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.