security or resources at its most fundamental level. This loss can be felt and expressed without words.

In this case, the "meaning" is anything else you ascribe to this emotional event, such as "I feel guilty because my last words to him were 'You're such a twat'" and so forth. This is an attempt by the logical model to interpret the feelings because it needs to find some deeper meaning to things. When you recognize this, you are free to simply feel loss.

THIS is what I am hinting at in this thread.

The man doesn't feel woe because its programmed into him.

It's a response to "loss without hope of recovery". When there is hope of recovery, the response is not "loss", it is "anger" (as a motivation to attempt to recover it). So if someone steals your wallet, you feel anger because there is still hope of recovery. The emotional model does have a concept of "loss without hope of recovery" (death) as well, so you "know" when to feel loss as opposed to anger. Some people stay angry when someone dies because it hurts too much to accept the loss as unrecoverable and move to experience the emotion of loss. We see this pattern happening a lot, in many different types of situation.

There are serious implications for saying humans have innate characteristics which carry over to Determinism, an extremely negative philosophy, which is why I am attempting to show you what I think is flawed with your reasoning.

Ha. "Extremely negative". That's your conclusion, not mine.

I will end this with a simple example, which will play into the "determinism" theme much to your distaste, but which you will probably find hard to refute or ignore (which seems to be your primary motivation so far).

Let's imagine a scene with many different types of people at a party. If you watch as an impartial observer, with the volume turned off so you can't hear conversations (and misattribute meaning), then you WILL see the following happen:

- The biggest, tallest men will appear to dominate personal space over smaller people
- The prettiest girls will get the most attention
- The biggest, tallest and best looking men will be selected by the women
- The men who actually escalate sexually will be the ones who get laid
- Timid guys will stay in the corner or "wallflower" and not receive much attention
- And so forth.

Now in this situation, everyone in the scene had their own thousands of thoughts about what went on. Everybody ascribed their own meanings to every emotional event that happened. The big guys thought they really were the "coolest", and the prettiest girls might even have thought they had some advanced social abilities in order to court that much attention.

But the scene played out the same way we knew it would because it is based on innate emotional responses and these are by far a better predictor of outcomes. People think their thoughts matter, but to an observer, it can clearly be seen that their thoughts did not matter all that much and the outcomes were the same regardless of the meaning ascribed.

Deterministic? Yes. Pragmatic? Yes.

The problem in the seduction community is that people believe in metaphysical "levellers" such as "game". Reality however continually shows us that these are not the great levellers the marketing would have us believe. Things tend to play out aligned with innate human nature and drives. So thinking there is some way to work around the rules of the system is generally wishful at best.

Until people understand what goes on in their emotional models, they will not be able to change outcomes such as these. The timid guys will continue to be timid until they repair that response in their emotional model. This is what I am talking about, and this is what my current posts are here for -- to get people acquainted with their own emotional models to better understand their own behaviours and better understand how to change something if they want to. We know that thinking about an emotional issue never solves it, and my model is here to explain why (invalid ascriptions of meaning), and how to actually find out what's going on and experience it on an emotional level, without words, in order to create progress on the emotional level.

When you change the emotional model, all the meanings change anyway. If you're happy, your meanings change to support "why" you are happy ("I have X", "I am a good person" etc.). When you are sad, your meanings change to support that ("I'm such a loser" or "I lost X" etc.). The meanings really are fairly arbitrary and pointless, and my model is here to show people all of this.

Now if you don't like it or agree with it, that's fine, because it's just a model. And what you think is also just a model. You will never get to the "real thing", because the brain always has to build a model of what it's looking at. If you don't like this model, you can continue exploring your existing one or find something else completely. It doesn't much matter to me either way.

[ilrein]

I understand what you mean much clearer now. I did read your post carefully--I simply questioned you as specifically as possible to what I understood the best.

When I speak of Determinism, I am referring to it in the most abstract way possible, as simply you have no control over your life or future, no decision or plan of action is possible, everything is already fated. This philosophy assumes innate human behaviours and characteristics, and asserts that humans are not born Tabula Rasa. Are you surprised that I describe this as "extremely negative"?

How can you say that learning game does nothing to help "level"? If a timid man becomes confident, surely his impact at that party will be different. If he is honest with himself and his shortcomings and seeks to overcome them, and works to achieve that goal, then ultimately, he will. Not everyone will be born tall, or with large breasts. You can't change that (well, sort of). But you can work out, earn a rewarding career, develop close friendships, and have a good time at that party. You can't vouch for the motivations of others, but you can always vouch for your own.

Illuminatus, I like your end goal, I just don't know how to get there with your approach. What do you mean "create progress on the emotional level"? Can you define the difference between an emotional issue and a non emotional one? What is the difference between the stimuli/response chain and an "emotional model"? May you illustrate with a concrete example about an emotional issue, one with which thinking cannot solve, and how to find out what is actually going--without words--and create measurable progress?

[Illuminatus]

Okay.

First is to realize that the emotional model can develop tolerances to its own responses. You can test this in many ways. One way is to take a cold shower every day. The first time it is almost unbearable. You can barely convince yourself to actually get under the cold water to begin with, such is the fear. Then, when you're under, staying in there till it no longer feels cold is also extremely difficult, and it takes around 2 minutes.

However, by the tenth time you do it, you walk straight in with barely a second thought, and you stay until it feels warm, and that time is now reduced to something ridiculous like 10 seconds. You have developed tolerance to the emotional responses within your emotional model. You have become tempered by experience on a core emotional level.

I picked cold showers because it is not something you are likely to assign meaning to. I purposely picked something so arbitrary, so unconnected to one's own self-image, that the logical model will have minimal interference in the experiment.

The only point of this experiment is to show you that the most basic emotional responses (physiological processes) themselves can be learned to be tolerated via exposure, and that they have their own model within which tolerance and other "offsets" can be "remembered". There is no need for meaning or other devices of the logical model to be introduced in order to learn emotional tolerance for cold water.

Following on from this knowledge -- that emotional responses can be tempered via exposure -- we will then seek to apply this tempering/tolerance-learning process to specific emotional responses which currently bother or overwhelm us.

One of the key parts of becoming attractive to women, once we've done all the obvious stuff such as fixing our looks as best we can, is learning emotional stability while interacting with women. I talked more about emotional stability being a key "levelling" (i.e. non-looks, non-status etc.) trait here: Women do not actually know why they find you attractive

Developing stability within the emotional model therefore involves developing a tolerance for all the feelings of anxiety, jitteriness etc. that arise when interacting with women. When you nix those emotional responses out, you become a lot more attractive to women. Anyone with a lot of experience knows that experience itself makes you more attractive to women. What I am describing now is the way this works, and therefore how we can speed up "getting experience".

At the moment, it is canonical wisdom that you just have to approach thousands of women to eventually develop this "unshakeable" emotional state. I say that this is true. However, there are ways to speed this process up significantly -- by learning the principles of the process. This is what my post on logical/emotional models is here to reveal.

Let's do a thought experiment with a guy who is just starting his seduction career and has made a dozen or so approaches so far, who we'll call Newbie X. If we consider the amount of awareness in Newbie X's mind as being a finite resource, and we analyse where his awareness is placed before, during and after an approach, we will probably see that it is something like this:

Before: 95% awareness on assigning an "anxiety" meaning to his pre-approach arousal, and in coming up with ways to make himself approach; 5% awareness actually experiencing the stimulated state.
During: 80% awareness on "finding the right thing to say" (more meaning); 20% on correcting his posture, kino, and other micro-management; negligible awareness placed on actually experiencing his emotional responses while interacting with the woman.
After: 50% awareness on the euphoria from actually approaching; 10% awareness on thinking "That wasn't so bad!" (assigning meaning and hoping it sticks for next time, which it doesn't); 40% awareness on analysing his failure (assigning more meaning, almost all of which will be incorrect, despite seeming very convincing explanations at the time).

The main thing I have tried to highlight here is that the guy's awareness is typically on the meaning he assigns to all the emotional events he is going through before, during and after the approach. His awareness is not actually on the emotional/physiological process itself. If it was, he would develop an emotional tolerance for approaching very rapidly, as he does when he has his cold showers every morning. This is what I am getting at when I say faster progress can be made by guys on the emotional level, if they place more awareness into their feelings without getting distracted by meaning.

If the guy puts his awareness as close as possible to 100% on the emotional/physiological processes he experiences, while ignoring the meaning completely, he will develop this solid, unshakeable, highly-tempered emotional state far, far more quickly. If he isn't aware that he can do this, he's going to continue to collect his measly 10% emotional awareness on each approach, and it's going to take him a damn sight longer to develop that tolerance than if he had experienced the emotions 100%.

I remember even after 100 approaches when I was at university, I still had almost the exact same level of anxiety before, during and after the approach. It got no easier as it went along. My awareness was all wrapped up in thoughts, meaning, and other nonsense, and meanwhile I was not developing this tolerance at the emotional level.

Any student should be able to strip the "meaning" out of pickup and spend the next 10 approaches purely having an awareness of the emotions themselves, having full faith that this awareness will "temper" his emotional responses for next time. An additional benefit of this is that, by having his awareness on his emotional state during his interaction with the woman, he will intuitively know when and how to escalate sexually, whether what he is doing is "working", whether she is horny or not, and so forth, because your emotions tell you all of this if you listen to them. One common factor which unites every guy who becomes halfway decent with women is that they learn to pay attention to their emotions when deciding how and when to escalate. What I am suggesting here is, pay attention to and experience your emotions during the whole course of the approach, even when you're scared. Make your practice count 100% in this way.

Do you know a poster called TheCostOfSuccess (a.k.a Cosy)? He used to post on the old mASF, and was a master seducer. When I met up with him in real life, and saw he had zero approach anxiety (whereas I had it in bucketfuls despite a few years' experience), I asked him whether he had ever had any anxiety when approaching. He told me that when he first started out, he went to a club, and felt an incredible amount of fear before and during his first approach. After it was done, he literally ran outside the club to throw up. He said within a few approaches however he had become extremely tempered to his own emotional responses. He had come to know them through experiencing them completely, without judging them or assigning meaning to them.

To throw up from an emotional experience, in my opinion, requires a full experience of that emotion. In fact, the first time I chose to accept and experience my fear fully, at a house party, I also threw up, as documented in my book The End of Social Anxiety. Little did I know at the time, but this was actually the first step towards overcoming my anxiety. The mistake I had made in my early approaches at university was twofold: a) Fighting my own emotions instead of putting my awareness into them and allowing myself to be tempered by them through exposure, and b) Getting drunk enough so I did not have to feel my own emotions. It was a culture of avoidance, which does not allow a tolerance to be acquired. My emotions terrified me because I assigned so much meaning to them. I made them say so much about who I was, and what their consequences were, which was simply not true. Emotions can and should be meaningless. We don't need a story for every emotion. What we need is experience, tolerance, and non-judgment of emotion, leading to a tempered state.

Cosy, by the way, if you are not aware of him, is a martial arts master and meditator, who has taught himself many disciplines including seduction via this method of direct experience without need for meaning. If you read his old field reports, people used to become infuriated by him, because they were written entirely in subjective emotional language, and the nerds and egomaniacs on the forum wanted to know the meaning rather than the content of his emotional experience. People used to write "Was that a poem?" after each of his field reports because on the surface they seemed so bizarre. A loner, with no need to impress anyone, Cosy only cared about the emotional experience itself, and he was able to allow himself to be tempered by and learn from emotional experiences non-judgmentally. He sees the world in his own emotional contexts rather than trying to filter them through other people's predefined meanings. There is an interview I did with him here if you want to learn more about him: http://www.personalpowermeditation.c...costofsuccess/

[Sensation]

"The best familiar example is men whose approach to sex with their wives or girlfriends is to demand it, and to sulk or become accusatory and punitive when their partners do not comply. To all appearances, they think they have a God-given right to sex. If asked, they will say that they believe they have a perfect right to sex (as part of the commitment contract). In actuality, they feel no more entitled to have their sexual wishes met than does the man who “asks” for sex, panhandler style, or who requires his partner to enjoy sex equally, or who feels guilty about objectifying his partner."

Bernard Apfelbaum, PhD
Essay "On entitlement to feelings"

[Illuminatus]

"The best familiar example is men whose approach to sex with their wives or girlfriends is to demand it, and to sulk or become accusatory and punitive when their partners do not comply. To all appearances, they think they have a God-given right to sex. If asked, they will say that they believe they have a perfect right to sex (as part of the commitment contract). In actuality, they feel no more entitled to have their sexual wishes met than does the man who “asks” for sex, panhandler style, or who requires his partner to enjoy sex equally, or who feels guilty about objectifying his partner."

Bernard Apfelbaum, PhD
Essay "On entitlement to feelings"

This thread is quite long now -- to which part were you referring when considering the above quote?

Thanks

[Sensation]

Simply agreeing with you.
People have trouble accepting their feeling, and their feelings about feelings etc.
They are too quick to assign meanings and judgments to them (myself included).
Thanks for your recent writings. They have been illuminating.

[Don_Gabriel]

This technique he us talking about is explained in he book of Tantra ..written centuries ago.....People who are interested on this technique and 111 more....contact me ill gladly provide.....and to add to this thread.....

The biggest problem arises because of mind...we become so identified with our logic that we totally forget our whole bodies and even our spirit.....see one thing to understand clearly is that we are not humans having a spiritual experience....we are Spiritual Being Having a Human experience and we have been gifted with an intellect...(we are at the top of the food chain because of our ability to evolve and to grasp the world ..and surpass it to the point of creating more objects out of existing resources)..now to go back to to my bold stement we are spiritual beings having a human experience....my take on this..and pay very close attention....the first question to be asked...if i can observe my thought , my logic my feelings and emotions..then who am i?..am i my body ....my head...my logic....these things are just part of the seer....the soul...they just part of the borrowed conciousness of the universe...

...whoever the onlooker is behind those eyes of yours ...that is who you....ARE...(have you ever thought about this...hahah

.and why do i point this out....because this seer this soul has the ability to make any reality happen words are part of logic and in themselves they do not mean anything.....to put it bluntly it is the emotion that you put in the sounds you make that make feelings happen not words....

[Don_Gabriel]

Emotion in my representation then comes from your SOUL....not logic....and in it by itself can tell you exactly what to do..you need only listen to it....loose mind..loose body..and try to find your SOUL..Easy....hahhahaha....- have yet to get there ..but the more i understand ...the more i laugh.....because in the end everything is a big joke nothing means anything...and you see whatever you intend to see....you are basically the CREATOR...

[Illuminatus]

This technique he us talking about is explained in he book of Tantra ..written centuries ago.....People who are interested on this technique and 111 more....contact me ill gladly provide.....

If you have personal experience of the technique, I would love to read your thoughts on it, and it would be a valuable post for other guys as well.

[Don_Gabriel]

Sure its as easy as this some girls bring the best out of me..and for some reason i know what to say what to do..to keep the interaction at its optimum quality....other girls just know how to make me feel uncomfortable and i have no idea what to say or what to do....this is regardless of how they look...(hint...an interaction is between two people...it is her fault if you arent feeling it..advice for newbs).......ive passed many lays ..because i just didnt feel like i was gonna be able to go on trance....if you know what i mean...but one thing to point out is that.......your aim should be ..,that regardless who you meet you bring out the best in people..or just let their repressed emotions and desires be expressed in you...sometimes when i talk to girls things come out of nowhere...for example i was talking to a really cute girl and out of nowhere she said i finger myself.....hahahahaha.....i can be super good if i feel it.....then she was like...ohh no im sorry i dont know where that came from...i was like its ok..i knew you like to pleasure yourself.....