+- Subliminal Talk (https://subliminal-talk.com)
+-- Forum: Men's Journals (18+ NSFW) (https://subliminal-talk.com/Forum-Men-s-Journals-18-NSFW)
+--- Forum: Men's Journals (https://subliminal-talk.com/Forum-Men-s-Journals)
+--- Thread: Ampers&d Finds His Mojo [SM3.0] (/Thread-Ampers-d-Finds-His-Mojo-SM3-0)
RE: Ampers&d Finds His Mojo [SM3.0] - jonathan4all - 09-26-2014
(09-26-2014, 01:54 PM)Geodude Wrote: Join the club. I went out last night and caught a damn cold too lol.
MIR is sill protecting me
somehow.
RE: Ampers&d Finds His Mojo [SM3.0] - Benjamin - 09-26-2014
I'd recommend try some apple cider vinegar, I drink it twice a day.. in my juice and in water at night and I rarely get colds anymore.
If I feel one coming on I just drink more and it goes pretty quickly.
-Ben
RE: Ampers&d Finds His Mojo [SM3.0] - Ampersnd - 09-26-2014
Stage 4, Day 4
Moderate cold that gave me brain fob. Showed up to class and work regardless, and work sent me home within 2 hours.
Brain Evolution is pretty impressive; though I don't understand all the statistical concepts I've been taught in class, I'm still able to organize things clearly, and I still gave elaborate answers during class today. I know SM isn't doing that, as it's often made me dumber and lazier to an extent.
I basically changed to PJs, drank OJ, watched 'Spirited Away', and blew my nose. It's a good anime. Like a Japanese 'Alice and Wonderland' mixed with 'Wizard of Oz'.
I've been able to be reflective to a certain degree; about what I want to purpose the BASE subliminal, and how I could conceivably 'become the very best in my field', and then capture a large chunk of money by doing my own musical endeavors, as well as booking myself and negotiating deals. Learning how to do it hasn't been of interest to me, so I surmise that this sub will rule out several roadblocks. SM has been for sex appeal, and the women are an AWESOME plus!
RE: Ampers&d Finds His Mojo [SM3.0] - SargeMaximus - 09-26-2014
(09-26-2014, 07:18 PM)DanAmerson Wrote: SM has been for sex appeal, and the women are an AWESOME plus!
What kind of "plusses" we talkin about?
RE: Ampers&d Finds His Mojo [SM3.0] - Ampersnd - 09-27-2014
@
In tangible sex-based results, I've kissed a few girls and had a few satisfying hookups with a particular one.
In terms of non-tangible results (I've talking about the realm of 'squishy' feelings here),
The way that some women make me feel is incredible. It's unfortunate that I don't feel this way with more women; it's not quite that I'm critical of their appearance, but the high standards I've held for myself (hygiene/exercise) must have translated.
I like women in general a whole lot more than I did starting out. I feel good when it comes to women; I like their skin and how soft it is, I like their little quirks, and I LOVE when they wear sundresses, especially the ones I like.
Since starting SM, I've built up this sort of 'emotional sex drive' instead of just a 'sex-sex drive'. When I see an attractive women, this 'emotional sex drive' starts building, I start to feel good, and I tend to go up to these women. Since I feel good, they seem to feel good too.
The only unfortunate thing is with my recent cold, at work, I saw all these pretty women, my 'emotional sex drive' would build up, but there was no hunch to approach. This feels terrible to not do that, but once I'm better, that will motivate me to approach more women.
RE: Ampers&d Finds His Mojo [SM3.0] - SargeMaximus - 09-27-2014
It's awesome that you're approaching though, kudos.
RE: Ampers&d Finds His Mojo [SM3.0] - Ampersnd - 09-27-2014
I just had an insight, and I'll post it before I forget.
It has to do with 'love', and the concept of 'loving' someone. This is strictly opinion.
To start, I think it's important to define how the verb 'to love' is relating the subject and object as part of our English language.
I believe that 'to love' is a transitive verb, in which the subject ("I") is directing their feelings of love towards the object ("you"). If 'I love you', then the 'subject' is directing their feelings of love towards the 'object' See: SVO, or Sujet-Verb-Object if you're confused.
I think that most people get the concept backwards, where they 'love' someone by extracting value off of the person they're 'in love' with. Instead of loving someone just because, there's an aim towards a guided or specific action that the person (the 'object' in the sentence) should be performing. Either it's paying them attention, buying them things, "proving" their love, or just loving them back.
If the first definition is correct, then it should be okay to "love" a woman you've just met, or even to love all women. All you're doing is directing feelings of love towards these women; it's loving for the sake of loving them. It's also unidirectional; it's got almost nothing to do with them (they don't necessarily need to love you back).
One step beyond this is to direct love even when it's not convenient to do so (see: unconditional love). Of course, this needs to be functional, along with healthy boundaries to prevent dysfunctional behavior to occur, much less to condone bad behavior.
Mind you, this isn't the "I need to marry you" type of romantic love. It's simply "I feel positive emotions and I'm directing them towards you". Love certainly deepens and matures as we spend more time together and gain more positive experiences with one another, and it would be irresponsible to jump into a binding legal agreement until you've sorted out your compatibilities and made damn sure you're in it for the long run (that's a different story).
If we're going by the second definition, my love is actually a deep-seated need for the other person to give me some sort of value (value, in its crudest sense, as a form of attention directed towards the subject), be it kissing, sex, love redirected towards them. By this definition, love needs to be "proven", such as romantic stipulations "prove to me that you love me by marrying me/having kids/having sex with me" or even familial stipulations "prove to me that you love me by cleaning your room/eating your vegetables/going to college". This turns love into a conditional and dysfunctional mess.
Love is pretty simple under a certain light. If I love you, I love you. Love doesn't to be "proven"; if I love someone, I love them. That's all the proof that's needed.
As a matter of fact, with this insight, I don't understand why it's weird to say "I love you", unless it has an underlying tone of "...and I hope you love me too". The first half is a simple statement, saying "I feel many positive emotions relative to you, and that these emotions are not held hostage to your approval or actions."
One cannot help but throw in the second half ("and I hope you love me too") if they're coming from a place of conditional love. Removing the conditional nature of that statement takes emotional maturity, healing of traumas, and a cultivation of self-sustaining love for self and others.
Most are unwilling to undergo this process of healing themselves, and so being told "I love you" by an emotionally broken person can make one very squeamish, as it's almost an emotionally manipulative tactic; either comply with their forthcomings, and be boxed into a cause-and-effect relationship of needing to perform certain actions to make the other person happy, or reject their declaration, and deal with the knowledge that you've failed to give them the value that they craved with their "love".
Being told "I love you" by a person who is emotionally secure/strong/mature and a deep sense of love of self and others could only be a neutral or positive experience, as it offers no conditions (the object does not need to do anything about it), it's unidirectional and doesn't really need the other to return those feelings (the object isn't obligated to love the subject back). Being told "I love you" can only add positive emotions, as real and true love itself is a positive emotion.
That said, it's perfectly fine to love others fully, love everyone, and love people you've only just met. Whether they love you (feel and direct positive emotions in return) isn't any of your business, and is completely theirs.
This makes the game of waiting a year/fifteen dates/whatever-extraneous-condition to tell your partner "I love you" (or for her to tell you first) as completely moot, as it's saying "I need your go-ahead to experience and direct the positive emotions that I've felt towards you, but haven't been expressing as it's vulnerable".
Whether you choose to say it or not say it is up to you, as others may not completely understand love in this light, but you have complete choice to feel it. Were you feeling it less before those words were said?
It seems that people wait to say 'I love you' because, in coming from the conditional aspect of love, they want to be damn sure that the other person in this exchange is feeling conditional love towards them, so that their declaration won't leave them holding the bag (they couldn't handle it if their love were unidirectional). They also want to make sure that the other person says "I love you" too (more conditions and stipulations).
By this new definition of loving for its own sake, I most definitely feel love towards a sizable amount of women. I feel and direct positive emotions towards them and the aspects of them which I find pleasing, and if they don't return the favor, that's fine. This could be with women in relationships, or just uninterested.
The hole in my logic is that I feel more positive emotions towards women that look a certain way (which is conditional, therefore not unconditional). Love could also be confused with lust in this case. But I can feel love towards women of all ages, even if they're not within "fucking age" (a very crude way of saying 'the age in which I would want to engage with them in a sexual relationship'). This means young or old, I'm able to feel some form of love towards them; the emotions that are felt are just different.
Or, this whole essay could be completely wrong, as I'm still recovering from my cold, and it's having me write silly things. Or, I have a tape worm that's attached itself to my brain stem and wanted to express itself.
RE: Ampers&d Finds His Mojo [SM3.0] - SargeMaximus - 09-27-2014
I liked it, but it's still on the topic of "love" as though love is something spiritual. I tend to agree with Blackdragon that "love" is a chemical reaction in the brain.
Also, as I like to say "Any girl who will leave you for NOT marrying her, will divorce you for a reason just as trivial".
In the end, the entire subject is "moot" (as you say) because YOU do what YOU do, and people do what they do. That's all there is, and "love" or the idea of it, is firmly entrenched within the "other" person, even though it's really just a cognitive state.
That's not to say the emotions don't exist (someone I know just told me they lost their V-card last weekend and I'm going through some major turmoil. But then again, it's a competitive "me vs. the OTHER", whereas it should always be ME, and only me, in every situation.)
RE: Ampers&d Finds His Mojo [SM3.0] - Ampersnd - 09-27-2014
The "Child of the Universe" thinks there's nothing to between love and spirituality?! Usually, people use the term 'Universe' when it's comes to spirituality (I'm only teasing here).
To give context, I'm big on Law of Attraction, and some of what's in 'Think and Grow Rich'. Both see love as a spiritual concept; love is certainly shown as chemicals in the body. You could even see the Law of Attraction as a way to explain the Reticular Activating System (RAS), a neurological process.
The main point I'm offering is to offer love, and with enough practice, offer love unconditionally. What has marriage to do with love? Many marriages are arranged, and few created through 'love' alone make it all the way through. Certainly you can't fully associate the two.
You can love people and not marry them, or many them and not love them.
We're both listening to a subliminal created by someone who, TO SOME DEGREE, has some stock in the 'Law of Attraction'. After all, what is 'Type D' in a subliminal? I won't put words in Shannon's mouth, but there are available subliminals set on finding a 'Perfect Wife/Girlfriend/Lover', affecting your decisions so that you will rendez-vous with this person. I've even read that it might take some extra time, as your 'Perfect x/y/z' has to move to wind up in your city. That might be chemicals doing that though (fun).
Note: Shannon, please respond to confirm what I've said about you/your products.
Anyways, for me, it's much more productive to follow my newfound definition of giving without expectation, as opposed to giving tentatively. Would you agree with that?
EDIT: to not be a complete penis about not substantiating what I said about Shannon's products, here's a quote from:
http://www.subliminal-shop.com/faqs/can-manifest-goals-law-attraction-using-subliminal-messaging/
Does everyone always get what they want using this method? No. Why?
* Perhaps you gave up trying too soon. Once I tried to manifest my perfect naturally platinum blonde girlfriend, and after 8 months, gave up trying. Three months later, she showed up in my life. Why did it take so long? She had to get divorced, get past her divorce emotionally, and then move before we could meet. It might also be that the goal you are trying to manifest requires more energy that you have given it for it to manifest.
RE: Ampers&d Finds His Mojo [SM3.0] - Ampersnd - 09-27-2014
Anyways, my update:
Stage 4, Day 5
I slept 10 hours and the cold was a fraction of what it was. Able to go into work for the full shift; though I had to keep blowing my nose in the first half. I had a system of Purell and washing my hands to be able to keep working.
After work, I had some energy, though it's best to take it easy and stay home. On the way back, I planned a meet with the girl from Stage 2 (the one I kissed); I was very happy to see her, though she was just finishing her lunch. After walking her back, I was getting checked out by her co-workers (she confirmed after the fact).
Today was mildly frustrating, as I was seeing my fair share of beautiful women passing by work, and I could fully appreciate them, but I had to desire to go up and say hi. That's part of my cold (I mentioned it earlier). That's all for today. Guitar practicing is progressing quite nicely; only got 1 1/2 hours in today, but it's fun.
RE: Ampers&d Finds His Mojo [SM3.0] - SargeMaximus - 09-27-2014
I mentioned marriage because you did a bit, and just wanted to offer my take on it.
In the end, whatever works for you is what you should go for. I'm noticing that there is, indeed, a LOT to be said for embracing "love" (as the way you described it). I guess my "hangup/fear/concern" is that this "love drunkness" will lead to marriage, and all sorts of other stupid decisions.
Imagine it like alcohol. If you were drinking a drink you didn't know was alcohol, you'd probably act under it's influence without checking yourself. Including getting behind the wheel of a car to drive home.
Whereas if you KNEW you were getting intoxicated, you could enjoy it sure, but you could do so WITHOUT the possibility of f*cking up your life. Same goes for women, love, money, anything, really.
RE: Ampers&d Finds His Mojo [SM3.0] - Ricardo - 09-27-2014
Generally a goal of woman and money means you are headed for being broke, because getting and keeping a female is a well known way to kill a fortune. I suggest you aim for money first, then women. (Shannon)
Actually I've found that when a woman is totally into you that you actually spend very little on them. Most of the time they thrive on just being with you. Anyone would agree that making money is a time-consuming business and attracting a women isn't..I would prefer to have a woman (or women) while I'm working to be rich.
RE: Ampers&d Finds His Mojo [SM3.0] - SargeMaximus - 09-28-2014
(09-27-2014, 11:46 PM)Ricardo Wrote: Generally a goal of woman and money means you are headed for being broke, because getting and keeping a female is a well known way to kill a fortune. I suggest you aim for money first, then women. (Shannon)
Actually I've found that when a woman is totally into you that you actually spend very little on them. Most of the time they thrive on just being with you. Anyone would agree that making money is a time-consuming business and attracting a women isn't..I would prefer to have a woman (or women) while I'm working to be rich.
Me too. Besides, Blackdragon shows how to date women without spending very much at all. I think his numbers are like 25% of dates cost less than $12 and most cost nothing. You just have to know what you're doing. Most guys spend money on a woman because they think you have to. It's "just what you do". It never occurs to them that it doesn't have to be that way.
It's actually funny how I get into mild discourses with people arguing that it "just doesn't work that way". When I ask them how they know ("have you ever tried?" I ask) they say "well no, but it just doesn't". lol. Right. >>
RE: Ampers&d Finds His Mojo [SM3.0] - LionKing - 09-28-2014
(09-27-2014, 05:18 PM)DanAmerson Wrote: I just had an insight, and I'll post it before I forget.
That long post is pretty much exactly how I think about the subject of love, very well worded too. The issue I've had with this for a loooong time is that, while I think of it like "I --love--> you", I often expect that if I express this to a woman, she will have the model of "I <--love-- you" and she'll start requiring all kinds of things from me, like increased commitment, time and moving the relationship forward back when I was in one. Now being single the troubling expectation has been that if I show --love--> towards them, they'll start to try and chain me. But I'm slowly getting the hang of it, you just need to stay strong in your integrity. I love giving love, as long as I don't have to fear that I'll be punished for it, i.e. she won't make it weird. Probably best for me to do a few negative click tracks on that so I won't be expecting, and therefore guiding, them to do that as much.