cookiemonster

Probably not, but it's a useful anecdote to demonstrate a point. I was also a lot younger back then.

As long as there is no deception and it's totally consensual then it's perfectly fine. Open relationships can be very healthy. What you don't want though is a relationship that is built on lies. There's a big difference between being sexually liberal and cheating on someone. But if it's working out better for both of you then it's all good.

Although I don't identify with any ethnicity these days, I do have a personal family interest in the holocaust which was the basis of plenty research about 15 years back. I would go out onto the streets and ask the simple question:- "Do you believe in the holocaust?" In general, the results were overwhelming."aBsoLutEly yEs." But if given the question:- "Can you name the top 5 extermination camps by number of people killed?" *crickets* All you would get was blank faces. Questions such as "Can you give the name of the gas that killed the most people?" would either be answered incorrectly, or not answered at all. For me it proved that it is entirely possible for people to hold beliefs about a subject without actually knowing anything about it. Or in other words: Just because someone is technically and factually correct, doesn't mean that they are not brainwashed.

I have an amateur interest in the role of disposition in regard to sexual identity. Within the context of classic heterosexuality, it is assumed by default that the male takes the assertive disposition (the penetrator) while the female takes the passive disposition (the penetratee). This assumption however betrays a simple spectrum of potential permutations when one steps outside of a heterosexual myopia. For example, there is no default setting when it comes to homosexual intercourse. There literally has to be a conversation about it beforehand, else intercourse cannot take place. A decision has to be made in advance. For many people who practice gay sex however, this "decision" is so much more than just an arbitrary clerical side thought. It flows viscerally from the loins as a fundamental part of their entire sexual identity. The idea that disposition has a fundamental role to play in sexual identity raises retroactive questions in respect of heterosexuality: If such dispositional permutations are viscerally fundamental in the homosexual space, then it follows that such dispositional permutations are just as viscerally fundamental in the heterosexual space, The major difference is that in absence of a special conversation in defiance of the cultural norm, the heterosexual default setting will always be assumed, and thus potentially obfuscates other classes of sexual identities. For example, female on male pegging is very often downgraded to the lesser phenomenon of fetish. The heterosexual default in respect of identity is always predicated on the idea of the male as penetrator and female as penetratee. There simply isn't the cultural narrative for this kind of reverse heterosexuality in the same manner that it is respected in the gay space. This makes me wonder to what extent dispositional permutations in the heterosexual space are largely being overlooked (in defiance of their own biological urges) simply because of cultural inertia, or an out-of-date cultural lexicon. In any event, I've created this little poll to get some dispositional feedback. I'm guessing most of you will either be 1s or 2s, but it's all anonymous, so feel free to let yourself go. Thanks!

Do you feel that this disposition matches your cultural axioms? Or in other words, do you feel there is harmony between your biology and your social networks?

You sound pretty confident. Can you give the name of the gas that killed the most people?

Thanks for these results thus far.

Absolute unconsciousness is impossible.

This sounds more like a romantic fantasy but might not be a good strategy. If you want the best men you will have to do some of the work yourself, otherwise you may miss out.

Life is a rollercoaster. You sit in the ride. The ride does it's thing. Upside-down and loopy loop. Then, on that fateful day, the carriage returns to the station and you are invited to exit the vehicle. The ride is now over. It does not matter that you now have to leave. There are many other rollercoasters out there for you to experience. It is an infinite amusement park. But due to impermanence, you have to leave this particular rollercoaster. There are many people waiting in line to experience what you have just experienced. They cannot experience the experience unless you exit the vehicle. There simply is not enough space. You do not get to demand that you remain on the vehicle. You do not get to complain and say things like: "But I'm here with my family. I want to stay on this ride forever!" This is selfish. When it's time to die, it's time to die. Move your arm around. Notice that the arm moves through empty space. This empty space only exists because of the death of people that existed before you. If there was only birth and no death, there would not be a square meter of space on the planet that wasn't occupied by human flesh. It would literally be hell on earth. The human experience is dependent on death in order to facilitate stability of the experience. Without death humans could not exist! When it's time to leave the rollercoaster, it's time to leave the rollercoaster. Death is a feature, not a malfunction.

A psychological tactic to scare Japan's citizens. The aim might be to apply pressure on the citizens against the government so as not to intervene in case of war over Taiwan. Realistically, a Chinese nuclear strike on Japan isn't a great military strategy. The more interesting thing is use of the phrase: "when we decide to liberate Taiwan", as if implying that war is virtually inevitable.

People who don't believe in conspiracy theories are just as bad as people who do. It's not about believing or not believing, but rather observing and understanding the perspective. The point is not to 'log-in' one way or the other. There's a mid-range IQ band where conformity is at its highest and intellectual sovereignty is at its lowest. You cannot defeat the Cartesian evil demon holding such views.

Recently, a couple of music producers designed a computer algorithm that generated every conceivable melody within an agreed range of finite variables. (Specifically two octaves, eight bars.) These melodies were generated as MIDI files and stored on numerous hard-drives, the idea being that anytime a future songwriter composed a new melody or song, most likely it would automatically be in violation of copyright laws before it even had a chance to go on sale. (!) Thankfully the two music producers had good intentions, and the stunt was designed to raise awareness toward the stupidity of copyright. In a sense, any melody is no different from a prime number. Just as a mathematician does not create a prime number, so too does a composer not create a melody. Like numbers, every conceivable melody already exists. It's merely a question of discovering it. Therefore, melodies, like numbers, cannot be owned by anyone. When we broaden this out into the arena of ontology, we can liken finite-experiences to that of melodies and numbers. All finite-experiences already exist. It's merely just an exercise in discovery. When we dream we are not creators, but explorers. There is no such thing as creation. Every finite experience is like a pearl at the bottom of an infinite ocean, perpetually being re-discovered endlessly.

Perhaps the wildest theory of them all isn't so much theory but rather an understanding: That is to say that all 'conspiracy theories' as with all 'scientific facts' are relative truths, and therefore exist with equal illusion within the infinite canvas of experience. Or in other words, there is an experience where the relative truth that the earth is flat exists, and there is an experience where the relative truth that the world is round exists. If both of those timelines were seemingly identical from the perspective of a single finite agent, the ability to to make an assessment of which is which would be virtually impossible. The timelines may even be actually identical if one factors in quantum shit / Schrodingers Cat etc. More practically though, and in regards to the censorship from Youtube... my guess would be that they would want to treat all conspiracies with the same brush, so as not to give away any game theory. (For example, if flat-earth theory was permissible but JFK assassination theories were not permissible etc.)

Okay that's fine. I just wanted to check. Typically I would associate playing with a game, and imagining with a dream. I think there's a slight nuance between the two. IMO there's a lot more organic freedom to a dream, whereas a game tends to be more rule-based. Both are acceptable within infinite consciousness, but the idea of permanently being trapped in a rule-based system sounds kinda hellish. But you're right, that's just my interpretation of what defines a game. I think the overall nature of the experience is sometimes a game, sometimes a dream, and sometimes just a story to be watched...

Okay, but how are you defining play exactly?

What makes you think this? A game is defined by a state of limitation. Or in other words, having an antagonistic force applied against a protagonistic force. To say that you cannot come out of the game would imply that you are forever imprisoned in a state of limitation, which is to deny the state of omniscient omnipotence. (aka God).

Ideally, the place we need to get to is where heterosexuality as the default sexuality is permanently eradicated. For example, even in 2021, many heterosexual males still have not had any gay experiences whatsoever, despite being confident of their heterosexuality, The dream is that in just a couple of generations we can change this, so that by default, young adults will for the most part be totally experienced in both heterosexual and homosexual casual sex, and thereafter can make a more informed choice about longer term partners. But in order to make that dream a reality, we first have to clamp down hard on the heterodoxy, the homophobic barbarians and the cultural fascists.

Some further questions:- Would you describe yourself as sexually Dominant or sexually submissive? Have you ever tried cuckolding and/or humiliation therapy? What kind of women are you naturally attracted to? Assertive or passive? What sort of porn do you watch? Or what kind of porn would you watch if you could? Have you had any gay experiences? These might sound like random questions, but generally where there is fear, there is insecurity, which could indicate that you're not acting in alignment with your true sexuality.

Schrödinger's Cat Manifestation Tricks NOTE: if you're a manifestation-skeptic, then you might want to give this post a wide berth. So I've been working on a couple of experiments where I fuse together the premise of Schrödinger's Cat with classic manifestation theory. The result is entry-level miracle work based on some fleshed out principles. To understand this fully we first need to understand some of the problems that pertain to advanced-level manifestation work. Or in other words:- The Problem with Walking On Water At every present moment in duality, the subject/object relationship is characterized by a belief/reality complex that symbiotically negotiates with one another to create the illusion of the dream world. Belief informs reality, while reality simultaneously informs belief. The result is a perpetual tug of war between belief and reality with both vying for dominance. If the incoming reality is stronger than the outgoing belief, then belief has no choice but to capitulate to reality, thereafter creating a vicious circle at the expense of manifestation. The opposite is also true. If the outgoing belief is stronger than the incoming reality, then reality has no choice but to capitulate to belief, thereafter creating strong self-supporting bonds in favor of manifestation. The problem is that from the perspective of a junior-level manifestor, reality is a significantly more pernicious beast than the seemingly benign naivety of its subject. To demonstrate this, we can now attempt to conjure up a bowl of strawberry ice-cream out of thin air through the power of belief alone. Classic manifestation theory has it that just by reconstituting your belief along the lines of:- "There is a bowl of strawberry ice-cream here in my hands." ...would be sufficient. The problem is that for every feeble thought you have in this direction, reality has already pinged you a million times harder and faster in the opposite direction:- "There is NOT a bowl of strawberry ice-cream here in my hands." ...which ends up becoming the dominant partner, thus winning the battle of who informs who. Reality thereafter informs belief, contrary to your desires, and the bowl of strawberry ice-cream fails to materialize. The feeble sperm of conviction is out competed by the intensity of the defacto state, and thus fails to fertilize. This is also true when it comes to walking on water. Schrödinger's Cat Until we reach advanced-level manifestation where the strength of our belief outperforms incoming reality, we can still practice entry-level manifestation via techniques that take advantage of Schrödinger's Cat. In such scenarios, the defacto state of reality is unknown and therefore has a diminished influence within the belief/reality complex. Examples of this might be Instant-Win Lottery Scratchcards, or medical syringes that claim to contain biological agents such as vaccines and so forth. There are many examples that are worthy of experimentation. The basic premise, is that in such scenarios, reality is not pinging you in an opposite direction. In fact, it is not pinging you in any direction at all. In the absence of a contrapuntal antagonist, the junior manifestor has an optimal sandbox for maximizing their beliefs unto reality. For example, when one holds an unscratched Instant-Win Lottery Scratchcard in their hands, as with Schrödinger's Cat, the quantum wave has yet to collapse. Ahead of us are two timelines that have yet to solidify: A timeline on which the scratchcard is a winning scratchcard. and a timeline on which the scratchcard is a losing scratchcard. At this point, reality is basically mute. Thus, therein lies the opportunity to instigate the belief:- "This is a winning scratchcard." ...to which reality has no counter-response whatsoever. The sperm of the belief has no competitors, and if successfully potent enough (without skepticism nor doubt) has the potential to collapse the quantum wave in favor of the manifestor, bringing about a genesis of the defacto state which thereafter supports the initial belief symbiotically. Or in other words, the now scratched scratchcard confirms the conviction. As usual, manifestation always works best when manifesting on behalf of the Universal-Self rather than just the finite-self. So you might want to practice giving unscratched scratchcards to homeless people. Good luck!

Hmm. Does that method scale though? How would you use the path technique to walk on water for example?

What are you actually fearing exactly?

Brilliant observation on an fundamental level. Very Zen. Maybe Nike can learn from this: Just Be.

Great perspective and brilliant metaphor, The default seems to process belief and reality as cold strangers, but they are most surely cut from the same cloth.