Self-Actualization, the Ultimate Goal

There's only one path to self-actualization. That's the path of honesty and truth to yourself and in turn to others. The honest man can move towards his goals without apologizing for himself.

Every human has a different road to self-acualization. Because of external factors some may find their path starts in a wealthy family of narcissists, drugs, alcohol, family secrets and others in a broken down trailer with a few siblings and loving parents to a middle class family with serious abuse.

The road of self-actualization is the same but the paths and obstacles getting there are unique.

Some have a longer path toward reaching a true happiness level, some shorter, some die young, some die and never reach it.

But the method to reaching this path is universal and it starts with extreme honesty. Honesty of yourself. Recognizing your deficiencies. Recognizing what's holding you back from being in a mind state that's positive , kind , authentic, genuine.

The great and legendary Heidegger talked about authenticity and the self. You realize that everything going on in your life is not necessarily everything that should be going on.

Self-actualizarion requires reflection. It requires asking yourself questions about what you're doing, have been doing, want to do, what makes you want to do. Examine your thoughts. Whatever's making you think that comes from sort of influence. Who's the influencer? What's the standing of the influencer in relation with my true self independent of things going on in my life ? Reflect on yourself and what makes you tick and you'll learn what made you start ticking

Ask yourself before you consume any type of media or info whether it makes sense, whether you should continue to intake this sensory data. There's only so much sensory data we can take so we should definitely make sure it's a positive one.

Make sure your environment is clean , your food is good. Healthy environment means clean mind. Dirty , cluttered environment is a reflection of your inner workings.

Summary: The path to self-actualization is the same. Everybody has different roads but by being honest with yourself you can reach your peak happiness level. Reflect on what makes you who you are and the things you identify with. Realize those things are independent of who you are and to be in an authentic state you can't define yourself in terms of your current ongoings. Be wary of what you give stage time, examine it and if it has a hint of substance less bullshit then abandon it

[–]spcarlin9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]spcarlin7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]anusbleach111112 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KeronaBlaze0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NeoreactionSafe0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (41 children) | Copy Link

That's the path of honesty and truth to yourself and in turn to others.

Game is the manipulation of others.

It's like taking your dog to the park and throwing a stick so it runs and retrieves it. The dog likes the Game. You like the Game. You are master, the dog is slave. The slave loves the master, the master loves the slave but in different ways. One is above, the other below.

Men love women, women love children, children love puppies.

Game is maybe a kind of dishonesty that is mutually beneficial.

Masculinity means not being equal with women.

Women Tingle when in a state of inequality. (from below)

Middle English (originally in the sense ‘held in or deserving of honor’): via Old French from Latin honestus, from honos (see honor).

To be "honest" is to give respect... to "honor" others as equals.

Game is to take advantage of others or establish gender polarity.

So masculinity requres a certain Amused Mastery distortion of reality.

To be masculine is not to play things at a base honesty level.

We love women so we can never honor them. (no pedestal)

[–]Frigzy4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]spcarlin2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gallobrax1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]spcarlin0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NeoreactionSafe-1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]Frigzy2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

Your claim that the masculine-feminine dynamic must be value based is simply not true.

Masculinity and femininity are two sides of the same coin. Both have their own strengths and weaknesses. If there would have been an inherent hierarchical value, evolution would have wiped the differences out, because that which is superior will proliferate at the expense of the other.

The only reason why one would force a value judgement on it (in favor of the masculine of course) is to cover up their own insecurities and lack of self-esteem.

To be honest is, in the first place, to honor yourself. Secondly, to honor the other. Dishonesty dishonors yourself, then the other.

Game can work from both frames of mind, but the difference is in its authenticity and thus in its longevity. Eventually, dishonest people will show cracks in their facade, showing their lack of authenticity, which effectively destroys the trust necessary for the relationship to continue. Obviously relationships can continue without trust, but that is only the case when both parties lack self respect to a certain degree.

[–]NeoreactionSafe1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Frigzy1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]NeoreactionSafe0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Frigzy0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I completely agree that they are fundamentally different, but I don't agree that you can therefore unequivocally derive a value judgement of the two.

The value judgement needs a certain point of orientation.

You could pick something like protection. Using protection as a viewpoint, sure, man's love for a woman (and child) is more generally protective. Looking at a woman's love, she is far more likely to protect her child than her man, thus it is in the very least more selective and in terms of protection 'span' inferior to the man.

However, both types of love have their purpose and without disecting every single aspect and taking on a variety of perspectives, it would at the very least be intellectually dishonest to place a value judgement on it.

For instance if you look at the love for a child, a woman's love will trump that of a man. So in this case, the man's love is inferior. Who is to say which type of love is more important?

The global picture is very complex and every inequality serves its purpose. Obviously this means not everyone benefits equally, but in the grand scheme of things, all aspects serve the proliferation of the species.

[–]NeoreactionSafe0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Frigzy0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminists make the same mistake, just like the entire postmodern ideology. They place value judgements on truths that do not have inherent value.

Value is a human construct placed upon the world, created to divide it into categories that serve purpose or pose threats.

Feminists believe masculinity poses a threat, but that is only so because they refuse to acknowledge their own femininity and therefore push themselves into the realm of masculinity. True masculinity. With which of course they can not compete since they are not truly masculine. At the same time they have abandoned their femininity. They are trying to jump out of the truth by pretending it is the human made category that created the truth and not the other way around. They are delusional about the nature of reality and the nature of human interactions. They are delusional about their own existance. Obviously they are frustrated. They are frustrated because their efforts based on logical fallacies are not bearing any fruits. All they can do is try to temper their cognitive dissonance by becoming extremely selective of reality and show hostility against everything that does not serve their narrative.

Edit: Yes, I agree that game is amoral.

[–]throw174530 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You are talking in a detached, objective sense.

When it comes to people, relationships, then a philosophical concept of equal value is meaningless.

Women will respond to a dynamic in which a man is "above" them. and one aspect of game can be considered acting in a way to encourage that dynamic - and yes it will cause attraction.

Now that dynamic doesn't need to be some artificial egotistical contrivance on the guys part, and if it is - as you have mentioned above - it is fundamentally weak and may break.

The best way to actually encourage a - voluntarily - unequal dynamic in a relationship is to actually be strong. Trustworthy (to an extent, don't be predictable). Powerful. Capable.

In terms of honor - you will honor girls far more honestly by recognizing what they desire and respond to in a man and a relationship. And equality is not it.

I agree with that, but it doesn't contradict what I said.

The specificity of the role you take is indeed not equal to hers. Just like she will -preferably- take a more caring, supportive role, you will take a more leading and protective role.

In order to do so you must be one step ahead and she may follow. However, you can only fully devote yourself to that task when you have someone there to take care of your logistics and nourishment. Obviously you can do everything yourself as well, but it won't allow you to dive as deep into your role as it would otherwise.

Ideally, you are complementary. Just like two opposite poles. Often, it may be so that either party fails to take up their 'duties' in the dynamic and thus the relationship becomes onesided. In that case, sure, there's no equal relationship value.

The problem is that many women don't even see the woman's part of the deal anymore. And it seems to go for some men as well.

[–]throw174530 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I actually agree with you - you're talking in a more moralistic sense about what can encompass a healthy, productive relationship, and mindset towards things, in which both parties compliment each other.

The trouble with that though is you can act in profoundly different ways - in which you do take on a role of treating her as being beneath you. Think yourself superior in a value judgement sense, care little for her emotional wellbeing, use her, manipulate etc.

You can do all that and be extremely successful with women. And this subreddit is about what works - and that can and does work.

Moralistically you can say the kind of person who would go that way would be toxic - both to themselves and those around them. And you may perhaps be correct. Ultimately it should be up to women to be selecting men, and factoring the in the kinds of aspects you describe before deciding to give any intimacy. The reality of modern day society though is that most women do not - and instead go where their feelings // attractions take them.

Ultimately it should be up to women to be selecting men, and factoring the in the kinds of aspects you describe before deciding to give any intimacy. The reality of modern day society though is that most women do not - and instead go where their feelings // attractions take them.

This is true, and it is highly related to our valueless hedonistic culture.

However it's not solely on the female to 'be the bigger man' when it comes to relationships. At least if you are talking about healthy, serious relationships.

I agree that in today's day and age, healthy, sincere and serious relationships with self respecting people has become a very rare occurance. So rare in fact that the general consensus seems to be that both sides have lost faith in the its potential existance. In such a climate, of course, people will revert to what is safest for their own outcome when the other side can not be trusted to take up their role.

And that brings us indeed to TRP like strategies, where the general consensus is that women can not be trusted to take up their role in the relationship and that trust is a myth. Ironically, this leads to sexual strategy and behavior which further cultivates the preconceived notions and pushes both sides into a more segregated approach and strategy.

This is the 'enjoy the decline' mentality. Instead of using self actualization, respect and confidence to rise above the current hostile climate, this mentality tells us to 'dig in' and 'take what you can get while it lasts'. People fall from the angerphase into apathy and then wonder why they feel empty inside after swallowing the pill. The beauty of human life has been utterly discarded as esoteric nonsense, leaving only hard cold facts and a battleground of personal disconnected gains or losses.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating beta-style self abolishment, nor do I think these facts are not true. Quite the contrary. One can only embrace meaningful relationships if he first embraces himself. And the embrace of the self must always be the strongest and deepest. Yes, lift, take care of yourself, do everything to can to actualize yourself and utilize your full potential, but also ask yourself where you derive this urge from, where you want to go with it and whether that really is the best way for you to approach your own life. It's the difference between an inherently positive or negative mindset.

I advocate the positive. Instead of giving in to the climate of negativity, embrace and nurture yourself to be strong enough to go against the tide and practice positivity despite the toxicity of your environment. Why? Because you can. Because this is ultimately what it means to respect your own existence. The alternative is some weird conception of reality as being an inherently unpleasant ride where there is nothing to gain and everything to lose, so the best practice is to exploit the shit out of it until it's over, until you can go back to the eternal non-existance from which you came. You could -theoretically- argue that suicide in such a world would be perfectly agreeable.

[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]NeoreactionSafe0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gallobrax0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

I won't get too involved in this debate here but I personally found the discussion of honesty to be a bit lacking in focus (as it pertains to game). You see the thread's main idea was that of self actualization - a concept taught in classes around the world and viewed as a quintessential philosophical theory. To view this as the height of human achievement is I think a sincere error and will confuse more then a few. Instead Frigzy correctly pointed out the goal should really be that of amused mastery. What's the difference? Self actualization exists in a world where hard work and dedication are the only variables associated with success. This world does not exist.

Returning back to honesty I feel what you are both however missing is before you can first discuss anything in relation to it you must stress the importance of logic and reasoning. You see honesty has nothing to do with authenticity. You are who you are and there should be no shame in that if it's what you need to be. It's a tool, and as you don't owe anyone anything it is your choice what you give others be it respect, attention or even recognition. Honesty is earned (and it should not be freely given). However I do agree that universally speaking to not be honest with yourself is a mistake. Then you are not authentic because you have lost the ability to accurately measure the world around you thereby losing the ability to leverage it to your personal advantage.

The redpill in the broadest sense is our interpretation of power and how it exists in our life's. This is why amused mastery is your ultimate goal - the way the world is set up is not only to the detriment of others but it's unsustainable. This is why we have game, because we were not born into the world of our parents and grandparents but into a new normal where if you are not selective in how you leverage, display power, and in your treatment of others you will be consumed by it.

Indeed, many a man has suddenly found himself at the mercy of a woman because of this. Myself included. Believe me when I say this: you don't want to be in a situation where you volunteer information out of honor only to find that the same honor is not returned.

Honesty is a lofty concept, but remember the reason why we are all here.

[–]Gallobrax0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

To be honest is to respect yourself and others. Honesty is knowing your rightful place based on your skills. I've been straightforward with females with great results. Believe in yourself first and foremost.

In Islam there's something called Nikah Mutah( Temporary Marriage ). You agree on a temporary marriage with a woman for however long. One hour. Two weeks. Technically even the "regular" marriage can be temporary because the man can say divorce three times and be divorced. The Mutah ends at the time specified , or before if you divorce , or you can renew it. A child if born gets full rights and is not a bastard child.

So you can do this marriage contract without fornicating. If the girl is a virgin , most scholars say you have to ask the father or grandfather if father is dead.

Islam is about egalitarianism. Everybody is equal but has their own role in society.

You can be straightforward with great results

[–]Frigzy2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Frigzy1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Frigzy1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

East or West Europe? I live in UK.

I also recommend Force and Fanaticism by Simon Ross Valentine, if you're a bit of a scholar and have some patience for the subject.

Essentially Murray explains how initial labour shortages after WW2 led to our government and those of other Empire-states reaching out to colonies to acquire workers who, quite rightly, expected to be treated with dignity and respect upon arriving on our shores - so we ended up with an open doors policy, a population increasingly told they had to accept this or else they were bad people and a political class that wanted a glass of water but ended up with a tsunami instead and had no way how to 'drain' the excess off, if you know what I mean.

Murray essentially says, like Milo, that we need to promote a "The West is Best" philosophy, ditch colonial guilt and breed a strong nationalistic fervour within our societies so that young Muslim's can see that the way of their Father's is not necessarily the best or only way to live.

He, along with Peter Hitchens (whom I also recommend), advise that a resurgant Christianity and cultural appreciation might be good Bulwarks against the Islamist tide.

The book though? Get it because Murray actually interviewed the people arriving in Greece, Italy etc, he has gotten some chilling insights and inspirational tales to tell about his travels.

[–]Frigzy1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah, the interviews do seem to be the most interesting from my perspective. I live in Belgium, not too far from the UK then heh.

I'm very familiar with the whole foreign labour force concept. It's been a disaster for all parties involved. The migrants thought at first that they'd return to their home countries, but they never did. Our states bred complacency in them and allowed their families to come over without knowing what the fuck they were doing.

So we had this generation who never felt like making this their home, but ended up doing so nonetheless. Their children and grandchildren are now living here, utterly conflicted and confused about their identity and looking for someone to blame, with which the Left is gladly helping out in return for votes, which is grants pretty lackluster results.

So now these people cling to the only real form of identity they have: Islam. At least in Belgium, a stronge sense of identity is generally shunned since we're not even a coherent country in the first place. We've got 2 main regions which are in conflict more than they are in harmony, nothing works as it should and bureacracy is through the roof. We only have culinary pride but other than that we're not really bound by anything except out place of birth. It's a mess here. That's -in my mind- also why we have it so much worse than Holland for instance, which has a similar culture but a way better sense of identity.

However, because of this background, I also know that most Europeans are not open to a reversion towards nationalism and christianity. Especially the younger generation simply doesn't buy it anymore, even when they see the sitaution we find ourselves in. The EU does nothing to solve the problem either, in fact they are actively working to worsen the problem and they rather blame people point out the issue than to actually admit there is one.

I do believe that we need to form an identity based on shared values, and these in turn can/should definitely be based on remnants of christianity, nationalism, general european (white) culture. This includes science as well.

Only by doing so can we form a collective pro-faction and from there face the anti-factions for what they are. One of the biggest obstacles on the way however is postmodernism/cultural marxism. Which in turn is linked to people like Soros who have everything to gain from (political) destabilization.

In fact, the combination of the erosion of our values and the invasion of our countries by anti-eurocultural migrants is perfect for those who want to sabotage our success and benefit from it. And that's where a lot of conspiracy theorists bring in the Jews who control large parts of the media and financial sector, but I have to say that it's important to consider their point.

At the end of the day it seems we are very close to the situation in which Hitler found himself in the 1920s and it seems there will be plenty of potential disasters that can lit the fuse and trigger the explosive cocktail we have today.

A very well-thought out reply, I thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and experiences with me.

In light of what you have said about the EU, and Soros, you might like to pick up Yanis Varoufakis' book 'Adults in the Room' too - it will chill your bones, as long as you can look past your own ideological leanings which, sadly, that particular author cannot.

I agree 100% that anything vaguely pro-nationalist or pro-Christianity is a complete non-starter for people on our continent and I would have scoffed had Murray tried to tell me otherwise (he, like myself, is an atheist) before I read his book but the fascinating conclusion's he draws from his study is that you can sell it, as long as you frame it right.

For just one example he talks about great works of art (Sistine chapel, Mozart, Da Vinci's pieces etc) and alludes to the fact they simply could not exist if we hadn't had our founding faith that united us and, crucially and most genius of all, points out that a society so rich in cultural history that it prizes such works so dearly can never truly be separated from its progenesis as long as the fire of pride is kept alive and I think he's got a damned good point there.

Furthermore, to throw out Islam just because it's Islam is one thing (need we discuss the media reaction?) but a burgeoning new type of Christianity could simultaneously prove an uncomfortable bed-fellow for those with designs to come, or stay, here and a fantastic shield for deflecting Label-Warriors (for are we not allowed a faith too?) and so I really think it might be something to look into.

Post-Modernism and Cultural Marxism are poison yes, did you see Corbyn's election result? I nearly packed a bag and left the country. But the fact is that it's currently only old cranks and certain students that are falling victim to this fallacious, guilt-ridden, nasty doggerel and so we still have time.

Ostensibly, Douglas says "People are crying out to make this stop, but they see no political solution. Give them a Faith they can be proud of, that they can push back with, that they can fight with, and they will lap it up with feverish abandon."

His writings on Charles Martel and his amassing of the Christian Armies to throw back the Muslim hordes in the 700's were truly mind-blowing too.

[–]thethirdcoast 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You've been brainwashed mate. Open your eyes.

Non Muslim men have to pay a small jizya too just like everybody does.

"Just like everybody does." Islam divides the world into muslims and non-muslims and suppresses those who do not agree. If you truly can not see how this is the embodiment of inequality I'm sorry for your enormous cognitive dissonance.

him and his family never attacked any innocent civilians.

Obviously. No army in the world has ever attacked innocent civilians. And guess what, no terrorist has ever killed innocent civilians.

Why? Because you can always find a reason why they are supposedly not innocent!

Attacking people.. ANYONE for ANY REASON is morally wrong. Yet here you are pretending that your prophet was a peaceful guy. He beheaded hundreds of people personally.

ISIS is simply doing what he did 1400 years ago. They are actually listening to what he said, to the letter.

If you want true equality and peace, look into buddhism. Like, really look into it. And you will see what it is and how backwards and vile Islam really is. Oh, and check out Christopher Hitchens on youtube. You might get some insights.

[–]NeoreactionSafe1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]NeoreactionSafe0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Title	Self-Actualization, the Ultimate Goal
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	34
Comments	47
Date	June 25, 2017 11:25 AM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/6jduq6/selfactualization_the_ultimate_goal/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/self-actualization-the-ultimate-goal.44264 https://theredarchive.com/post/44264

Comments