12 Rules of Monk Mode #6: It’s Not About Doing

This is the sixth of a 12-part series remixing Jordan Peterson’s book 12 Rules For Lifeone chapter a week to coincide with the 12 weeks remaining for my one year celibacy vow.


“My position was terrible. I knew that I could find nothing in the way of rational knowledge except a denial of life; and in faith I could find nothing except a denial of reason, and this was even more impossible than a denial of life. According to rational knowledge, it followed that life is evil, and people know it. They do not have to live, yet they have lived and they do live, just as I myself had lived, even though I had known for a long time that life is meaningless and evil.” – Leo Tolstoy

To some philosophers, the presence of any suffering seems to negate any possibility that life can be considered Good. This matter is exacerbated when we conceptualize reality as a product of a persona-having God, as we can reason that they too must not be all Good (or perhaps more leniently, all powerful), since they have created such an imperfect mess that is our world.

But life can not truly be both meaningless and evil. To declare it evil is to give it meaning that it should be good. However, we can satisfy the claim if we observe life as meaningless in the objective sense, and evil in the subjective. Therefore, if Good exists at all in this world, it could be more accurately observed as a reduction on the total spectrum of evil. For instance, self-defense could be viewed as evil, as it also harms the instigating party.

In this way, all life forms cause suffering to others in order to survive, whether through direct consumption or self-defense/sustenance. You wouldn’t hurt a fly, but a fly’s nature is harmful to you, as they carry disease and filth with them (they prefer to breed in poop), and even regurgitate their food along the way. The seemingly non-sentient plants the vegans exclude from their self-righteous preservation of life also can produce anti-nutrients that can kill feeding insects (and severely damage the digestion process of humans) in order to protect themselves and sustain their own life as well.

But returning to our original point, the end of your rational knowledge should not point you to a denial of life. Your death is already an inevitable event as soon as you become alive, so how is it rational to deny life even further?

“How can a person who is awake avoid outrage at the world?…After the experience of terrible atrocity, isn’t forgiveness just cowardice, or lack of willpower?”

pp. 151-152

If you recall the scene in Avengers: Infinity War when Thanos and Stark meet, Thanos tells Stark that he is “not the only one cursed with knowledge.” Knowledge is a curse in the same way that ignorance is bliss, because while knowledge is power, power can also equate to responsibility.

Extremely intelligent individuals like Tolstoy beared the responsibility of ridding the world of evil, but as it is stated in The Dark Knight, “you either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.”

“People who experience evil may certainly desire to perpetuate it, to pay it forward. But it is also possible to learn good by experiencing evil.”

p. 153

The primary source of suffering for those taking a defeatist view on the evil nature of life is that they are allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good: Because perfection can not be achieved, we should simply flip the table on the game of life, rather than play things out along the course we have been set on, and especially recognize the progress that we are making along the way.

Suffering could very well be the bottom layer of life, in the same way that the base layer of a civilization is violence: a nation, in it’s simplest form, is an occupied land mass that is defended by a military. Without that defense, any state will simply be annexed by a bigger nation.

One could view this harsh reality as proof that humans are inherently violent and evil, but it might not be the whole picture, as plenty of Good, or less violence, can be achieved when warring tribes and states eventually do settle into large nations. World War II ended 80 years ago, and the only reason why the Cold War is described as such is because if arms were taken up directly, the presence of nuclear bombs on both sides would have achieved a little something called Mutual Assured Destruction.

Maybe “War is Peace” (1984) after all, or at least the threat of it.

“She says she hopes that all her suffering is her own fault…if it’s her fault, she might be able to do something about it. If it’s God’s fault, however–if reality itself is flawed, hell-bent on ensuring her misery–then she is doomed. She couldn’t change the structure of reality itself. But maybe she could change her own life.”

p. 154

Reality is indeed flawed. For what other reason do you suspect we created the concept of Heaven? But in the same way that is not rational to deny Life when that feature is already built-in through Death, it’s not rational to add to our suffering, especially and doubly so when we ponder about Life’s inherent suffering.

In this respect, all the non-physical pain we experience is merely a result of our intelligence: emotional and mental dissatisfaction.

The Buddhists have already studied this matter, and they’ve come to the conclusion that the source of suffering is our attachments/cravings/desires, but also our aversions.

It’s Not About Doing

This episode is titled as such because the suffering that comes from philosophers like Tolstoy is sourced from this belief that they are somehow responsible for the suffering of the world. However, this is not entirely unique when we also observe the burnout people are experiencing from the new social phenomenon of “Hustle Culture”. While we’re at it, let’s also throw in all the religious people in the confessional box disturbed at the thought that they are sinners.

It’s not about doing because there’s always some impossible standard we’re trying to meet to make ourselves better. There’s always someone telling you what to do and how to think and feel, myself included. But we hardly ever get advice that we should just be. We are Human Beings after all, not Human Doings. Now, you may think I am advocating for everyone to just sit on their ass and do nothing, but not quite, because to be Human, or anything else that is alive, is to always naturally be doing something.

“Change is life. Stagnation is death. If you don’t change, you die. It’s that simple. It’s that scary.” ― Leonard Sweet

Unless you have received some special training, if you want to practice some prolonged meditation or other inactivity, you will eventually grow hungry, and if you suppress that hunger you will eventually die.

There’s always going to be something that we want, and therefore something to do. But when these desires and actions are not presented to us in the correct way, without a sufficient level of self-knowledge, these actions encounter an incredible amount of resistance, draining more of our natural energy rather than fulfilling us, even if we have identified that the end goal is a particularly pleasing one.

Every person is too complex to know themselves completely, and we all contain wisdom that we cannot comprehend. So, simply stop, when you apprehend, however dimly, that you should stop…

Your experience will improve, as you stop distorting it with inauthentic actions. You will then begin to discover new, more subtle things that you are doing wrong. Stop doing those, too. After some months and years of diligent effort, your life will become simpler and less complicated.

Your judgement will improve. You will untangle your past.You will become stronger and less bitter. You will move more confidently into the future. You will stop making your life unnecessarily difficult.”

p.158

Recently, I reconsidered my entire view on the practice of No-Fap. Firstly, I had already begun reducing my porn and masturbation frequency before I ever knew about the community, and was proud of my moderation back then too. I was in balance.

However, joining No-Fap is high-highs and low-lows. Just look at the thumbnail below.

Think about it. Somewhere, there’s a guy who just fapped and went on with his day, but these No-Fap gurus fap one time in six months (or longer) and have to hide it from their subscribers for several days, making this whole dramatic show of it that they’re crushed but will come back stronger, and ultimately calling it a “relapse”, as if they actually had a genuine addiction in the first place that was crippling like their life, and not their own natural sexual urges that were just misdirected towards the internet.

It’s a complete joke.

These men are unbalanced. Find the real source of pain, what’s really missing in your life, and stop this dick measuring charade.

So It’s not about doing anymore. I’m not going to do No Fap.

Yes, No Fap did help me learn plenty about myself, but while doing the practice everything felt like it was about sex, but it was truly about my emotions. I may have touched on this in my previous No Fap updates, but it feels more clear to me now because I have let go of the aversion that the No Fap community has against the acts of watching porn and masturbation.

PMO isn’t that enjoyable now only for the sole reason that it feels like me just throwing a tantrum, because I know it’s not what I really want in life: It’s me settling for low quality instant gratification to distract me from some greater dissatisfaction I have with my life. But this has little to do with sex, and more to do with emotional escape, which takes many other forms which No-Fap alone will not allow you to capture.

We may want to hustle, desire perfection, or to become more like God, but if we have not gotten to know ourselves and nurtured our authentic expression through Monk Mode, such high pursuits, especially for prestige, could end up hurting us.

Julien Blanc once said that self-improvement is actually a form of self-hatred, as it’s an explicit belief that you are currently not good enough.

So how excellent would it be to somehow find the perfect balance in life, in which we are content with where we are but also striving for improvement at the same time?

I believe we can do this by simply falling in line with our nature.

“Alexander Solzhenitsyn had every reason to question the structure of existence when he was imprisoned in a Soviet labor camp, in the middle of the terrible twentieth century. He had served as a soldier on the ill-prepared Russian front lines in the face of a Nazi invasion. He had been arrested, beaten, and thrown into prison by his own people. Then he was struck by cancer…

Then he asked himself the most difficult of questions: had he personally contributed to the catastrophe of his life? If so, how? He remembered his unquestioning support of the Communist Party in his early years. He reconsidered his whole life…

Then he wrote The Gulag Archipelago, a history of the Soviet prison camp system…One man’s decision to change his life, instead of cursing fate, shook the whole pathological system of communist tyranny to its core.

pp. 154-155

The most powerful tool you will ever have in this life is the simple act of observing yourself, because the most power you have in this reality is in regards to yourself.

When you take responsibility and ownership, and wrestle it away from the hands of God, and the Devil, or the government, the Leftists, the Illuminati, and the mysterious and ubiquitous “They”, you become the most powerful and free Being in the universe.

All the things that you rely on, even positively, control you. The things that make you angry and uncomfortable control you too, and these states will remain until you can realize that it is not your circumstances that cause your suffering but your perspective on the circumstances and your attachment to the drama you have created within it.

It’s not about doing because your focus makes it into a problem, and we are unhappy until problems become solved. But when we settle into the present, when we just be, we are satisfied by progress and growth, in all things, and not just the cold dead end of things.

Perfection, in a way, is almost stagnation. But humans, and our flawed reality, is blessed to always be in motion.

You can choose to be dissatisfied with yourself and your circumstances, but you are always moving, and always growing, in some direction. And that direction is your nature, and Life itself.

So be quiet, be still, and listen to that inner voice, and feel from within to where the wind blows.


Meditate on these matters.

And I will not see you on the Far Side, but next week Sunday at 12PM, every week for the rest of this series.

Thank you for reading. – Monk Moon Base

“Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.” – Arthur Schopenhauer

If you are interested in purchasing the source book this series is based on, please let me know in advance so I may open an Amazon Affiliate account which will allow you to simultaneously support me.

If you would like to support me, there are several ways to do so , and some of them are free!

  • Brave Browser referral link: https://brave.com/moo427
  • I hope this post has demonstrated the level of effort I am capable of, which you can expect I will deliver for paid commissions on Ko-Fi.com. If you have a topic or a plug you’d like me to cover, you can kindly:
Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com
  • Follow my back up blog at Publish0x. You can earn crypto for reading and writing articles there.
  • I also convert my blog posts into videos on BitChuteYouTube, and MGTOW.TV.

12 Rules of Monk Mode #4: See With New Eyes

This is the fourth of a 12-part series remixing Jordan Peterson’s book 12 Rules For Lifeone chapter a week to coincide with the 12 weeks remaining for my one year celibacy vow.

“When we are very young, we are neither individual nor informed. We have not had the time nor gained the wisdom to develop our own standards. In consequence, we must compare ourselves to others, because standards are necessary. Without them, there is nowhere to go and nothing to do. As we mature we become, by contrast, increasingly individual and unique. The conditions of our lives become more and more personal and less and less comparable with those of others.

…Symbolically speaking, this means we must leave the house ruled by our father, and confront the chaos of our individual Being. We must take note of our disarray, without completely abandoning that father in the process. We must then rediscover the values of our culture–veiled from us by our ignorance, hidden in the dusty treasure-trove of the past–rescue them, and integrate them into our own lives. This is what gives existence its full and necessary meaning.”

p. 89

Let me be the first one to tell you this: The past is dead and gone.

The second half of the quote is fully expected from a religious traditional conservative.

Jordan Peterson had a lot to say on nihilism in this chapter, and surprisingly plenty I agreed with, but when push comes to shove, he will still cling onto the simple social mechanisms of culture rather than the great expanse and freedom that is true nihilism.

I appreciate the tenet of deconstruction for reconstruction, but an individual self-actualizing from his current cultural paradigm just to embrace the traits of it that have decayed is not turning lead into gold; it’s just being lead back into the old. What use is it to break away from your current culture, to become individual and unique, only to conform to some arbitrary perspective of the past which you have now assigned existential authority?

If the full meaning of existence was to recover our past, then we would continuously live in some groundhog day sort of existence until we got it right. But that doesn’t really happen. The past, whether good or bad, gets left behind, eternally, as we unceasingly advance forward into the future.

Yes, without the past we would not have standards to aim for, but in this sense the past is merely a springboard.

There is just absolutely no guarantee that the individuals who lived in the past we idolize did not have the same dissatisfaction with its own standards at it’s time. It’s highly unlikely that we, as a culture, ever achieved perfection in our past, and then became complacent, resulting in our current circumstances.

Something was always wrong. Something could always have been improved. It is simply retrospection that is allowing the cream to rise to the top, and our narrow view of things that is selecting the one criteria our past was more successful at to declare the present’s deficiency.

So, returning to this Father analogy, we can leave the house of our Fathers by becoming Fathers ourselves. When we do so, our Father is neither abandoned, nor is some greater force rescued. A whole new category is created; The Child.

The Father, before he was a father, was an end within himself, and now has become a means to serve a new end, The Child. To Father a child is to extend yourself into a separate physical manifestation that will persist or surpass you in the future.

It is always about the future, and we are always creating new culture.

“It takes careful observation, and education, and reflection, and communication with others, just to scratch the surface of your beliefs. Everything you value is a product of unimaginably lengthy developmental processes, personal, cultural and biological. You don’t understand how what you want–and, therefore, what you see–is conditioned by the immense, abysmal, profound past.

You simply don’t understand how every neural circuit through which you peer at the world has been shaped (and painfully) by the ethical aims of millions of years of human ancestors and all of the life that was lived for the billions of years before that.

You don’t understand anything. You didn’t even know that you were blind.

p. 103

With this quote, there is now even less of a reason to travel into the past, as you are already quite clearly a product of the past, all of it, actually, considering indirect ways.

Your Father is already within you, (and you even have his Father, and his Father’s Father too). They did not move backwards to create you, therefore you can not move backwards to create anything new.

Peterson puts a premium on the past because without values, there is no meaning, and since our values come from the past, the past must hold our meaning. However, if our past values must be re-discovered (in other words, they are also separate from our current values), then this must mean that values are subject to change.

Peterson looks at the past as an immense abyss, and chooses not to contend with it, and accepts it as authority. But we can take a snapshot of any point in the past and see how it snowballed to where we are now. So therefore, where we are right now is also an equivalent snapshot with the same snowball potential towards the future.

“You might object: I should be winning at everything! But winning at everything might only mean that you’re not doing anything new or difficult. You might be winning but you’re not growing, and growing might be the most important form of winning. Should victory in the present always take precedence over trajectory across time?”

p. 88

To recover the past is to admit that we had won everything previously, and are merely returning to form. Therefore, winning in the present in this context is simply preservation. A task like this could be difficult, but it’s result is certainly not new. It is merely taking a snapshot of our favorite moment in time, photo-shopping ourselves into it, and then framing the picture.

The problem with Conservatism is that it wants to maintain standards, but ice eventually melts.

In fact, cool and orderly ice is actually used to chill warm, disorderly water. Of course, traditional men are the ice, and would love society to freeze again, but their rigidity, along with their utility and dependability, will be exploited in a much warmer society.

Like ice cubes in a cup on a humid summer day.

Seeing into the future, in this context, is to realize that the water is not going to freeze again, not yet, at least. Society will get warmer first, turning the water into vapor, and then the vapor will finally return back to solid form as hail or snow.

So if we really want to respect the past as this immense abyss, and try to recover something from it, maybe we should first recognize the more vaporous nature that came before the solid form of culture that we now depend on.

To avoid confronting this true abyss, we narrowly cling to what can resonate with us from the past, and we call this culture. However, we must also understand that the future, far future, is just as vaporous and abyssal as the past. The recognition, and the ensuing lethargy, of this eventual end point is what is commonly classified as nihilism.

“A cliche of nihilism, like the phrase, In a million years, who’s going to know the difference? The proper response to that statement is not, Well, then everything is meaningless. It’s, Any idiot can choose a frame of time within which nothing matters.

Talking yourself into irrelevance is not a profound critique of Being. It’s a cheap trick of the rational mind.

p. 87

They may oppose nihilism, but they can not help but admit it is the most rational perspective. If Nihilism is the most rational, then it is the only way to arrive at fundamental truths.

But the problem with fundamental truths is that they don’t readily bolster the ego, or provide foundations for society. They are just eternally still, incorruptible, virgin truths. Therefore we reject this path, for it is an end within itself, and not a useful means to satisfy our immediate goals.


Worthlessness is the default condition. What but willful blindness could possibly shelter people from such withering criticism? It is for such reasons that a whole generation of social psychologists recommended “positive illusions” as the only reliable route to mental health.

…If the internal voice makes you doubt the value of your endeavors–or your life, or life itself–perhaps you should stop listening. If the critical voice within says the same denigrating things about everyone, no matter how successful, how reliable can it be?”

pp. 86-87

Peterson, if that voice has managed to be prevalent in every person, then it has a 100% success rate, and is therefore extremely reliable. It is absolute truth.

That voice is the true voice of God; a calling to enter the doorway to discovering the nature of our existence.

But we don’t see that it is a door, because of our ego, so we created a different God, one that watches over us and gives us Meaning for the present, not the impartiality that denigrates our Being in the great expanse of time like Nihilism does.

So we take the Blue Pill. We enjoy the steak. We give up on seeking the Truth.

The void has no relevance to morality, so we need God, to enforce Order. The expanse holds no guarantee for your future, so we cling to things of the past to prop them up as worthy, survivable elements that will last.

But if you simply sit still, and allow yourself to be that point between the immense past and the abysmal future, and listen to that dark suppressed voice that permeates all, you will gain new eyes, true eyes, to see reality.

A Change In Perspective

“We can imagine new ways that things could be set right, and improved, even if we have everything we thought we needed. Even when satisfied, temporarily, we remain curious. We living within a framework that defines the present as eternally lacking and the future as eternally better.

If we did not see things this way, we would not act at all. We wouldn’t even be able to see, because to see we must focus, and to focus we must pick one thing above all else on which to focus.”

p. 93

The Buddhists will say that Life is suffering. Peterson called it “attendant upon existence as the irreducible truth of Being.”

And it is. Subjectively. All life forms experience suffering.

But objectively, viewed very far away, in the entire expanse of time, even before and after the existence of life forms, existence, and life being part of that spectrum of existence, is simply the very bold concept of change.

The plants and the animals that we eat indeed suffer, and conscious beings equally suffer for our participation in this cycle of suffering, but objectively, the energy within the plants and animals simply changed one form to another, into us. Life and Death is just change. What previously did not exist changed into something that exists, or what was infinite and unlimited changed into the finite and limited.

Life and existence can indeed be meaningless, but it’s still moving, regardless. And what’s even more important is that Life is indeed focused. We are not born God. We can’t see the entire expanse of time. We are only served with this single maniacally minuscule slice to enjoy at the kid’s table of existence.

It is only God, eternal beings, that really have to contend with the Nihilistic nature of existence. But us fragile humans are blessed with change. We have a limit. We have a focus.

But the truth is, that focus, is always out of focus.

“This is partly because vision is expensive…In consequence, we triage, when we see. Most of our vision is peripheral, and low resolution…We point our high resolution capacities at the few specific things we are aiming at. And we let everything else–which is almost everything–fade, unnoticed, into the background.”

pp. 97-98

So Peterson will reject nihilism, because without values there is no meaning, and therefore Life will not be in motion. But if you accept Nihilism, you will immediately gain the vision to see that all values are simply subject to change, meaning that the only value we actually have is change itself, or better yet, no values at all, and what simply persists is the act of evaluation.

So when you assign yourself the Meaning that you must rescue the culture of the past and integrate it, you are simply changing your present and becoming “The Past” 2.0. You think the past creates standards, and without standards, life is without motion. But truly life without change is one that is not in motion.

Jordan Peterson wants you to be the prodigal son, or Pinocchio rescuing Geppetto from Monstro, but I want you to be Nikola Tesla, no, I want you to be yourself, as any person that is willing to see with new eyes. Naturally, with sharper vision, you will be able to discern about the future, like Nikola Tesla, but time is linear, so this is common.

I want your eyes to see a completely new and different world.

“Now you’re on a whole different kind of trajectory. Before, what was right, desirable, and worthy of pursuit was something narrow and concrete. But you became stuck there, tightly jammed and unhappy. So you let go. You make the necessary sacrifice, and allow a whole new world of possibility, hidden from you because of your previous ambition, to reveal itself. And there’s a lot there…

This is not theology. It’s not mysticism,. It’s empirical knowledge. There is nothing magical here–or nothing more than the already-present magic of consciousness. We only see what we aim at.”

pp. 100-101

All our collective vision is actually narrow. As immense voids exist on both sides of time, beginning and end, the past is simply a tiny retraction, when we recall it, and the future but a ripple of our desire. None of it ever grasps the true ocean of existence. We only see what we aim at.

The past is merely a bow, the arrow is our future, and the passage of time until we hit our target is precisely our duration of life.

But when we aim at the world, there is no fixed target; Existence is change, or consists of changes.

But the arrow has already been shot. Life and existence has allowed itself to culminate and be hit as one single target.

You.

2Does the LORD speak only through Moses?” they said. “Does He not also speak through us?” And the LORD heard this… 6he said, “Listen to my words: “When there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, reveal myself to them in visions, I speak to them in dreams.” – Numbers 12:2&6

When Christians try to herd me back into their Faith, they urge me to continue reading the Bible. I simply answer them that if the Lord is real, then he should be able to be seen without the book.

I also like to say that Jesus’ only mistake was that he called his students his 12 disciples, and not 12 seekers. You are taught to follow, and not to see for yourself.

Narrowing our vision is natural, but many of us start with too wide of a view, and having things out of focus forces some to rely on the vision of others. This is the definition of religion, and when we widen our vision, we discover that creating religion is a prevalent phenomenon distinct across all cultures.

So let’s turn our vision back unto ourselves. Even if you are Christian, you must realize that you do come from the Father. Just like a DNA test will show a connection between you and your biological father, seeking within must also reveal a direct link between you and the source of all existence.

”There is nothing outside of yourself that can ever enable you to get better, stronger, richer, quicker, or smarter. Everything is within. Everything exists. Seek nothing outside of yourself.” – Miyamoto Musashi

Nihilism is a narrow view of the world as well, but a necessary one, so that you cease aiming pointlessly at the world, with it’s ever-changing direction.

Nihilism is the ultimate form of self-respect. While other religions place a God and prophets over you, Nihilism discards everything, with the only thing remaining being you. Existence is meaningless, and yet, there is existence, with you smack-dab in the center of it.

You were not born a God, able to see time and consciousness in its entirety, but were given full responsibility for just one limited vehicle of consciousness that you are currently inhabiting.

So how, and why, would you seek solace in existence anywhere else but your own?

“Everything you value is a product of unimaginably lengthy developmental processes, personal, cultural and biological. You don’t understand how what you want–and, therefore, what you see–is conditioned by the immense, abysmal, profound past.

“Finally, you might come to realize that the specifics of the many games you are playing are so unique to you, so individual, that comparison to others is simply inappropriate. Perhaps you are overvaluing what you don’t have and undervaluing what you do.”

p. 103 , 88

There is no free will. You were not asked for consent to be born. Your past, your culture and its traditions, were all determined for you, setting you on a trajectory, a block chain of decisions merely built upon the previous ones.

Yes, you do have a nature. You will intuitively resonate and repudiate. But your values were predetermined based on your circumstances, and what you will value should they change is based on those starting attributes. I only start to wear red since I have worn so much blue.

So you must also pierce into your heart that there is no inherent value.

The fact that values do change invalidates the existence of one value, and the prevalence of multiple instances of consciousness invalidate the presence of one consciousness. Comparing yourself, competing with others, is merely you trying to become one with others. A race is different paths leading to the same place.

But the Narrow Way is a path that can only be walked by one, because it is a full acceptance of one’s time and place of being born into existence, with the attributes given, and a dedication to express this unique and individual creative nature to its maximum output, or, to be witnessed internally, to its maximum visibility.

“Who are you? You think you know, but maybe you don’t. You are, for example, neither your own master, nor your own slave. You cannot easily tell yourself what to do and compel your own obedience…You are interested in some things and not in others…You have a nature

What is it that you actually love? What is it that you genuinely want? Before you can articulate your own standards of value, you must see yourself as a stranger–and then you must get to know yourself.

pp. 89-90

Convince me otherwise on how you are so familiar to yourself.

When you look into the mirror, tell me, can you remember when you designed yourself at the Character Select screen? When you wrote your backstory? Chose your amount of starting gold?

You are merely borrowing this time. If you, the awareness, not the ego, were once part of a whole, you are now divided into this singular perspective of existence.

Life is just a roller coaster you got strapped into, and you must go along for the ride with eyes wide open. Hands off the handle bars is even better.

You are a witness to your existence, so see it, clearly and unwavering.

Even when you finally do get to know yourself, to whatever functional degree, Life does not stop. Time still flows.

What need is there for news and gossip when you are instead eagerly waiting for your next unique and creative expression and impression for each individually passing moment?

What need is there to look at the past, when they were always peering forward towards you? And if you look far enough into the future, you too will see that they have their backs turned from you. Even if you are lucky enough for them to see you, their vision of you and your circumstances will always be incomplete and out of focus.

So stay with yourself in the present.

Nothing that you see around you will ever reveal it’s true properties until you first see the true value within yourself.

There is absolutely no reason to seek out anything in this world until you can properly see, with new eyes, whats behind the very eyes that even look at the world.


Meditate on these matters.

And I will not see you on the Far Side, but next week Sunday at 12PM, every week for the rest of this series.

Thank you for reading. – Monk Moon Base

If you are interested in purchasing the source book this series is based on, please let me know in advance so I may open an Amazon Affiliate account which will allow you to simultaneously support me.

If you would like to support me, there are several ways to do so , and some of them are free!

  • Brave Browser referral link: https://brave.com/moo427
  • I hope this post has demonstrated the level of effort I am capable of, which you can expect I will deliver for paid commissions on Ko-Fi.com. If you have a topic or a plug you’d like me to cover, you can kindly:
Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com
  • Follow my back up blog at Publish0x. You can earn crypto for reading and writing articles there.
  • You can also check out my videos on BitChuteYouTube, and MGTOW.TV.

12 Rules For (Monk Mode) Life: #1 – Live Like The Lobster

This is the first of a 12-part series, where I will be remixing one chapter a week of Jordan Peterson’s book 12 Rules For Life, to coincide with the 12 weeks remaining for my one year celibacy vow.

“It is also a mistake to conceptualize nature romantically. Rich, modern city-dwellers, surrounded by hot, baking concrete, imagine the environment as something pristine and paradisal, like a French impressionist landscape. Eco-activists, even more idealistic in their viewpoint, envision nature as harmoniously balanced and perfect, absent the disruptions and depredations of mankind. Unfortunately, “the environment” is also elephantiasis and guinea worms, anopheles mosquitoes and malaria, starvation-level droughts, AIDS and the Black Plague.

We don’t fantasize about the beauty of these aspects of nature, although they are just as real as their Edenic counterparts. It is because of the existence of such things, of course, that we attempt to modify our surroundings, protecting our children, building cities and transportation systems and growing food and generating power. If Mother Nature wasn’t so hell-bent on our destruction, it would be easier for us to exist in simple harmony with her dictates.

pp. 13-14

Conceptualizing nature romantically is a perfect description of being Blue Pilled. Before MGTOW, we believed that women had no or very loosely defined nature, and were able to love man equally and independently of the influences of her social environment.

Being the rational beings that men are, we advocated for women to have even more access and equality when they asked for it, believing that the centuries of subjugation women endured before our modern comfort was simply due to the selfish “disruptions and depredations of man”.

But then came the family court: Divorce, unbalanced child support and custody, alimony; paternity fraud, false accusations, abortion.

It is because of the existence of these things that us MGTOW men attempt to modify our surroundings, protecting our assets, building wealth and communication systems, growing knowledge and generating personal sovereignty. “If [Female] Nature wasn’t so hell-bent on our destruction, it would be easier for us to exist in simple harmony with her dictates.”

“A lobster needs a safe hiding place to rest, free from predators, and the forces of nature.”

p. 5

Men disperse in a variety of levels of engagement with women after taking the red pill. Many still choose to date and marry and simply avoid the dark alleyways of female nature. MGTOW can still interact with women but explicitly proclaim no marriage and cohabitation. But some men, the MGTOW Monks, go even further, by either replacing relationships with women altogether (through escorts or sex dolls), or living without them through celibacy.

But no matter which way a man chooses, every direction is motivated by self-preservation. I can appreciate advocating men to be informed on female nature and not putting their balls into a vice if they don’t have to. But what I can not agree with is to proceed with life with a constant doubt and fear at the back of the mind because of the things we have learned. I can not agree with living just to live.

Even though they might have been Blue Pill, many men, like soldiers, willingly put their lives on the line for their values, making it possible for them to even fulfill their purpose in spite of their deaths.

A common criticism of MGTOW is that we go to great lengths to preserve our resources but potentially have no legacy to pass down said wealth. Without taking any sacrifices, many accuse MGTOW of practicing hedonism.

But in my world, MGTOW Monk Mode can actually entail the ultimate sacrifice, and is a life no longer lived in fear, but with fight and with purpose.

Basis of Desire

Any man can go around hitting on women… walking around chest puffed out like you’re tough, like you’re the man…but only a select few are so f–in awesome that the women come to them…If I can’t be that guy I don’t deserve to have sex. I won’t accept anything less.

…Chances of failure very high. Chances of success very low…but this challenge sets my soul on fire. I feel like I’m punching the biggest motherf–ker in jail right now…This, to me, is masculine, because this is hard. This is damn near impossible, and I love it. – Chad Marco

OCM Botcast Ep.006

It doesn’t matter if you choose to be celibate or sexually active, the first rule of Monk Mode will simply be to not pursue women.

It’s been said so many times in many different ways.

“Disregard women, acquire currency.”

“First you get the money, then you get the power, then you get the women.” – Scarface

“Give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings.” – Proverbs 31:3

Low value men have rationalized the pursuit of women as a male rite of passage and societal imperative. But truthfully there is no achievement in attraction and desire.

One of my favorite concepts introduced by the author Robert Greene is that we are not completely human, but actually animals trying to become human. The rationalization to pursue women is merely the intelligent translation of our genetic evolutionary tactics used to proliferate the human species. Men are biologically designed to be sexually liberal, as just one man could be enough to stabilize and replenish the human population if it were ever in danger, as he can impregnate many women in rapid succession.

So when men realize this desire in them, and act upon it, it’s no different than any other impulsive decision to satisfy a base desire.

“It will render you impulsive, so that you will jump, for example, at any short-term mating opportunities, or any possibilities of pleasure, no matter how sub-par, disgraceful or illegal. If you have high status, on the other hand…You don’t need to grasp impulsively at whatever crumbs come your way, because you can realistically expect good things to remain available. You can delay gratification, without forgoing it forever.”

p. 17

Because many men do shy away from approaching women, many other men will mistakenly believe that pursuing women is indeed “Standing up straight with your shoulders back”, confronting the unknown, and “transforming the chaos of potential into the realities of habitable order.”

However, to use the Taoist Yin (Black/Chaos) and Yang (White/Order) symbology, the white circle on the top of the black snake’s head symbolizes that Chaos has the potential to seek or become order. Therefore, we must allow Chaos, the feminine, to pursue or select.

Because if a man pursues, he is admitting that women are his chaos, the uncertainty, that he must bring to order in his life, as opposed to some other higher purpose. If he is rejected, does he now not descend into disorder? But even if he is accepted, because he has taken upon himself the task to resolve her chaotic nature, she will always serve as the black circle upon his head that has the potential to unravel him into chaos.

Order, then, should for the most part be stable and unchanging. Otherwise, Chaos would not know if it is residing in just a different form of Chaos.

So how do we maintain order? How do we transcend our base instincts?

The Instinct To Fight

[Female lobsters] start hanging around the dominant lobster’s pad, spraying attractive scents and aphrodisiacs toward him, trying to seduce him. His aggression has made him successful, so he’s likely to react in a dominant, irritable manner. Furthermore, he’s large, healthy and powerful. It’s no easy task to switch his attention from fighting to mating.

p.10

Even though I have labeled the pursuit of sex as a base animal instinct, even the prehistoric, lower life-form lobster still does not trivially pursue females, and this is possible because the lobster must always fight.

“Territory matters, and there is little difference between territorial rights and social status. It is often a matter of life and death.”

p. 4

The lobster instinctively knows that if it simply vies for the best possible territory around, it will grant him access to resources, which in turn attracts females. Reproduction is a by-product of his success.

But the human male has forgotten this instinct. In modern times and developed economies, we are raised with all the necessary boxes for survival checked off long ago, so naturally, our ancient biological counter creates an imbalance as it is also expecting sexual access to coincide with the level of health and comfort we have achieved, resulting in men debasing themselves to acquire it.

So the story may end here, for some of you, as the simple answer to this is that men must always fight against hypergamy, the female trait that sexually selects men of equal or higher value. Because feminism has given women increased access to resources and social status, acquiring sex has now become a much more expensive endeavor.

Although it still incurs a cost, some men try to subvert the traditional ways of attracting a mate by learning pick-up or “game“, which I like to say is a complementary or artificial boost to status (which is 1 of the 3 commonly ascribed main attributes a male has to attract women, along with physical “looks” and finances).

It’s interesting, because I noticed that some men would logically deduce they should instead take a hiatus from dating to enter Monk Mode and then return to it once they have settled accounts, in whatever departments that may be. In a way, these men wanted to pursue inner confidence first instead of the brute-force desensitization method pick-up artists employ by constantly approaching women.

The most common critique against Monk Mode was that Gaming needs to be a constant practice, and you will be more likely to revert to being Blue Pill after all that time away from women. After all those days in the desert, you will mistake your first drink for an oasis, and destroy yourself.

I always considered this as simple marketing, of course, because if these men were able to tap into their inner lobsters, they would not need to consume the PUA coach’s content anymore. But now I see it is an entirely possible scenario for those of you men whose stories end here.

But for those of you who want to stay in Wonderland, allow me to offer you an even stronger Red Pill, and show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Self-Knowledge

Comment from Relationships Are An Anchor To Your Success – Immortal Mindz

As you can see from the reply count, this comment was quite controversial.

In all the lines before the last one, it’s a clear case of the warning gaming coaches shared about men losing the ability to have boundaries with women after experimenting with Monk Mode . However, the controversy is in the last line.

I need that woman bad, bro.

Bodied.

I chimed in with a more level-headed response though, and simply told OP that even though my one-year celibacy vow ends in three months, it is no longer a matter of needing vs. wanting a woman, but whether I can or cannot have a woman, because I have my purpose.

Will she anchor my success?

Unfortunately, Immortal Mindz does sell a “hope” strategy (the 5% woman is a NAWALT), and so I’m afraid many of his viewers will never find their way.

The reason why the OP felt like he lost himself was because he has not done the work to fully understand that the desire for sex and female companionship is so powerful, that 99% of men are actively or subconsciously constructing a significant portion of their identities based around it. And after it is acquired, whether the relationship results in failure or lasting success, it is unequivocal that he also loses a part of himself along the way.

Sacrifice

To summarize, the first rule is to never pursue women, as man should delegate the selection process to women instead, as females are more emotionally, biologically, and socially invested in reproduction and relationships than men are.

An example for this is the life of a high status male lobster, whom by default does not entertain women and is instead seduced, as he gains access to them as a by-product of maximizing his survival instincts.

After slaying the dragon, the Princess and gold are already there for you. You do not need to seek anything but your goal.

The female lobster is dangerously close to shedding her shell when she attempts to seduce the male lobster, and uses scents and aphrodisiacs to do so. Sounds like a perfumed and provocatively dressed female to me.

To not completely restrict themselves from the pleasures of life, some men will accept these seductions after their success has granted them access to women in this way. From there, some men will discern which of these women are also of high-value before he accepts their invitation, like Immortal Mindz’ 95/5 dynamic.

But the last group of men will either deny, ignore, or avoid the opportunities to be seduced completely. This is not specifically because of some aversion to women, although those men exist. For these men, it is not about gaining access to women, but whether or not women have access to them.

Monk Mode is the most intense yet rewarding path a man can take because it allows him to discover a passion so absorbing of his Being that he is willing to forego food, sex, hygiene, and even friends, family, and reputation for a time, or completely, in order to advance his ultimate desires.

“Freud held the opinion (based on personal experience and observation) that sexual activity was incompatible with the accomplishing of any great work. Since he felt that the great work of creating and establishing psychotherapy was his destiny, he told his wife that they could no longer engage in sexual relations. Indeed from about the age of forty until his death Freud was absolutely celibate “in order to sublimate the libido for creative purposes,” according to his biographer Ernest Jones.”

It is not a matter of aversion, but ascension. When a man’s potential is realized, his path to destiny finalized, even if he has been given a marriage, he will still find himself incompatible with the traditional rules of engagement between men and women.

Einstein fathered two sons and was married for a combined 34 years with two wives, but apparently required strict rules that effectively rendered the wives as his obedient servants. After his first divorce and the death of his second wife, Einstein was nonchalant, publicly expressing feelings of tranquility and living “like a bear in his den.”

Source: https://www.apost.com/en/blog/einsteins-brutal-rules-for-his-wife-that-disgust-women-today/6946/

Speaking of living like animals, the relationship between lobsters is not very far off.

“Afterward, the female hangs around, and hardens up for a couple of weeks (another phenomenon not entirely unknown among human beings). At her leisure, she returns to her own domicile, laden with fertilized eggs.”

pp. 10-11

A man only considers, and later succeeds at, living in Monk Mode when he fully internalizes his perception that because of his talent or acquired knowledge, he may not be able to lead a common life.

The deeper he is involved in Monk Mode, the more the matters of the material and biological processes slowly begin to drift away from him, as he progressively becomes no longer a man but a mere vessel for his talent.

The decision to not pursue women for the man in monk Mode is unnecessary, because they instead pursue him, or is a necessity, to preserve the time needed to advance his goals.

Therefore, this rule is not a commandment, one that men should pressure themselves to follow, but is merely an observation.

You are neither inadequate nor excellent for your pursuit or abstinence from women. This is simply a matter of finding the full extent of our self-expression.

After all, the lobster does not consider any of these things. He is successful solely from the superb synchrony of his instincts.

But living as a human, for better or worse, we have developed norms and habits that are outside of our instincts. With so many influences, we don’t know our true individual natures.

Monk Mode is simply the way for man to re-discover himself, within himself.

“A lobster needs a safe hiding place to rest, free from predators, and the forces of nature.”

“The body [and mind], with its various parts, needs to function like a well-rehearsed orchestra. Every system must play its role properly, and at exactly the right time, or noise and chaos ensue. It is for this reason that routine [and Monk Mode] is so necessary. The acts of life we repeat every day need to be automatized. They must be turned into stable and reliable habits, so they lose their complexity and gain predictability and simplicity.”

pp. 5, 18

To get started, don’t commit to anything, but simply ask “Who am I without women?”, and if you want to know for certain, “What will happen if I give them up for a year?”. Meditate on these matters.

And I will not see you on the Far Side, but next week Sunday at 12PM, every week for the rest of this series.

Thank you for reading. – Monk Moon Base

If you are interested in purchasing the source book this series is based on, please let me know in advance so I may open an Amazon Affiliate account which will allow you to simultaneously support me.

If you would like to support me, there are several ways to do so , and some of them are free!

  • Brave Browser referral link: https://brave.com/moo427
  • I hope this post has demonstrated the level of effort I am capable of, which you can expect I will deliver for paid commissions on Ko-Fi.com. If you have a topic or a plug you’d like me to cover, you can kindly:
Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com
  • Follow my back up blog at Publish0x. You can earn crypto for reading and writing articles there.
  • You can also check out my videos on BitChuteYouTube, and MGTOW.TV.