Investing Your Psychic Energy in Yourself

[Black_Dragon43]

These are some ideas that I’ve had due to a recent discussion with @rpeck90 that I feel may be lifechanging to some people here.

Our discussion was mainly about business and how to invest in your business vs externals.

But I realized that it applies equally, if not more so, psychologically.

And this line of thought should clarify and bring order to a lot of other teaching you may have heard over the years.

I feel most people, myself included, fail to reach their potential because we squander most of our psychic energy by paying attention to what is essentially bullshit.

Some may have bigger potential than others, that doesn’t matter here. You can’t change your potential, the same way you can’t change your height or many other things about yourself.

And we squander our psychic energy because we invest it in goals that are external to ourselves.

You can lift weights in two different ways:

(1) You lift in order to be an Andrew Tate like gigachad that attracts women

Or

(2) You lift to develop your form, your skill, your strength, your discipline.

In the former case, the goal is external to yourself: women. Its achievement doesn’t depend upon the self nor does it develop the self by itself.

So why does this matter if in the end you achieve the same outcome (ie you get more girls) using both ways?

It matters infinitely. The former depletes your energy and will make you feel weaker and more depressed at the end of it… because you may have achieved the external goal, but you have failed to take notice and appreciate your own development.

As such, you exchanged your own self for something that is external — you sold out who you are, your essence, to get some tits and a$$, in plain English. And so you’re left with the tits and a$$, but without your self.

As Jesus asked, what good is gaining the whole world, if you will lose your own soul?

Therefore you’ll feel miserable. And it’s obvious why you’ll feel miserable when I put it like that.

Not that I care about feeling miserable. I’m personally concerned only with power, but the feeling of misery you experience is the subjective correlative of the loss of power that occurs objectively.

I see many people here set external goals. Make $1 million dollars is perhaps the most frequent LOL.

That’s what our culture teaches. It teaches you that money matters, fame matters, women matter — in other words everything matters but your own self.

This idea has led you to invest and give away all your psychic energy to the achievement of external goals which are imposed on you by society, and forget yourself.

It has caused you to move everything good outside of the self, and therefore deplete your self in the service of externals.

And that is how you are kept controlled — powering the matrix by giving away your energy to others, instead of investing it back into your own self.

The Stoics touched on this idea, by trying to identify externals, things outside of your control, vs internals, things within your control. But as you know, I’m not a fan of the Stoics and I think their philosophy is broken — because it misses out the key detail… it’s not about things you can control vs not control, nor about being virtuous or a good person morally. It’s about building your own power, vs squandering it.

Everything you can achieve externally is determined by your own power. The more power you have, the more you can do. The better you are able to control your future and to create what you wish to create.

And this power is morally indifferent — you can use it for good (say to build a business that makes millions) or for bad (say become a ruthless corrupt politician that takes over other people’s resources).

The key to building such a strong, robust, “antifragile” (I dislike the word, since Nassim Taleb considers the Stoics antifragile, big mistake imo) self lies in three activities:

1) Set internal goals that are relevant to your own self and its development

2) Focus attention on the internal goals vs the external ones. If anything the external ones should be TOOLS for the internal goals. For example, the internal goal is to play better tennis, and the external goal to win the match is merely a tool in the service of the internal goal. In this way other people, and the external environment become TOOLS in the service of your self, rather than your self becoming a tool in the service of the environment.

3) Pay attention to the process, and the development of the self that ensues as a result of the process as you are executing. Look for developing your own skills in other words.

This latter one is a KEY point — the investment of attention must be towards the development and exercise of SKILL.

This will shift your motivation from being externally driven, to being internally driven. It will shift the center of power from outside the self, back into the self, and it will give you power.

Happiness and joy will come, as a result of increasing personal power. Achievement will also come, as a result of increasing personal power.

The yogis likewise talk about preserving your energy and making it rise inside your chakras instead of spilling your seed all over the place. Well… I think that’s bullshit, but it’s driven by the right impulse.

That’s why they ask you to meditate. And although I do meditate and have in the past too, I think meditation is also bullshit. Because its purpose usually is losing the self.

I think the mistake here is in directing the goal towards the dissolution of the self, rather than towards the positive, which is your attention being so engrossed in the process of developing the self that the self is momentarily forgotten.

When you are engrossed in the process of developing the self, you lose consciousness of your self. And that is what actually allows your self to grow — you lose consciousness of it, and once you gain it back after your performance, your self is now bigger.

But this also is a far cry from the goal being the deconstruction of the self. That’s why India is a poor nation. They’ve destroyed their self, by taking part of the process of increasing power and perverting it... essentially making a correlative part, (losing consciousness of the self) into an end-in-itself. They control their minds, but, as a result, have 0 control over their environment. In essence, the yogi yields control of his environment in favor of extreme mental control and is therefore rendered powerless.

This happens when the goal becomes perfect integration into the environment (ie. Dissolution of the ego), rather that differentiation AND integration, which leads to better creative powers to bring about in the environment what you wish to create.

This is why both Eastern practices (yoga, meditation) and Western ones (Stoicism) are imo psychologically damaging to the development of the self imo.

The hope is that some of these ideas will provide you with better guidance.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Kevin88660]

These are some ideas that I’ve had due to a recent discussion with @rpeck90 that I feel may be lifechanging to some people here.

Our discussion was mainly about business and how to invest in your business vs externals.

But I realized that it applies equally, if not more so, psychologically.

And this line of thought should clarify and bring order to a lot of other teaching you may have heard over the years.

I feel most people, myself included, fail to reach their potential because we squander most of our psychic energy by paying attention to what is essentially bullshit.

Some may have bigger potential than others, that doesn’t matter here. You can’t change your potential, the same way you can’t change your height or many other things about yourself.

And we squander our psychic energy because we invest it in goals that are external to ourselves.

You can lift weights in two different ways:

(1) You lift in order to be an Andrew Tate like gigachad that attracts women

Or

(2) You lift to develop your form, your skill, your strength, your discipline.

In the former case, the goal is external to yourself: women. Its achievement doesn’t depend upon the self nor does it develop the self by itself.

So why does this matter if in the end you achieve the same outcome (ie you get more girls) using both ways?

It matters infinitely. The former depletes your energy and will make you feel weaker and more depressed at the end of it… because you may have achieved the external goal, but you have failed to take notice and appreciate your own development.

As such, you exchanged your own self for something that is external — you sold out who you are, your essence, to get some tits and a$$, in plain English. And so you’re left with the tits and a$$, but without your self.

As Jesus asked, what good is gaining the whole world, if you will lose your own soul?

Therefore you’ll feel miserable. And it’s obvious why you’ll feel miserable when I put it like that.

Not that I care about feeling miserable. I’m personally concerned only with power, but the feeling of misery you experience is the subjective correlative of the loss of power that occurs objectively.

I see many people here set external goals. Make $1 million dollars is perhaps the most frequent LOL.

That’s what our culture teaches. It teaches you that money matters, fame matters, women matter — in other words everything matters but your own self.

This idea has led you to invest and give away all your psychic energy to the achievement of external goals which are imposed on you by society, and forget yourself.

It has caused you to move everything good outside of the self, and therefore deplete your self in the service of externals.

And that is how you are kept controlled — powering the matrix by giving away your energy to others, instead of investing it back into your own self.

The Stoics touched on this idea, by trying to identify externals, things outside of your control, vs internals, things within your control. But as you know, I’m not a fan of the Stoics and I think their philosophy is broken — because it misses out the key detail… it’s not about things you can control vs not control, nor about being virtuous or a good person morally. It’s about building your own power, vs squandering it.

Everything you can achieve externally is determined by your own power. The more power you have, the more you can do. The better you are able to control your future and to create what you wish to create.

And this power is morally indifferent — you can use it for good (say to build a business that makes millions) or for bad (say become a ruthless corrupt politician that takes over other people’s resources).

The key to building such a strong, robust, “antifragile” (I dislike the word, since Nassim Taleb considers the Stoics antifragile, big mistake imo) self lies in three activities:

1) Set internal goals that are relevant to your own self and its development

2) Focus attention on the internal goals vs the external ones. If anything the external ones should be TOOLS for the internal goals. For example, the internal goal is to play better tennis, and the external goal to win the match is merely a tool in the service of the internal goal. In this way other people, and the external environment become TOOLS in the service of your self, rather than your self becoming a tool in the service of the environment.

3) Pay attention to the process, and the development of the self that ensues as a result of the process as you are executing. Look for developing your own skills in other words.

This latter one is a KEY point — the investment of attention must be towards the development and exercise of SKILL.

This will shift your motivation from being externally driven, to being internally driven. It will shift the center of power from outside the self, back into the self, and it will give you power.

Happiness and joy will come, as a result of increasing personal power. Achievement will also come, as a result of increasing personal power.

The yogis likewise talk about preserving your energy and making it rise inside your chakras instead of spilling your seed all over the place. Well… I think that’s bullshit, but it’s driven by the right impulse.

That’s why they ask you to meditate. And although I do meditate and have in the past too, I think meditation is also bullshit. Because its purpose usually is losing the self.

I think the mistake here is in directing the goal towards the dissolution of the self, rather than towards the positive, which is your attention being so engrossed in the process of developing the self that the self is momentarily forgotten.

When you are engrossed in the process of developing the self, you lose consciousness of your self. And that is what actually allows your self to grow — you lose consciousness of it, and once you gain it back after your performance, your self is now bigger.

But this also is a far cry from the goal being the deconstruction of the self. That’s why India is a poor nation. They’ve destroyed their self, by taking part of the process of increasing power and perverting it... essentially making a correlative part, (losing consciousness of the self) into an end-in-itself. They control their minds, but, as a result, have 0 control over their environment. In essence, the yogi yields control of his environment in favor of extreme mental control and is therefore rendered powerless.

This happens when the goal becomes perfect integration into the environment (ie. Dissolution of the ego), rather that differentiation AND integration, which leads to better creative powers to bring about in the environment what you wish to create.

This is why both Eastern practices (yoga, meditation) and Western ones (Stoicism) are imo psychologically damaging to the development of the self imo.

The hope is that some of these ideas will provide you with better guidance.

I feel it doesn’t matter if it is external or internal.

What really matters is that it is a good goal.

Seeking beauty standard validation ONLY is not a good goal imo. Just like men injecting steroids (to impress other straight men mainly) or girls eating an apple only worth of calories a day to fit in the T stage to be able to sell more clothes for fashion brands, at a huge cost of their health.

You have to search your own why.

Why 1 million dollars? Not $750k? Not 2M?

It is by an large not a deeply philosophical issue. It is a lack of clarity and lack of well thought processes.

If you don’t know what you are fighting for, you will quit when times get tough, and underachieve your potential.

 

[MJ DeMarco]

Much of what you are saying is A) Worry about what you can control and B) Be task oriented vs. outcome oriented.

From GoalSumo.com...

 

[socaldude]

I think you are on to something and largely correct.

I think a lot of these powerful confusions are created because the mind is Solipsism.

It's like saying how can something be both dependent and independent at the same time? Or how can something be both internal and external at the same time? A non sequitur.

It's like the deceptive "evil demon" of Descartes, The Veil of Maya in Buddhism or Plato's allegory of the cave.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Richard Peck]

Much of what you are saying is A) Worry about what you can control and B) Be task oriented vs. outcome oriented.

From GoalSumo.com...

View attachment 55793

Whilst that's largely the case, I would posit that what Tudor is suggesting is something deeper - more akin to "why" you want to run the marathon at all. Surely you could achieve the same result in your own way? Perhaps you can achieve it by doing something different?

Is that - at its heart - not what entrepreneurship is?... the pursuit of the fullest, richest, experience possible, using your own ideas + proclivities to do so? It seems to me that Tudor is describing how many get caught up in the mechanics of "how" things should be done, without considering "why" they're doing them, and working towards a set of goals/actions that would help facilitate the results they really want (which is often the opposite of what one thinks).

The biggest impediment to that, of course, is most people are incapable of discerning what they actually want in the first place. This is why they are so easily lead and buy junk; the modern (Western) world has become so devoid of spiritual awareness that many people seek external solutions to internal problems. The result, as Dan Kennedy once put it, is... "most people are walking around with their umbilical cords in their hands, looking for someplace to plug it in".

Once you start looking at this stuff, it's a deep rabbit hole. Simply, and probably the core factor, is most people think the answer is "more" but, really, it's "less". Do less, to a higher standard, and you'll experience a deeper, richer and fuller experience. Goals are fine, but what are you actually working towards?

Everything you can achieve externally is determined by your own power. The more power you have, the more you can do. The better you are able to control your future and to create what you wish to create.

I forgot where I read it now, but there is an inference to this from occult ideas in the form of the Schwarze Sonne.

It has Nazi affiliations now because of the castle that Himmler built for the SS, but - from what I remember - it represents the "sun" that exists inside of you. I'm pretty sure it was to do with the vril book I mentioned the other week, or perhaps the Secret Doctrine from Helena Blavatsky, whereby there is a hidden source of spiritual energy which most people neglect.

Investing into said energy makes you radiate excellence, drawing people & ideas to you...



Dr Wayne Dyer had an amazing set of lectures about the idea (not the symbol specifically) called The Power of Intention, which I found from looking at interviews with Sara Blakely of Spanx fame.

Here's a funny video I saved to my "commonplace" with it in: -

And this power is morally indifferent — you can use it for good (say to build a business that makes millions) or for bad (say become a ruthless corrupt politician that takes over other people’s resources).

The key to building such a strong, robust, “antifragile” (I dislike the word, since Nassim Taleb considers the Stoics antifragile, big mistake imo) self lies in three activities:

1) Set internal goals that are relevant to your own self and its development

2) Focus attention on the internal goals vs the external ones. If anything the external ones should be TOOLS for the internal goals. For example, the internal goal is to play better tennis, and the external goal to win the match is merely a tool in the service of the internal goal. In this way other people, and the external environment become TOOLS in the service of your self, rather than your self becoming a tool in the service of the environment.

3) Pay attention to the process, and the development of the self that ensues as a result of the process as you are executing. Look for developing your own skills in other words.

Bold is

I think the key factor is identifying what you "want" to pursue in the first place. This is difficult because there is so much depth associated with it, often with ideas you have no notion about.

For example, with MJ's post above, why do you want to do the marathon at all? What's the point?

The original marathon was born from Pheidippides having to run the 26 miles back to Athens to tell them that the army had won a historic victory against the Persians at the battle of Marathon. He supposedly died of a heart attack after proclaiming "Nike", leading the legend to develop around the event.

From what I've seen, that is illustrative of what it takes to consider "what" you should be doing...

The primary factor is impetus.

Most people have no impetus to do anything, leading them to drift aimlessly in the hope that "the big game" or some other bullshit will save them. A lot of people's behaviours are a subconscious attempt to solve this.

In the cave man days, your impetus was to survive. You had to gather food, hunt and defend your family. Throughout the development of most of human civilisation, the same was true.

After industry developed, most of people's lives were commodified away. Suddenly, you could buy a nice life for yourself... if only you had the means to do it. The result was the development of a "middle class", which didn't produce much on its own, but consumed a significant amount of the commodities produced by the new system.

This "middle class" is the reason why most people are totally lost. They are contingents of a system which needs them to keep buying things, trapped in a never-ending cycle of consumption. The majority of corporate propaganda, ideas and mechanics are focused on perpetuating it.

I found that the first step to truly freeing yourself is to break the hold this cycle has over your life.

To do so, you need to identify a single - monumental - cause to which you can dedicate yourself. The cause is not generally something you can vocalize, you should be able to feel it. There will be something, deep in your bones, which you want to become. The thought of the person that represents this ideal will permeate everything you do; I believe this to be your "destiny". The "style" you possess is a reflection of the inner energy you have developed in an attempt to realize it.

Once you realize what you need to be doing, doubt will leave you. Your eyes develop something I call the "infinity glare" - a deep, searching, stare that is unyielding. Most importantly, escape options & excuses dissipate. You either achieve it not, and your daily work becomes a means to continue to invest into your ability to do so.

What's intriguing is that if you do this properly, things happen which provide serendipitous benefits that you had no idea would occur. At any point, you have 1 thing you need to do. Then you do the next thing. Then the next thing. Over time, new things appear which provide the opportunity for you to invest into your ability to surmount them. The "work" you engage in, essentially, becomes a means of tackling each "thing" as it appears - all of it crystallizing the energy you had to summon to make it work as products, systems, ideas and "equity", which we've discussed at length now.

Here is a clip from the Wayne Dyer video above which explains it somewhat: -

View: https://youtu.be/Z2x2QNI3Msc?t=3930

Most people don't have a clue about this, mainly because it's not exposed in school or other educational mechanisms (primarily because doing so would make once-compliant slaves want to break their servitude).

However, a much more poignant reason is because most people simply don't possess the patience, desire or (perhaps) cognitive ability to understand it. Transcending the material is extremely difficult and is why "meditation" and other practices exist - meditation, at least the way I understand it, is the attempt to filter out the "noise" and get down to the underlying core energy that I've tried to expound above.

 

[Kevin88660]

Whilst that's largely the case, I would posit that what Tudor is suggesting is something deeper - more akin to "why" you want to run the marathon at all. Surely you could achieve the same result in your own way? Perhaps you can achieve it by doing something different?

Is that - at its heart - not what entrepreneurship is?... the pursuit of the fullest, richest, experience possible, using your own ideas + proclivities to do so? It seems to me that Tudor is describing how many get caught up in the mechanics of "how" things should be done, without considering "why" they're doing them, and working towards a set of goals/actions that would help facilitate the results they really want (which is often the opposite of what one thinks).

The biggest impediment to that, of course, is most people are incapable of discerning what they actually want in the first place. This is why they are so easily lead and buy junk; the modern (Western) world has become so devoid of spiritual awareness that many people seek external solutions to internal problems. The result, as Dan Kennedy once put it, is... "most people are walking around with their umbilical cords in their hands, looking for someplace to plug it in".

Once you start looking at this stuff, it's a deep rabbit hole. Simply, and probably the core factor, is most people think the answer is "more" but, really, it's "less". Do less, to a higher standard, and you'll experience a deeper, richer and fuller experience. Goals are fine, but what are you actually working towards?


I forgot where I read it now, but there is an inference to this from occult ideas in the form of the Schwarze Sonne.

It has Nazi affiliations now because of the castle that Himmler built for the SS, but - from what I remember - it represents the "sun" that exists inside of you. I'm pretty sure it was to do with the vril book I mentioned the other week, or perhaps the Secret Doctrine from Helena Blavatsky, whereby there is a hidden source of spiritual energy which most people neglect.

Investing into said energy makes you radiate excellence, drawing people & ideas to you...

View attachment 55803

Dr Wayne Dyer had an amazing set of lectures about the idea (not the symbol specifically) called The Power of Intention, which I found from looking at interviews with Sara Blakely of Spanx fame.

Here's a funny video I saved to my "commonplace" with it in: -

View attachment 55802



Bold is

I think the key factor is identifying what you "want" to pursue in the first place. This is difficult because there is so much depth associated with it, often with ideas you have no notion about.

For example, with MJ's post above, why do you want to do the marathon at all? What's the point?

The original marathon was born from Pheidippides having to run the 26 miles back to Athens to tell them that the army had won a historic victory against the Persians at the battle of Marathon. He supposedly died of a heart attack after proclaiming "Nike", leading the legend to develop around the event.

From what I've seen, that is illustrative of what it takes to consider "what" you should be doing...

The primary factor is impetus.

Most people have no impetus to do anything, leading them to drift aimlessly in the hope that "the big game" or some other bullshit will save them. A lot of people's behaviours are a subconscious attempt to solve this.

In the cave man days, your impetus was to survive. You had to gather food, hunt and defend your family. Throughout the development of most of human civilisation, the same was true.

After industry developed, most of people's lives were commodified away. Suddenly, you could buy a nice life for yourself... if only you had the means to do it. The result was the development of a "middle class", which didn't produce much on its own, but consumed a significant amount of the commodities produced by the new system.

This "middle class" is the reason why most people are totally lost. They are contingents of a system which needs them to keep buying things, trapped in a never-ending cycle of consumption. The majority of corporate propaganda, ideas and mechanics are focused on perpetuating it.

I found that the first step to truly freeing yourself is to break the hold this cycle has over your life.

To do so, you need to identify a single - monumental - cause to which you can dedicate yourself. The cause is not generally something you can vocalize, you should be able to feel it. There will be something, deep in your bones, which you want to become. The thought of the person that represents this ideal will permeate everything you do; I believe this to be your "destiny". The "style" you possess is a reflection of the inner energy you have developed in an attempt to realize it.

Once you realize what you need to be doing, doubt will leave you. Your eyes develop something I call the "infinity glare" - a deep, searching, stare that is unyielding. Most importantly, escape options & excuses dissipate. You either achieve it not, and your daily work becomes a means to continue to invest into your ability to do so.

What's intriguing is that if you do this properly, things happen which provide serendipitous benefits that you had no idea would occur. At any point, you have 1 thing you need to do. Then you do the next thing. Then the next thing. Over time, new things appear which provide the opportunity for you to invest into your ability to surmount them. The "work" you engage in, essentially, becomes a means of tackling each "thing" as it appears - all of it crystallizing the energy you had to summon to make it work as products, systems, ideas and "equity", which we've discussed at length now.

Here is a clip from the Wayne Dyer video above which explains it somewhat: -

View: https://youtu.be/Z2x2QNI3Msc?t=3930

Most people don't have a clue about this, mainly because it's not exposed in school or other educational mechanisms (primarily because doing so would make once-compliant slaves want to break their servitude).

However, a much more poignant reason is because most people simply don't possess the patience, desire or (perhaps) cognitive ability to understand it. Transcending the material is extremely difficult and is why "meditation" and other practices exist - meditation, at least the way I understand it, is the attempt to filter out the "noise" and get down to the underlying core energy that I've tried to expound above.

I think it boils down to following people who resonate deeply with you, rather than blindly chasing the hottest narrative.

There are a hundred ways to move from point A to B but probably only a handful that most suits you:

Take public figures for examples without naming names, the billionaire who is obsessed with longevity is very different from another billionaire who is obsessed with going to mars.

You need to seeks answer not just from outside but also from inside.

You cannot emulate someone’s style if you don’t even agree with them. If you worship them and “love at first sight” it’s superb easy.

If you ask why you are likely a strategic thinker. But not everyone has to be like that. Andy has a quote of “F*ck why”, and it serves many well too. I might not understand why it works for others but I understand it works for many other.

I personally like asking why, because knowing why is what it takes, to me to survive through the tough time.

 

[MJ DeMarco]

The primary factor is impetus.

Which comes down to meaning and purpose.

"Why" is the deepest drill into impetus and purpose.

For example, I try to jump rope every day.
Why?
Because I want to reach my max V02.
Why?
Because I want to be healthy when I'm 70,80, and 90.
Why?
Because I want to live long.
Why?
Because I love life and want to honor the gift it is.

The "winning a marathon" question actually might reveal some deeper seeded needs that sprung up from a childhood trauma or circumstance.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[NervesOfSteel]

These are some ideas that I’ve had due to a recent discussion with @rpeck90 that I feel may be lifechanging to some people here.

Our discussion was mainly about business and how to invest in your business vs externals.

But I realized that it applies equally, if not more so, psychologically.

And this line of thought should clarify and bring order to a lot of other teaching you may have heard over the years.

I feel most people, myself included, fail to reach their potential because we squander most of our psychic energy by paying attention to what is essentially bullshit.

Some may have bigger potential than others, that doesn’t matter here. You can’t change your potential, the same way you can’t change your height or many other things about yourself.

And we squander our psychic energy because we invest it in goals that are external to ourselves.

You can lift weights in two different ways:

(1) You lift in order to be an Andrew Tate like gigachad that attracts women

Or

(2) You lift to develop your form, your skill, your strength, your discipline.

In the former case, the goal is external to yourself: women. Its achievement doesn’t depend upon the self nor does it develop the self by itself.

So why does this matter if in the end you achieve the same outcome (ie you get more girls) using both ways?

It matters infinitely. The former depletes your energy and will make you feel weaker and more depressed at the end of it… because you may have achieved the external goal, but you have failed to take notice and appreciate your own development.

As such, you exchanged your own self for something that is external — you sold out who you are, your essence, to get some tits and a$$, in plain English. And so you’re left with the tits and a$$, but without your self.

As Jesus asked, what good is gaining the whole world, if you will lose your own soul?

Therefore you’ll feel miserable. And it’s obvious why you’ll feel miserable when I put it like that.

Not that I care about feeling miserable. I’m personally concerned only with power, but the feeling of misery you experience is the subjective correlative of the loss of power that occurs objectively.

I see many people here set external goals. Make $1 million dollars is perhaps the most frequent LOL.

That’s what our culture teaches. It teaches you that money matters, fame matters, women matter — in other words everything matters but your own self.

This idea has led you to invest and give away all your psychic energy to the achievement of external goals which are imposed on you by society, and forget yourself.

It has caused you to move everything good outside of the self, and therefore deplete your self in the service of externals.

And that is how you are kept controlled — powering the matrix by giving away your energy to others, instead of investing it back into your own self.

The Stoics touched on this idea, by trying to identify externals, things outside of your control, vs internals, things within your control. But as you know, I’m not a fan of the Stoics and I think their philosophy is broken — because it misses out the key detail… it’s not about things you can control vs not control, nor about being virtuous or a good person morally. It’s about building your own power, vs squandering it.

Everything you can achieve externally is determined by your own power. The more power you have, the more you can do. The better you are able to control your future and to create what you wish to create.

And this power is morally indifferent — you can use it for good (say to build a business that makes millions) or for bad (say become a ruthless corrupt politician that takes over other people’s resources).

The key to building such a strong, robust, “antifragile” (I dislike the word, since Nassim Taleb considers the Stoics antifragile, big mistake imo) self lies in three activities:

1) Set internal goals that are relevant to your own self and its development

2) Focus attention on the internal goals vs the external ones. If anything the external ones should be TOOLS for the internal goals. For example, the internal goal is to play better tennis, and the external goal to win the match is merely a tool in the service of the internal goal. In this way other people, and the external environment become TOOLS in the service of your self, rather than your self becoming a tool in the service of the environment.

3) Pay attention to the process, and the development of the self that ensues as a result of the process as you are executing. Look for developing your own skills in other words.

This latter one is a KEY point — the investment of attention must be towards the development and exercise of SKILL.

This will shift your motivation from being externally driven, to being internally driven. It will shift the center of power from outside the self, back into the self, and it will give you power.

Happiness and joy will come, as a result of increasing personal power. Achievement will also come, as a result of increasing personal power.

The yogis likewise talk about preserving your energy and making it rise inside your chakras instead of spilling your seed all over the place. Well… I think that’s bullshit, but it’s driven by the right impulse.

That’s why they ask you to meditate. And although I do meditate and have in the past too, I think meditation is also bullshit. Because its purpose usually is losing the self.

I think the mistake here is in directing the goal towards the dissolution of the self, rather than towards the positive, which is your attention being so engrossed in the process of developing the self that the self is momentarily forgotten.

When you are engrossed in the process of developing the self, you lose consciousness of your self. And that is what actually allows your self to grow — you lose consciousness of it, and once you gain it back after your performance, your self is now bigger.

But this also is a far cry from the goal being the deconstruction of the self. That’s why India is a poor nation. They’ve destroyed their self, by taking part of the process of increasing power and perverting it... essentially making a correlative part, (losing consciousness of the self) into an end-in-itself. They control their minds, but, as a result, have 0 control over their environment. In essence, the yogi yields control of his environment in favor of extreme mental control and is therefore rendered powerless.

This happens when the goal becomes perfect integration into the environment (ie. Dissolution of the ego), rather that differentiation AND integration, which leads to better creative powers to bring about in the environment what you wish to create.

This is why both Eastern practices (yoga, meditation) and Western ones (Stoicism) are imo psychologically damaging to the development of the self imo.

The hope is that some of these ideas will provide you with better guidance.

Are you trying to convey

"Achieving goals that are perceived as a success by the external world"
Vs
"Achieving goals that one considers success and finds contentment with it"?

 

[Dark Water]

This describes the essence of "motivation 3.0" put forth by Daniel Pink in the book "Drive".

Motivation 2.0 is the old carrot and stick analogy, where the thought is that people are motivated by external rewards, and that giving more rewards necessarily results in better performance - which we know isn't true.

Motivation 3.0 is the thought of doing things for ourselves, because we enjoy it - finding higher meaning, etc. AKA, Maslow's.

I certainly agree with your framing of it, and this is a thought-provoking post, but you say some things that are unnecessarily complex and detract from the greater meaning, eg:

That’s why India is a poor nation. They’ve destroyed their self, by taking part of the process of increasing power and perverting it... essentially making a correlative part, (losing consciousness of the self) into an end-in-itself. They control their minds, but, as a result, have 0 control over their environment. In essence, the yogi yields control of his environment in favor of extreme mental control and is therefore rendered powerless.

It almost sounds like an attempt to ascribe certain issues to Buddhism/Hinduism or related spiritual practices.

Japan is the third largest economy in the world with only a population of 125 million, 40-50% of which are Buddhist.

The differences between India and Japan and their wealth are not so much differences of stoicism or flavors of Buddhism but just history, technology, geopolitics, etc. India still has a top 5 economy in the world, but with 1.4 billion people they have a more necessarily complex situation especially playing from behind.

 

[NervesOfSteel]

But this also is a far cry from the goal being the deconstruction of the self. That’s why India is a poor nation. They’ve destroyed their self, by taking part of the process of increasing power and perverting it... essentially making a correlative part, (losing consciousness of the self) into an end-in-itself. They control their minds, but, as a result, have 0 control over their environment. In essence, the yogi yields control of his environment in favor of extreme mental control and is therefore rendered powerless.

This is one of the most BS theories I have encountered online. LOL.

India was rich enough to attract countless invaders and colonizers for over 1000 years or more!
India has arisen from shambles after its independence and despite partition and geopolitics, it has become 5th largest economy in the world and the largest economy in Southeast Asia!

Yoga on the other hand is often criticized by those who fail to understand it. Yoga leads to better health and self-control. The Yoga that deals with Chakras, the kundalini, and similar forms of yoga are meant for people seeking detachment, and this is actually what this form of Yoga delivers. This type of yoga is not meant for entrepreneurs at all.

The only proven philosophy that results in wealth creation is the Philosophy that focuses on developing technology, using it to make bigger and better weapons, and then using these weapons to loot, plunder, colonize, and dictate geopolitics!

in simple terms: Technological advantage, better tools, and dominate your market! Blood and Plunder!

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Black_Dragon43]

Much of what you are saying is A) Worry about what you can control and B) Be task oriented vs. outcome oriented.

In terms of practicalities, sure. But what I see as most important is the philosophy behind the practicalities.

For example, you could take something like what Christian monks and what Zen masters do and conclude based on the practicalities (sitting in silence, etc.) that they are doing essentially the same thing.

In my view this would be to miss the most important thing: each one has very different ends, or reasons for doing what they’re doing. And hence the results that they each achieve are different. The Christian monk wants to get closer to God, and the Zen Master seeks after spiritual awakening.

It’s one thing to run the marathon to win the $10K prize, and another thing to run the marathon to develop yourself and prove, to yourself, that you can do it.

The END that your practicalities are aimed towards + the surrounding philosophy has a big effect on what the actual result is. In one case you can end up quitting, because you rely almost entirely on reasons outside the self, while in the other you can end up persevering.

And my point is that it’s better to set the END as being inside your self, than outside the self… since the latter kind of end often dilutes your power.

Dr Wayne Dyer had an amazing set of lectures about the idea (not the symbol specifically) called The Power of Intention, which I found from looking at interviews with Sara Blakely of Spanx fame.

Very interesting, I’ve watched part I and will be watching more tonight.

I agree with it — you do have to tap into and align with a larger force. But most people never get that far, because they have no mastery over themselves. And they have no mastery over themselves because they waste their energy on externals.

I think the first stage, psychologically, is making sure your thoughts and actions are primarily self-driven rather than environment-driven, and this is part of what I wanted to address.

Most people are zombies — their thoughts are almost entirely driven by the external environment. And hence they have 0 control over their lives, because they end up reacting to what’s happening to them rather than driving in any sort of direction.

So before they find a cause bigger than themselves, they need to gain self-mastery.

Transcending the material is extremely difficult and is why "meditation" and other practices exist - meditation, at least the way I understand it, is the attempt to filter out the "noise" and get down to the underlying core energy that I've tried to expound above.

I agree. There are multiple forms of meditation, when I say meditation primarily I mean mindfulness meditation as that’s what’s usually understood by the word today. The stuff Sam Harris practices on the Waking Up app — I think that stuff is bullshit. Meditation may be part of a spiritual practice, it’s never a spiritual practice by itself though.

As I said the most valuable thing most people can do is gain control over their actions and thinking process. Mindfulness is unlikely to help with that, because while it sharpens attention, it does not bring about change. Simple example, if someone has health anxiety and every spare moment they have has them worried if they’re dying from some incurable disease, they can practice mindfulness all day long. It may get them relaxed and their mind temporarily off their problem… but it won’t fix it. It will keep coming back, because they really need to learn to think differently first.

So this broader framework is required that can help them cultivate the right attitudes, the right actions so they can master their self. Then connection with a larger power emerges from that self-mastery.

 

[Richard Peck]

Which comes down to meaning and purpose.

"Why" is the deepest drill into impetus and purpose.

For example, I try to jump rope every day.
Why?
Because I want to reach my max V02.
Why?
Because I want to be healthy when I'm 70,80, and 90.
Why?
Because I want to live long.
Why?
Because I love life and want to honor the gift it is.

The "winning a marathon" question actually might reveal some deeper seeded needs that sprung up from a childhood trauma or circumstance.

Thank you for the response!

As I understand it, there is an undercurrent to life wherein if you attach yourself to a greater idea / purpose, its pursuit will encourage counter-intuitive or non-linear activity. The more abstract the activities, the higher potentiality of monumental success through the development of obscure or novel ideas. Ironically, you have to detach yourself from the "result" in order for the results to appear. It's extremely counter-intuitive how it works and one of the reasons I actually felt inclined to participate more thoroughly in this community ("focus on the process").

I think having the means to understand and identify a purpose (as well as becoming someone to whom one is bestowed) is what Tudor was referring to.

"Wanting to live long" isn't a good example, it's centred on the self. Writing a book to showcase what you've found about the truth about entrepreneurship and build a vibrant, helpful, community off the back of it, is a great one.

What I'm referring to (and, perhaps, I've misunderstood what Tudor has tried to expound) is much deeper; a whisper that can only be heard at certain moments. There was a good TedX talk I watched some time ago in which the lady giving the talk mentioned that inspiration is like a breath of wind that washes over you...

View: https://youtu.be/86x-u-tz0MA?t=664

There comes a point, sometimes, where an idea is so strong that you cannot let it go. That's what I was referring to.

But most people never get that far, because they have no mastery over themselves. And they have no mastery over themselves because they waste their energy on externals.

Indeed - it takes a lot to do that which is why most people never get anywhere near it.

In my view, there are two types of people. The type you're referring to only deal with what exists. They are unwilling, or incapable, of using their faculties to make anything new for a variety of reasons. The other has a spark which allows them to make things, experiences or ideas which transcend the material. Steve Jobs had such a spark, as did Michelangelo etc.

The latter don't question things as they are, but as they want them to be. They look at the world as a canvas through which their energy & investment can create things which were not feasible before. Whilst the motives for doing so differ, the results are generally the same - huge success born of the creation of new ideas that others can adopt & use.

The question I think you're trying to answer is how does somebody get to a point whereby this spark is not only present but readily accessible in their life. Self mastery will only take you so far; one can "no fap" for X days, but that will not get you laid, which I presume is the point of it. In the same sense - directing your focus/energy inward will certainly give you some level of value, but likely won't help you achieve what you really want. Understanding what you really want, and becoming aligned with achieving it, is, to me, the real question.

You've obviously explained this in depth in the OP, just passing my interpretation in case anybody wanted a second opinion. I've done a lot of research on this topic, mainly to discern an appropriate path to success.

The stuff Sam Harris practices on the Waking Up app — I think that stuff is bullshit. Meditation may be part of a spiritual practice, it’s never a spiritual practice by itself though.

I've not seen this app, but having just quickly looked at the various videos on YouTube, it does seem to be BS.

One thing I have found is that most people will not change their behaviour if they can get away with it - they would prefer to mask over the problem with feel good quotes and action-faking. "The Secret" was a similar thing. I read the secret and is where I found out about Hermes Trismegistus and "The Science of Getting Rich".

I never, for a moment, thought that it would give me superhuman powers whereby if I imagined something, it would appear in front of me (was surprised to find out that a lot of people took it that way).

I do think there is a lot of value within it that can direct someone to becoming "self actualizing" (IE pursuing what you actually want). But there is a significant amount of introspection, faith and learning that has to be done before that.

I get the impression that "meditation" and various other spiritual practices fall into the same camp. In my view, the only cure for anything is "action" (directed energy). Most people direct (waste) their energy on external shit. The best direct it inwards (as you've mentioned) and become capable of transcending problems which would cripple others: -

^^ Another one from my "commonplace"!

I've found - by and large - life to be ironic (works opposite to what you think). The biggest irony is we are born to die.

A significant irony I've found is that it's typical to feel weak and seek external power to support you. The majority of things we've touched on above are due to this. Another example is prayer. In prayer, most people ask for help. However, "God" will only help you if you help yourself first. I learned that the best "prayer" is to arrogantly thank the world for your impending success and use it to push yourself toward more productive activity.

As I said the most valuable thing most people can do is gain control over their actions and thinking process. Mindfulness is unlikely to help with that, because while it sharpens attention, it does not bring about change. Simple example, if someone has health anxiety and every spare moment they have has them worried if they’re dying from some incurable disease, they can practice mindfulness all day long. It may get them relaxed and their mind temporarily off their problem… but it won’t fix it. It will keep coming back, because they really need to learn to think differently first.

So this broader framework is required that can help them cultivate the right attitudes, the right actions so they can master their self. Then connection with a larger power emerges from that self-mastery.

Do you have any examples of what you're referring to?

What framework do you have presently to encourage mastery in your own life?

I only ask because I've seen a lot of things about this and it may spur some insightful conversation to see how you manage it. I can explain my process if warranted, but it would definitely be interesting to hear about yours & others.

 

[oku]

I feel it doesn’t matter if it is external or internal.

What really matters is that it is a good goal.

Seeking beauty standard validation ONLY is not a good goal imo. Just like men injecting steroids (to impress other straight men mainly) or girls eating an apple only worth of calories a day to fit in the T stage to be able to sell more clothes for fashion brands, at a huge cost of their health.

You have to search your own why.

Why 1 million dollars? Not $750k? Not 2M?

It is by an large not a deeply philosophical issue. It is a lack of clarity and lack of well thought processes.

If you don’t know what you are fighting for, you will quit when times get tough, and underachieve your potential.

The saying goes, If you don't have a plan for yourself, someone else will have a plan for you.
You find purpose in having a goal.
Of course people want to distract you with their bullshit, but they only can, if you allow them.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Kevin88660]

Thank you for the response!

As I understand it, there is an undercurrent to life wherein if you attach yourself to a greater idea / purpose, its pursuit will encourage counter-intuitive or non-linear activity. The more abstract the activities, the higher potentiality of monumental success through the development of obscure or novel ideas. Ironically, you have to detach yourself from the "result" in order for the results to appear. It's extremely counter-intuitive how it works and one of the reasons I actually felt inclined to participate more thoroughly in this community ("focus on the process").

I think having the means to understand and identify a purpose (as well as becoming someone to whom one is bestowed) is what Tudor was referring to.

"Wanting to live long" isn't a good example, it's centred on the self. Writing a book to showcase what you've found about the truth about entrepreneurship and build a vibrant, helpful, community off the back of it, is a great one.

What I'm referring to (and, perhaps, I've misunderstood what Tudor has tried to expound) is much deeper; a whisper that can only be heard at certain moments. There was a good TedX talk I watched some time ago in which the lady giving the talk mentioned that inspiration is like a breath of wind that washes over you...

View: https://youtu.be/86x-u-tz0MA?t=664

There comes a point, sometimes, where an idea is so strong that you cannot let it go. That's what I was referring to.



Indeed - it takes a lot to do that which is why most people never get anywhere near it.

In my view, there are two types of people. The type you're referring to only deal with what exists. They are unwilling, or incapable, of using their faculties to make anything new for a variety of reasons. The other has a spark which allows them to make things, experiences or ideas which transcend the material. Steve Jobs had such a spark, as did Michelangelo etc.

The latter don't question things as they are, but as they want them to be. They look at the world as a canvas through which their energy & investment can create things which were not feasible before. Whilst the motives for doing so differ, the results are generally the same - huge success born of the creation of new ideas that others can adopt & use.

The question I think you're trying to answer is how does somebody get to a point whereby this spark is not only present but readily accessible in their life. Self mastery will only take you so far; one can "no fap" for X days, but that will not get you laid, which I presume is the point of it. In the same sense - directing your focus/energy inward will certainly give you some level of value, but likely won't help you achieve what you really want. Understanding what you really want, and becoming aligned with achieving it, is, to me, the real question.

You've obviously explained this in depth in the OP, just passing my interpretation in case anybody wanted a second opinion. I've done a lot of research on this topic, mainly to discern an appropriate path to success.



I've not seen this app, but having just quickly looked at the various videos on YouTube, it does seem to be BS.

One thing I have found is that most people will not change their behaviour if they can get away with it - they would prefer to mask over the problem with feel good quotes and action-faking. "The Secret" was a similar thing. I read the secret and is where I found out about Hermes Trismegistus and "The Science of Getting Rich".

I never, for a moment, thought that it would give me superhuman powers whereby if I imagined something, it would appear in front of me (was surprised to find out that a lot of people took it that way).

I do think there is a lot of value within it that can direct someone to becoming "self actualizing" (IE pursuing what you actually want). But there is a significant amount of introspection, faith and learning that has to be done before that.

I get the impression that "meditation" and various other spiritual practices fall into the same camp. In my view, the only cure for anything is "action" (directed energy). Most people direct (waste) their energy on external shit. The best direct it inwards (as you've mentioned) and become capable of transcending problems which would cripple others: -

^^ Another one from my "commonplace"!

I've found - by and large - life to be ironic (works opposite to what you think). The biggest irony is we are born to die.

A significant irony I've found is that it's typical to feel weak and seek external power to support you. The majority of things we've touched on above are due to this. Another example is prayer. In prayer, most people ask for help. However, "God" will only help you if you help yourself first. I learned that the best "prayer" is to arrogantly thank the world for your impending success and use it to push yourself toward more productive activity.



Do you have any examples of what you're referring to?

What framework do you have presently to encourage mastery in your own life?

I only ask because I've seen a lot of things about this and it may spur some insightful conversation to see how you manage it. I can explain my process if warranted, but it would definitely be interesting to hear about yours & others.

Your why could be very different from someone else’s why.

Living longer is not just “living another ten to fifteen years”.

Because life science technology is making rapid breakthrough, there is maybe 10 percent chance imo, that you can reach immortality (longevity escape velocity).

You need to not die, at least be healthy enough for persistent repairs to be feasible, before the next few big breakthrough.

Immortality means unlimited happiness, which if you ever put a price at it is worth $gazillions.

10% x $gazillions is still $gazillions…in term of expected value.

It is the biggest biggest asymmetric return pursuit in life you shall not miss out.

 

[Black_Dragon43]

"Wanting to live long" isn't a good example, it's centred on the self. Writing a book to showcase what you've found about the truth about entrepreneurship and build a vibrant, helpful, community off the back of it, is a great one.

Agreed. However, I think it’s not a good purpose because it’s too general. The entrepreneurship one is better, but not by much.

You know what a great purpose is?

It’s like what Edmond Dantes from the Count of Monte Cristo had when he escaped from prison. To find the treasure Abbe Faria told him about and to hunt down his enemies and ruin them.

You know why it’s so great?

Because it’s DEEPLY personal. Nobody else can share that purpose. It is totally unique to his situation in the world. Compare with the purpose above “I love life and want to live as long as possible” — hell, almost anyone can say that. I also want to live as long as possible. But I don’t do things for it, because it’s some general BS and it’s not embedded into my personal history.

The other reason why it’s so great is because the self no longer matters. Edmond Dantes didn’t care if he died to achieve his purpose when he set out to do it. If he had cared about his own life, he would have never tried to escape prison. Think about it. Think about what YOU would have done in a similar situation.

You see this in ALL great men — they are possessed by a force which allows them to treat death and the greatest calamities with utter indifference.

Think about what Socrates did when they accused him. He could have escaped death, but he couldn’t care less about it. In fact, he did and said everything he had to be executed. In fact, when the weaklings around him were sobbing and crying about his death, he mocked them.

Part of what we admire about greatness is that life itself is worthless to it, it has attained something of far greater worth.

Here is Kierkegaard:

“Let others complain that the age is wicked; my complaint is that it is paltry; for it lacks passion. Men's thoughts are thin and flimsy like lace, they are themselves pitiable like the lacemakers. The thoughts of their hearts are too paltry to be sinful. For a worm it might be regarded as a sin to harbor such thoughts, but not for a being made in the image of God. Their lusts are dull and sluggish, their passions sleepy...This is the reason my soul always turns back to the Old Testament and to Shakespeare. I feel that those who speak there are at least human beings: they hate, they love, they murder their enemies, and curse their descendants throughout all generations, they sin.”

It’s also why I love Dan Pena. He’s a real man. Every night, I remember when he said “you’re not even a drop of sweat running down the left testicle of Steve Jobs” — because he’s right. And he has the courage to say it. Most people don’t. They’re like “oh, I have an ecommerce store making $10M/year” — F*ck you, you’re as good as broke, that’s nothing to be proud of! Embarrasment to the human race!

What I'm referring to (and, perhaps, I've misunderstood what Tudor has tried to expound) is much deeper; a whisper that can only be heard at certain moments. There was a good TedX talk I watched some time ago in which the lady giving the talk mentioned that inspiration is like a breath of wind that washes over you...

I have felt this in public speaking. I ran for student council President as mostly an unpopular kid. And against a very competitive field, I won with 75% of the votes — almost unheard of. And it was because of ONE speech, right before voting happened. As soon as I finished my speech, I knew from the reaction of the crowd that I had won. There was no doubt in my mind, losing at that point was impossible.

The crowd was whipped into such a frenzy that teachers around started filming it, saying they had never witnessed something like that before. The students refused to go to class and waited for me to exit the auditorium, they carried me in the air, they each wanted to shake my hand, and so on. They compared me to Kennedy and Hitler.

I was like a god — literarily. I’ve never felt like such a god after that moment. It was as Trump said, I felt I could shoot someone and get away with it. Before that moment, most girls were unavailable to me. After that moment, I could have ANYONE, and that’s not an exageration.

I repeated this once in university. And the third time I tried it, it failed miserably. And I knew it failed even before the results came out. You can feel it based on the energy in the room.

Whenever I gave such a fiery, strong speech, I knew from the first reaction of the crowd what the result would be. When it worked, the crowd was on the edge of their seats… they had never seen something like that before. They were spellbound. Every turning point encouraged a reaction, every reaction fed back into my energy. Whereas when it failed, there was general noiseiness, lack of attention, even laughter. The crowd wasn’t pleased.

Overall, it’s not just being a person with the capacity to channel such energy… you also need the right circumstances to succeed. I am sure that with the right circumstances, I could create a huge political movement. I’m not so sure how to create those circumstances, but if they exist, winning the hearts and minds of people is easy.

Self mastery will only take you so far; one can "no fap" for X days, but that will not get you laid, which I presume is the point of it. In the same sense - directing your focus/energy inward will certainly give you some level of value, but likely won't help you achieve what you really want. Understanding what you really want, and becoming aligned with achieving it, is, to me, the real question.

By self-mastery I don’t mean just “no fap”. I never believed much in that actually, I was always of the thought of fap as much as possible LOL!

What I mean rather is gaining control over the facts that usually lead to entropy, and channeling them in a productive direction.

For me, one such fact is OCD. When uncontrolled, I worry if I left the stove on. When controlled, I go into a mad frenzy and don’t stop until X is achieved.

Most people lack this energy. Let’s say we’re in the mall, and it’s crowded. When I’m in that situation I identify the shortest path to my goal, and then Im super focused on every small inch I can gain to get towards it through the crowded room. If I’m in a group, the group will often be left behind me, because they simply can’t be as aggressive as benefiting from every small opportunity. A small gap there, an individual that moves slower over there — all of these are opportunities, and I care deeply about making the most of them to get to my goal which is exiting the crowded area as soon as possible. Most people are sort of indifferent. And they just don’t know what to do. They’re too stuck in “being social”.

discern an appropriate path to success

Do you think there is a common path to success?

I get the impression that "meditation" and various other spiritual practices fall into the same camp. In my view, the only cure for anything is "action" (directed energy). Most people direct (waste) their energy on external shit. The best direct it inwards (as you've mentioned) and become capable of transcending problems which would cripple others: -

I think for the most part thought, not in terms of mindset (ie convincing yourself to take the action), but rather in terms of figuring out what you want comes before action. You can act all you want, but if the thinking behind the action is weak, than the effect will be weak too.

Do you have any examples of what you're referring to?

What framework do you have presently to encourage mastery in your own life?

I only ask because I've seen a lot of things about this and it may spur some insightful conversation to see how you manage it. I can explain my process if warranted, but it would definitely be interesting to hear about yours & others.

What I mean is, for example, Sam Harris and what most people understand via mindfulness vs Michael Brown’s Presence Process (to which I was introduced to by John). Presence Process contains a form of meditation, but that is just ONE component of a framework that includes a lot more — reading and thinking, focusing of attention on different ideas, and yes, meditation.

A framework leads to mastery because it’s a complete solution. Mindfulness isn’t a complete solution to anything. Rather it is, as Jordan Peterson said (and mind you, I don’t even like Peterson, I think he’s a hypocrite), a FAD!

 

[Richard Peck]

Do you think there is a common path to success?

Yes, I do.

I think most people don't pursue "the path" as they distract themselves with trivia, hence why success is often seen as complicated or unique. I think it is the same regardless of who you are or where you live - the difference lies in subjective challenges presented by mental acuity, environment, personal circumstances etc.

Your willingness to overcome these challenges determines how far along the path you go.

My view is success comes down to one thing which you've highlighted previously - the marshalling of resources.

The more resources you can marshal at any one time, the more "successful" you are due to the power you attain through their accrual. Throughout history, the most successful have been smart, organised and brave enough to take control of the largest amount of land and, subsequently, the resources said land yielded. You've identified this previously with your allusion to "infrastructure" ownership/control being the clearest indicator of wealth.

The difference in the modern world is industrialisation has promulgated a global capitalistic system which has spread wealth around. Land alone is not an indicator of wealth anymore - what you can do with the land, and its resources, is.

The result is a merchant class which creates "new" resources that did not exist previously.

We now live in a world wherein "normal" people can create ideas, products and offerings which can be bought & used by millions around the world - through a global trading network underpinned by the US. The depth + breadth of the audience created by this is, essentially, where the value of a business lies.

If we consider the ultimate value of a business lies in what it produces (not what it owns), it is my opinion that there is "unlimited" opportunity to grow & develop IF you are able to create resources which are more useful to more people. I came to this idea from viewing a documentary about NASA's WMAP telescope, wherein it suggested the "shape of the universe" is infinite.

That was a turning point in my philosophy of how things worked; it suggested to me that there is something beyond what we see - an "infinite" supply of energy which one can tap into and create our own things in the world (IE not just piggybacking someone else's).

This was corroborated by other things I read, which included some of Wayne Dyer's work mentioned previously. Our discussions about "equity" / "equitable value" are, basically, the physical manifestation of the process behind this - creating new ideas, resources, processes will give you value which nobody else is able to attain. This is why certain brands & people have precedent that others don't.

The notion that there is an infinite plain where ideas originate is actually quite important as, if it forms part of your philosophy, you will be partial to pursuing new paths, which others don't have the will to venture down.

It explains why some people "radiate" success and others don't. The ones who become monumentally successful tend to create new opportunities, ideas and connections. It's also where a lot of the value of the "equitable" products we discussed in our DM conversation originate - the first map to mention "America" was worth $10m to the US Library of Congress because it signified everything the US was designed to represent - a "new world" that bore significant opportunity, hope and freedom for all who it embraced.

Thus, when looking at a "path" to success, I see two avenues: -

1. Take resources created by others
2. Build your own

In both cases, the result is the same - accumulation of resources (explained above).

The difference lies in how those resources are accumulated. Avenue #1 has a limit because you are skipping the underlying process which created them in the first place. It works in the short term, but fails in the long.

Avenue #2 is significantly more difficult to start, but once in motion, has unlimited upside potential.

In both cases, the underlying process is the same - the value of what you create lies in the experiences that it opens up for the purveyor. In other words, how much "life" does it deliver to the buyer. Sunglasses, for example, are not about small pieces of plastic you wear on your face... they open the door to special experiences on sun-kissed Mediterranean beaches. The type of experience it helps you discover, the people you meet and the feeling you get from it is where its value resides.

The only way you can do this is to first imbue what you're doing with life itself, which is where most people have a problem - they have nothing to give, resulting in them becoming stuck with superficial opportunities that do little for all involved.

My opinion is "richness" comes from depth. The deeper a proposition, idea or solution, the more potential it has to provide "life" that makes things valuable. The only way to make something "deep" is to make it "lived".

To give an example, compare two brands: Sunspel + Castore.

Sunspel are renowned, predominantly, for supplying their "Riviera" navy blue polo to Daniel Craig in Casino Royale: -

"Handsome, poised and difficult to argue with, our Riviera Polo Shirt shares more than a few of Bond’s finer qualities."

Why would you describe a polo shirt as "handsome", "poised" or "difficult to argue with"?.... because people aren't buying the polo shirt, but who it helps you become by wearing it.

The way Sunspel managed to capture this is amazing - understated, resolved and letting the experience do the talking.

You can see some of the praise they received as a consequence of the affiliation: -

Bond's perfectly cut polo shirt is a timeless, covetable classic

Just in time for the much-delayed release of No Time To Die, you can get your hands on 007’s favourite summer polo shirt.

www.gq-magazine.co.uk

Now compare this to what Castore did...

View: https://youtu.be/Ag_FR6lBPWc?t=462

"There is no Bond Moment".

Think about that.

What is a "bond moment"?

It's the idea that what you're wearing ties into to a moment created in the film franchise... like what Sunspel did.

Instead of imbuing what they were doing with the same richness / depth as Sunspel, Castore went for a cash grab and subsequently lost out on a huge opportunity to make something valuable...



Compare it to the comments left on a video about Sunspel on the same channel: -



I think it's the same in life generally.

Most people think you need to try and sell as much as possible as cheaply as possible in order to become successful. At the beginning, you do (to a certain degree).

However, success is far more nuanced than that - there is magic in drilling deep into an idea and pursuing it with all your energy. The "weight" you create as a consequence of doing that cannot be faked - it sticks to you and gives you the means to pursue higher / more valuable ideas afterwards. Furthermore, people can sense it. You don't need to talk about it, gloat or exclaim anything. Just state what it is and move on.

The best marketing, in that regard, is beautiful "long form" content (probably with a high quality video) explaining what was done to make it work --> we discussed this in our private conversation.

Thus, I feel there are "steps" which can be applied universally to becoming successful. How one pursues their completion, essentially, determines what success looks like to them; the core of it all is that you need to invest yourself into building as much richness, depth + value as possible over a sustained period: -

1. Self

First step is to get yourself to a point where you are able to bring significant resources to bear on ideas, projects and opportunities. This can come in the form of money/capital, experience, expertise, vicinity or speed.

The key is accruing enough value in your own person that your contribution to new projects becomes valuable enough to warrant people reaching out for you specifically. This is irrespective of environment; even if you're working at McDonalds, coming up with new - better - ways to achieve specific things will give the ability to pursue more of them.

The big mistake a lot of people make with entrepreneurship is skipping this step.

2. Product

If you do step 1, you'll create a series of systems to achieve results that are specific to you.

These systems are going to be unique to you (and probably dependent on some specific circumstance to make them work). The second step is to take the systems and turn them into products which other people can use.

Probably the most apt example of this is MJ's "Fastlane" methodology. On its own, it means little... but because MJ has the experience to back up what he says, and has formulated both a strategy and tactics to enact it in the world, he has created a "system" which yields a certain type of result.

His work with the forum and subsequent community has turned the system promulgated by the book into a product that someone like you or I can use to achieve our own success. This, in my view, is where the "Fastlane" really sits - as it allows you to deliver the value without needing your own input each time.

The key is that if you build this around systems that you have developed, the value is retained by you. This is partly why step 1, and the various other parts of the puzzle listed above, is very important... you can only go so far by using other people's stuff. If you want to become "truly" successful, you need to break your own ground.

3. Scale

Finally, once you have experience and a product built around a system you have developed, you can start looking at "scale". There is a direct connotation to this, and an indirect.

Directly, "scale" is making the maths work with bigger numbers. For example, you were serving 100 clients previously, now you want to work with 1,000. I don't have any real experience with this side of things at the moment.

Indirectly, however, is much more intriguing and overlooked. Indirect "scale" means building out the various backend (infrastructural) aspects of the business to handle larger growth. This may include the likes of developing "brand equity" that encourages higher value purchases, building relationships/connections with larger industry players etc.

In order to facilitate the "direct" part of scale, you need to sort out the indirect. Doing this will set your company up to become a significant player in whatever industry you're involved with.

-

Once you have those in mind, and commit yourself to a path of bringing them to life, various challenges appear which need to be overcome. How you tackle those challenges is, essentially, what determines how far you grow.

If you follow the above, there is no limit to how far you can grow. You're basically limited by your experience and willingness to take on increasingly difficult projects.

That's my interpretation of it.

I have felt this in public speaking. I ran for student council President as mostly an unpopular kid. And against a very competitive field, I won with 75% of the votes — almost unheard of. And it was because of ONE speech, right before voting happened. As soon as I finished my speech, I knew from the reaction of the crowd that I had won. There was no doubt in my mind, losing at that point was impossible.

The crowd was whipped into such a frenzy that teachers around started filming it, saying they had never witnessed something like that before. The students refused to go to class and waited for me to exit the auditorium, they carried me in the air, they each wanted to shake my hand, and so on. They compared me to Kennedy and Hitler.

I was like a god — literarily. I’ve never felt like such a god after that moment. It was as Trump said, I felt I could shoot someone and get away with it. Before that moment, most girls were unavailable to me. After that moment, I could have ANYONE, and that’s not an exageration.

I repeated this once in university. And the third time I tried it, it failed miserably. And I knew it failed even before the results came out. You can feel it based on the energy in the room.

Whenever I gave such a fiery, strong speech, I knew from the first reaction of the crowd what the result would be. When it worked, the crowd was on the edge of their seats… they had never seen something like that before. They were spellbound. Every turning point encouraged a reaction, every reaction fed back into my energy. Whereas when it failed, there was general noiseiness, lack of attention, even laughter. The crowd wasn’t pleased.

Overall, it’s not just being a person with the capacity to channel such energy… you also need the right circumstances to succeed. I am sure that with the right circumstances, I could create a huge political movement. I’m not so sure how to create those circumstances, but if they exist, winning the hearts and minds of people is easy.

Amazing!! I would have loved to see a video of the speech!

Regarding the highlighted part - whilst circumstances are absolutely important, I think one can become successful regardless. Indeed, you often see throughout history instances of individuals becoming significant without having the circumstances set up prior to them doing so. I would argue that it's in the dearth of circumstances where great people tend to emerge; at every juncture in history, it took someone of immense vision and subsequent perseverance to enable the realization of an idea (which often sat at odds to the status quo).

I'm not entirely sure whether the individual or circumstances come first in that case. Perhaps you would be able to offer some ideas on the topic?

A framework leads to mastery because it’s a complete solution. Mindfulness isn’t a complete solution to anything. Rather it is, as Jordan Peterson said (and mind you, I don’t even like Peterson, I think he’s a hypocrite), a FAD!

Agreed - one might argue a "system" is comparable to a framework.

The value of the system that you develop - firstly for yourself and then your business / work - typically denotes the value of the contributions you can make as a result. The big mistake a lot of people make is not having

It’s also why I love Dan Pena. He’s a real man. Every night, I remember when he said “you’re not even a drop of sweat running down the left testicle of Steve Jobs” — because he’s right. And he has the courage to say it. Most people don’t. They’re like “oh, I have an ecommerce store making $10M/year” — F*ck you, you’re as good as broke, that’s nothing to be proud of! Embarrasment to the human race!

Jobs wasn't the messiah Pena paints him to be.

Sure, he was very cultured and had a lot of insight, but most of his stuff was copied and Apple's true innovation came from its appeal to creatives, which started with Apple II shipping with full colour.

Apple II sustained Apple until the early 90's, even after switching focus onto the Mac. Steve Jobs failed at so many projects that he was effectively exiled out of Apple, which eventually lead to his resignation. He struggled to find much adoption for the NeXT system - itself a mishmash of the "3M" system and ideas from Xerox Parc - despite it containing some of the most valuable technology which pioneered much of what makes the modern digital landscape work today.

The thing that truly made Apple the success it is now was its "personal device" line up - iPod, iPad, iPhone etc. In creating markets for these devices, they managed to increase the number of people willing to pay Apple for "personal" digital technology in a world where the personal computer market was becoming consolidated.

I think it's telling how Apple have not further explored the potential of this with other personal appliances.

I've long thought about the need for a sort of "home hub" type of system, whereby a central compute unit would control everything in the house, from the electricity to lights. It would give you a panel that could allow you to interface with anything inside the household, allowing for not only a central management hub, but the means to automate, extend and customize how specific parts of it work. They have every opportunity to do that and many other things, but have not.

Thus, whilst it's obviously healthy to observe Jobs' ideas, thought process and actions, I wouldn't consider him some overarching business titan on the level of a JP Morgan or a Rockefeller. After all, and I say this respectfully, he died of a disease which could have been cured had he opted for surgery instead of a fruit diet.

The sentiment behind the allegory is apt, though. You're right in that the majority of people lack vision to make great work. However the potency of that work depends on your own proclivities and ideas. Jobs was born at a very specific moment in history and left a mark that few others will. Whether he did that as a consequence of his character or his place in the centre of the maelstrom created by the digital revolution is up to historians to decide.

Having a monumental vision, and ultimately bringing it to fruition, is really the thing that Jobs was good at and he certainly was great in that regard. Although, what made him great also made him flawed.

Because it’s DEEPLY personal. Nobody else can share that purpose. It is totally unique to his situation in the world. Compare with the purpose above “I love life and want to live as long as possible” — hell, almost anyone can say that. I also want to live as long as possible. But I don’t do things for it, because it’s some general BS and it’s not embedded into my personal history.

The other reason why it’s so great is because the self no longer matters. Edmond Dantes didn’t care if he died to achieve his purpose when he set out to do it. If he had cared about his own life, he would have never tried to escape prison. Think about it. Think about what YOU would have done in a similar situation.

You see this in ALL great men — they are possessed by a force which allows them to treat death and the greatest calamities with utter indifference.

Think about what Socrates did when they accused him. He could have escaped death, but he couldn’t care less about it. In fact, he did and said everything he had to be executed. In fact, when the weaklings around him were sobbing and crying about his death, he mocked them.

Part of what we admire about greatness is that life itself is worthless to it, it has attained something of far greater worth.

Here is Kierkegaard:

“Let others complain that the age is wicked; my complaint is that it is paltry; for it lacks passion. Men's thoughts are thin and flimsy like lace, they are themselves pitiable like the lacemakers. The thoughts of their hearts are too paltry to be sinful. For a worm it might be regarded as a sin to harbor such thoughts, but not for a being made in the image of God. Their lusts are dull and sluggish, their passions sleepy...This is the reason my soul always turns back to the Old Testament and to Shakespeare. I feel that those who speak there are at least human beings: they hate, they love, they murder their enemies, and curse their descendants throughout all generations, they sin.”

It’s also why I love Dan Pena. He’s a real man. Every night, I remember when he said “you’re not even a drop of sweat running down the left testicle of Steve Jobs” — because he’s right. And he has the courage to say it. Most people don’t. They’re like “oh, I have an ecommerce store making $10M/year” — F*ck you, you’re as good as broke, that’s nothing to be proud of! Embarrasment to the human race!

This is an excellent observation, particularly the highlighted part.

Interesting regarding the quote you shared. I get the idea of being passionate. Pena also has the same temperament; I would not have wanted to get on his bad side in his prime, although I think he includes a lot of BS in what he says.

The problem with "wearing your heart on your sleeve" is that it paints a target on your back. Being abrasive and obtuse just to sound like a tough guy gets you nowhere in the long run. In my view, it's the mild-mannered & meek ones you need to be careful of as they will steal your shit without saying anything.

There's a certain level of deference you need to work your way up. I call it "kissing the ring", whereby you have to understand who's a$$ you need to kiss and what to do to kiss it. Putin does it well.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.