Anyway, it happens. Just keep doing what you are doing, releasing, learning from experience, being active, etc. And with time, eventually you learn to let go more and more and just be who you are. When that happens, these kind of things still happen, even when we are being ourselves 100%, but with that being said, the consistency increases, we have more interactions that lead to attraction and that feeling between the two people stays around longer.

Also, my thought is, it’s OK to want a woman, to be attracted to a woman, that’s a good thing. Also I think its necessary that I be attracted to a woman for her to be attracted to me, at least that is what my current experience has shown me. The issue most guys get into, is they start thinking their problem occurred from being attracted to a woman and liking her, etc. That’s not the case. The issue is they want her to want them back, so they begin to govern their behavior, try to be something they are not, or restrict who it is that they are, which often leads to a loss of connection, or loss of attraction.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

I began thinking about this, and coming to the conclusion that most people keep their money in banking accounts, or investments of some sort, how is it possible for $9,000 dollars to be loaned out for every $1,000 dollars that is deposited. Where is the money coming from, it has to exist right? At this time, I believed money represented something of substance, I still to this day, don’t understand it, but I know that the idea of being able to loan $9,000 dollars for every $1,000 dollars in deposits is based on a faith based idea. I began asking, well if I’m borrowing money, and it doesn’t exist, who am I borrowing it from? This isn’t possible, the money has to exist in the first place for it to be loaned to another. Needless to say, I ended up making a D in that class, which I ended up changing my major to management so I could use that D as an elective and get out of school at the time I wanted to get out.

Later on, I ended up running into some material that better explained the financial systems and how this loaning of money that didn’t exist was possible, it made more sense realizing that it wasn’t based on substance, but still to this day, I don’t fully understand it. I ran into my old professor at a local bar and we ended up getting into a conversation about the subject. He told me he knew exactly what was going on and tried to explain it to me. I realized that he didn’t and asked for his email so I could send him these videos I had found and other material on the subject. About a month later I ended up running into him again and so I asked him if he had looked at the material I sent, which he responded yes. Then I asked if it was different from what he had believed earlier, etc. He said it was, and we both agreed that it was pretty scary.

Here we have a situation in which a professor who didn’t have a full understanding of the material he was teaching was grading students, actually making the determination of whether one failed or one passed, yet he himself, having no true understanding, no foundation of understanding of the very subject he was teaching. This is going on in massive numbers. I’m under the assumption right now, that most of the people, if not all, running our political structures, our financial institutes, even the individuals that are enforcing the laws and making judgments on people that put a detriment on their very lives, whether that be loss of money, or loss of time being spent in a cage, have absolutely no grounded or earthly idea of what they are doing, whatsoever. Hey I can’t be too judgmental because I have fallen and still fall into that same category. Strongly believing that I fully understand on a concept or how something works, to later find, I have no idea what the hell I’m doing.

I’ll give the example of a truck. Now I understand that it takes fire, fuel, and air to make a motor run and all that, and I do most of my own repairs on my truck and all that. I can look at the repair manual and figure out how to change out a part and come up with ideas of why something is not working, etc. But when it comes down to it, if I were to have to design a motor from scratch, from the ground up, I would have no idea how to do it, and I believe that is exactly what is going on in every single every of our society. People know the procedures, they know what to change out when something is broken, they know what to do to keep it running, but have no idea, whatsoever of why they are doing it, or how it works in the first place, or how it’s supposed to run according to the original intention of the creator.

It’s like going up to someone and saying, “Hey man, do you know how your car runs?”
Response: “Of course I do, you put the key in and turn it, and it runs.”
Me: “Yeah I get that, but how?”
Response: “Well it burns gasoline, you know, you put gas in it, then you crank the key and it runs, as long as you have gas in it then it runs. What are you, fucking retarded?”
Me: “I don’t know, maybe I am? yeah I get that you put gas in it, and turn the key, but how does it work?”
Response: “Geez, look man, ok, you have fuel, right? Ok the fuel goes in here, in this hole, that goes into the tank. OK, and then the fuel gets sucked in through this hose and goes into this, it’s called the block, ok and the pistons are in there, the gas goes in the piston and then the spark plug ignites, and it causes an explosion, that’s why you need air, duh! You can’t have a fire without air. When that explosion happens, it pushes the piston down, sucking in air for the next go around of shooting fuel in there and then igniting it. It’s not rocket science.”
Me: “Yeah I get that part, but how does the spark plug work?”
Response: “O my god, you are so fucking stupid! Electricity man! Electricity goes into the spark plug and it makes a spark. That’s why you need an alternator, because you need electricity for the spark plugs to work and you don’t want your battery draining.”
Me: “Yeah I get that but how does a spark plug work?”
Response: “I just told you, from electricity, see the battery, see these wires, it takes the energy from the battery and creates a spark because of the spark plug!”
Me: “Yeah I got that, but I mean, how does the spark plug actually work?”
Response: “It works from electricity you fucking retard, ELECTRICITY!!! Look, is this a fucking joke, I don’t have time for this crap. Ok the fuel goes in the piston, there’s air in there, YOU GOTTA HAVE AIR TO HAVE A FIRE! The spark plug ignites the fuel and pushes the piston down. Seriously man, I can’t help you if you are that fucking stupid.”

And that’s the world we live in. We have people that seriously believe in what they are doing and seriously believe they know exactly how it works. It works because of the spark plug, and the spark plug works because of electricity. Our banks loan out $9,000 dollars for every deposit of $1,000, and some speculate that now with the derivatives market (no idea what a derivatives is, even though I passed Calculus with flying colors. I just know you push the buttons on the calculator and it spits out the answer). All of these things are going on, and I am under the assumption that very, very few people have any understanding of what’s truly going on.

It’s like going to pub and talking to a law student and asking, “OK so if ‘consensus facit legem’ the Maxim of Law which is Latin for consent makes law. In other words, a contract constitutes law between the parties agreeing to be bound by it. So if contract makes law, and a contract is not valid without valuable consideration, and valuable consideration doesn’t exist unless there is a pecuniarily measurable benefit to one party, and a pecuniarily measurable detriment to the other, how can this law be valid? It doesn’t make any sense, it doesn’t follow the rules for it to be valid under the law.” and of course the famous response “Duh, Black’s Law Dictionary isn’t a binding contract, don’t you know anything?”

I think I finally understand what the Christ was saying when he spoke in the book of Luke, chapter 9, verse 58.

“Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.” – the Christ

I’m not a lawyer or anything but I have an interest in law, mostly the philosophy of law, or law theory, as it pertains to ethics and Truth.

Anytime I run into a law student or a lawyer when I’m out and about, I usually end up in a discussion on something I’ve been studying in my free time or have an interest in. So many conversations come up, and only questions remain. One brief example, and this has come up multiple times, in the aspects of contracts, and what exactly makes a contract valid. I had learned of a term call “valuable consideration” and how it was necessary for a contract to be valid.

Valuable Consideration. (17c) Consideration that is valid under the law; consideration that either confers a pecuniarily measurable benefit on one party or imposes a pecuniarily measurable detriment on the other. – Also termed good and valuable consideration; legal consideration.

“By a valuable consideration is meant something of value given or promised by one part in exchange for the promise of the other… The thing thus given by way of consideration must be of some value. That is to say, it must be material to the interests of one or the other or both of the parties. It must either involve some gain or benefit to the promisor by way of recompense for the burden of his promise, or it must invovle some loss or disadvantage to the promisee for which the benefit of the promise is a recompense.” John Salmond, Jurisprudence 360 (Glanville L. Williams ed., 10th ed. 1947).

Realizing I didn’t know what Pecuniarily means, I looked up that definition and got pointed to look at Pecuniary.

Pecuniary, adj. (16c) Of or relating to money; monetary <a pecuniary interest in the lawsuit>.

Money. (14c) 1. The medium of exchange authorized or adopted by a government as part of its currency; esp. domestic currency <coins and currency are money>. UCC 1-201(24). 2. Assets that can be easily converted to cash <demand deposits are money>. 3. Capital that is invested or traded as a commodity <the money market> 4. (pl) Funds; sums of money <investment moneys>. – Also spelled (in sense 4) monies. See MEDIUM OF EXCHANGE; LEGAL TENDER.

So after learning this, I usually question, well how can a contract be binding if there is no pecuniarily measurable benefit to one, or a pecuniarily measurable detriment to another. When asking this, I was referring to say parking fines, or tickets for seat belt violations, etc.

The answer that up to this point at least, I have gotten is “Yeah but Black’s Law Dictionary is not a binding contract.”

Usually at this point, I just go into a mode of shock, a pattern interrupt if you will, like seeing just something so out of the ordinary that your mouth just drops and you can’t even think, just a “did that really just happen.” In my head I’m thinking, “Well no shit a dictionary isn’t a binding contract, what the fuck does that have to do with anything.”

This has come up again and again, and after hearing it so many times, that exact phrase, over and over, I began wondering why is this even coming up. I’m under the conclusion that they are referring to the idea, that in the process of a “Meeting of the Minds”, where two or more individuals come together and discuss a term, or maybe even create a whole new word, the intent behind that word, that is what is binding. In other cases, the definition might exist in the contract itself, and it may be completely different than what is defined a dictionary, even a law dictionary. So of course that makes sense, a dictionary in no way is binding. I get that, but what I don’t get, is what the fuck does that have anything to do with this conversation, I’m asking about valuable consideration.

So I bring up the idea of employment. If for example I have a job, I’m getting paid to do this job, there’s a pecuniarily measurable detriment to my employer and a pecuniarily measurable benefit to me. His money is going from his hands, into mind. In exchange, I make the promise to show up when I’m supposed to, get permission to go to lunch, wear the uniform, etc. If I fail in my promise, I get fired, unless the employer forgives the offense or ask that I do some extra work to make up for it in exchange in order to keep receiving the pecuniarily measurable benefit. This makes complete sense.

Then I go into the topic of seat belt violations or whatever. Things that in no way have any consequence of causing an injury to another party, as in damaging them or their property in some way, and I ask,

“So what is the pecuniarily measurable benefit to me, and how is their a pecuniarily measurable detriment to the state or organization forcing me to pay for not wearing my seat belt? I mean they aren’t paying me for anything, they don’t own my vehicle, they don’t own my body, they don’t own the roads, and I’m not damaging anyone at all, how can this be lawful and valid?”

Every fucking time “O but Black’s Law Dictionary isn’t a binding contract.” again, I’m like “Well, no fucking shit, what does that have to do with anything.” and the response, “It’s not a binding contract, it’s just a definition in a dictionary, it could mean anything.”

Being that I’ve heard this so many times, I believe it’s a phrase that has been taught, number one, because it makes no logical sense in the scope of the conversation, there’s no foundation to why it’s even being brought up, and number two, the phrase is always spoken in the same way. As in, normally, the phrase “binding contract” is not used in the vocabulary of the normal populace very often (people who haven’t been formally educated in law), never heard it before except in this particular situation. Normally people refer to something being valid, or truthful. It seems we now pretend definitions of words are valid when it’s convenient and then invalid when it’s convenient, doublethink.

Another common conversation that I have is this.

Me: “Let me ask you something, do you believe God created man?”

Response: “Yes”

Me: “Ok well let me ask you this, does man have any authority over God, his creator?”

Response: “Of course not.”

Me: “I agree with you, well let me ask you this, did man create the positions, the office, the government if you will?”

Response: “yes.”

Me: “And so does man’s creation, have authority over him, over it’s creator”
and usually the response is,

Response: “Well… I see what you are saying, but yeah actually it does, it’s the law.”

Me: “Really, but wheres the validity to it, where’s your foundation on coming to this conclusion?”

Response: “This is just how it is, we’ve evolved this way.”

Me: “O so just because this is just the way it is, that makes it valid, even if it violates the very laws of nature? If everyone just decides that it’s OK to enslave a certain race of people or create genocide, it’s completely lawful, it’s right just because, ‘That’s just the way it is’, really, so basically no logic is necessary in anything, we need no foundation in which to base our conclusions of why something is right or why something is wrong, why something is lawful? Do we live in a world of lawlessness? Is there absolutely no validity what so ever in the ideas of law?”

Usually the response at this point, is something along the lines of “Yeah, I get where you are coming from, I mean I do, obviously what we have going on doesn’t work, but it’s the law” and after that people usually compliment me and say it’s refreshing to hear my point of view but the whole idea of needing logic or some foundation for the existence of the laws that being enforced on me and my fellow man, need no validity. Basically, if a law gets passed saying that I have to get a license to cross the street, and if I don’t get the license and get caught walking across the street and get fined a years salary, it’s completely valid in their eyes, because “it’s the law.”

Welcome to 1984, a reality of doublethink.

My Comment:

Thanks for the email man, I appreciate it. Yeah, I should probably write a blog post or newsletter on that topic. The way I’ve learned to cope with that, is to go out and allow myself to experience what I believe I am supposed to experience. I don’t have these issues very often anymore, but been doing this for several years.

So basically, what I do is, I take notes, either mental or I write them down in my phone. Then later on, after the task is complete, such as when I get home or the next day or whatever, I can go back and examine those issues that came up. I’m  a big believer in not trying to do either affirmations or releasing in the moment, during the experience, but to instead not think and stay open minded and just basically “allow” things to unfold. One thing I’ve learned is that the sooner I can be OK with having an OFF day, the sooner I can get back into having an ON day. So if I’m out and find myself being OFF, I just accept that I’m OFF and that is just how it’s going to be. Usually if I can get to that place in that period of time, my Off turns to being On, and things begin working for me. Not all the time, but more often than not. I’ll say it that way.

When you get too caught up in trying to prove consistently or trying to control the outcomes in life, especially in this area, revolving around meeting people and dating. I’ve found in my experiences, that things don’t usually work when it comes to influence and gaining attraction and things of that nature.

-Jake Laura

I’ve had debates with various people, friends, and readers of my website on the topics of affirmations and the idea of removing limiting beliefs, aka, releasing, and which is more relevant, or more important in the idea of creating results in one’s life.

First I believe that the topics of affirmations or releasing are not the end all. I believe labor, the ability to work towards something far out weighs what can be achieved by the mind alone. However with that being said, trying to run through a wall is going to take a whole lot longer, if it is even possible, then simply walking through the door or building a ladder to go over that wall. In this idea, certainly the mind, the beliefs which then create access to the strategies in which one can go about overcoming a wall, is very relevant and very important.

In any of these ideas, I personally have a presumption that Order does exist, that there exist a reasoning behind the circumstances, or at the very least, our perception (a way of mentally comprehending) the world around us and the interactions that we come in contact with.

From my understanding on this subject, our perception of the events in life is direct result of the self image (the underlying beliefs about who we are and what our relationship is to the world). And through those conclusions, we then behave in such a manner, that then influences the world around us, or the people we are interacting with.

I have seen results from both affirmations (Creating or adding beliefs onto the self image), and releasing (uninstalling/removing beliefs from the self image). And this is where the debates usually occur. Personally at this present moment in time, I don’t particularly feel drawn to sit around and repeat phrases to myself in an effort to create or add some belief in my consciousness in hopes of receiving a result. Certainly I’ve done that in the past, and I can stand by my personal experiences, that I did gain results from that practice. And to this day, though I don’t repeat phrases to myself, in a way, I guess I do partake in a similar activity such as writing down what I need to do in order to take the steps of labor necessary to accomplish what I wish to accomplish.

Short example: If I need to mow the grass or get my oil changed, or whatever, I write it down on my to do list, and then I go do it, and check it off the list. So certainly I see myself accomplishing things before it’s actually achieved. In this, I’m definitely not discounting the idea of looking into the future, deciding what needs to be done, and then seeing myself achieving that result. That is relevant.

Now to switch topics in the idea of releasing (uninstalling/removing beliefs from the self image), I heard story from Joseph Gallenberger the other day during an interview on Coast to Coast AM. At least, I think it was him, it’s been a while, and I don’t want to go back and listen to 4 hours of audio to verify.

In this interview I was listening too, Joseph talks about the idea of a young guy walking up to a girl in school and asking her if she wanted to go to the dance. The girl replied “No”. The young guy then came to the conclusion, (he affirmed, he added a belief to his self image or more than likely, he concluded this to be evidence of a belief that already existed) that he wasn’t a good looking guy, that he was rejected, that there was someone better than him, and on and on and on. From then on, carrying these new assumptions, or the evidence of those assumptions/beliefs about himself and his relationship to the world, he would then get nervous and try to be something he wasn’t, not act congruent to what he was saying/doing, when he’d ask other girls out to the dance, in which, they also replied no. Some didn’t even hear him because he was talking to quietly or didn’t get their attention, and he just assumed it was a rejection or that they were ignoring him.

So this story went on and on and on. Little did he know, the first girl that he asked out, her father had strictly forbidden her to date anyone while she was under his roof. So her rejection wasn’t because she didn’t like this guy, it was merely because she was not in a position that she could say yes. And because of this, this guy lived several years based on the assumption (his affirmation, though a negative one, some refer to it as a limiting belief) that he wasn’t attractive, or good enough, or whatever, and so, that the opposite sex was not interested in him.

Personally I believe that the self-image is built much like an onion, though there may be one big onion, and the other onions built around it in which they are connected. In the idea of the onion, there is a core, a foundation, in which all the layers and then added too. And in the idea of a building or a house, the foundation is the most important aspect of that building. Without a strong foundation, how is the building going to be supported? So no matter how many levels, or stories, or whatever, or how pretty they are and how great they look (affirmations), if they are built or originate from an insufficient/weak foundation, how long will they stand the test of time (resistance, other people’s opinions, events and circumstances of the world, problems, etc.)

In this idea, say someone uses affirmations but their foundation is weak, will they be able to stand the test of time? If they have a good run, everything is going great, they get some good reactions from people, some successes, etc, will that layer (that affirmation) hold when they then experience a situation that reflects rejection, disapproval or counters what they are affirming to themselves? Will it hold? That’s my argument, and from my experience, I don’t believe it will. If the foundation is weak, the whole building is flawed and will crumble when the storms hit. In this, they are constantly having to rebuild, constantly re-affirm, what it is they are attempting to add to their building (their self image).

In this I came to my present conclusion, that the foundation is above all.

This week, I received an email from an individual who explained that he is able to have positive interactions with the opposite sex, but when it comes to getting the number or escalating with that woman, she rolls her eyes, laughs, ignores him, etc, and this is happening on a consistent regularity with whatever women he interacts with. What I explained that I would recommend from what’s benefited me in my own life, is to sit down somewhere quiet, and get relaxed, and play back those memories. Allow the emotion to come up, and find exactly where it’s coming from in the body and to observe it in order to use up/disconnect the emotion from the idea, which is what forms the belief (beliefs are ideas tied to emotions). I recommended to not to judge it or fight it, which is just investing more energy into it, but to just simply observe and use up the emotion/energy that the belief is connected too. This is the process of releasing, of uninstalling a belief. And then to do this on each memory, until, the emotion has been used up, and so on with the other memories that also bring up a negative emotion from these scenarios/situations. Then from there, see what happens, what does life bring. Maybe it’ll bring a result, maybe it’ll just bring more BS to uninstall, or maybe it won’t do anything at all. Only experience will show that answer.

I come from the school of thought, that if we can feel a negative emotion from something a woman says or does, it’s because we have a belief dormant within ourselves of rejection. She’s not causing that negative emotion, she’s merely bringing to light (to awareness) that dormant belief that is within ourselves, that flawed foundation, that crack, or that weak link. If one was not holding onto a belief like this, I don’t believe they could even perceive (mentally comprehend) the idea of actually being rejected, they would perceive it to mean something totally different or not even see it. Maybe they would come to the conclusion “O she must be having a really bad day”, etc, and get right back into action.

In this habit, of removing the weaker layers of the building, one can find that their building (their belief in themselves) doesn’t crumble and their confidence becoming damaged or crushed, by what someone else says or does. I mean isn’t that the whole idea of “Stop Giving a Fuck”, isn’t that what people are searching for when they come to this website or sign up to my newsletter. The idea of freedom, the idea of being strong in one’s center of being, that the opinions of others don’t hamper their ability to do and feel what they desire? To get to a place of not being restricted by fears of being inadequate or whatever they may be?

Well can’t someone have both, a strong foundation and pretty additions? I’m sure that is possible, but in my perspective, the quality of one’s house, one’s building, the foundation of one’s self image far outweighs any pretty  additions they may have. This is because, I believe strongly, that being able to stand up to the test of time, to the storms that life certainly will bring, far outweighs working on looking good. Why invest the time and energy of adding layers, then having them washed away or fall down, and constantly having to rebuild? And the weaker the foundation, the weaker the storm needs to be in order to knock it over.

Instead, my way of looking at it, is work on the basics, build a strong foundation first, then build upon that, so that, when one comes in contact with rejection, or failure, of making a mistake, or whatever, that they aren’t so torn apart, that it takes them a day, a week, or months to recover and get back to working on what it is that they are working towards. Instead, I would like people to not need to recover from anything, or at least, get back in motion the second of that rejection, that failure, or whatever occurs. And no matter how many layers are added to the self image (affirmations), if the foundation is weak, the whole structure is weak.

In this, I’m a advocate for the idea of releasing (uninstalling the weak layers, the weak foundations), more than I am of affirmations (making it look pretty, adding new layers to a subpar structure). Both are relevant, both have their places, both lead to results in transformation, but I believe releasing limiting beliefs to be a more worthy ideal, if one is to choose one or the other. And being that I have limited amounts of time, I focus on the foundation. Personally, I don’t have the motivation at this present time to consistently on a daily basis do the work necessary to install a new belief (affirmations) into my self image, though they do work. I’ve seen it work in my own life, as well as many people who I’ve had these discussions with. So I don’t want to completely discount it.

At the same time, I have met people who say they didn’t work. I believe this was because their foundation was weak, so even though they built this affirmation, the second something contradicted it, they experienced rejection or failure or whatever, the structure simply collapsed. Also, it may have been, that the foundation that they were building on was too weak to even support the affirmation in the first place, so that it couldn’t even be established at all, and no storm was even necessary to crush it.

In the end, I have to say this. I believe there is Order and reasons behind our desires. If one is drawn to do affirmations, then I personally believe they should go do that and that there is something to learn and experience from it. Personally, in my own life, at this present moment in time, I’m just not into it.  Both paths lead to results in transformation, I just find the idea of uninstalling limiting beliefs and building a strong foundation, is more relevant long term, than adding layers (affirmations), especially if the foundation is weak.

So that’s my opinion on that subject. My email is jake@stopgivingafuck.com if you are interested in commenting or have any questions about my point of view on what I’ve said about this topic or any other topic, feel free to email me, and I’ll work on that.

My new book is out. You can check out this link for more information http://stopgivingafuck.com/index.php/my-book/

-Terence McKenna