Object, Subject and Women

It is time, again, for a discussion on mental models. In particular, we will extend Amaury de Riencourt’s [Eye of Shiva] ideas in regards to evolution of thought. I had already touched this subject in a recent article, where the question was on how to approach and learn seduction. This time, it is about understanding headspaces and how we can use them.

Philosophical background

What we will explore today is the relation of the mind with the external world. This is a curious topic, as the brain itself is not optimized for world objectivity and understanding. Contrary to popular belief, the minimal requirements to sustain life do not really require mapping out the world, with examples aplenty: from primitive bacteria, to plants, to even dogs with limited color perception. Much of what you would even call color perception is generated in the brain; heat, for example, is radiation, not different than blue or red. The same is true for sound (vibration waves), taste and smell (chemical compositions), etc. We have already explored these ideas and the way they relate to frames in this article here.

For us, higher beings that we are, a lot of interaction with the world is needed, so our senses are quite advanced, despite inherent mechanistic limitations. Beyond senses, however, is the brain’s own interpretation of the world. A peculiar aspect because it is freed from evolutionary shackles and is much affected by culture and man-made progression and discovery. When we focus on this aspect, a story becomes painfully obvious about the history of thought, written in myth and tradition passed down through history. I will keep the following summary short; the linked article has a much more in-depth explanation.

Up to the advent of Indo-Aryans and their subsequent establishment in Greece and India, during the second millennium BC, much of life operated under a mythopoetic viewpoint. Mental space and reality (i.e., senses) were intermixed in a single blend of life experience. Gods and morality would jump out of men’s heads and affect the real world directly. A bad omen would relate to subsequent catastrophic events, hence symbol was reality itself. Continuity in time was also a questionable topic. For example, a bad gamble or a lost bet could not be analyzed in isolation with a mental split between “decision” and “outcome” (under probabilistic uncertainty), but only as a holistic continuous event.

For complicated reasons, mainly associated with the rise of Male spirit, the eternal myth that distorted reality under mythological perception broke down with the rise of Indo-Aryans. The external world, for the first time, could be understood as a thing in itself, something that exists beyond our perception and predisposition of it. For the first time, an independent Object exists in the outside world, and a biased Subject that observes the Object lives in man himself.

East and West

Before relating the discussion back to women, let us understand the effects of this mentality shift with the biggest split in thought the planet has experienced. Regardless of the culture in which you grew up, one of the two following schools of thought has left a tremendous mark on your perception of the world.

Greece and West

In the West, stemming from Ancient Greek philosophy, the Subject was eliminated completely. This is not to say that we are unbiased; remember that rationalism of all things was the outcome of Greek philosophy, and certainly that caused much confusion in the West until the empiricism and materialism of science and the scientific method.

However, the elimination of the subject is what allows for the codification and reproducibility of knowledge. Take the concepts of addition and subtraction: they are meant to work in abstract. When you are tasked with the calculation of 5+3, you know that the answer is 8. When you give the same question to your friend, you expect the same answer. The point of the question itself is precisely to arrive at the answer, and to do so regardless of your emotional or biological state. Once you learn to add up two numbers, you can do so regardless of whether you are depressed, happy, starving, or with a full belly. It is knowledge that can be boxed in and “installed” in any person.

Much of European artistic and poetic expression follows suit. Paintings and sculptures are meant to induce a shared understanding among all participants. Even an ambiguous case, like the Mona Lisa’s smile, still induces questions in regards to a shared, objective, unambiguous question: “Is she smiling?”

Buddhism and the East

In the East, stemming from Buddhism, analytical thought took a different direction. The subject itself wasn’t eliminated as in the West, but analysis was primarily based on the interaction of the subject and the object. As a result, analysis of the subject itself is more advanced in the East. The central question revolves around internal understanding of psychology, with the aim of overcoming the self and reaching enlightenment. However, with the predictable result that Western style of science, arguably, could never have been developed in the East.

To explain this shift, it is best to consider the difference between the teachings of each. Remind yourself of our argument on how addition is taught in the West. The concept is boxed, packaged, and made reproducible for each person. The Eastern equivalent is quite different. Knowledge is meant to be personal and developed over lived experience. That is why meditation is important to insight for them. Guidance to enlightenment is through an experienced guru, personalizing teaching and guiding the student to revelation. The student’s emotional state and viewpoint (the subject) are as important as the outcome of the mediation (the subject).

No words can describe the situation better than a few pictures. Let us now see some differences between Western and Eastern art:

The fall of Rome

Some Japanese painting

Observe the differences between the Western and Eastern art. The Western version is about the depiction of the painting. This is about the fall of Rome. You can see each individual piece independently, without it losing its meaning. In contrast, the Japanese art is meant to be digested as a holistic piece. Taking the boat and the sailors and isolating them from the picture would, as a result, lose its purpose and meaning. The Japanese artwork is about what feeling it induces in you, rather than what feeling it depicts (in the Western version).

Back to Women

I hope you liked the philosophical digression, because here is where we connect the topics discussed back to seduction. The revolution in thought, for both Greeks and Buddhists, was an outcome of the Male spirit establishing itself into the world. The entire concept of Object is meant to amplify the Male need to understand and conquer the world. The point of my following argument is that this is not the default software of women. Girls, unless there is a need, do not prioritize Object and Subject the way men natively do in the modern world (either through something resembling the Greeks or the Buddhist thought).

The Native Mentality of Women

My position and empirical experience is that in contrast to men, which the direction of understanding moves towards the Object, either via the Subject or directly into it, then women’s understanding predominantly revolves around the Subject. The Object itself, is only a tool for self-understanding, i.e., an interpreter of the subject. Women selectively use the object as a tool to shape their subject.

When the Buddhists used their subject to better understand the world (the object), women will use the material and external world (object) to understand themselves (subject). The direction is:

Object → Subject

In particular, their self-image is not sovereign as it can become in men, but entrapped in the material/perceptual world. When talking about sovereignty, it is the ability to shape the Subject to adapt to your needs, the ability to consciously become. Canonically, that is its definition. Men can do this because the direction flows from Subject to Object, the former is mutable. But for women, the arrow has to go from Object to Subject to define it. Thus Subject cannot be shaped as it is an endgoal, and an end is fundamentally subservient to the process leading to it. The woman cannot be independently sovereign precisely because of this. This is the root cause of female materialism that remains immutable despite culture. Her materialism is her attempt at self-realization: shape the Subject by acquisition of the Object.

Remind yourself, a man must “become”; this is his path to self-actualization. A woman just “is”, the woman is preoccupied with “being”. But being is not a stand-alone concept; being is relative to the concept. She cannot be a princess if the rest of the world doesn't consider her a princess. She cannot be pretty if others don’t treat her as pretty. Her Subject needs the Object to conform to it.

The fluidity of Object and Solipsism

The first battle, establishing a Subject was explained, and so was explained the woman’s innate materialism. We now showcase the shadow case of this relationship by the backwards relationship between Subject and Object.

Remind yourself the goal of Buddhism: to understand the Object via the Subject. The Subject itself is meant to be changed (i.e., the path to enlightenment) to aid understanding of the Object (which is usually considered immutable). This is a big contrast to what happens when, in the case of women, we put the Subject as the directional endgoal. Consider the following 2-step logical progression.

Remember our earlier insight: for her to be a princess, she needs others (the Object) to treat her as such. That is the first step and proves materialism. The next step is that when the Subject itself is fixed, i.e., she IS a princess now, then the Object itself also changes. When she wasn’t a princess, her fellow countrymen were just that - countrymen. When she becomes a princess, her fellow countrymen, are not her countrymen anymore, they are her subjects. The relation has evolved. The Object itself has changed, and so has its relationship to the Subject. Reality changed via perceptional shift. This is the core and the essence of women’s solipsism.

---------------

Clarification: When I say the Object changes here, it is in regard to the relationship with the girl itself. Not a physical change, a relational change. Let's call it her mental understanding of the Object if you will. In the example used, the equal is not relationally same with the subordinate.

---------------

Solipsism is the outcome of the evolving relationship between Subject and Object. The former takes priority over the latter, and hence, she will prioritize the view of the Object that serves her idealized image of Subject. Contrary to popular belief, women will engage with other viewpoints, but only when their relationship to the world has changed first. First, her Subject will need to change, then will the way she perceives the Object change. That is Solipsism.

The experience of seduction

We are now ready to also explain the main talking patterns used in Game. A few things should be painfully obvious already:

Keep the conversation personal
Change her feelings, not her mind
No reason for logical or idealogical speech

This and similar advice already addresses the directional firmware of the women’s mind, i.e., speech is directed to the subject, not the object. Let us now explain two more concepts, the one of attraction and the one of mythology building.

Attraction: rapport breaking

It is long known that attraction is created in the push, but in our current terminology, what does this mean? Push itself is a reframe, a reframe of expectations, or better put: a reframe in the causal link between object -> subject.

Do you see it now? When you say, “I like your big white puffy jacket. It looks warm and cute, but… are you an Eskimo?” It precisely addresses that directional firmware between what is and what does that mean about her.

Rapport: mythology building

One of the strongest ways to establish rapport in dates is via myth-building. At the end of the day, the goal is for the girl to give you significant control over her concept of subject (this is about leadership, don’t get crazy over the concept description). The concept works as follows:

Reframe of herself (or you, or both)
Then reframe of the world to match your reframe
Keep amplifying

As long as your direction is towards happy and positive reframes, they usually play along.

However, this is precisely what we described on the axis that involves solipsism earlier! As the subject changes, so does the object.

Bottom line

Many of seduction techniques aim to amplify nature’s biases. In this case, they aim to amplify the women’s mental software. But at the end of the day, the original relationship is the one that stays true and immutable across time and space, culture and situation. Adapt your game to the golden principle: