Amio

bridging strange people & ideas, building the future

[Amio @samismx]

I am committed to not making this mistake

My children will inherit a complete and total onboarding experience onto life and an unconditional lifelong mentorship

I will do everything in my power to enrich them into escape velocity, and will still keep going until I die!

[Simon Sarris @simonsarris]

I thought it strange - my parents never really gave me advice growing up. Nothing about career, finance, romance, even small things like what to read or how to dress. It was as if they felt it was not their place.

What I learned since is that this is absurdly common

[Amio @samismx]

1. Go to absurd lengths to avoid this possibility before marrying
2. Divorce is actually permitted for adultery, but disallows valid remarriage
3. Decide now what you will do if it still happens, while you are still sane - this should be what would be best for all parties, not just you and not excluding her or the kid
4. If it happens, make every attempt to achieve what you've pre-decided with the least amount of unnecessary suffering for all involved. Do not deviate. You will be temporarily insane.
5. Take the risk.

[Amio @samismx]

Chaos creates ADHD.

[Gali @galiofgalilee]

BREAKING: Experts are still baffled as to why the ADHD brain drags all afternoon, only to suddenly operate at 100% peak capacity between 11:00 PM and 2:00 AM.

The entire ADHD community: "Yeah, we already know."

You don't even need a clinical citation—every ADHD parent and kid living it is the study. Here is why the neurodivergent brain suddenly wakes up at night (and how to stop it from wrecking tomorrow):1/5

[Amio @samismx]

How to use questions properly so that they always serve you instead of shackle you:

[Amio @samismx]

Learn the proper use and place of questions.

These are all of the questions you could possibly ask:

Who?
What?
When?
Where?
Why?
How?

Notice that some are only useful retrospectively, but we incorrectly use them before we take an action, specifically we make the answer to them the condition for taking the action:

How?
Why?

"How" before taking action means you're trying to make a plan. If the plan seems plausible, then you will take action. There is merit here, but we all know things never go according to plan. So asking "how" is really just an exercise in giving yourself permission to enter uncertainty. On the other hand, after you've done the thing, "how" actually tells you what needed to happen to get it done. But only after.

"Why" before taking an action means you're trying to rationalize. If the rationale seems plausible, then you will take action. There is merit here, but we all know what we ought to do before we can rationalize it. So asking "why" is really just an exercise in giving yourself permission to enter uncertainty. On the other hand, after you've done the thing, "why" actually tells you what you really are committed to, because you actually did the thing that got you closer to your commitment.

"Where"
"When"
"Who"

These can be equally useful before or after taking action. They could be permission-seeking mechanisms to enter uncertainty, or they could just be neutral information.

"What"

This is the only one that is guaranteed to serve you all of the time.

Ask "what" by default. If that's not enough, sharpen it with "where", "when", "who". Do not ask "why" or "how" before taking the action; only after if it serves your goals.

[Amio @samismx]

Learn the proper use and place of questions.

These are all of the questions you could possibly ask:

Who?
What?
When?
Where?
Why?
How?

Notice that some are only useful retrospectively, but we incorrectly use them before we take an action, specifically we make the answer to them the condition for taking the action:

How?
Why?

"How" before taking action means you're trying to make a plan. If the plan seems plausible, then you will take action. There is merit here, but we all know things never go according to plan. So asking "how" is really just an exercise in giving yourself permission to enter uncertainty. On the other hand, after you've done the thing, "how" actually tells you what needed to happen to get it done. But only after.

"Why" before taking an action means you're trying to rationalize. If the rationale seems plausible, then you will take action. There is merit here, but we all know what we ought to do before we can rationalize it. So asking "why" is really just an exercise in giving yourself permission to enter uncertainty. On the other hand, after you've done the thing, "why" actually tells you what you really are committed to, because you actually did the thing that got you closer to your commitment.

"Where"
"When"
"Who"

These can be equally useful before or after taking action. They could be permission-seeking mechanisms to enter uncertainty, or they could just be neutral information.

"What"

This is the only one that is guaranteed to serve you all of the time.

Ask "what" by default. If that's not enough, sharpen it with "where", "when", "who". Do not ask "why" or "how" before taking the action; only after if it serves your goals.

[Amio @samismx]

Me, asking Jocko Willinck: how do I get up at 4:59AM every single day, before the alarm, and go work out with no distractions or hesitation?

Jocko: You get up at 4:59AM every single day, before the alarm, and go work out with no distractions or hesitation.

[🖋️ @HlthWlthAbndnc]

You believe the outcome is achieved by controlling the minutiae (thoughts+feelings+circumstances), but they have nothing to do with each other; the outcome has and will always exist independently of every thought+feeling+circumstance

[Amio @samismx]

@jockowillink is a philosopher. He is actually making a radical claim: there's no such thing as "how". There is just intent. You do it by... doing it. Tautological. In other words, the reason you "struggle" is you make it Contingent. Don't deconstruct "how". Don't stoop to that level. You don't belong there. You will die. The only "how" you need is the "what". You do it by... doing it. Tautology is discipline. Tautology is freedom. Look at "how" later, after it's done, if it even matters then.

[Amio @samismx]

@VesselOfSpirit "Source?"

[Amio @samismx]

Note to self: read later

[Pat Stedman | Dating & Relationship Coach for Men @Pat_Stedman]

I genuinely appreciate the detailed response Will, and I agree at the root of everything here is a fundamental philosophical difference that informs our orientations.

I am Christian, but I suppose I have a different interpretation of what we are called as Christians to do.

I believe accepting and alchemizing suffering is a major part of being a Christian, and I have no trouble enduring it for a just cause. I would die for my faith.

Where I part ways is including marriage in this equation, especially when the woman in question is operating with indifference or malintent. I do not believe that men are serving God in any way by allowing a woman (who is not serving God herself in these cases) to abuse and extract from them. The roles and attitudes a married couple should have are outlined in the bible clearly, and I deem a pattern of ignoring them to be an abandonment of vows; de facto, if not de jure. It is not a matter of selfish, individualistic maximization to leave in these scenarios. Evil entities work through people to parasite off of the energy of others; accordingly, I consider remaining with a bad faith woman akin to feeding a demon. I judge this interpretation to be correct, because of the fruits. The more you give these women, the more they take, and frequently the more vicious they become.

I do not think you believe this matters, however, because you believe the spiritual path for a Christian man is to suffer for Christ, and you have tied staying in your marriage to serving Christ. You believe that a man should be the best husband he can be (we agree on this), but if a woman does not reciprocate or indeed abuses her husband this doesn't matter - a good Christian man cannot leave without disobeying God. It is better for him to stay and suffer, and treat his marriage as a "cross to bear." This glorifies him, and God in the process.

Putting aside the obvious fact that a torture rack is an utterly unpersuasive vision of marriage for Christian men, I find it pernicious on some level that suffering for Christ is being conflated with suffering for a woman's ego, in the same way I find the incessant worship of women's feelings, rather than truth, to be a form of idolatry. Christ was a truth-teller - he made enemies, he overturned institutions, he died rather than lie - yet men are somehow shamed for rebuking their wives for their bad behavior? Catering to a woman's dysfunctional patterns and taking it on the chin doesn't make you a good Christian - it makes you a coward; it is a form of lying; not only in words, but in actions. Even if you felt divorce was a spiritual violation for these men, you could still encourage them to separate, and deprive these women of their energy and attention. There is notably no biblical prohibition against that, and in most cases it would have a similar effect. I don't understand doctrinally why it is not a tool in the toolkit for you.

But my real problem with the assertion that "staying in a marriage is a biblical command," is that biblical marriage, or indeed marriage as outlined in Catholic doctrine, does not even exist in society anymore. It cannot exist anymore, regardless of the continuity of the term "marriage" or what church claims, because there is no legal or cultural framework anymore to support it. That these self-evident support beams of the institution were not specifically noted by Jesus or the church fathers does not mean they should be ignored as irrelevant, any more than it needs to be said that the color of the sky is blue. Their absence vitiates, because since they've been gone the structure has collapsed.

During Jesus' time there was no conception that a woman could be anything but obedient to her husband; it would have been considered laughably absurd for a woman to be able to divorce her husband and take half his assets (or more), as well as the children, on an emotional whim. Yet this sort of behavior is not only allowed today, it is normalized and even publicly encouraged. Men were prohibited from divorcing their wives in the past (absent infidelity) because these women depended on them for survival; wives were a husband's responsibility because he had total authority over them. This was moral and just. Additionally because of this power dynamic, husbands were also told to cherish their wives; women in turn also had social and practical incentives to be good wives and respect their husbands, since their happiness depended on it. Yet now it is the complete opposite: men have no authority in marriage - except that which they create with their own will (which you would deny them) - and women have no intrinsic incentive, socially or economically, to comply.

This means, to the extent marriage remains a sacrament as you said, it has been defiled. Modern marriage has become the equivalent of the eucharist being dumped in a toilet bowl someone just took a shit in. Our relationship to it must change, because it has changed. That does not mean of course that there aren't holy marriages today, but the spirit of God lives in these marriages for one and only one reason: because of the way the man and woman act within it. They sanctify the institution themselves out of its current default, corrupted form - and they only do this by transcending the lower consciousness emotions of the ego, like vanity and shame.

But the only way they get there sometimes, Will, is by being willing to lose the marriage and the distorted form it currently exists in. That is the only way for both people within it to move up in consciousness, towards the love and peace Christ told us to embody. Perhaps the fact that I'm willing to go there does make me a pragmatist, but my goals are not material gratification at the end of the day; sex is just a signal I'm on the right path with a guy. The real goal is a spiritually profound union that God is very palpably present within, both inside the bedroom and out. And I'm sorry, but that sacred phenomenon simply does not exist in a marriage where the woman is so caught up in her own ego she will hardly sleep with her husband, let alone respect him, no matter what he does or how much he pleads. No one feels it; it's absurd to state it. That man may have the comfort of God in his pain, but that marriage itself does not have God's blessing.

At any rate, we will not agree, because we do not only have different metaphysics but ultimately different goals, so I do not think there is anything more to say on the matter. The world is changing fast, and I do not care to support any structures in this world that bear barren fruit, regardless if their terms (not the substance) has biblical support from a different time and place. I do not think we have this luxury. The Church must have answers to modernity's problems, and when it comes to the problems between men and women, right now it doesn't. Right now you could argue it is part of the problem - and as a Christian, this is a problem for me, because it means the essence of the faith will be eventually lost in doctrine's brambles. Men will move on from Christianity if the deadwood crowding the trunk of its truth isn't burned off. So I am happy to play the role of arborist - or if you prefer, arsonist - to test and see what interpretations endure the stress of these times.

Many men will not agree with me on this, or on my approach towards life and marriage. They will agree with you that doctrine and dogma should be elevated above consciousness and results. Since I cannot help these men, because I do not share their constraints, I welcome them to work with you. You are a good man Will, and while I disagree with your view of the matter, you heart is in the right place. I wish you nothing but prosperity and success.

[Amio @samismx]

Everything that can possibly be perceived is an ambient, shape-shifty, impermanent figment of your imagination?

Having trouble with what the curative implications of this are.

I get it with respect to thoughts and feelings. Maybe even "the watcher." But also that which is aware (the soul) too?

Does this bring twinges of nihilism, solipsism and depersonalization/derealization to anyone else?

Struggling to comprehend the sense in which one could benefit from this frame!

What am I missing?

[📜Echoes of Empire📜 @EchoesofEmpire_]

Instant follow

[Amio @samismx]

So much of Devon's stuff is straight up canon

[Devon Eriksen @Devon_Eriksen_]

Any "conservative influencer" who has become or remained prominent in the previous few decades received on-the-job training in a very specialized skill... how to personally thrive while losing.

It's not that the Scott Greers of the world necessarily want to lose. But losing is that they know how to do, as well as how to make money doing it.

So, when a bunch of chuds — who are not professional "influencers", but just regular right-wing dudes — come up something that's conservative, idealist, hopeful, pro-civilization, pro-family, and, above all, fun, then his first thought isn't:

"How can I interact with this to help the right win?"

It's:

"How can I interact with this to enhance my brand?"

And countersignalling for clicks then seems as good a strategy as any.

Well, so, great. Now we all know that Scott Greer is a Very Serious Person who is too dignified for fan fiction, or indeed for any fiction at all that isn't written by a depressed 19th century Russian alcoholic.

How does that help the right win?

It doesn't, of course. It helps the right lose.

I could point out that Scott Greer has forgotten Saul Alinsky's 6th rule, "A good tactic is one your people enjoy", but the problem goes deeper than that.

The neocons, ConInc, the GOP establishment, and most especially the vast majority of American Christian churches, have forgotten what life is even for.

Throughout my entire life, I have watched the right lose because its primary voices were anti-sex, anti-pleasure, anti-joy, anti-happiness, and anti-fun.

They very carefully tended the moral fences surrounding human impulses like libido, but then took zero responsibility for making sure there was green grass inside the fence line.

You, as a human being, are not designed to self-destruct.

You are not designed to like things that are bad for you.

The only reason that so many of us are addicted to things that are bad for us is that the healthy, natural outlet for that urge got taken away. No one has ever been lured away from wagyu steak by potato chips fried in seed oil. No teenage male would prefer internet porn to a pretty girl who loves him passionately and wants to get married and have a family.

A man with nothing for you but rules and principles isn't a leader. He's a bureaucrat.

Leaders have a vision.

A vision is something for you to look forward to. Something for you to be excited about. Something that makes you happy, or at least hopeful that you will be.

Every vision is a fantasy, whether it's a fantasy of building a safe, peaceful, orderly society full of nice things, or a fantasy of colonizing the solar system and eventually the stars, or just a fantasy of being loved.

That's what moves people.

Because what good is a revolution without dancing?

[Amio @samismx]

When men tell women "I want to make love" many of them actually hear "I want us to make a baby."

If a woman is looking to have sex for the pleasure as an end in itself, suggesting that it be treated as a means to a greater end reveals a stark incongruence in values - repulsive.

[‏ً @Dejisco29]

Charlize Theron says “I want to make love to you” is an instant turn-off and explains exactly what men should say instead.

Charlize Theron: “Whenever a guy says, ‘I would like to make love to you’…”

Kareem: “It’s an ick.”

Charlize Theron: “It’s such an ick.”

“You don’t get that that’s an ick? Just a dry heave, a little dry heave that comes with it.”

“There’s a lot to unpack, but actually there isn’t. It’s just very simple. Don’t fucking say it. Don’t say love making. Because my vagina closes up.”

“All the ladies know what I’m talking about.”

“I don’t want you to make anything with me. I want you to do something with me.”

“Yeah, let’s do it… well, don’t say that either, that’s fucking lame. Just fuck me. Like honestly, that’s it. Like just say that. I know I’m not alone in this.”

Kareem: “I’ve been doing this all wrong my whole life.”

Charlize Theron: “Please don’t make anything, especially not love.”

[Amio @samismx]

@JoshuaLisec [I]'m convinced you're starting all of these tweets like this to signal credibility 🧐

[Amio @samismx]

@GiffLasta @rob_avis_ramble @gefahrlichx Head/heart/gut*

[Amio @samismx]

@GiffLasta @rob_avis_ramble @gefahrlichx (Not blind consensus-seeking, more like everybody's head/heart/mind converging)

[Amio @samismx]

@rob_avis_ramble @GiffLasta @gefahrlichx That's why you people need me!

[Amio @samismx]

@embodied_whole @YOHAMI I also find this fascinating

[The Western Journal @WesternJournalX]

JUST IN: President Donald Trump has responded to White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles' claim that he has an "alcoholic's personality."

"I have said that many times about myself," said Trump. "I don’t drink alcohol ... but I’ve often said that if I did, I’d have a very good chance of being an alcoholic."

[Amio @samismx]

@gefahrlichx Gotta switch gears. Will respond

[Amio @samismx]

I think I've been pretty fair and impartial about this whole thing. I think technically speaking, clearing all of the strawmanning on all sides, I find Giff's synthesis of Christian <> TRP more holistically correct but acknowledge the lurking, residual bias that threatens to cuck and castrate it. As long as that is avoided, it's the superior solution, else the "other side" is superior to the cucking. Pat and Co's side is invaluable for the purpose of spotting those failure modes in Giff's "side". You are all really all the same side when we clear the smoke - you all share the same 99% / are all 99% correct. The remaining 1% potential for distortion is caused by ideological commitments. Christian men don't want to initiate divorce, Secularist Christ-follower men don't want to be constrained by one woman. Both occur out of needing to do it Your Way instead of doing what the situation genuinely calls for, which is really fucking hard!