(05-13-2020, 08:31 AM)Zubrowka Wrote:

(05-13-2020, 08:22 AM)Shannon Wrote:

(05-13-2020, 01:07 AM)Zubrowka Wrote: Ho Shannon,

I asked you before what the difference between a dominant man and domineering others people was, and you replied by comparing a hammer with  driving a nail - which after some contemplation made sense.

Now I’m reading the product page of the alpha male program and a similar question came to mind when reading the following paragraph :

Quote:Be in complete control of yourself and your environment, and YOU will be the one who controls when, how, and with whom you have sex.

What I’m wondering is what the difference is between being in control of your environment and controlling your environment?

Being in control of is a status without necessity for action.  Controlling your environment requires active participation.  You must control, gain control, before you are in control.  Once you are in control, action may or may not be requied to maintain that control.  But controlling it implies action.

In some ways, there is no difference.

But how can you gain control of a situation without making people feeling controlled by you?

(05-14-2020, 02:28 AM)Darwin Wrote: Shannon

I continue to ruminate on power as the antidote to fear to the point where I suspect it is pre-exposure impact of a subliminal you are completing. I see that fear is a power state created by the ego for the purpose of survival of the self and it is an error to allow this to govern actions since that part of the self is only one aspect, a item of content, in consciousness which is already at a lower power state - it can't have true power.

My current understanding that power can be elevated through the pitch and frequency of consciousness, when this happens fear is like a sugar cube in the ocean.

Fear is a minor tool employed by the item of consciousness which is the ego; when power is low, the ego has greater sway and uses fear to enhance power at it's frequency, looking to manifest it in denser planes of existence. The more it has sway the more it makes real the very entropy it is driving us to avoid. I won't say more on this, you probably know already or have already passed by this part of understanding.  

It can be said though though fear has a useful physical component, bringing the body into line and ready for action, desire and fear are in the body. The physical grounding of these aspects in the body doesn't have to have its conceptual aspect, the conceptual aspect can easily be replaced by arousal and focus.

I don't know truthfully if any of that is right, but it's what I'm getting at the moment.

(05-14-2020, 08:04 AM)AriGold Wrote: How high is the probability that USLM 4.2 comes out in May 2020?

(05-14-2020, 08:36 AM)Shannon Wrote:

(05-14-2020, 08:04 AM)AriGold Wrote: How high is the probability that USLM 4.2 comes out in May 2020?

Pretty good.  I'm working on it, along with FRM, today.  

By the way, at this point, I've concluded that if USLM 4.2 does not fix the problems we are having with the 4.x series, then I'll just refund those of you having these issues with gift certificates, as I can't spend a lot of time working in that direction for a while, given what I have to do with getting 6G ready.

(05-14-2020, 05:22 PM)Superman Wrote: @Shannon

If we had a way of dissolving the ego. Would that allow the subs to bypass resistance and fear?

(05-13-2020, 09:13 AM)AriGold Wrote:

(05-13-2020, 08:31 AM)Zubrowka Wrote:

(05-13-2020, 08:22 AM)Shannon Wrote:

(05-13-2020, 01:07 AM)Zubrowka Wrote: Ho Shannon,

I asked you before what the difference between a dominant man and domineering others people was, and you replied by comparing a hammer with  driving a nail - which after some contemplation made sense.

Now I’m reading the product page of the alpha male program and a similar question came to mind when reading the following paragraph :

Quote:Be in complete control of yourself and your environment, and YOU will be the one who controls when, how, and with whom you have sex.

What I’m wondering is what the difference is between being in control of your environment and controlling your environment?

Being in control of is a status without necessity for action.  Controlling your environment requires active participation.  You must control, gain control, before you are in control.  Once you are in control, action may or may not be requied to maintain that control.  But controlling it implies action.

In some ways, there is no difference.

But how can you gain control of a situation without making people feeling controlled by you?

Sorry if I'm jumping in without being Shannon/adding much value:

To me "being in control of the environment" means that I am in the present moment, I see what happens around me and I'm ready to act if needed (that is more like a mental attitude to me than doing a lot). Also it's kind of like "I choose to be in that environment and I am always aware that I can choose another environment/leave/change the environment"

The other part "controlling the environment" means I have to be aware of the environment and constantly act/adjust the environment that it fits my perception/vision and without my action I don't feel good about being in that environment anymore.

So the first one is for example a teacher who comes in class who does not have to do much to keep everything in control, always an answer ready, knows what he/she/it is doing and only doing what is necessary. This teacher "feels in control" by being ready.

The second teacher would be one who tries to control the students, how they sit in the class room, has to adjust everything so the teacher "feels in control" by controlling the environment. When too much changes the teacher can't adjust enough to "feel in control".

I'm sure Shannon can make that teacher example in better words.

(05-14-2020, 08:34 AM)Shannon Wrote:

(05-14-2020, 02:28 AM)Darwin Wrote: Shannon

I continue to ruminate on power as the antidote to fear to the point where I suspect it is pre-exposure impact of a subliminal you are completing. I see that fear is a power state created by the ego for the purpose of survival of the self and it is an error to allow this to govern actions since that part of the self is only one aspect, a item of content, in consciousness which is already at a lower power state - it can't have true power.

My current understanding that power can be elevated through the pitch and frequency of consciousness, when this happens fear is like a sugar cube in the ocean.

Fear is a minor tool employed by the item of consciousness which is the ego; when power is low, the ego has greater sway and uses fear to enhance power at it's frequency, looking to manifest it in denser planes of existence. The more it has sway the more it makes real the very entropy it is driving us to avoid. I won't say more on this, you probably know already or have already passed by this part of understanding.  

It can be said though though fear has a useful physical component, bringing the body into line and ready for action, desire and fear are in the body. The physical grounding of these aspects in the body doesn't have to have its conceptual aspect, the conceptual aspect can easily be replaced by arousal and focus.

I don't know truthfully if any of that is right, but it's what I'm getting at the moment.

I am having a hard time following you because the ego is not what I find at the root of fear.  Perhaps we are not using the same definition, but I find fear always originates from the instinctual lizard brain, which I find is below the level of awareness required for ego.  How does this fit within what you are saying here?