Boys are not men until they have been broken and reforged themselves

To become a man means to complete The Hero’s Journey. The hero’s journey takes a man into the darkest, scariest place a man can imagine. It is depicted in mythology as the bottom of the ocean with the meanest whale, or the dark cavern with the fire-breathing dragon. That is where the mythical treasure is found, before the hero returns to the normal world. Boys are not men until they have been broken and reforged themselves.

A man is no longer a boy when he is ready to face the world on his own. He has the skills, the courage, and the wisdom to interact with obstacles that stand in the way and to deal with challenges without being rattled to the point of psychosis.

In mythology, this deep cavern, the source of all insecurities and evil, is where the great treasure is found – the princess that needs saving, the father that was lost, or the pot of gold. So too in life, this dark place is where glory is found. And while the dark place is always within ourselves – in our own insecurities, it often takes external circumstances to overcome these insecurities.

Glory in the “real world” is often rewarded with the material receipt – a beautiful girl to wed or monetary wealth. The real reward is the spiritual wealth. We become strong in spirit when we choose to face our deepest fears and turn around our strongest insecurities. When we are physically, mentally, and emotionally strong, we can endure tough challenges and be happy during any trials. Happiness is found in strength, and strength is required to conquer those mentioned dark, scary, unknown situations.

When we overcome our strongest insecurities – whether it be women, money, physical appearance, or relationship insecurities, we often overcome the obstacles that prevented us from experiencing that thing (eg money, women). Women are attracted to the man who is not worried about being attractive to women, and feelings of wealth work the same way.

To break down our deepest fears and insecurities, we need to go to the proverbial belly of the deep-water beast. We need to go, at least psychologically, sometimes physically, to this darkness. These deep-sea monsters, these insecurities, are not easily defeated.

Your deep-sea monster, your insecurity, destroys you in the process of you destroying the monster. To be “destroyed” in heroic journey-terms, means to crush the spirit of your previous self. The weak, immoral, and lazy characteristics in you are destroyed. It means destroying the ego that holds onto the things your old self held in regard. Free yourself from the needs of those previously held insecurities.

These traits are replaced through the new and stronger version of the individual that makes it through the hardship. Strength and confidence, industry and determination, and virtue replace the dead characteristics, and you re-enter the world to share your new strength.

There is no cheating on the journey to becoming a mature man. Help can be picked up by lessons from others or your own experience. Ultimately, you are the only person that can destroy your insecurities. You can do all the reading and philosophizing you can manage. You can understand how dragons are destroyed and how your insecurities should be managed. But, until you put in the effort to destroy your insecurities, to destroy your past self – your dragon, your sea monster, you will not be free from the insecurity. You must go to the belly of the beast. You must develop the skills and the virtue necessary to become stronger than the beast and to destroy it.

That is the first half of the battle – destroying the previous self that held you down. The second part is to rebuild yourself. To reforge yourself means to take the new skills, the new virtue, and become stronger because of it. You rebuild yourself with the new characteristics.

If you don’t rebuild yourself, you can be destroyed during your battle with the dragon. It is uncommon to face your deepest insecurities – most people won’t do it. People will go their whole lives without facing these fears.

It is uncommon among those people that do face their demons to become better for it. Too many get caught up in the demons that they find them attractive. Instead of becoming the hero that destroys the dragon, many become the dragon that is a strong force of evil or vice.

The man who becomes attractive to women only to use them and lead them on destroys the women’s virtue and adds to the suffering of the world through the woman and her future partner.

The man who builds his financial empire, not to make the world a better place by enabling new technology but to build his own wealth to build power over others, destroys his virtue and adds to the suffering of the world by eliminating the possibility of others to compete and dig themselves out of poverty.

Becoming a dragon is attractive. It is strong and can kill enemies. It gets to have lots of sex and drive expensive cars. Evil will always be attractive. It is shiny and rich and powerful. This is precisely the problem with vice and evil. It consumes you by making you want more – more women, more money, more power.

There is more strength in virtue. There is strength in knowing you did the right thing, and can always do the right thing. There is true freedom is knowing you don’t need more – more women, things, or status.

When you choose to rebuild yourself with the new strength and virtue, that is when you have something to share with the world to make it a better place. It takes touching evil – killing the dragon, to find this strength. Then, it takes the strength and virtue to choose not to be a dragon, and instead to be a positive influence on others. That’s the hero.

Some people start out on their journey to conquer their insecurities by consciously attacking them. Others may be called by accident. A firing from a job, a hard breakup, or an encounter with evil – these are some events that can trigger the journey of the hero – or the villain.

Boys are not men until they have been broken and reforged themselves. This is because it takes breaking down and destroying the ego so that men can learn the wisdom and strength to handle challenges in the future.

While this is how all people become mature and learn to deal with hardship, there is a double standard that makes this more important for men that women. This process is required for men to be attractive in the sexual market, which is not the case for women.

Atheists are hardly ever self-aware

Atheists are hardly ever self-aware. Atheists are often false intellectuals. They are given a hypothesis – an answer to some of life’s hardest questions, and they choose not to build the premises to support the argument. The atheist says, “That doesn’t exist,” while taking a simplistic definition of “that” and focusing more of their efforts on straw arguments aimed at religious people. Some of which has merit.

God takes many forms across the world. To many, god is a man in the sky that created the worlds. To more, it’s hope in an afterlife. To some, god is an ideal – it’s something to pursue, something we can become. God is a goal, and gives not only answers to “what next?” But also answers “how?” How do I live out an ideal life? To simply say these definitions of God do not exist means that there must be other answers to the questions “What next?” And “How?”

Atheists are false intellectuals because they take the words in the Bible as historical truth and argue that science will never determine the absolute truth in the reading. There is no experiment that can be conducted to prove the existence or non-existence of a god as a creator and judgmental being in the sky.

This is the route and thinking of scientists, but it does not pursue the meaning of God as an ideal. The words in the Bible can be disproven from a historical standpoint, but the meaning of God depicted in the Bible and other sources is the story of all of us.

Atheists argue against the former. They choose the historical God to argue against, without delving into the meaning of God. When God is defined as an ideal, the criteria that makes God ideal can be argued – and should be argued. So should the validity of presenting a single ideal way to live.

Christianity presents an ideal way to live. So do other religions. The characteristics vary, although slightly, from religion to religion and tradition to tradition, but they each present an ideal way to live.

Atheistic views are simplified and do not extend to the next level of analysis. What is the ideal? Does this vary from individual to individual, or group to group? Buddhism, Christianity, and other religions really say, “No, ideals (embodiment of God) do not vary from individual to individual, or group to group. There are universal ideals that anyone can follow, and be happier and freer if they choose to follow.”

Self-awareness is the level that we know ourselves. It is our ability to know we are in control of our own thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. We are in control of our happiness, or our lack of happiness. It takes a self-aware person to be happy when faced with difficult external situations.

People that believe in God, by any definition, are in pursuit of happiness by following the path of their God (their ideal). The God-fearing police their thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. If they believe in an afterlife and a moody man in the sky, they will police their thoughts and actions because of their fear. If they believe in God as an ideal, they will act in accordance of that ideal, knowing it is both a challenge and a reward. Reward can be the psychological reward of not being dependent on vice, or it can be the satisfaction of knowing that the day’s actions were in line with the ideal being strived for.

Atheists deny the need for this policing. They argue it is best to be “unfiltered,” when really they are promoting action without direction. By acting without direction, individuals necessarily aren’t working towards an ideal – or anything.

It is easy to argue that there are good things to work toward. For instance, if you work for a company, you work to maximize profits. If you are in a relationship, you may have a goal to be more intimate. When you define these things to work for, these can be seen as your ideal. The highest ideals ever imagined and documented have been named “God” and published in Bibles and religious texts.

There are many religious followers that do believe the stories in the texts are literal events that occurred. These people deny published science that define how the earth ages and wage wars over non-believers, instead of understanding the meaning of the passages and the God they worship. It is these extremist, non-intellectuals that atheists choose to fight their intellectual battle.

Even these religious nut-cases can exhibit self-awareness that exceeds the simple atheist. These guys still do the policing of their thoughts and behaviors. They do these as God-in-the-sky fearing people that don’t wish to defy their moody god. Still, this policing is more than the by-the-book atheist pursues.

Now, not all atheists are the false intellectuals I described. However, I defined the common arguments atheists put forward, and the problems with that. Many atheists still create a code of ethics and morality to follow. What they don’t do is equate that perfect morality with God. Perfect morality has been defined and refined and documented for thousands of years. The most complete, eloquent definition of perfect morality is called God, and it is documented in the Bible.

It really is a circular argument only the most intellectual of atheists get into. They say, “there is no god. We can be moral without god. This is how to behave morally. This moral living is ideal.” What they don’t add is that this is how god has been defined – over and over. Just more eloquently and beautifully than the atheist’s academic paper.

Much more common than this intellectual that gets into this circular debate is the teenager who heard a few buzzwords that science must be repeatable under double-blind experiment and understands that the events in the Bible are not historical. Therefore, God doesn’t exist. This is usually a rebellious phase – a way to rebel against the ideas of our parents and “old people.” Many people do not stop this rebellion and never stop to consider the moral ideals that have been presented and discussed in academia and in church.

Atheists are hardly self-aware for these two given reasons. They do not explore the possibilities of the different definitions of God, and they do not seek or provide answers for the “what next”s and the “how”s without connecting it to an ideal, which many of us call “God.” Because of the rebellion against the definition and existence in a god, there is no attempt made to police or monitor the thoughts and behavior. Because there is no attempt made to monitor thought and behavior, there is no awareness brought to that thought and behavior, at least, no consciously. Because there is no awareness brought to thought and behavior, atheists often lack self-awareness.

Cities are unnaturally stressful for the human body and mind

Cities, almost by definition, are unnaturally stressful for the human body and mind. Cities are centers for industry and entertainment. The largest quantity of jobs are in cities because that’s where the people are, and it takes more jobs to support people that work all those jobs.

This is how complexity works. A man with nothing has no need for complexity. When he acquires things, he needs somewhere to store things. So, he buys a box. When his boxes fill up with things, he buys a shelf to store his boxes. When his shelves are full, he gets a storage unit for more shelves, and then a warehouse. It takes time to go through shelves and storage units and warehouses to find what you want.

Stress occurs when you can’t get what you want. When you can’t find what you want, you become stressed. Other forms of stress happen when people don’t behave how you expect them to, which throws obstacles in the way of you getting what you want. Same with sitting in traffic – other cars interfere with what we want.

The man who has nothing, and lives far from everything, has no need for boxes, no need to sit in traffic, and no need for the complexity on which stress feeds. The man with nothing, and desires nothing, is free from stress. The poor beggar is not necessarily stress-free just because he doesn’t have things – which lead to stress. The beggar wants. He yearns for things, and therefore is stressed, because he doesn’t have what he wants. It’s the poor stoic that is free. Or, simply, the stoic.

Cities are the opposite of freeing. Cities introduce complexity to us and they introduce wanting. The beggar and the slick city playboy have this in common. They want. The beggar wants his next meal and the playboy wants his phone to be faster and the local transit to get him to his destination faster.

Living in the city, he can influence those things. Cities are the innovation hubs. Engineers are at work trying to make phones faster and trying to speed up transportation. While these engineering feats may allow us to solve problems faster, they still leave us wanting.

If we were told 20 years ago we would have cell phones with wireless internet access with pages that load in 5 seconds, we would be blown away. We wouldn’t fathom that 5 seconds would be slow and that we would need to make that faster. Yet, here we are, 20 years later. 15 years after dial-up internet and 10 years since wifi devices made their way into every home, and buffering is one of the ultimate evils.

A more complex phone doesn’t solve our problems any more than dial up internet did. We still want, just as much. We may want more, since we expect so much more. We expect delivery in 2 days instead of a month. We expect pages to load in 3 seconds instead of 20. Our technology has improved, but it hasn’t solved us. We still want.

Complexity doesn’t solve our problems. It masks our problem. Our problem is that we want things. Complexity sells us an image that’s worry free. Complexity – the boxes, the storage racks, the newest phone – they all promise us less worry without addressing the real problem.

The real problem is we want. Not wanting doesn’t sell. No one is incentivized to sell not wanting things.

It’s ironic that we are told the cure to complexity, and the cure to the stress caused by complexity, is to buy more things. It starts with a storage bin and ends with a city full of technology and industry that’s working hard to create more complexity.

The real cure to stress is to eliminate things by first eliminating the want of those things. This is a hard sell. It’s hard for two reasons. One, the more complexity we introduce in our lives, the more complexity seems to be the answer. I mean, if we have boxes full of things, we can’t just get rid of the boxes and have things laying all over the floor. That doesn’t make life easier.

We started this feedback loop of complexity and stress the day we wanted something and went out and got it. The only way out is to be content with what you have. That is easier when you have fewer things than when you have many, since, as we went over, more things require complexity to manage.

The second reason is that incentives are all out of whack. Apple sells us, through their advertisements, that we will be less stressed when we use their phones because they’re fast and easy to use. But we’re only using them to add to the number of things we own. Sure, we can get rid of the fax machine, camera, and book library. But we are still left with the problem of wanting. We want the phone to be faster. We want it to get us where we’re going faster than not only the physical map, but faster than the Waze app navigates. There is no “good enough” in advertising, and a lot of people get paid a lot of money to keep us thinking that way so we will continue to spend money.

If Apple told us we could reduce stress by throwing away our phones, a lot of people wouldn’t drive sports cars and have luxury yachts that all come with their own imperfections and maintenance costs. Imperfections and maintenance are complexities, and complexities are stress.

Escaping the city escapes the engineers building the latest digital shelf. Escaping the city escapes the dwellers that pay high rents that need engineering jobs to cover. Not that engineers are the bad guys. The human brain is at fault. The human brain wants more things. We see things as status symbols, which are sexy to the other sex. The marketing department sells us the image of success, and the engineers build it.

Cities are unnaturally stressful for the human body and mind. They add unnecessary complexity and disguise that complexity as the answer to complexity. We are all the culprits to blame. We choose to be the bad guy every time we desire something – every time we consume something. No thing will ever solve the ultimate problem.

It is not worth going to college for any field outside of STEM or Philosophy.

It is not worth going to college for any field outside of STEM or Philosophy. It made sense until 20 years ago to go to college and get a degree. A degree showed a competence and intelligence that stood out on a resume. By presenting a degree to an employer, the employer knew you had the intelligence to go to college and the independence to make it through years dealing with adults.

College only cost hundreds of dollars, and degrees, whether STEM or humanities, led to almost guaranteed employment. This was during a time when the management professions and the “value-add” industries like advertising and marketing were added to businesses. These value-adds came from the humanities. Marketing and advertising appeal to the psychology of people. Management is applied sociology.

These were the booming jobs of the time, and a humanity degree not only checked the college box – it was preferred. These degrees added the value that organizations were looking for.

The labor market has changed in the last 20 years. Universities changed too, but they did not change to keep up with the changes in the labor market. The changes in universities ran counter-productive to the changes in the labor market.

Where humanities were the value-adding jobs from the 50s through the 80s, the internet has changed the requisite jobs and, because of that, the requisite skills needed. The internet runs on math and technology. STEM degrees are the degrees that are employable. The management and marketing jobs of the 50s are being replaced by technology just like the labor-intensive jobs were replaced 40 years before. The reduction in management and marketing jobs means fewer degrees in humanities are needed.

STEM is the humanity degree and the management job of the 60s. These are the employable degrees and the driver of technology, which is the driver of the current economy. Instead of management and sales adding value like 50 years ago, technology is able to add value by cutting out the managers and the salespeople. Technology connects buyers and sellers where the humanity-pedigreed salesmen did until recently.

Humanities degrees are being produced like money in a collapsed economy. Except, unlike money in a collapsed economy, the degrees being produced cost tens- to hundreds of thousands of dollars. So, we have more people graduating college than ever, which has debased the degree so that not all graduates are guaranteed a job. Humanity degrees add little value in this technology-driven world where life is managed with code.

The majority of students are still choosing to major in the humanities. There are a majority of college graduates leaving university unprepared for the job market, which is technology-driven and requires technical degrees. Also, they have hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans that must be paid back.

These debt-ridden graduates have to find employment to pay back debt. Those that are lucky find themselves a management or marketing job, which are decreasing in number as technology improves and reduces the need for these functions. Those that are unlucky pick up a low-paying service job. This has become a stereotype – the barista with a humanities degree. A well-read barista is attractive – there’s nothing wrong with serving coffee. A barista who has to be there because they owe the bank $200,000 is not attractive. That person is enslaved with no way out in sight. They must work for a company until the debt is paid off. There is a legal and ethical commitment to pay off the debt.

Why are there so many humanity degrees? Because of those blasted humanity degree students from 50 years ago. The universities and banks are profit centers that make money with each enrolled student paying tuition. There are advertising channels that promote more students going to college and getting degrees. The banks and universities don’t care what degree is studied. They care about $200,000. Which, if that’s the price of tuition and the person is working at Starbucks to pay it off, she will end up paying far more than double that.

College is a scam for everyone that is not majoring in a STEM degree. Students are sold a lie that they “need to go to college” to get a job or to find a good relationship. This is all just branding by the universities and loan banks. Any skill can be learned online these days, and banks and universities are sweating hoping the masses don’t drop out to develop skills online. The advertisers are working hard to keep the college brand attractive. They are heavily incentivized to make college attractive.

“It’s an important phase of life.” “It’s where you develop the social skills.” These are all jargon statements sold by the loan banks. You know what else is an important phase of life and a place you develop social skills and have fun? Timeshares in retirement. Rent a timeshare to signify your new phase in life. Meet other travelers and party. You can do this for a lot less than a college degree.

The exception to all this is the philosophy degree. The philosopher learns that none of this is really necessary. You can get a degree in STEM, get a high-paying job, create a technology that makes businesses better, but if at the end of the day you still aren’t satisfied because of an insecurity or relationship drama, then what’s it all for? To better humanity? That’s great, as long as it doesn’t cost your suffering. You can make money and then face your insecurities and internal demons, or you can face your demons from the start. Many people face a demon called consumerism. The philosopher recognizes this demon and stays away.

You can become a philosopher by reading books, through experiencing all the hells of consumerism and life, or through an expensive degree. Being philosophical is worth it. The philosopher finds meaning in life itself, and knows not to become enslaved to debt, or anything else. Hopefully, he didn’t buy an expensive degree to learn that lesson.

It is not worth going to college for any field outside of STEM or Philosophy. This is because:

  • The price of tuition is increasing.
  • Skills needed for jobs are becoming more technical.
  • Philosophers understand you don’t need jobs and can find meaning without the 9-to-5.

Democracy inevitably leads to socialism due to evaporative cooling of high-value individuals.

In the long-run, all democracies will turn away from their capitalist origin to socialism. This is destructive, tyrannical, and entirely natural. This happens because of the evaporative cooling of high-value individuals. Meaning, there are fewer high value individuals that are interested in competing for status.

The strong favor and thrive in a competitive, capitalist society and crave the freedoms that can be earned. The strong are out-reproduced by the weak. This goes contrary to many proponents of Darwinism, but it is actually directly in-line with Darwin theory. There are two Darwinian strategies for survival. One is to reproduce with the strongest and best to produce the strongest and best, because that is what is most likely to survive. Traits such as physical strength, cunning and mental ability, leadership and social savvy – these are all traits sought after and signs of reproductive fitness.

The other Darwinian strategy is to mass reproduce. Mass reproduction, whether through multiple partners or one, requires less work than finding a strong partner and places emphasis on quantity, not quality, of genetics – and therefore offspring. Through this, even if a couple offspring die off and don’t successfully reproduce, one or two will. This is a reproductive strategy favorable to weak individuals.

These weak individuals are the losers in the capitalist system. To succeed in capitalist societies requires similar traits that make for attractive reproductive (masculine) qualities. Social savvy, intelligence, even physical strength – these are qualities women find sexy and qualities that are rewarded in the job market.

These traits are masculine because they are favored in the sexual market by women. More intelligent, wealthy women do not have higher value in the sexual market. This also contributes to an evaporative cooling of the successful because these intelligent women have far fewer children than non-intelligent women, if any at all.

Losers in the job market cannot afford the luxuries that are available to the wealthy – those that succeed in the capitalist system. However, they want the same luxuries. They want them for two reasons – they want more than they currently have, because they see the wealthy and want what they can’t have. Also, the bottom classes often fail to have the spiritual freedom that comes with wisdom which, most often, comes with intelligence and experience. Instead of seeking spiritual freedom, the bottom classes are more likely to want material things to escape unhappiness of the day-to-day.

This means that the bottom classes in a capitalist system are more likely to want things, less likely to earn and afford the things they want, and therefore likely to despise the wealthier classes that are capable of both earning, getting, and not needing. Over time, this bottom class is likely to grow, since they are the ones that reproduce most, since that is the reproductive strategy that makes the most sense for their situation.

As the bottom classes grow, they will be more likely to gain favorable political position in a democratic society. A democracy favors those who are the majority. When that majority is intelligent and strong, the majority will tend to a capitalistic society where competition and incentives reward success. These capitalistic societies grow in technology and infrastructure.

When the majority is the lower class – made up largely of the weak, unintelligent, and wanting, the majority will favor a socialistic society. This is one where incentives are broken, and the poor are rewarded with the efforts of the rich. We have seen this in every society that has tried socialism. It always starts with power in the hands of a few. Stalinist Russia started with a revolt against the landowners, which were few in number. When the masses stand up to the few in number and take control, you get the poor in material and the poor in spirit and the poor in intellect at the head of society.

When you have the poor in spirit, intellect, and material at the head of society, you get them taking the material by force. They want and feel entitled to things, so they take it. They do not have the spiritual strength to require earning the things they want. And they don’t have the intellect to understand or consider the implications of their actions. Sure, as they start taking and disincentivizing production, the economies collapse and governments turn to other methods of producing perceived wealth.

When the poor in spirit and intellect rule and their economy slows down, they have done several things in the past, none of which have been to incentivize production or employ austerity programs – these both go in the face of their philosophy that got them in power, and the desires that led to their rise to power.

No. Instead, the socialists have printed money, as if the paper with the president’s face on it is the answer to the economy. Worthless money does not create a worthwhile economy. Printing money devalues the money in circulation and drives up the price of goods, without influencing the value of the goods.

Capitalism fuels this change. Because the lower classes make up the majority of consumers, the most successful businesses market to these demographics. Not just businesses, but anything requiring money, votes, or consensus. That means politicians and, when it comes to receiving funding, institutions such as schools and hospitals. Businesses will cater to the lower-value individuals. They will promote entertainment and ideas that appeal to the masses, at the expense of the values and interests of the successful.

The other strategy is to forcibly take from the wealthy. Since the lower classes continue to suffer, the wealthy are forcibly taken from and their goods given to the poor. The poor in material, intellect, and spirit bring down everyone.

How do you defend against this? I never understood China’s one child rule until I wrote this essay. By limiting reproduction among citizens, you can effectively control the ratio of high-value individuals and low-value individuals. This requires government oversight into communities stretching into the slums.

The alternative to this is to not have a democracy. A dictatorship of sorts removes the possibility of the lower classes taking power through democratic election. Dictatorships, however, still face the problem of lower classes reproducing at higher rates than the upper class, high-value individuals. When the lower classes unite, they can topple the much smaller dictatorship using their numbers and force. It’s bloody, and it’s bound to happen.

No one’s happy, and the poor are willing to fight to see if the riches will make them happy. Riches won’t make them happier, because they will still be poor in spirit, but they will fight for the riches anyway.

Democracy inevitably leads to socialism due to evaporative cooling of high-value individuals. There will be fewer high-value individuals because high-value individuals don’t reproduce at the rates of low-value, and the values of modern high-value individuals will cease to be promoted in media and academia. This will lead to socialism because the jealousy of the lower classes will work its way into public policy that redistributes from the wealthy individuals.

Women have more intrinsic value than men.

Women have more intrinsic value than men. This means that women have more natural value than men. Nature gives women their value, where men must find their value in the world.

Women are valuable across many dominance hierarchies. Out of the box, they don’t add any more value to a corporation than their fellow man, but they have far more value in sexual markets.

Women are born with the characteristics that make them attractive to the other sex. These aren’t evident at the moment of birth, but they just need to stay alive and not interfere with the characteristics that make them attractive. A fit woman that develops a feminine physique is an attractive woman.

These (fit, feminine) are the characteristics men evolved to find attractive. A woman who is young and has hips, a butt, and isn’t fat, suggests that she is able to bear children. The hips and butt suggest fertility, the lack of fat suggests health. Biologically, that’s all a woman needs to prove her attractiveness to a man. Femininity is more about a girl’s demeanor. It means she isn’t aggressively competitive or dominant – traits that may lead to success for men in the dating ecosystem.

Women are the more selective sex. This naturally results from the woman’s egg being lower in supply than a man’s sperm. Because her eggs are lower in supply than the available demand, like any economic good, the eggs are deemed of high value. All that’s physically required of a man in order to reproduce is his sperm.

A quick sex, and he’s done his part, physically. When the man is done with sex, he can be ready to reproduce again in manner of minutes if he is young, and hours if he is older and less virile. For a woman, she requires nine months of carrying out a pregnancy, at least, until she is able to reproduce again. Plus, she is at birth (at the latest) bonded to the child she carried with her for those nine months. The child will generally remain under her care until it is ready to join the world without her. Legally, that typically happens at 18 in the United States, and that’s about the minimum that an individual is mature enough to go on his own.

Those 18 years and nine months require resources and time. Therefore, the woman is incentivized to attract a man that will remain with her and share the investment in raising the child until it is an adult (at least). Therefore, she must be more attractive enough to, at least, be selective enough so that the man chooses to remain with her instead of leaving to maximize his reproductive abilities elsewhere. This form of commitment must be reached by appealing to a man on a physical and emotional level and, hopefully, his mental values.

All these characteristics, those required to attract the man, and those required to gain commitment of a man, are natural gifts given to women at birth and realized as she matures. She does not require building these skills out in the world, where the man’s ability to provide resources do require building skills.

In her own psychology, a woman can be gifted with the confidence that she will be able to attract a mate based on the gifts she was given at birth. This confidence is shakable, no doubt, but she can have confidence in something without needing to build skills that would allow a man to be attractive to the other sex.

Women have more intrinsic value than men because she is born with her sexual value and her ability to choose a mate. These attractive characteristics evolved out of the necessity to reproduce, and the woman’s egg is more valuable than the man’s sperm. Because she is born with this, she can have a natural confidence in her interaction with the world.

Through annihilation of the ego, each person has the potential to realize that they are God embodied. Jesus Christ did this.

God is an ideal. In any religious text, the words spell out an ideal way to live – a peaceful, virtuous spirit that reigns over the heavens.

Unfortunately, religion steps in and tells us to hope and pray for the acceptance of that all-mighty spirit. This is not to what the biblical stories really symbolize. The biblical stories give us an answer to how to live now. Not just now meaning before death, but now meaning right now, in the moment.

It is in the moment, when we aren’t wanting for the future or fearful of what comes next, that we find this peace and that we find happiness. Happiness is available to anyone that chooses happiness. That peace comes from rejecting the fear that religious leaders instill about undesirable afterlife. It comes from rejecting all fears. That peace comes from rejecting the fear our boss instills about meeting deadlines and showing up on time.

The peace comes from within – from understanding that we have everything, because there is almost nothing we really need. Any wants and fears are nearly all externally pushed onto us – whether from teachers, preachers, bosses, or marketing departments. We can reject the wants that all these individuals push onto us, and then we can be free from the burdens that come with chasing those wants.

Rejecting wants from others means risking that we won’t be accepted by others. It means being courageous and risking humiliation from others that judge us based on our ability to satisfy the wants encouraged by others. Having the courage to say no to all these people – many of them our colleagues, family, friends, and potential lovers, means we must reject the ego that holds onto wanting the affection and acceptance of these people. By destroying the ego that holds onto the want of acceptance, we can be free from the need of this acceptance.

Jesus Christ did this. The story of Jesus is an archetypal example of a man who rejected the need to be accepted by his friends, teachers, and potential lovers. He led his loved ones and promoted peace and virtue, and was unwilling to compromise his values when those loved ones did not have the strength to stand by him. The death of Jesus was the extreme example of a man standing by his conviction. He did this by accepting humiliation from the crowd, instead of giving in to the wants of the crowd – wants that Jesus did not agree with.

The death on the cross was the most extreme example of the carrying out of the death of the ego. Even when faced with public execution in a horrific manner, Jesus refused to give in to the people that wanted him to want to fit in. In doing so, Jesus died living out his ideal. It was an ideal that he wanted – one of virtue and determination to never give in to the wants of others.

We can be Jesus like, but the struggles he faced are struggles we must endure if we are going to be free. Freedom comes at the cost of rejecting the wants and ideas that society places on us. We may not need to become martyrs for our freedom, but we must be so strong in our sticking to our values that we would rather face criticism and dislike than to fit in – if it means compromising those values.

To want to fit in is to keep the ego intact and to prioritize acceptance from others over our own free will. We can only understand our free will when we do reject all wants – materially and the expectations of others. By doing this we can become the decision makers of our own fate. We can choose to follow others or we can lead our own life wherever it takes us. We can control the heavens and find beauty and positivity in the world when we choose to look for that everywhere. That beauty and positivity is found in the present moment.

When we reject the need for our ego, when we drop the persona that faces others and start living our own ideal, we can truly be at peace and in control of our lives. And we don’t need God or anyone else telling us what to do. We are ultimately powerful when we are not controlled by others. God is not controlled by others. We are god embodied when we are not controlled by others.

We realize we are god embodied when we live out our ideal and refuse to compromise that ideal for anyone. This takes detaching ourselves from our ego that holds onto the wants and expectations of others. We, like god, are subject to no one’s control when we are able to do this. Jesus Christ demonstrated this when he died on the cross.

Learning is painful

To learn means to understand more information than we already know. To understand more information than we already know means we don’t know things, we need to find new information, and we need to accept new information. These are difficult, to the point of pain.

Pain is physical suffering, or discomfort. Learning is uncomfortable. To be comfortable is to be content. To be content with our current knowledge and understanding of the world is to be comfortable. To seek more knowledge, and deeper understanding of the world, requires discontentment with what we already know. It requires us to venture out into the unknown, and challenge what we know. Learning can induce physical suffering.

Reading a fact isn’t necessarily learning, even if we never heard the fact before. To learn means to understand, and to welcome an idea into your worldview. To do that, the idea must necessarily challenge the existing ideas that are in your head. To challenge existing ideas is to challenge our beliefs and our understanding of how the world works. We cannot challenge our understanding of how the world works without being uncomfortable. New information may change our understanding of how the world works. To learn requires us to be open to us being wrong about how the world works.

While the stoic promotes contentment in all aspects of life, mental challenge and understanding is the exception. Truth is held in regard as a high virtue by nearly all moral philosophers. It is only when we understand the world that we can make sense of it. When we understand the world, we can approach the challenges in life with courage and with the tools to best handle those challenges. We learn so that we gain the tools to handle these challenges, and so we can have the courage to act and overcome the challenge.

Society in 2018 promotes comfort. We are told we deserve comfort. We are not allowed to offend, because others are entitled to not be offended. But what if people are wrong? If people are wrong and are living in a world where their ideas are damaging – to themselves or others, then those ideas will manifest in behavior if they aren’t stopped or impeded by new information. Learning is key to defeating damaging and dangerous ideas. To promote learning ideas, we must promote the discomfort that comes with learning. It is part of the necessary process.

Without learning new things, people will be unprepared for the world. If they do not learn so that they are not offended, they will surely be offended when they see competing ideas manifest in real life. What if the socialist wants to see her ideas play out in American economics? To not socialize institutions is to go against what she believes is the ideal. She was never told that she had an unrealistic ideal – one that has been well-documented across many fields of study (economics, history, psychology). Should we let her ideal economic strategy manifest itself in the world? Maybe – at least she wouldn’t be offended and uncomfortable.

But what if that comes at the expense of a capitalist? The capitalist believes his economic worldview is correct. He may be offended if we choose to go with the socialist, planned economy because that economic system wouldn’t offend a girl who isn’t prepared for the world because her ideas have never been challenged. This doesn’t work. Ideas manifest in behavior, and ideas should be challenged so that the best ideas manifest. If the best idea doesn’t manifest, there are still benefits to challenging all ideas. The benefits – the chance that bad ideas won’t manifest in reality, will only come to fruition if people are open-minded to new ideas, which necessarily challenge the existing worldview, which is necessarily uncomfortable. Which is necessarily painful.

Something is painful when it makes us uncomfortable. Learning makes us uncomfortable because we must challenge what is known and comfortable in order to learn. Learning is painful.

Nietzsche mistook the message of the Church for the message of Christ

Nietzsche said, “Christianity is the biggest destroyer of man.” Nietzsche, one of the great thinkers in world history, was incredibly negative on the subject of Christianity. He viewed Christianity as the ultimate weakness.

Christianity, according to Nietzsche, glorifies weakness. It glorifies illness, weak people, and promotes those individuals as the virtuous, rather than the strong and the risk-takers. It does this through several traditions. A couple of these are the sacrament traditions. Confession removes the incentive to be good at all times and not give in to weakness. Anointing of the sick gives courage and hope to the weak and sick. There is less public glory for the strong and healthy. Equating heaven with the afterlife is damaging. Heaven gives a final out – you don’t need to be good all your living days to experience a blissful eternity.

Christianity is the organized religion centered around Christ and the Bible’s New Testament. It is the religious organization that follows the pope and meets on Sunday to celebrate together. Christianity is the practice of worshiping Christ. That is different from the message of Christ. The message of Christ is the words and meaning behind the words that Christ embodied. The message of Christ is captured in the Bible. The message of the church is captured in the public statements by priests, the Pope, and members of any attended clergy.

The church is global as well as local. One church may tune the message from the rest of the churches. The message of the Bible is universal and constant. That is, the words of the Bible are constant. These words can be interpreted differently.

Jesus Christ had one motivation – to remove suffering from the world. He showed people how to remove suffering from the world through his example. He lived the perfectly virtuous life and inspired others to do the same. When given the choice to flee his death or become a symbol of righteousness, he was stapled to the cross in gruesome fashion.

The church has other motivations. The church, as an institution, will decline to nonexistence if it does not maintain membership. The church must compete against other churches, against other religions, and against other activities. It must appear positive in media in order to not degrade the image of the members or the leaders.

The church, therefore, must have an ego. It must have mechanisms in place to appeal to groups of people. This goes directly against the teachings of Jesus. Jesus taught that one is only happy when he is virtuous, and that the ego must be destroyed to live in virtue. The church must guard its reputation to continue to please people. So, while the church can reach the message of Christ, it necessarily cannot live them out.

Nietzsche mistook the message of the church for the message of Christ. This is shown in his contempt for Christ, which he articulates in a couple of his books. The message of Christ is not the same as the message of the church. For example, to have no ego is the message of Christ but not the church. It is the church that makes more sense for the academic attacks by Nietzsche, not the message of Christ.

Vipassana is the art of focusing on the Process of living properly. Vipassana is the second most important thing to know in the world.

Vipassana is the second most important thing to know in the world. Vipassana is the art of focusing on the process of living properly. Vipassana, as a concept and practice, dates back to the earliest concepts and practices of Buddhism. The goal is to gain power over all things by gaining power over the mind. By controlling the thoughts that enter our minds, we can have more control over how those thoughts manifest in our behavior and our attitude. By being conscious of our thoughts, we can be aware of which thoughts are being pushed on us by outside forces – such as wants for status and wealth, versus those that we naturally come up with.

Vipassana is most often practiced by individuals that attend 10-day meditation retreats. During the 10-day retreat, the practitioner meditates for hours each day, does not indulge in any vice, conversation, or distraction of any kind, eats minimally and only for sustenance, and is to pay attention to each behavior that the individual engages in – whether that behavior is normally conscious or unconscious.

By bringing attention to not just the conscious behaviors but also the unconscious, we learn to focus on what we are doing at all times. By focusing on what we are doing at all times, we train our minds not to wander. When our minds don’t wander, they stay present on the activity we are doing. When we are fully engaged and focused on the activity we are doing, we receive the pleasure of not worrying about the past or future. Vipassana can be considered practical because we are more likely to excel at the task at hand if we are giving it our full attention. It can also be considered practical if we eliminate activities that do not benefit us through realization of what really matters.

Vipassana is so important because it is one of the few activities required for being happy. Worry, desire, and fear are three things that prevent us from being happy. These all necessarily require us to be thinking about the future. Worries and fears will only manifest in the future. Desires are things we want to obtain in the future. By living in the moment, we necessarily eliminate worry, desire, and fear. Regrets from the past cannot be undone. Vipassana eliminates regret.

When we eliminate worry, desire, and fear, we are happy. This requires rejection of external stimuli, a mind that is kept from distraction, and focusing on the present moment and any activity that is being done right now. When our mind wanders, we begin to think about future obligations. Those obligations are always means to satisfy our desires and eliminate worry. But fulfilling those obligations only makes us better at fulfilling obligations. It doesn’t make us better at ceasing to worry. Ceasing to worry happens by living intentionally in the moment, not in fulfilling obligations.

The only thing in life more important than Vipassana is the Buddhist concept of Samatha. Samatha is the calming of the mind. This is practiced by meditating, and can be practiced anytime. The concept of Samatha is to clear the mind of all thoughts, or at least get to a point where we don’t have uncontrolled thoughts.

It is only when the mind is calm that we can engage in Vipassana. We cannot concentrate on the present activity if we have an active mind that is full of constant thought. By practicing Samatha, we can calm the mind by training it to have fewer thoughts. This isn’t suppressing thoughts, it is an exercise we can do to have fewer thoughts that act as distractions from our lives. Instead of having numerous thoughts, we can control our thoughts by practicing Samatha.

In summary, Vipassana is important because it is necessarily required to live in the moment. Living in the moment is important because:

  • Focusing on each moment is important for peace of mind and understanding the right thing to do.
  • Happiness is found in the moment, where there are no worries, fears, wants, or regrets.

Vipassana is less important than Samatha, which is the most important thing to know in the world. Samatha is the calming of the mind. Only with a calm mind can one focus on each moment and, doing so, practice Vipassana. Because it is prerequisite for Vipassana, Samatha is more important.