Page 1

 

WHOs seem like a very complex concept to most, and so we'll need to start off our journey, in this newly found portion of the book, with the smaller concept of...

 

A cookie jar.

 

Here are some words of wisdom for you:  

“You can’t have a cookie jar without the cookies, and the jar.” 

- The Great Anus of An Author

It’s simple enough, right? And yet almost everyone forgets this simple rule in everyday life. We almost always assume that life is too difficult to apply these simple rules to it, but, simple things simply matter. All complex things are based on, and built upon,  the simple things. That’s how it all works.

 

Now, before I describe to you the almighty hardware, that is a jar, I need to describe how and why i realized its importance. You see, I have an odd habit of talking with all sorts people whenever I can, and mostly the ones that everyone tells you to stay away from - the homeless, the old and cranky, the strangers, and SO many more. I like talking with the ones that are always ignored, as they are the unexamined, but the amount of them does tend to freak people out.

 

One day, I decided to sit at a bar that only sold beer and chacuterie. (For those of you that don't know me: I don't drink alcohol. As such, sitting at a bar is a very "me" thing to do. Unexpected, but not harmful.) While I was there, I struck up a conversation with a bartender who was off duty for a short while. We started discussing the life of a young person, just trying to get by as we both were, and came upon the discussion of the sort of our "life philosophies" or "rules we live by". I said that, to me, many of the things that people say or take for granted in their minds are completely unheard of from within my philosophy, not because I'm better than everyone else, but simply because I don't understand anyone else's way of living. I don't measure things like other people.

 

"Look at this glass." I told him. "Most people would be arguing over whether it was half empty or half full, but both of those answers are, not just subjectively, but OBJECTIVELY wrong. It is not a matter of perspective, but a matter of fact."

 

He looked at me with his eyes slightly narrowed, head tilted almost imperceptibly to the left, and with his mouth slightly tightened and thinned. I assume that he was either confused by what I had said, or disturbed by my conviction in a seemingly unreasonable statement. I don't know which one it was to this day.

 

"Listen," I said. "It's half full of liquid and half full of air, and a half plus a half, equals 1 full item." No matter which way you look at it, this glass is full. The only question is: are the contents worth anything to you or not? This isn't a question of math. This is a question of the things that you value, like a good drink, and the things you take for granted, such as the air you breathe. Sir, even if this glass had no liquid, it would still be full. It'd be full of air, and even if it wasn't full, it's still a very nice glass. Why should I care if my drink is in it or not, if I can still be grateful for a very nice glass?

 

Page 2

This... odd declaration of mine, in truth, was not directed at him. I have a method that I use to create moments of serendipity as soon as they are possible. It allows me to find answers to some of my biggest problems, without having to worry about them day in and day out. Though, thankfully, he found it very enlightening, and even added some of his own twists to it.

 

My point here is that, not only do we not value just how full and beautiful a cup is, but we also forget that it is always fulfilling its purpose, whether we intend for it to or not. This helped me solve a major problem that I had when describing psychological constructs, and with this epiphany, I found my vague metaphor for describing WHOs. 

 

You see, just because a jar contains cookies, that doesn't mean that the jar IS the cookies, or that the cookies are the jar. These are two separate categories. Though they are often used alongside each other, they are not made out of the same material and they are not truly connected in any real way.

 

Even if I was to combine all of the cookies together into one BIG cookie, with multiple flavors and multiple textures, even if I was to make a really big and really complex cookie and then place it in the jar... The cookie would still be the cookie, and the jar would still be the jar. The size of the cookie doesn't matter. It will never be the jar. This reasoning is why we need to keep a new fact in mind:

 

You can have a jar made of the absolute worst material in the world. It can be so worthless as to be considered literal shit, and yet this jar can still contain mountains, and piles, of gold. A pirate buries his treasure in the sand. Does that make the sand itself any more valuable? No. Sand is sand. It isn't worth very much on it's own, but the gold is definitely worth something. This is why you'd take the chest home, and not just leave it there but carry a jar of the sand home from the beach.

If you found a pirate's treasure chest in the sand, you'd take what you deem valuable, and the sand isn't it.

 

 

Page 3

We must keep in mind that the reverse is also true. Just because you have a jar made of antique porcelain, jade, or diamond, that doesn't mean that what it's carrying is worth very much. Truth be told, the jar could be empty, containing nothing, and still be worth a fortune. Even if it was once used as a toenail jar, diamonds are still diamonds, and those are still worth money. The jar will always be valuable, whether it's empty or not. If you can comprehend that the value of the jar, and its material essence, is not based on what it holds, then you may soon be on your way to learning the art of self-belief rather quickly.

 

As a reader who has purchased my book, I'm sure you trust me when I say that WHOs are different from Whats, but if you're trying to share my information to help enlighten your friends, I want to arm you with the best tools possible. Just because you know that these two things are different that doesn't mean that you know How they're different. Sadly, even to this day, many people tell me that "What you are IS who you are, Author. You're just overthinking things."

 

But a person who views new discoveries through the lenses of the past will never be able to learn from their present and future experiences. No matter what comes to them now, they are not living in the now. They only live, in their pasts. How can you learn something new, if you only see it as something old? This is important to ask, and yet is often overlooked. The more rigid your old traditions are, the more helpless your new evidence becomes, because it won't be stored mentally as "new".

People often view things, habitually, as the same form of categories and subcategories as they always have, over and over, and over again. For most people, the belief that a subcategory must be connected or a part of the overarching theme actually destroys their ability to uncover the deeper depths of psychological constructs, and with them, the concepts that help change their emotional worlds. Many people struggle to understand these psychological functions and ideas, such as WHO they are, because of how often their technique works with everything else. They view all categories and their subsections as if they were the teacup (Click here to review the tea cup metaphor), without realizing that there are other ways to categorize their subjects as well. It's peoples’ need to believe that the large category must always be "made up" of the smaller ones that creates the emotional issues that we are experiencing today. The problem with their mindset is that, while this works with many things, both physical and mental, it does not apply to psychological constructs, such as emotions and experiences, and certain other items as well, like WHOs, and like intelligence.

 

WHOs are not a teacup, and Whats are not their pieces when broken apart. They are made up of separate materials, even if one material is formed around the other. Constructs follow a very different type of subcategory from the usual things, one that often only applies to constructs as described in Chapter 1. To be clear, many physical and mental things do follow the categorical rules of the teacup. It's mainly the psychological constructs that don't. Though, some other things may exist as well.

 

Deceivers will try to convince you that WHOs can be broken apart, specifically so they can use their What to change how you value them, and the things related to them. Of course, this includes you (as they are dealing with you as their own What - their own tool), the message they’re selling, and so much more.

So, here's a more apt metaphor for you to use, as a way to view these subcategories as accurately as possible, and with it, gain a new inside look at what it means to know WHO you truly are.

 

Page 4

 

 

Like a jar, WHOs can contain, but not be made of, several Whats, and Whats can be contained by, but not be made of, a single WHO. WHO and What you are is just like a cookie jar. The Whats are the cookies contained inside, but the WHO is the jar itself. The jar and its cookies are two separate things, even if the title makes them sound like a single object. The cookies, and their jar, are made of different materials, and their materials have different values. One is worth more than the other. The same is true for WHOs and for Whats. Just because a jar can contain cookies, that does not mean that the jar is the cookies. Just because your WHO can contain Whats that doesn't mean that your WHO is the Whats. The cookies are cookies, and the jar is a jar. Your Whats are your Whats, and your WHO is your WHO. That's it, no further connection should be assumed without further proof. You aren't just an assortment of your Whats. You're not just the cookies that the concept of "you" contains. You are WHO you are. You are the jar.

 

 

You are not just What you have as individual pieces (individual cookies), and you're not just every What combined into one big category either. Even if all the cookies were put together into one BIG cookie, and were called "What you are", even if that big cookie had a bunch of flavors put into one and was a more complex idea, that doesn't make it the same as the even bigger jar that still contains it from the outside. These concepts are not made of the same material, and they are not truly attached to each other in any real way. You are you, but the shocking truth is, that means two separate things, instead of just one. You are WHO you are, and you are also What you are. The trick is to know when it’s important to focus on the cookies, and when to focus on the jar.

 

As far as the human mind can comprehend, "You" are just the singular concept that contains these many Whats, regardless of the form they take on, but just because you contain them, that doesn't mean that you are them. In terms of our brains, and our understandings of the world, yes, you are a What, but you are also a WHO, because our logical brain measures the world one way, and emotional brain measures it in another. It just so happens that our emotions envelope our logic through the concept that is "identity". WHO you are does exist, and it contains, but is not specifically attached to, your Whats. In short, logic takes the cookies out of the jar before guessing at your value, while your emotions can measure you by the cookies AND the jar. Funny enough, in terms of fulfillment and true love, LOGICAL people are actually the one’s missing something.

 

Now again, WHO you are is just a concept. It doesn't physically exist. It's not a soul, a spirit, or anything crazy like that. A WHO is merely a concept, but it's a much larger concept, that contains, among other things, the facts, and ideas, of What you are. WHOs can only be seen from a higher plane of thought, but that doesn't mean they don't exist within our minds. It's like viewing the entire world from the outside in. Viewing the inside of a jar, from outside of it, is much easier than trying to study the outside of a jar, from stuck on the inside of it (At least when it's open). To see the fullest picture, to see both the cookies within and the jar without, you need to embrace the idea of the jar itself, and hold it in your mind, rather than just forgetting it altogether and focusing entirely on the small cookies that lay inside. You need the category, much more than you need its subcategories. When carrying yourself through life, it’s much better to carry the jar, rather than trying to juggle all the cookies.

 

Page 5

 

Intelligence, being the construct that we used in the previously mentioned "Chapter 1", will make for an excellent example here. You see, most IQ tests indirectly measure a mere nine subcategories, which they believe are contained within the idea of "being intelligent." These subcategories have about a 99% correlation with each other, which is even so high as for some psychologists to believe that you could simply test a single one of these and still get fairly accurate results (Peterson).

 

Multiple of these subcategories have to do with different types of memory. Others have to do with critical thinking, and so forth. My point here is that, even though memory is considered a subcategory of intelligence, it should not be assumed as a form of intelligence, not even as a less effective one. Memory is just a cog in the machine that is contained within that much larger structure. It does help to make the machine work and to function to its fullest capacity, but that doesn't make it the same as the machine itself. Having cookies in the jar helps the jar maintain its purpose. The cookies define the jar, and what it's good for, but that doesn't make them actually attached, or a part, of the jar itself.

 

You do need what is contained within your jars, and it helps to have a good memory when developing good intelligence. You do need Whats in order to have a truly successful WHO, especially when defining it as special, but don't assume that this makes them the same thing, or even a really necessary part of each other. Just as you can replace, and have new, different cookies, but still put them in the same jar, you can also change your beliefs, and have new ones, and still be the same person. This, of course, is the same with any other What that resides within a WHO, and many other measurements that reside within many other constructs.

 

(Now again, constructs are things that cannot be measured directly, nor explained entirely in words, so my definition of intelligence may be considered different to yours, even if I was basing it off of APA textbooks, but I cannot bring myself to truly believe that merely by memorizing quotes, or your time's tables, or anything else, that those memories make you an intelligent person. I believe there is much more to intelligence than just repeating what others have told you to say like a frickin parrot.)

 

This is not to say that memory is bad for MEASURING intelligence INDIRECTLY. You may not be able to uncover what the intelligence is actually made of. You cannot measure its essence through memory, or its entire identity, but you can measure, for example, its volume and amount. The beauty of this is that, if we can agree that this "intelligence material" is valuable, then we can also agree that "more intelligence" is "more valuable". Having 2 feet worth of gold bars is better than having just 1 foot's worth. As such, if you believe that a construct's material is worthwhile, then the bigger the jar, the more valuable it becomes, because you can only make a bigger jar if you have more of the needed material to work with. This is what all of psychology's construct measurements are designed to prove. They don't prove the value of a construct. They only prove the amount.

 

Page 6

Let's consider each of these nine subcategories from the usual IQ test like nine different flavors of cookies, and view an IQ test, as just a way of measuring how many of each cookie there is inside the jar. Well then, if you have 100 cookies inside your "intelligence jar," that would suggest that your jar must be pretty big compared to someone whose brain can only fit 10 cookies of the same size, right? The size of the jar seems to have been measured pretty easily here. It seems clear that their intelligence is very large when it can fit 100 cookies if the average jar can only contain 10. This means that they must have a very high IQ... There's just... one problem...

 

What if the jar that holds 10 cookies is actually much larger, but just... more empty? What if he has the potential to fill it in and bring his intelligence to extraordinary heights but doesn't know how to bake his own cookies, and no one gave him the cookies, from an outside world, that he likes enough to keep inside of his, personal, jar? What if it's simply that no one taught him what he needed to learn, such as how to ask the right questions? To me, this doesn't make him less intelligent. It simply makes him less taught.

 

What if... What you are... isn't already as great as What you could be, as defined by your WHO? You cannot judge the size of your jar in life if you haven't already lived your whole, life. If you go with the usual measurements, you would only find out your worth, at the exact WORST TIME. You'll find out if you were living a good life, at the very moment you die. You'll only know if the jar will ever be full, at the very moment that you become unable to keep filling it. This brings up an age-old question: How can you avoid crying over a glass of spilt milk? Most people simply suggest that you accept your sadness. That a spilled glass is sad, but the truth is that you need to put up with a sad reality sometimes. They tell you to find a way to be content with your regrets and die with a sense of acceptance towards your life, a life that IS FLAWED, and undeniably so. Most people don't deny that their life sucks, or that it always will suck. They simply put up with it, until the day they die.

I don't fall into that situation. I won't fall into it, and I refuse to let you be forced into it either.

All I'm suggesting, for you and others, is that we ask an alternative question:

 

"How about we just... DON'T spill the glass?"

 

"How about we just fix our broken lives before they completely break, and live a good life from here on out?" 

 

Returning to intelligence, we have other questions to ask. What if the jar is just awkwardly shaped and there's a secret crevice that counts trillions of other cookies inside, but the jar just doesn't know how to share those yet? What if he has a massive amount of intelligence, but just has no techniques to share it with the world? Can you imagine if Isaac Newton had discovered his famous laws, but didn't know how to explain them? What if Isaac Newton was mute, shy, and isolated? These are some very obvious limiters of communication, but we must keep in mind that, as none of us are mind-readers, there are likely to be countless more limitations to communicating with others than we are aware of. Oftentimes, we aren't even masters of communicating with ourselves. Knowledge, it seems, is useless until it is shared in some way, be it through creation or communication or something else. This applies to your thoughts, as well as your own internal communications.

 

How many "Isaac Newtons" were born before the one we know about today? How many great ideas have died alone, inside of a person who could not share them, or write them down for future generations? The slaves left unacknowledged, the women that the powerful chose to ignore...? How many people have discovered the secrets of the universe, such as the laws of gravity, or the fundamentals of true love, but were unable to capitalize on it within their lifetimes?

 

Just because you cannot measure their intelligence doesn't mean that it isn't there, and just because someone has intelligence, that doesn't mean that they know how to use it, or even what it is, and share it with the world. The same can be said of WHOs.

"If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." 

- Albert Einstein

 

Page 7

Let’s state that, for the sake of argument, you had gone to a new friend's place, one that you’ve never visited before, and they told you about, you guessed it, a cookie jar. If, after waiting for what felt like a long time, you finally find it and there are no delicious little cookies inside...?

 

Is that What you hunted for? Is that What you wanted? NO! You'll immediately assume that you won't align with the WHO behind the jar because you won't be given a chance by What the jar contains, but you would have aligned with the jar, if the Whats had allowed it by containing cookies. The same can be said of the jar if a single extra toenail was added, on top of the otherwise delicious cookies. Now there are too many ingredients, instead of too few.  This much has already been discussed through our topics on attraction and repulsion. The contents do not change the jar's real worth, but it can change how we perceive it, to some degree.

 

Like how adding an unwanted toenail to a jar can seem to completely change how you feel about it, adding the wrong What to anything else can also repel you from it as well. To some people, too ugly of a face would be considered too many ingredients, or at least the wrong assortment. Gold diggers don't love their partners, but they can at least stay with them more than they would otherwise, if they add the right key ingredients, because the ingredients attract them, and attraction is often mistaken for affection. Sadly, nowadays, everyone's a gold digger of sorts. Today, every relationship is just a transaction, even in your relationship with yourself. We ask for validation, commitment, loyalty, trust and the like, but we're scared to give them up ourselves first because we know what they're worth.

 

But you'll trade something, somehow, if you want to be friends, now won't you? You'll give, but only so that you can take. The question is only who gives in first, during these subtle emotional negotiations.

 

We've become merciless in our greed towards others, and ignorant in our passions for ourselves.

 

This need for more and more valuable Whats is often the reason that people dislike themselves. We can be measured by both Whats and by WHOs. It's like filling the jar with water to see how much volume it can contain. This water is called "ambition" or "pride". The water still isn't the same as the jar, but it can measure a key detail about the jar and its entire purpose (It can measure the amount of Whats that must be contained in order to be "fulfilled", but this is only a VERY rough estimate, because different "cookies" come in very different sizes). 

 

If WHO you are doesn’t match with What traits you have at this point in time (including What potential you have to change in the future), then those WHOs don’t align with each other, and so you aren’t aligning… with yourself. This is why greed makes you so discontent and unhappy. This is what makes you dissatisfied in life. Even when our needs are fulfilled, we still ask if they're being fulfilled with a high enough quality cookie, and that is a very dumb question.

 

Because of this question, you'll either fill yourself up too much with useless things, and create friction, or tension, between What you are (the assortment of all of these cookies together) and WHO you are (the jar that's being overfilled to nearly bursting with too much volume), or there’ll be an emptiness created that makes your life feel... less meaningful, or incomplete (A jar that was left too empty, and unfulfilled). You can fill your own WHO with pretty much anything, but just because you CAN collect only metaphorical shit, and toxic poisons inside your jar, that doesn't mean that you SHOULD. This means that there is a third, terrible way, that you can misalign with yourself. The worst form is when you view what's inside your WHO as repellent, all by itself. If you think that you may not hate WHO you are, but that you do hate What you are, then that is completely possible.

 

Page 8

 

Consider it like this: you can have a jar filled with gold, but the jar itself is made out of literal shit, like... literally, cow manure (the jar itself is worthless, but filled with gold), and you can also have a jar filled with toenails or crap. Yet the jar itself is made out of pure diamond, and platinum metals. (No matter What is kept inside of it, the jar itself is the most valuable thing you've ever seen. This includes situations where the jar's Whats are disgusting and off-putting). You can have terrible Whats and still be a valuable human being, but the reverse is also true.

What your jar is made of has no direct connection with what you can put inside of it, only the shape of it does. The value of WHO you are doesn't control What you'll be comfortable with, only the shape of it does. Despite that, even the shape of your WHO does not determine the value of the materials that the WHO itself was made with. The shape of your WHO doesn't change its value. It only changes the different types of Whats that can comfortably fit inside of it. Of course, some people have much smaller WHOs, so they don't need as much to feel truly fulfilled in their lifetime. This is called being (insert stereotypical cowboy voice here) "A simple man." Like many people, you, my dear reader, have only been looking at the Whats that reside within, but this has nothing to do with WHO you truly are, as a jar. YOU may be made of diamonds, or YOU may be made for shit. You may have terrible things connected to you, or residing within you, all without you being a terrible thing, yourself. What makes this last problem the most difficult is that, YES, something is actually unpleasant about What you are. If this is the case, I won't sugarcoat it. Some things will still need to be changed.

 

BUT!!!

 

I also have chapters in this book to help you with that. So DO NOT lose hope!!!!

 

Remember that even as you are changing What you are, that WHO you are will remain the same. In the end, when you finally learn to feel comfortable chasing after what you want, and when you finally learn to love yourself unconditionally, for WHO. You. Are, and without regret. It will mean that you have always been and always will be, worthy of love, because while you can change What's inside the jar, you, are still, just you. You are the jar, not the cookies, and the jar never changes.

 

Remember my friends that What you'll need, is up to you. Just like how a jar that is only half full of liquid is still 100% full in reality because of the air that it contains, you will ALWAYS be full, no matter how empty or incomplete you may feel. Life is not a matter of whether you're half complete or half incomplete. You... are you. You are the jar. You will always be full, even when you're filled to the bottom. So stop demanding to be filled specifically with gold. You don't need that much gold, and if your priorities were straight in life, you wouldn't want that much either.

Con men (confidence men) can’t play with your insecurities or confidence if you have a tighter hold on your emotions than they do. They cannot tempt you with a better drink if you’re just admiring your, one of a kind, glass (Your WHO). The best they can do is try to swap that glass for a duplicate without you noticing, but if you’ve loved it for long enough, even that becomes a nearly impossible task. (Also, we’ll be showing you how to spot this trick in book 2 anyways, soooo…)

You are What you are at any given moment. If you forget about the future, and whatever else could be added in later, then right now... you are full, as full as can be without change. You can be considered fulfilled at any moment. The question is only if you value What you have enough to capitalize on that possibility. 

A glass with no liquid will still be full of air. A glass in a vacuum will still be full of space. You will always be able to love yourself, because people fall in love, true love, for WHO you are, not What you have. All you need to remember is that you’re a very nice glass, no matter if you like the drink or not.

Keep in mind though, that this will only make you feel fulfilled, without actually being filled with any particular What, such as fame or money, but that's the secret. That's what allows you the freedom to grab at any dream or goal that you wish. You can do it when you feel "filled to the bottom" because after you feel fulfilled without needing anything external, everything else, is just a bonus. You can chase after fame without fear because... well, you'll just be doing it for shits and giggles anyways.

 

Plus, WHO you were, WHO you are, and WHO you will be? They're all the same thing, because a WHO never changes. The jar, will always be, the jar, no matter where you put it in the room, and no matter what time you go to observe it. You'll always be you, in tough times and in good times, in bad places and in good places. You're you. It's impossible to change that, but in all honesty?

You don't need to.

 

Page 9

If you’re looking to attract people, then using the right Whats as bait can be an excellent technique, but just because they’re paying attention to you, in their side view, that doesn’t mean they’re actually there for you. People are often attracted to a cookie jar for the cookies. Heck! The cookies could just be placed in a plastic bag and we'd STILL be attracted to that bag... but that doesn't mean that we really love plastic baggies, now does it? Our hunger for a bag's cookies doesn't mean that we love the bag any more than a person's hunger for your money means that they really love you. They'll only be there, starting off, because of your Whats, like What commitment you've given them, What validation, or Whatever else, and you just happen to have those things. So, I suggest only using this idea as a way to keep those you dislike away from you and to gain the opportunities needed to show the peopleyou like WHO you truly are. What you are is not you in your entirety. It’s mainly an involuntary performance, an appearance for the masses, but performers get paid quite a lot and in all sorts of ways.

 

When you're hungry, the longer you waited for those cookies, the more disappointed you’d be if they weren't there, and the longer you’ve been living a discontent life, waiting for a feeling of change, the more disappointed with life you’ll be, if no change has come to happen.

 

Some of you may believe that I am suggesting for you to prioritize your WHOs over your Whats during every aspect of your life. However, the truth is that Whats are still important as well. Whats are needed to create the different paths that you can use to move forward. WHOs are essential because, the more you use your WHOs, the less likely it will be for you to stumble, fall, and get hurt while walking down the path that you have just created. With Whats, the path may form, but you cannot walk it without your WHOs, and so you will need to master BOTH to achieve quick, and easy successes. What good is having a plan, or goals to track, if you don't have the emotional courage to take the steps, follow it, and hunt down those elusive dreams? 

 

This is the power of having both WHOs and Whats at the same time. WHOs create emotion, and therefore arousal, and therefore action, but Whats create the needed links between those WHOs. 

 

Having a powerful combination of both allows you to act, as well as to understand the reasons behind your actions. It helps you determine where you want to go and why you can't allow yourself to stop no matter how painful the process is at any given moment.

 

I see no harm in changing the repellence that you feel towards yourself, or removing a feeling of just wanting to get away from What you are as soon as possible. That feeling is often... quite excruciating. It must only be said that by changing these things, changing What you are, you must understand that the people around you will not "fall in love" with you, but they will stay by your side for What you have, including your traits.  The same applies to you, as you will not love yourself either. If What you are is being changed to make you feel better about yourself, it won’t work. You might feel better about the capabilities that you’ve gained or the other Whats you have earned or become. You may be proud of your achievements, but you won't be proud of yourself. Luckily, by changing your Whats you may begin to feel attracted to yourself, being pulled into finally taking a look at WHO you really are, and yet you will never truly love yourself until you make peace with your WHO. Til death do you separate your WHO from your Whats, and that's the way it is for life. Like being with a spouse, it’s not enough to like them or to be attracted to them. To find true happiness and fulfillment in a relationship, you must learn to love them, and in relation will yourself, you will need to love yourself in order to make any real progress in life.

 

Now keep in mind, that many of the Whats you'll have and contain will be like... the teacup. I KNOOOOOWWWW, I know. This is getting old, but it seems better to have my lessons be overly simplistic and useful, than to be entertaining and misunderstood. So, with the tea cup idea, You should be able to tell that certain pieces, the ones that are least broken, are the ones largest in size (this is an overly simplified look at things, that assumes that these pieces are broken equally. In truth, that same error can be applied to WHOs and Whats as well, but this is a great starting point for the newcomers.) This is the same for What you have. 

 

The more holistic a view you can have of your subcategories and your Whats, the bigger the pieces are that you can change for a larger attraction to yourself and from others. The largest category of Whats you can change for the greatest effect, is to change What you are, rather than What you have. After all, What traits you have, and What successes you achieve, will all be determined by What kind of person you are. What you are is important, because when attracting success and power, or any other good thing, you'll be the one attracting them, and Whats attract Whats. Therefore, What a "you" is, is important, because you want good things to be attracted to "you", for What you are.

 

What you are is the biggest category, and therefore the most "attractive" or "repellent" What you can mess with, so that you can change on multiple layers at once, and then benefit more profitably, from the more massive transformation.

 

Page 10

The smaller subcategories of What you are don’t matter as much as their more significantly potent counterpart. The more whole the piece, the more changing that What can change your entire life, and all the opportunities that come with it. I suppose you could think of your WHO, not just as a cookie jar, but as a teacup jar. It's a jar, that contains jars, that contains jars. It contains many smaller containers (many smaller tea cups), some of which can be broken just like our teacup metaphor and others can be filled with even smaller tea cups (smaller containers). After all, every What has a WHO and every WHO contains several Whats. In this way, a WHO will contain a WHO that contains a WHO... that contains a WHO, and so on, while a What can be broken into a What, that can be broken into a What, and so on again.

 

You are containing Whats, and every What has a WHO. Therefore, there are two different ways of measuring yourself, and even measuring the parts of yourself: The emotional way (using the WHOs) and the logical way (Using the Whats). Both can be used to measure anything that exists, at any time. The only tricky part is that, while measuring the same reality, they'll lead us to two different answers because they're measuring that reality in two separate ways. This is where the battle between metaphysics and physics starts.

 

As a slight digression, for those of you who don't know, the philosophy of physics is all about the observable and directly measurable parts of philosophy, and metaphysics is all about the very concept of being and understanding that form of being in a mentally accurate way. For example, a metaphysicist will ask "Why do we exist?", while a physicist will ask "Why do rocks fall when they're dropped from a ledge?" One is more abstract and one is more concrete. One is more swift, but loose, and the other is more strong, but brittle. One is now defined as a form of wisdom, and another is now considered founded on intelligence. These two categories being invented and named may even be considered the birthplace of modern science.

 

Most people will lean one way or the other between these two categories, and many people today will tend to lean towards a more physical viewpoint, as our view on physics is closer to our view on modern science than it is to ancient philosophy. The latter is considered "unnecessary" nowadays, as again, our society has completely lost track of the power of wisdom. In oversimplified terms, a physicist believes that if you can't observe it with your eyes, then it cannot be real. A good example of this is the physically philosophical argument for why souls don't exist. Many physicists would say "If this non-physical thing exists, and has no physical form, then how does it move your body? If you say that it's the essence of the soul that makes your heart and mind function, how can a non-physical thing move the physical chemicals or the physical electricity in your mind if, again, a soul itself does not physically exist? How can non-physics apply to physics?"

 

"Only physics can be applied to physics, and we can see our physical reality," They'd say, "and therefore, there is no other reality that we need to measure." To them, all metaphysical measurements are useless, in the grand scheme of things, because they don't believe that metaphysical measurements can be practically applied to anything physical and therefore have no use for them "in the real world".

 

And,

 

I actually agree with them, at least when they say that only physics can apply to physics, but I also believe that, with our chemically, electrically, and otherwise physically controlled minds, we do develop our own concepts, ideas, and thereby views, of the world that we all live in even if we develop them through physical means, and so I still find these concepts both important and valuable. Metaphysics was CREATED by the physics that our brains relied on to create such thoughts. So, if we are to investigate all of physical philosophy, we must includes these thoughts in our analysis as well.

 

Now, most physicists will ask me: How can you measure the one true essence behind our reality, and come up with two separate results? My answer? Nothing has just one essence, or one true self when it comes to how our minds view reality. Reality may have only one true being, but in terms of how we live (and succeed) within reality depends on our minds' view of it, and our minds see things as being both a WHO and a What. Everything has two identities minimum when it comes to the measurements made, by these chemicals inside of our brains: And these measurements are both What it is that we're viewing, and WHO it is. Religion captured this... rather well actually, many years ago. Science is about answering "What is this world we live in?", and religion is about answering "WHO is this world we live in?". Vaguely speaking, "God" is just religion's way of answering the question of WHO we're dealing with, when we face reality, and science is about answering about What we're dealing with, when we face reality. Of course, when we became more focused on science, we became more focused on Whats, and so, in today's society, emotionally, we all suffer. This is not to say that we need both science and religion. It merely means that all societies need an answer to both questions of What AND WHO the world is that we're living in. Whether religion is your answer or not, I don't give a shit. I don’t care if you are super religious, and for anyone curious I don't subscribe to any religion for myself either.

Do whatever the fuck you want on that front.

 

Page 11

 

This duality of existence is true, from the smallest of things, to the largest. There are two sides to every story, and there are two measurements for every reality, even if there's only one reality itself. This is why I hate calling it a "metaphysical reality" and a "physical reality". The word "reality" is just too important to us to have these names allow for any reasonable discussion when that word is being used like this. They're not separate realities, but separate units. Aka, "metaphysical units" and "physical units". They are simply a question of both WHO we're dealing with, and What we're dealing with, when we consider something. That is all.

 

What your pieces are can be imagined as being a part of each other, and WHO your pieces are can be seen as containing each other. This makes all the difference in the world when it comes to viewing our reality and categorizing it “correctly” within our minds. Some people argue that we live in a sort of "Russian doll reality", where everything is contained within each other, and some people believe that we live in a "jigsaw puzzle reality", where everything is a part of each other.ome people believe that we live in both. The first type of person is often called a "metaphysicist", the second is often called a "physicist", and the last one, is a man called "An Author". 

 

Like the addition of cookies changing the name of a jar, your Whats can give you different names and adjectives. Being "a handsome person" really just means that you have handsome traits, and so while someone claims to love you because you’re "a romantic person” what they really mean is that they love your romantic actions, thoughts, or whatever else it is that you might have. These names are considered "What you are." Funny enough, it may be the person who has no answer for why they love you, that loves you most.

 

You are both a What and a WHO at the same time, just like everything else. Because What you are is a factual thing and WHO you are is a conceptual, and mental thing, they can both coexist in the same place, without being the same in themselves. There are different measurements for these two different views on reality, and so both of them can be equal in their inequality. In the game of life, Whats and WHOs are two different types of pieces, and they come with two very different sets of rules. This book is designed to help you understand the pieces of our game. Book two is designed to help you understand the rules of the game itself, outside of those pieces, and then educates you on how to use those rules to your advantage, through my previously tested strategies, the ones that I have used all my life, and that have gotten me to where I am today.

 

These are key facts, that you'll need to take serious note of moving forward, due to the definition of love from Chapter 4. Remember that you don't need to change yourself, you simply need to change What you have, in order to open the doorways to self-love, and create and opportunity for positive emotions. Your WHO is already loveable to those who can find it. It's just that you haven't found it yet. This'll sound untrue and cliché, but, in all likelihood, you are already worthy of love. You just don't know it yet.

 

Page 12

 

 

If you’ve ever wanted to know WHO you are in the past, some of you may have looked for how you made others feel. You do this with an unconscious understanding that a WHO is the catalyst for all emotions. There’s something else that you need to understand, as well. People cannot see you. They can only see What you have, and then guess at WHO you are. You can’t see WHO you are for right now either, but you have a far more expansive view of your Whats than they do (which contain certain WHOs, that are likely aligned with your own), so you have a higher potential of being right. For instance, you can see your thoughts, intentions, and actions. Other people can only see your actions. It's hard to see what a sealed jar contains without X-Ray vision. That is, unless you are the jar itself.

 

You need to understand: You are the best indicator of WHO you are… because you know best about how you feel. Everything you’ve ever wanted, and everything you’ve ever feared, every time you’ve felt a strong emotion, that instance is a clear indicator of WHO YOU ARE. It’s a sign of what you match with, and what you don’t. There is one big problem with this, and it is when you act based on an incorrect idea of WHO you are or the incorrect idea of the WHO behind another item. This can often be caused by repression, a topic that we’ll be discussing in the next menu. There are many more things at work here, when it comes to your WHOs for sure, but also when it comes to your Whats, and it's the ability to capture all of it that makes this book so worthwhile. This book is FILLED with value,

and I don't just mean that it's Filled to The Bottom.

 

 

 

Work Cited

“What Does HIGH IQ Mean? What Is G-Factor? - Dr. Jordan Peterson Lecture on IQ.” Performance by Jordan Peterson, YouTube, YouTube, 28 Mar. 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?si=WRE9LpRYQzi-g4dD.&v=SWD2DkUl_9Q&feature=youtu.be. Accessed 19 Jan. 2024.