Natasha Tori Maru

Woah this is very odd - do you think humans are just their emotions and thoughts? Is this a core defining feature to you?

An example with editing to create a spin - we cannot know the truth from this. It is another example of hearsay / bias with no direct experience. And yes totally I think the penis is 100% linked to desire for survival - it's main job is to ensure the perpetuation of genetics into the next generation. Powerful force of creation and drive. My overall point was as @Xonas Pitfall raised - mens carnivorous sex drive acts to obscure understanding of women in some ways. Much like when you have a bunch of women on the forums completely unable to understand the issues of men being unable to access sex, and the preoccupation with the endeavour. Very hard to understand the opposite sex through the lens of the other. Which is why I think generalisation about gender tend to be more accurate when it is a man generalising men, a women generalising women.

What is this 'artificial' environment? Is this something only men experience? This artificial thing?

@Breakingthewall Because you won't contemplate 'what are you, what is the 'complex'? if there us no survival. I don't think you know what condescending is either.. I digress

If you won't contemplate how will you get any breakthroughs of understanding? This is the opposite of the openness you speak about... cognitive dissonance exemplified

@Breakingthewall I'm saying - pretend it is removed. A thought experiment. This is very closed off thinking 'it can never be removed' It is a theoratical thought experiment - what is left?

I am not being arrogant or condescending here - you still have not addressed the question. Are you saying that if survival is removed - the energy system is still there? How can the energy system be there if there is nothing to create it? In this thought experiment - recall there is no survival to worry about.

@Breakingthewall This is an example of survival - what is left when you don't have to worry about survival?

Can you explain how your 'structure' of self isn't a belief? You need to consider you might be having the belief, since you accuse everyone ELSE of having beliefs. YOU are the commonality.

If that is true then what is the below? You presented this example when I said 'pretend you don't have to worry about survival for you or loved ones' Marked up in red above is all survival. Take that away. Now what is left?

@Breakingthewall Missed directly answering so I will rephrase - what is survival? Define it

If you (so to speak), and all your loved ones, do not have to participate in survival - what is left? In your opinion. If your reply is 'openness' - that is synonymous here with 'being', which is also the same as 'no-self'. No self = awareness without centre, experience without owner, stillness without controller, doing without doer.

@Alexop I am playing around with the above, in full awareness I have ignored HUGE variants within the population Flipping the narrative

I could play devils advocate here: all these questions regarding women and trying to find out 'the truth of them' arise because men cannot comprehend life without a penis steering it. There's my female perspective on a masculine generalisation. I could be a pure savage and say try into eunuch mode if you want a taste A lot of male identity, desire and action - even MEANING - gets wrapped around the axis of the penis.

@Emerald 🎯

I eat em for the yolks also. Recalling the weird rash - I developed it AFTER I lost my free supply of backyard chicken eggs... Transitioned to store bought fReE rAnGe/blahblah (it's all lies) around the time the rash begun. Very well could be the difference in the egg source - my mums chickens were looked after like pets and tasted/texture was obscenely different to the store variety. There are really too many variables to think the weird skin shit is attributed to bad store eggs, but it makes me wonder.

All the points you raise have been addressed. There is simply repetition of the same points like a broken record now. You could argue that this is contrary to your openness concept - in this example Carl and I are open to the possibility there was a psychic connection happening. You dismissed it. Just a thought.

Conflating disagree and condescending.

Doesn't account for the posts happening simultaneously - like @Carl-Richard and I were on the other side of the planet, but typing the same thing at the same time. That is the confluence that stands out to me - not the fact we conversed on a topic in another thread. The conversation was the context only

@Carl-Richard I've been following this conversation and indeed - I was literally posting just as you wrote the above this is the context issue. Now really that is a psychic happening. No shit there - I just sat down at work to take a 5 minute break, begun typing a response that this thread exemplifies your language game point, and then you posted THIS of all things! Another example of psychic stuff and how it always happens TO me. Can't directly cause it. My gosh! Good pointers above - shooting on the right track for sure! Programming here stood out to me - its precisely the 'program' in the computer that we are talking about isn't real. The computer is the physical parts - the programming is software that can be loaded/unloaded. ctrl+alt+delete I like how you are steering this. Doing better than me!

They also pull like +50% margins. Duopoly

It's no matter - no one knows what context is - we won't get there. So any half baked ideas are part of the contemplation

I would argue that the second example is actually an example of a context of a context - the hologram from earlier

Slap in the face without context - a sound and a feeling - a slap and a sting! Slap in the face with context - what happened (intent), who did it (status, relationship), where & when (setting), what it means (interpretation) Adding to our definition ?

@ExploringReality Holographic Is there context to a slap in the face?