Many of you have probably seen older versions of these. It's about time I began releasing content again, so here I am, testing a new writing style that is more concise and precise. Hopefully it helps a few.
tldr 1, value.
There are two types of value. The kind no one can take from you, and the kind you have to replace constantly. These are internal vs external. Build internal to afford external.
Definitions
Value, what the world sees in you and wants.
Internal, value which can't be taken from you.
External, value which inevitably must be replaced for myriad reasons.
Summary
Don't give for free. As a male you can build two types of value, internal can't be taken away, "lifting, learning, actualization, experience" while external can be taken rather easily "things, people, titles".
Build the internal to gain the external. More internal value leads to more purchasing power. The difference between a self made man and a winner of the lottery can be a simple divorce. Value is not about sex, sex is something bought with value.
The self made (internal value) man can do it again.
The lottery winner (external value) can have it taken away very easily.
the nature of the external
The glass is always broken, maybe not now, maybe soon, maybe distantly, but it will break. If you can buy another why worry? Accept it for what it is, inevitability. That in itself is beautiful, you are certain of where you stand in relation to the external now. Frame your life in regards to it. This is it's just your turn. Expand that from women to everything external, because eventually you will not have it.
Internal only ends in your grave.
Lesson learned.
-Build yourself first, that's how you can gain things and people.
-Things and people can and will be taken, but if you've built yourself you can always replace them.
tldr 2, what/why TRP?
Trp is a praxeology for male actualization, focused on sexual interaction. It is not a philosophy. It is not morality. It is a toolbox. Any conflation of these is your own fault. If you need to cut down a tree grab an axe or a chainsaw, don't bitch that the hammer you're used to isn't working.
Definitions
Morality=ethics (what is right and wrong) we are not discussing what is right and wrong. We are discussing peoples judgements of what is right and wrong, specifically peoples judgements about the red pill.
Moral judgement= a statement about ethics." (How do we know it is wrong to murder) these are what we are discussing.
Wrong= you ought not to do (x)
Right= you ought to do (x)
Praxeology= a system or strategy based on empirical and experiential reality, a so called toolbox to deal with a set of circumstances. (Layman’s definition)
Predicate= a phrase that enacts on a subject, (x). Example, I close the door, (I=subject) (close the door =predicate)
Philosophy= a love of wisdom, an appreciation of a certain theory on the functions of something being observed, internal, external, theoretical, concrete, or metaphysical.
Logic= a bimodal system used to measure truth and falsity, in terms of the principal of noncontradiction. (We shall exclude trimodal systems, semantics, linguistics, 4d, pandimensionalism, and further for this discussion)
Lesson
A philosophy is a love of wisdom, but so much more. (Analytic Phil masters considering phd). It uses theory to explain why things are the way they are, then logic and reason to assess arguments, reducible to a few axioms such as non-contradiction. The red pill rarely does a sufficient job of that, largely because the surroundings it works within involve many uncertainties. However it does an excellent job of telling you how to address what heuristics and statistics lean towards being the case.
The thing to remember most is the following.
Premise 1: for any x, if x is male, x has a philosophy on how x ought to live.
Premise 2: In order to best do something (a philosophy) it is in x's best interest to find the most effective tools. (unless x's philosophy directly contradicts using external tools)
Premise 3: if x desires to do well in the sexual market, they should find tools designed for the sexual market.
Premise 4; the red pill provides the (likely best) tools for the sexual market.(arguably demonstrably evident)
Conclusion: any x whose philosophy of life includes skill in the sexual market should seek the red pill.
Cognitivist vs NonCognitivist Argument 1,
For Cognitivism Moral judgements are predicates. Predicates are exclusively true or false, except when referring to themselves or non-real things. (Chicago is a city = true or false), (unicorns are beautiful = not a predicate, as unicorns are a nonreal thing)
Moral judgements are true or false, except when referring to themselves. All moral judgements are equivalent to stating an (ought to do) or (ought not to do).
Argument 2,
For Non-Cognitivism (expressivist) Moral judgements are not predicates, and only seem to be. Moral judgements are statements on feelings, and are not true or false. All moral judgements are permissible, and so don't imply an (ought to do), or, (ought not to do).
Trps relation to Ethics (both arguments)
Well trp itself holds no moral judgements, as a praxeology it is a subject. (A system or tool box). A subject is not a predicate. You can predicate about a subject. This means you may make moral judgements about trp, but they are ultimately irrelevant, as you are doing the same as saying "you ought to use a toolbox" or "you ought not to use a toolbox" as you can see, it's a silly statement standing alone, as there is no further context. Regardless of whether you believe moral judgements true or false, any moral judgement about trp itself is of little note.
However if you were to say something about how you use trp, that could be a moral judgement. For example, (you ought not to use trp for x) would be a moral judgement, either true or false. The problem within is as follows;
Making a true or false claim (a judgement) is dangerous and ultimately (unless axiomatic or based on agreed evidence) self-destructive. The reason why is that in forming a judgement about a praxeology, (remember, judging a set of tools) your judgement now must be airtight. If someone can provide even one example where the judgement doesn't hold, your judgement is false. Example: (using trp to game women is wrong). Well now what you've actually said is, (using trp to game women is something you ought not to do), is true. If someone can name even one circumstance that contradicts that, your judgement is broken or must be revised.
Counter Ex: (so you should not use trp to game a woman, even if that woman loves and enjoys being gamed, it provides her the happiest lifestyle and fulfilment?)
Lessons learned
TRP is not moral.
TRP is not a philosophy. You have philosophies involving the application of trp, know the difference.
Moral judgements about the application of trp are functionally impossible to hold airtight. Don't bring them here.
Any male whose personal philosophy involves sexual success, needs a toolbox for it. Trp is (almost certainly) the best toolbox.
Next lessons in a day or two. Ice breaking and ice making.
there doesn't seem to be anything here