Is Talk About "Not Playing the Game" Valid?

[Howell]

I have heard people both on the forum and on the website talk about them "not playing the social game"; about being above that, yet I have some doubts about the validity of such claims.

I was walking around a university campus yesterday people-watching, and I was amazed by all the ways people dressed; all the costumes people wore, and all the things they were trying to say with the way they moved, talked, dressed, etc.

While watching them, I started looking inward at myself, questioning my conviction that I'm not playing the same game. I don't usually think about it, but the way I dress, talk, and overall act, is interpreted and usually categorized (mostly inaccurately, it seems to me) by the people I meet, the same way I do with everyone I meet. My goals are my own yes, but on a macro level, I'm largely bound by roles in a social system.

In that moment it seemed ludicrous to even consider that I don't play the social game, which in our current system is largely hierarchical.

It seemed obvious to me that "not playing the game" is a strategy for playing the game. You convince yourself that you're not playing, but really, you still are. You just play it in some ways better because you believe you aren't.

It's a verbal spell you "cast" on yourself. You say you don't play the game, which thus makes you think you don't.

But in reality, you've just chased your ego up to a higher floor, and now it's identified with the higher self.

It's like beating a drum to catch a fugitive, to use the old Buddhist analogy.

You say "I'm going to get rid of my ego" (social construct), but by so doing your ego is forewarned and just goes one floor up. Your actions are still motivated by the narrow scope of your social reality, it's still just a matter of how you conceptually organize that reality. It's the equivalent of organizing your folders on your computer. It doesn't change the content of the folders though.

It's the same with religious groups. People climb up the hierarchy, trying to liberate themselves from the seemingly mundane social reality, but most practitioners just end up deluding themselves, becoming membots, and living entirely in an us vs. them paradigm.

It's inauthentic, as your identity is based in an ideology.

Can one live outside ideology?

I think so. There are a number of ways to do so, actually, and many occur without active intention of doing so. But I don't want to get into that right now -- I'd rather keep this more focused on the topic at hand.

What do y'all think? Is the concept of "not playing the game" in the GC framework just a verbal spell, or is it a sufficient concept for authentic living? And if you think you've successfully entered a domain of consciousness where you are "not playing the game", what actions did you do to get there, and what were your underlying motivations?

-Howell

 

[Franco]

Howell,

I was following this one for a bit when you were talking about "not playing the social circle game," but it continued to get more abstract as I read it, so I'm not quite sure I follow. Some clarification might help here.

In the meantime, I'll say that I'd consider anyone who is attempting to meet and bed women essentially a "player" of the game. And there's no reason one guy can't use both social circle and cold approach to do this simultaneously. The two are not mutually exclusive, and both have their pros and cons.

Ultimately, becoming a master of cold approach seems to garner the most benefits in the long run, but it also has the steeper learning curve with very little reward early on. Whether a guy wants to consider himself "above" the crowd because he uses cold approach instead of social circle is irrelevant to me, but more power to him if he feels like it helps him succeed.

I find it beneficial to dabble in everything and be humble to those around you that are trying to succeed in a similar manner. I would be TOO modest if I were to say that this website does not transcend all of the information that is currently out there -- because it definitely does -- but it still requires an immense amount of effort to carve out a new "you" in order to succeed. It's certainly not a shortcut in any way, so I don't frown upon the guys who are putting in lots of effort while trying to figure things out their own way.

- Franco

 

[Howell]

Howell,

I was following this one for a bit when you were talking about "not playing the social circle game," but it continued to get more abstract as I read it, so I'm not quite sure I follow. Some clarification might help here.

In the meantime, I'll say that I'd consider anyone who is attempting to meet and bed women essentially a "player" of the game. And there's no reason one guy can't use both social circle and cold approach to do this simultaneously. The two are not mutually exclusive, and both have their pros and cons.

Ultimately, becoming a master of cold approach seems to garner the most benefits in the long run, but it also has the steeper learning curve with very little reward early on. Whether a guy wants to consider himself "above" the crowd because he uses cold approach instead of social circle is irrelevant to me, but more power to him if he feels like it helps him succeed.

I find it beneficial to dabble in everything and be humble to those around you that are trying to succeed in a similar manner. I would be TOO modest if I were to say that this website does not transcend all of the information that is currently out there -- because it definitely does -- but it still requires an immense amount of effort to carve out a new "you" in order to succeed. It's certainly not a shortcut in any way, so I don't frown upon the guys who are putting in lots of effort while trying to figure things out their own way.

- Franco

Franco,

Ahh, I mustn't have made it clear enough then. I'm not talking about social circle game vs cold approach. I'm talking about Game as a whole; the competitive social realm that most occupy and form their identities in.

To try and make it clearer, think about the game high schoolers are playing -- with cliques and factions and so forth. Now think about how this develops as a person grows up. Their adolescent identity is based on their position in the social ranking system. Now, what I am saying in this post, is that the consensus on GC is to not only not climb social ladders, but to also not tie your self-esteem or identity to role-based social hierarchies either. The authenticity of the verbal admission of this attitude without significant changes in behavior is what I am questioning in this post.

-Howell

 

[Howell]

I don't play the social game almost at all. I have an extremely small circle of trusted friends, and couldn't care less about the opinion of anyone outside that circle unless they have a lot of what I consider to be "real value." I spend 90-95% of my time alone, and don't consider myself to have any position at all on the "social hierarchy," simply because I am playing a completely different game than 95% of other human beings.

I feel almost exactly the same way you do, Drex. You offer a great example of the party lines that I'm questioning, which I too embody.

What I'm wondering here is if the conviction that you don't play the game really means you don't play the game, or if believing such a thing is really just a clever strategy within it.

There are some obvious game advantages of believing such a thing. But if you look at the behavior of people who claim this, rarely is it the case that they don't actually try and discredit, shame, manipulate, be intentionally disrespectful towards, or position themselves above others when they feel it would be to their advantage to do so. Most of the GC community does not seem immune to this either.

The social game seems largely a matter of your historically conditioned reality, not fundamentally a matter of how often you are one on one with people. In other words, it's about how you view yourself in regards to other people, social institutions... or, in other words, to use the Hindu term, māyā.

What I'm really talking about here is the ego. It seems to me that if you are to really not play the game, it means that you experience ego as illusion and self as Brahman. A person with this type of, for lack of a better term, worldview, seems to be extremely uncommon, yet they are the only individuals I think we can reasonably consider to be not playing the game.

Howell

 

[Sophisticated Gent]

It's the same with religious groups. People climb up the hierarchy, trying to liberate themselves from the seemingly mundane social reality, but most practitioners just end up deluding themselves, becoming membots, and living entirely in an us vs. them paradigm.

In this statement I think you are talking about such people as monk who are seeking enlightenment. To this I don't have the experience to reply. In the context of Christian and Jewish religion the goal is not to seek enlightenment but to become a meek individual who puts the needs of others ahead of one self. Mother Teresa is an example of the meek person taking care of others. Such a person has put aside social pressure and personal ego to achieve such a caring personality. In the western world this is difficult to achieve because of the constant social pressures to achieve personal success. It doesn't really matter whether we are playing or not playing the game. Nor does it matter if we are chasing material things or hot women. What matter is that you are at peace with the way you live and who you perceive yourself to be. If Drexel is a peace with being alone 90 to 95% of the time and having a small social circle that is awesome. If you are at peace with where you are that is where you need to be. It is when we are trying to live our lives according to someone else's frame that we become unsettled and seek happiness elsewhere. The question is where are you content and at peace? Living outside of ideology is living your where you are at peace with yourself and not someone else's idea.

BDSC

 

[Howell]

It's the same with religious groups. People climb up the hierarchy, trying to liberate themselves from the seemingly mundane social reality, but most practitioners just end up deluding themselves, becoming membots, and living entirely in an us vs. them paradigm.

In this statement I think you are talking about such people as monk who are seeking enlightenment. To this I don't have the experience to reply. In the context of Christian and Jewish religion the goal is not to seek enlightenment but to become a meek individual who puts the needs of others ahead of one self. Mother Teresa is an example of the meek person taking care of others. Such a person has put aside social pressure and personal ego to achieve such a caring personality. In the western world this is difficult to achieve because of the constant social pressures to achieve personal success. It doesn't really matter whether we are playing or not playing the game. Nor does it matter if we are chasing material things or hot women. What matter is that you are at peace with the way you live and who you perceive yourself to be. If Drexel is a peace with being alone 90 to 95% of the time and having a small social circle that is awesome. If you are at peace with where you are that is where you need to be. It is when we are trying to live our lives according to someone else's frame that we become unsettled and seek happiness elsewhere. The question is where are you content and at peace? Living outside of ideology is living your where you are at peace with yourself and not someone else's idea.

BDSC

Yes, peace is nice, but I'm talking about authenticity here. I wouldn't say Teresa is a good example for this, for she is not holy in the Jungian sense -- i.e., as having incorporated her shadow. She seems more a testament to the distance people will go to repress it, if anything (e.g. "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people.").

I don't consider being at peace to be the same as authentic living. You can be living someone else's frame, and likely are, when you are at peace. Think about when you're in a social situation -- when you are at peace, you usually aren't in control. Tension is essential to frame control, because when you have the widest frame you are dealing with exigencies first and are the arbiter of essential decisions. Viewing being at peace to be authenticity will likely lead to bad faith: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Bad_faith_(existentialism):

I'd say authentic living is often almost the opposite of being at peace...

From Wikipedia:

In existentialism, authenticity is the degree to which one is true to one's own personality, spirit, or character, despite external pressures; the conscious self is seen as coming to terms with being in a material world and with encountering external forces, pressures, and influences which are very different from, and other than, itself. A lack of authenticity is considered in existentialism to be bad faith.

But maybe by "being at peace" you mean more "self-awareness"? If so, I think that you would still just be getting yourself into a neutral gear, which is great, but it's only the passive component of authenticity. In this post, I'm doubting the validity of self-awareness as sufficient in and of itself for authentic living, e.g.:

Is the concept of "not playing the game" in the GC framework just a verbal spell, or is it a sufficient concept for authentic living?

-Howell

 

[Sophisticated Gent]

Howell,

You are think of peace as being passive and not causing dissension. This is not what I mean. I mean having a deep understanding of who I am, how I fit into the universe and a knowing this is where I want to be. I don't think that we can ever reach complete peace or be completely authentic to ourselves because we have external forces acting on us that we must address. These forces pull us away from our center. We can try to escape these forces like a monk on a high mountain but we then because isolated from the reality of our world. We are not intended to be isolated creatures but socially interactive with one another. Thus we are integrated with one another to where what affects one also affects the other. You can not be authentic by isolating yourself from external pressure. So this begs the question: How do you know what your true personality, spirit or character is? Can you have, as an individual, this true self because we are integrated in our society. We as humans like to be called individualist but the true is we are as integrated into one another as a mob of meerkats. Should we struggle against conforming or accept ourselves as an interdependent creature? If so then we maybe we can reach a reasonable level of inner peace.

Of course you could always go off into the wilderness and live a life of complete isolation. But then you won't get any pussy.

BDSC

P.S. How the hell did we get on such an existential conversation? It makes my brain hurt.

 

[Howell]

...You can not be authentic by isolating yourself from external pressure. So this begs the question: How do you know what your true personality, spirit or character is? Can you have, as an individual, this true self because we are integrated in our society. We as humans like to be called individualist but the true is we are as integrated into one another as a mob of meerkats. Should we struggle against conforming or accept ourselves as an interdependent creature? If so then we maybe we can reach a reasonable level of inner peace.

Of course you could always go off into the wilderness and live a life of complete isolation. But then you won't get any pussy.

BDSC

P.S. How the hell did we get on such an existential conversation? It makes my brain hurt.

What religion calls the vision of God is found in giving up any belief in the idea of God. By the same law of reversed effort, we discover the "infinite" and the "absolute," not by straining to escape from the finite and relative world, but by the most complete acceptance of its limitations. Paradox as it may seem, we likewise find life meaningful only when we have seen that it is without purpose, and know the "mystery of the universe" only when we are convinced that we know nothing about it at all.

I think what we can say we learned from this line of thinking in regards to the initial question about the belief that you aren't playing the game is that it is a stage in individuation. Such a belief is reactionary and implies its opposite. Yet persist in it and you may grow past it, and eventually may see your folly, and at that point things might flip, as you transcend that verbal belief/spell (from"spelling", i.e., language).

Howell

 

[Drck]

Maybe a better question would be whether or not to play THEIR game...

Why do people play games at first place? For mating purposes, for reason that usually the strongest, smartest and most fit males, so called "Alpha", have the easiest access to best females (blah blah, we all heard it thousands of times). But it is true even today in general population, the common perception is that a guy with most accomplishments has the easiest access to the hottest girls.... CEO, politicians, businessman, lawyers, doctors,... you name it, they do have much easier access to hottest looking females in comparison to average male. They are at the top of this social hierarchy, they usually have above average education, they usually have the highest income, they usually dress the best...

Simple things such clothes make HUGE difference. You buy better shoes, you put decent clothes on, some nicer hair style and/or facial hair, and the responses are HUGE. I am talking from my own experience, I can recognize quite differences in even having sideburns or not. You simply look little bit different and people perceive you differently as well...

Well, we already know this, it is nothing new. So if we want to play THEIR game we simply have to follow THEIR rules, THEIR social latter, THEIR hierarchy, and mostly even THEIR behavior too (which is usually translated to climbing to the top of the ladder on the backs of others)... Let's don't be mistaken about it, even this 'game' is good, once you get to the top of the "whatever ladder" your chances to access better females substantially increase... Although it is much more complicated, "Alpha" is still valid position in our society, and "Beta" usually get minimal access to females, that is still true even today...

But we don't have to follow THEIR ideology, we don't have to play THEIR game. We can simply play our own game. It is not "no game" but it is rather "different game"... You don't have to follow social or whatever ladder, you simply chose different approach. You can be an outsider of the classical social hierarchy, and if I'm not mistaken the name for it in PUA circles is Sigma...

Sigma is simply an outsider, sort of Alpha who lives on his own terms, a guy who doesn't follow anybody or anything but lives in his own world. Another name for it could be Lonely Wolf. With some social skills he can be quite successful with girls, for reason that he has the classical "Alpha" characteristics yet at the same time he doesn't waste any time on climbing society ladders...

When you think about it, being Sigma actually has quite a huge advantages even in comparison to classical "Alpha". Sigma is free and can do anything as he wishes. Classical "Alpha" can't do that, "Alpha" usually has to follow society rules to keep his high position, he has to constantly fight to keep his place... Can you imagine a politician who would openly fuck bunch of females? Remember Clinton? The guy at Top of all Tops, the biggest "Alpha", the guy at the Top of this World? He got one BJ that we know about and he almost lost his position because of that, it was a national disaster... WTF? What a joke...

Or remember Tiger Woods, the dude was "Alpha" in his field, he fucked couple of females on the side - and in stead of praising his success the society almost crucified him... He then apologized to everybody for being successful and having such a high sex drive, but he is still perceived as liar, loser, below-average value... His wife stripped him of millions of dollars that HE made, while she did NOTHING. There are millions of people who think that she should have take it all. They made a total Loser from him... WTF? This guys should stop feeling sorry for himself, grab his balls again, pick up some solid PUA game or submerge himself into Red Pill - and he would be The Fucking King in OUR World!

From that point of view, being "Alpha" actually quite sucks, a guy like that has to live quite a secretive life to keep his position...

Sigma doesn't have to deal with any problems like that. Nobody really cares about Sigma, he is just on periphery of society, invisible to most people. He doesn't have to fight for anything. Girls who go out with Sigma don't have to worry about slut shaming at all since nobody really knows... So with good skills and some decent game, Sigma can be much more successful than "Alpha" and with much lesser effort.... Sigma is simply 50x better option than "Alpha"...

As far as having "no game" at all, I don't think that that is working. Well, try it, put on average clothes, have no education, have no desire to do anything, have average talk to some women, hide your sexual interest in women... I believe that you will have minimal success as there is simply no attraction, no excitement, no sexual tension... No woman will go out with you.... My believe is that you (assuming that we are still talking about having success with females) have to have some frame... you have to show sexual interest, you have to somehow raise her interest in you and sexual attraction, and finally you have to move things forward towards sex because chances are that she will not do it on her own... No matter how you want to call it, this is simply a "game", though quite different from the game of general society...