Porn

Post questions or suggestions here.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones » Wed Apr 05, 2006 6:01 am

-

Check out Kevin's demonstration of logic about logic:

http://forum.commonascent.org/forumdisplay.php?f=7 (Common Ascent is a new version of The Ponderers Guild.)

The contrast between Kevin and a cageful of insane dribbling monkeys should be stark enough to clearly show how incomprehensible and uncomprehending the sexed mind is. Realise I'm not talking about the act of sex (categories of how to do sex), but the mentality that desires sex.

[edit: incomprehensible to itself]
-

avidaloca
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 6:24 pm
Contact:

Post by avidaloca » Wed Apr 05, 2006 10:50 am

the example of being aroused sexually by understanding a term and "getting on top of it" is clarified in the light of the ego's story in sex (how a self is trying to clarify thoughts).

I don't actually get sexually aroused but the arousal is akin to that, the same way sexual imagery can arouse thoughts that make you feel good. It's the feeling of feeling good that is almost exactly the same, just in another sphere.

User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones » Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:30 am

avidaloca wrote:
the example of being aroused sexually by understanding a term and "getting on top of it" is clarified in the light of the ego's story in sex (how a self is trying to clarify thoughts).
I don't actually get sexually aroused but the arousal is akin to that, the same way sexual imagery can arouse thoughts that make you feel good. It's the feeling of feeling good that is almost exactly the same, just in another sphere.
I'm not criticising you for it. The ego works the same regardless of whether the desire is sexual, psychological, emotional, or biological. These spheres may appear to be different, but ultimately they all have the same conceptual basis.

Attachment is an intellectual disaster. Logic is stuffed up, and thoughts are growing in the wrong direction.


-

avidaloca
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 6:24 pm
Contact:

Post by avidaloca » Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:03 pm

I'm not criticising you for it. The ego works the same regardless of whether the desire is sexual, psychological, emotional, or biological. These spheres may appear to be different, but ultimately they all have the same conceptual basis.
I didn't think you were criticising me (nor would or should I care if you or anyone else did) but I wanted to clarify that difference and similarity between the sexual and intellectual, which you did for me anyway.

It basically means we should "get off" on whatever we do, if we are being true to that sense of fulfillment to a high degree in all areas of life - the same as the fulfillment of sex. That's what an englightened being does - lives in a blissful state where everything is sex and cause/effect and peace and whatever else. They can't suffer because they are inside the whole deal so to speak. Was it a Zen master who said "That is suffering Buddha"? I'm not sure what that means but it sounds right.

That's what I found reading Weininger - my attachments to women or people as being certain things were being challenged and I suffered. But after time I let loose those crazy shackles and got free-er. That could be Weininger's greatest legacy - he lived in an age where you could talk about criminals, Jews, Africans, women, Chinese, Indo-Germans, Aryans or whatever without being labelled for it. That's a freedom we don't share with him today.

In fact he gets beyond racism and misogyny by talking about types of mind found in various people and which while often associated with certain groups, are also found among ALL people including white men.
I know that Weininger felt that the killing of Jews or any person was wrong, as well as treating women as if they weren't human (regardless of how true that might be in any case). He expressly advocated against these things. His ultimate goal was wanting to raise people above their lower selves. Many types of people were included in that, including the mother, prostitute, Native American, white man, priest, seeker, self-lover, self-hater.

MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi » Wed Apr 05, 2006 2:25 pm

Birth Sex Death Cycle:

The poet, James D. Morrison, explains this cycle in concise terms. I have been searching for an obscure book on the subject. I think the title was "Song of the Woodbine." It has been many years since I read it. I have not yet been able to find any current references to it online.

Unfortunately, James D. Morrison was also a rock star. There is so much reference to his rock stardom that it is difficult to find much of real value about him. I mean, I like "Light My Fire" and all that shit, too, but damn.

Basically, he thought of sex as death of the self. Birth is creation of another self that will also die in sex. Unless the cycle is broken -- and one faces "the void" -- life without attachment.

Hardest thing in the world to achieve and, yet, so simple. Just takes years to get there.

For lack of anything else to do, I offer some bits of Morrison:

Cling to cunts & cocks
of despair
We got our final vision
by clap
Columbus’ groin got
filled w/ green death
(I touched her thigh
& death smiled)


We all live in the city.
The city forms--often physically, but inevitably
psychically--a circle. A Game. A ring of death
with sex at its center. Drive toward outskirts
of city suburbs. At the edge discover zones of
sophisticated vice and boredom, child prostitution.
But in the grimy ring immediately surrounding
the daylight business district exists the only
real crowd life of our mound, the only street
life, night life. Diseased specimens in dollar
hotels, low boarding houses, bars, pawn shops,
burlesques and brothels, in dying arcades which
never die, in streets and streets of all-night cinemas.


"Sex is the connector to the physical, to the realm of the real, populated by other players in the game. Love or attachment to another, is an emotional experience which leads to a metaphorical death of the self, in the very act of coitus or ejaculation. Denial of the self is the consequence of not experiencing the void, or the abyss of the self. As Morrison himself states emphatically and ironically, 'Love is one of the handful of devices we have to avoid the void, so to speak.'”

From Nietzsche:
as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself [. . .] It always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical impulse itself, the Will to Power, the will to ‘creation of the world,’ the will to the causa prima.

Indeed. One must be wary of fighting monsters 'lest one becomes a monster himself -- paraphrased from Nietzsche.

Faizi

MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi » Wed Apr 05, 2006 2:51 pm

Kelly wrote:
The contrast between Kevin and a cageful of insane dribbling monkeys should be stark enough to clearly show how incomprehensible and uncomprehending the sexed mind is. Realise I'm not talking about the act of sex (categories of how to do sex), but the mentality that desires sex.
How different is a hero-worshipper from an insane dribbling monkey?

Interesting how a given topic can be diverted to desire on the part of a single individual. Desire is desire and egotistical whether its nature is sexual or not. Ego is not entirely based in sexuality.

Ego is based on ego.

A=A.

I think Kevin is perfectly capable of show-casing himself. I seriously doubt that he requires help.

For what reason do you offer yourself so freely?

Faizi

User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones » Wed Apr 05, 2006 3:55 pm

MKFaizi wrote:...to clearly show how incomprehensible [to itself] and uncomprehending the sexed mind is.

Marsha: How different is a hero-worshipper from an insane dribbling monkey?
If the worshipper aims for total truth, then his insanity will eventually be corrected.

Ego is not entirely based in sexuality.
Sexual desire is entirely based in ego, so it was natural for me to take this thread there.

I think Kevin is perfectly capable of show-casing himself. I seriously doubt that he requires help.

For what reason do you offer yourself so freely?

Faizi
On what basis do you decide how a person ought to behave? Keep it brief, if you don't mind.



.

User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones » Wed Apr 05, 2006 4:39 pm

avidaloca wrote:It basically means we should "get off" on whatever we do, if we are being true to that sense of fulfillment to a high degree in all areas of life - the same as the fulfillment of sex. That's what an englightened being does - lives in a blissful state where everything is sex and cause/effect and peace and whatever else.
No.

I said "The ego works the same regardless of whether the desire is sexual, psychological, emotional, or biological. These spheres may appear to be different, but ultimately they all have the same conceptual basis."

One who is perfectly enlightened doesn't have an ego at all, by definition. Degrees of egotism exist in anyone else.


They can't suffer because they are inside the whole deal so to speak.
No. The enlightened don't suffer because there is no belief in an inherent self, which would cause fear. Think of the first sentence of the introduction to The Wisdom of the Infinite.


That's what I found reading Weininger - my attachments to women or people as being certain things were being challenged and I suffered. But after time I let loose those crazy shackles and got free-er.
Weininger's not good enough to take you to ultimate liberation. If getting a better handle on words gives you a high, why not try some of Kierkegaard's writings?

That could be Weininger's greatest legacy - he lived in an age where you could talk about criminals, Jews, Africans, women, Chinese, Indo-Germans, Aryans or whatever without being labelled for it. That's a freedom we don't share with him today.
Only because people these days generally don't know what labels mean, and have so few! It must be because people don't like to judge.

One of the ways to help people become more judgmental would be to interest them in discriminatory language - such as many 1800s German words that you know of, that you think are meaningful and valuable, but are going out of use. Instead of German dictionaries, you could make an English dictionary of translations from these, and a written work to show their use.

It's not about enlightenment, however.

Also, Sex and Character got published in large part because he was dead. It was controversial because of its precise and logical discrimination against women, at a time when the notion of women's virtues were flourishing. He certainly got labelled a racist and misogynist.
His ultimate goal was wanting to raise people above their lower selves. Many types of people were included in that, including the mother, prostitute, Native American, white man, priest, seeker, self-lover, self-hater.
No, I think it was in "Last Things" where he wrote that the ultimate goal was to realise the good, rather than the ideal self. I'll check.



--

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Post by Jason » Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:23 pm

Jason wrote: First of all: I LOVE PORN. I look at porn all the time. I masturbate over it all the time. I like all different types and categories of porn. So I might have something worthwhile to say on this subject.
Kelly Jones wrote:You've immediately disqualified yourself from being able to say something worthwhile about porn or sex, because you are attached to an image.
I think being actually involved in a thing gives one a certain intimacy that can lead to insights that a person standing on the outside might not be able to see. Of course it can also potentially lack the detached perspective that standing outside it does. Do you think having an attachment automatically makes it impossible to analyze that attachment? I certainly don't, although it could certainly lead to problems and blind spots. How are you making your insights on porn? It seems you have little experience or knowledge of it.
Kelly Jones wrote:So I can safely ignore whatever you say as being dribble from an insane monkey:
"Safely ignore whatever you say" is one of David Quinns favourite phrases, do you think that's interesting? I don't think you should write my opinions on this off so easily. It seems to me that a considerable amount of what you wrote about porn in your previous posts comes from a mix of ignorance and you projecting imaginary subtexts, and some of it was quite ludicrous. Maybe you feel safety in ignoring me because I could punch holes in some of your ideas about porn?

For example, the reasoning I gave for why the male porn actor is largely out of frame most of the time. I highly doubt my insane monkey brain is getting that reasoning wrong, and it debunks your reasoning, but you just feel happy to ignore it.
Jason wrote:I have a penis and I really desire and like the idea of inserting it into a vagina....I find it fascinating and maybe terrifying that such a force is able to be contained by civilisation.
Kelly Jones wrote:It takes a robotic mind to recognise and define emotions and other inarticulate intuitions, with clear abstract terms, and not become vague.
If your writings here reflect your mind, you quite often lack the clarity of this robotic mind. Althought to be fair, at times I question whether it is your writing or my interpretation skills that are the source of the problem.
Kelly Jones wrote: Another example, in case you need it:

Addressing your point about symbolic silencing of women: not all porn is about this domination of females in some sort of female-is-victim anti-porn-feminist type of way. Many guys like having sex, and watching porn involving sweet girls who we want to see receive pleasure and tenderness, and who we feel attracted to because they are not perceived to be threats who we must dominate into mute submission with our penises.---
I had a feeling someone might take that line and run with it. I'm not sure what you're reading into that. My point is only that the desire to put a penis in a vagina is not always the result of wanting to symbolically mute a threatening woman, by way of stuffing an orifice that looks kind of like a mouth. Which is the stupidity that you suggested.

You've had your go on this, so here's my subtextual/symbolic/Freudian analysis that I had about your post after you viewed http://www.xnxx.com. I thought your talk of "*anticipating* something downright frightening" and "The mind of sexual desire wants to return to the stark clarity of childhood's terrors, and repeat the terrors, to control those ghosts." were possibly projections of your reaction to that porn site, with all of its fetish images. Did it scare you, or make you uncomfortable, seeing those images?
Last edited by Jason on Thu Apr 06, 2006 3:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Post by Jason » Wed Apr 05, 2006 6:43 pm

kjones wrote:No, I am very well-equipped to create any kind of sexual fantasy.
Are your sexual fantasies detailed? Do they contain specific story lines or environments, places or setups? Or are they simply instantly imagining a person naked and fucking you, with basically no further details than that?
kjones wrote:It is therefore unnecessary to go looking in a website. But how interesting that I don't want to look at any websites.

I relate this stress reaction to several things:

- primarily to the biological preparation, of having to expend so much more energy, in going through any experiences of sexual arousal. For instance, running/chasing, keeping a close eye on the subtle signs of the prey/predator, and trying to control the situation as logically as possible while under huge emotional strain.
Is all this expending of energy and preparation inherent in any sexual fantasy you have? Or does that only happen when you try to be vigilantly aware of your psychological reactions whilst getting aroused? Do you masturbate whilst doing this? If you don't, do you think you can accurately map the psychology behind your sexual desire without having the physical/hormonal side occurring?
Last edited by Jason on Thu Apr 06, 2006 3:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

avidaloca
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 6:24 pm
Contact:

Post by avidaloca » Wed Apr 05, 2006 6:54 pm

No.

I said "The ego works the same regardless of whether the desire is sexual, psychological, emotional, or biological. These spheres may appear to be different, but ultimately they all have the same conceptual basis."

One who is perfectly enlightened doesn't have an ego at all, by definition. Degrees of egotism exist in anyone else.
That's what I meant but I didn't articulate it in a way you would find acceptable.
One of the ways to help people become more judgmental would be to interest them in discriminatory language - such as many 1800s German words that you know of, that you think are meaningful and valuable, but are going out of use. Instead of German dictionaries, you could make an English dictionary of translations from these, and a written work to show their use.
I don't think the words alone would do much, and they were of significant but fairly peripheral importance compared to the freedom of expression at that time which we don't have today. I often think about the freedom Weininger and his contemporaries had to discuss anything and how stifled someone would be if they talked that way today. People are living in virtual straight-jackets today and have to think along certain lines that don't necessarily bring them much happiness.

MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi » Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:30 am

On what basis do you decide how a person ought to behave? Keep it brief, if you don't mind.
I wrote what I wrote and I am done.

Faizi

User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones » Thu Apr 06, 2006 1:17 pm

From the Final Aphorisms in Last Things (about Weininger's ultimate goal being about raising people's selves vs. the ultimate good):

Everything that is reflected is vain, thus vanity is also the sin of all light. That is why light can never be the symbol of grace (to say nothing of ethics). The stars symbolize people who have conquered everything but vanity. The good has no symbol but the beautiful: the whole of nature.

There are many stars, for the problem of vanity is the problem of individuality. Kant, who was extremely vain, epistemologically overcame individuality through transcendentalism; ethically he did not, for he had not overcome the "intelligible ego" (vanity connects him with Rousseau).

The "intelligible ego", however, is mere vanity, i.e., making value the product of persons, positing the real as the not real. At the same time it is identical with the problem of time, for the temporal is vain.

There is no ego, there is no soul. Only the good, which encloses all particulars within itself, is of the highest, most perfect reality.

Individuality originates in vanity, because we need observers and want to be seen. A vain person is interested in other people, and is a good judge of human nature. Moreover, since evil is the same in everybody ("misery loves company"), the person I stare at looks back at me; he does want to be seen by me. My curiosity is his shamelessness.

avidaloca
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 6:24 pm
Contact:

Post by avidaloca » Thu Apr 06, 2006 1:38 pm

I was speaking generally about the overall body of his work - it seems to be trying to improve or save humankind which he does allude to at the end of Sex and Character, where the book starts looking like Revelation.

User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones » Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:11 pm

Jason wrote:I think being actually involved in a thing gives one a certain intimacy that can lead to insights that a person standing on the outside might not be able to see. Do you think having an attachment automatically makes it impossible to analyze that attachment?
Analyse accurately, yes. As soon as there is an attachment, there is irrationality, because attachments are intellectual disasters.

The fact that you conceive of yourself as within an experience *in your mind* shows multiple selves in conflict over values. This distorts the truthfulness of judgments.


For example, the reasoning I gave for why the male porn actor is largely out of frame most of the time. I highly doubt my insane monkey brain is getting that reasoning wrong, and it debunks your reasoning, but you just feel happy to ignore it.
Do you know of people using the porn of just one's face in the mirror, and no other appearance to mind? Can one experience a guilty conscience and freely allow a shameful desire full play?

My point is only that the desire to put a penis in a vagina is not always the result of wanting to symbolically mute a threatening woman, by way of stuffing an orifice that looks kind of like a mouth. Which is the stupidity that you suggested.
What would you do to a cardboard cylinder, to make it a sexually arousing object, if anything?


You've had your go on this, so here's my subtextual/symbolic/Freudian analysis that I had about your post after you viewed http://www.xnxx.com.
You don't believe it's ludicrous to analyse the meaning of sexual desire, after all. That's good.

I thought your talk of "*anticipating* something downright frightening" and "The mind of sexual desire wants to return to the stark clarity of childhood's terrors, and repeat the terrors, to control those ghosts." were possibly projections of your reaction to that porn site, with all of its fetish images. Did it scare you, or make you uncomfortable, seeing those images?
I was initially quite wary, before clicking on Oborden's link, so before the index page had loaded at all, there was a noticeable blood pressure circulated to my groin. Then, on scrolling down, and looking at each image to see what it was about, I actually experienced disappointment. Even the slightly more unusual images went down like bricks. There weren't any emotions of arousal or desire, discomfort, or any fear.

You see, it was not those sorts of images that I imagined I'd see. Your next post basically asked about sexual fantasy, so I'll respond here.

I don't deliberately create sexual fantasies. I'm leaving that for about 2 or 3 years' time, as I'm still only 3 years' abstinant from all deliberate sexual concepts.

Sexual fantasies always occur after a long day struggling with increasing "abulia" (lack of will to consciousness), and occur in the hour or so before I usually awaken in the morning. It is my mind organising a deus ex macchina, which is what I've subconsciously spent the previous day desiring, in the form of a "white knight".

Typically (I don't experience these very often, but they are quite startling), the sexual fantasy will be a few seconds of being held. There's actually no sex as such. It is really a terrible experience for me, and often makes me feel like crying when waking up. I feel like a criminal, because I've given up my self to *another person*.

In fact, in the last occurrence, after that embrace, I immediately dreamt of running like a desperate and fleeing marathon-athlete up a mountain!

The major cause that I can see, for sexual fantasies, is when I've spent the previous day being less conscious than usual, and there's a pile-up of subconscious ideas. Then, because of that build-up, my dreams are less rational, and vague emotional thoughts take over.



-

User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones » Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:15 pm

avidaloca wrote:I was speaking generally about the overall body of his work - it seems to be trying to improve or save humankind which he does allude to at the end of Sex and Character, where the book starts looking like Revelation.
I tend to read anything by Weininger as intensely personal and directed to the individual. He doesn't talk about people, or the public, but individuals, and unique types. Even the animals are typecast as versions of human character.


-

MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi » Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:39 pm

Only because people these days generally don't know what labels mean, and have so few! It must be because people don't like to judge.
But labels abound and there is much judgment. ADD ADHD BIPOLAR ECHOLALIA TOURETTES. Very young children get labeled with these judgments by authorities and that is a whole other discussion that I do not aim to open here. Tons of medication involved. Most of it either frivolous or harmful in the under ten crowd.

I hope that you do not kid yourself that judgments are not made. The most severe judgments are made in kindergarten.

I realize you are touting the party theme and I understand that.

But some judgment on your part may be in order.

Faizi

User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones » Thu Apr 06, 2006 4:47 pm

Psychiatric labels are a good example of how people *don't* like to judge. Think about it: these generalisations become identities, that allow a person to restricts their decision-making to fit the identity. For example, using the label ADD (or whatever) for a child removes the labeller's freedom of judgment in deciding how to think about the child, and the child's freedom of judgment in thinking about what it is, if it decides to succumb to the label.

We should be using labels that encourage accurate judgment, such as "thinker", "apprentice thinker", "illogical thinker".

I noticed you didn't answer my question, "On what basis do you decide how a person ought to behave?"

Why?


.

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Post by Jason » Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:59 am

K: Analyse accurately, yes. As soon as there is an attachment, there is irrationality, because attachments are intellectual disasters.

The fact that you conceive of yourself as within an experience *in your mind* shows multiple selves in conflict over values. This distorts the truthfulness of judgments.
Well I think I am capable of accurate analysis of at least certain things I am attached to.
J: For example, the reasoning I gave for why the male porn actor is largely out of frame most of the time. I highly doubt my insane monkey brain is getting that reasoning wrong, and it debunks your reasoning, but you just feel happy to ignore it.

K: Do you know of people using the porn of just one's face in the mirror, and no other appearance to mind? Can one experience a guilty conscience and freely allow a shameful desire full play?
Wacha what now? I don't see how that relates to me debunking your reasoning. Anyhow, I've observed myself in a mirror whilst masturbating, and it was a turn on, so what do you make of that? I don't think I felt guilt or shame about it at all. My mind was likely full of many things other than just the visuals from the mirror though. Minds are busy places.
J: My point is only that the desire to put a penis in a vagina is not always the result of wanting to symbolically mute a threatening woman, by way of stuffing an orifice that looks kind of like a mouth. Which is the stupidity that you suggested.

K: What would you do to a cardboard cylinder, to make it a sexually arousing object, if anything?
Funny you should ask that, because cardboard cylinders were a speciality in my early teenage years. The answer is, fill it with pillow stuffing or socks, and stretch a condom or balloon through the center to make a simulated vagina. Or cover the top over and make an anal toy.
J: You've had your go on this, so here's my subtextual/symbolic/Freudian analysis that I had about your post after you viewed http://www.xnxx.com.

K: You don't believe it's ludicrous to analyse the meaning of sexual desire, after all.
I think it's fine to analyse the meaning of sexual desire. I just meant that some of the results of your particular analysis were ludicrous.
K: I was initially quite wary, before clicking on Oborden's link, so before the index page had loaded at all, there was a noticeable blood pressure circulated to my groin. Then, on scrolling down, and looking at each image to see what it was about, I actually experienced disappointment. Even the slightly more unusual images went down like bricks. There weren't any emotions of arousal or desire, discomfort, or any fear.

You see, it was not those sorts of images that I imagined I'd see.
What sort of images did you imagine you'd see?
K: I don't deliberately create sexual fantasies. I'm leaving that for about 2 or 3 years' time, as I'm still only 3 years' abstinant from all deliberate sexual concepts. Sexual fantasies always occur after a long day struggling with increasing "abulia" (lack of will to consciousness), and occur in the hour or so before I usually awaken in the morning.


That's suprising, it's Autumn, and you being a female, I didn't think you'd have to face your sexual desires again until next Spring...
K: It is my mind organising a deus ex macchina, which is what I've subconsciously spent the previous day desiring, in the form of a "white knight".
This "white knight" suggests to me that you experience a more stereotypical female sexual fantasy, with greater emphasis on emotional and relationship details and such. My sexual fantasies are usually just instant: "naked attractive female fucking me now." No leadup to it, no background story, no personality, no imagined environment, no talking, no embrace or anything. Just naked attractive flesh grinding away. The female fantasy type seems more psychologically complex and so would probably require more work to analyze and understand.
K: Typically (I don't experience these very often, but they are quite startling), the sexual fantasy will be a few seconds of being held. There's actually no sex as such. It is really a terrible experience for me, and often makes me feel like crying when waking up. I feel like a criminal, because I've given up my self to *another person*.
You feel like a criminal? Is the legislative branch populated by ascetic QSR Buddhas in your dreams? I kid I kid. The giving yourself to another person bit, sounds again like stereotypical female sexual fantasy. Why isn't it the person in your fantasy who is giving themselves away to you? Or not even any higher thoughts like that, just bodies bumping.

I think that what you're attempting is all wrong, but that may be neither here nor there to you, coming from a insane monkey brain such as myself. I think if you're attempting a QSR-type enlightenment you've got it wrong, like I think they have.
K: The major cause that I can see, for sexual fantasies, is when I've spent the previous day being less conscious than usual, and there's a pile-up of subconscious ideas. Then, because of that build-up, my dreams are less rational, and vague emotional thoughts take over.
Do you actually think you can make your dreams rational? I wonder what QSR think about that? Are their dreams rational?

User avatar
DHodges
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

What is Sexy?

Post by DHodges » Fri Apr 07, 2006 2:13 am

Kelly Jones wrote:You don't believe it's ludicrous to analyse the meaning of sexual desire, after all. That's good.
I think it's possible to take it too far. The desire for sex is, itself, pretty basic - like being hungry.

The issue of exactly what you find sexually desirable or erotic is another matter, though. I'm not sure exactly where it falls on the nature/nurture scale, but it seems likely to me that there is some form of "imprinting" that happens at an early age - probably earlier than when the person is aware of sex as such.
The major cause that I can see, for sexual fantasies, is when I've spent the previous day being less conscious than usual, and there's a pile-up of subconscious ideas. Then, because of that build-up, my dreams are less rational, and vague emotional thoughts take over.
In my experience, sexual desire is pretty vague, until there is some concrete object to stimulate it (e.g., an attractive woman) - at which point it becomes focused and magnified. ("Fixated" might be a better word.)
Minds are busy places.
Indeed, and I think a lot of this takes place on a level that is not completely conscious. I don't think most people could spell out exactly why they find some particular thing erotic - like, how did someone come to have a particular fetish? Or even, why is a person hetero or homosexual?

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Re: What is Sexy?

Post by Jason » Fri Apr 07, 2006 2:54 am

DHodges wrote:The issue of exactly what you find sexually desirable or erotic is another matter, though. I'm not sure exactly where it falls on the nature/nurture scale, but it seems likely to me that there is some form of "imprinting" that happens at an early age - probably earlier than when the person is aware of sex as such.
DHodges wrote: I don't think most people could spell out exactly why they find some particular thing erotic - like, how did someone come to have a particular fetish? Or even, why is a person hetero or homosexual?
It's commonly believed that a fetish is the result of certain life experiences and higher mental functions altering sexuality. I wonder if the way most people think about fetishes is actually an inversion of the biological reality. By that, I mean humans may naturally be erotic towards a whole multitude of things, and then nurture kills off many of those targets of desire. For example, I think humans may be more bisexual without culture, religion and morality interfering. Yet up until not long ago, homosexuality was pretty much universally considered an unnatural fetish.

Maybe "normal" sexuality, oriented as it is towards heterosexuality, monogamy, consent, adults, humans etc is the biggest fetish of all. Programmed in by childhood experiences of culture, religion and morality. So in some instances, people who break out of this mold, and experiment with a wider range of sexual outlets may actually be the ones who are less fetishistic, not more, as is usually considered the case.

User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Post by Ryan Rudolph » Fri Apr 07, 2006 5:28 am

Kelly wrote:
The ego works the same regardless of whether the desire is sexual, psychological, emotional, or biological. These spheres may appear to be different, but ultimately they all have the same conceptual basis.
But isn’t a sexual desire also psychological and emotional and biological, why separate them?

Kelly wrote:
Attachment is an intellectual disaster. Logic is stuffed up, and thoughts are growing in the wrong direction.
Instead of saying logic is stuffed up, can one say thoughts are controlled? Are they the same thing?

Kelly wrote:
One who is perfectly enlightened doesn't have an ego at all, by definition. Degrees of egotism exist in anyone else.
Are you sure there is the possibility of a perfectly enlightened being? to be stuck in this biological organism is to have mechanical habits of some sort, is complete liberation a myth?

Kelly wrote:
A vain person is interested in other people, and is a good judge of human nature. Moreover, since evil is the same in everybody ("misery loves company"), the person I stare at looks back at me; he does want to be seen by me. My curiosity is his shamelessness
.

Are you suggesting we should stop looking at people? Is that extreme? If I behold a beautiful face, should I turn away?

Kelly wrote:
Sexual fantasies always occur after a long day struggling with increasing "abulia" (lack of will to consciousness), and occur in the hour or so before I usually awaken in the morning. It is my mind organising a deus ex macchina, which is what I've subconsciously spent the previous day desiring, in the form of a "white knight".
I read somewhere that sexual desire occurs in the morning because the area of the brain that stimulates the individual to rise from bed is also connected with sexual arousal.

Kelly wrote:
Typically (I don't experience these very often, but they are quite startling), the sexual fantasy will be a few seconds of being held. There's actually no sex as such. It is really a terrible experience for me, and often makes me feel like crying when waking up. I feel like a criminal, because I've given up my self to *another person*.
Why do you suffer for something you have no control over? Is the frustration caused by an ideal of total chastity? Is total chastity a myth? The body wants to multiply, it wants to reproduce, you can fight it all you want, but the desire is still there.

Kelly wrote:
my dreams are less rational, and vague emotional thoughts take over.
Are dreams ever rational?

Kelly wrote:
No, I am very well-equipped to create any kind of sexual fantasy. It is therefore unnecessary to go looking in a website. But how interesting that I don't want to look at any websites.
I lack the ability to create elaborate fantasies, and this is why I have a little problem with internet pornography. Some men have a strong desire to conquer the woman’s body (break boundaries/explore), combined with the desire for total destruction, when these two desires intermingle with the sexual desire, the result is disaster…

Kelly wrote:
My aim is to build up such strong experiences of emptiness, that, late at night in dreams, my mind will reflect these experiences. And then, on awaking in the morning, there will be more reflection, immediately breaking the hold of any animalistic resistance. And again, and again!
Yes, I have been working at this at well, if emptiness can be primary, sex isn’t a problem at all. There can actually be a total loss of self during the act.

Kelly wrote:
it's the emotional vagueness of *anticipating* something downright frightening. In that sense, sexual desire hasn't really got anything to do with the sexual act, and has all to do with the ego.
The ego identifies itself with act. The observer is split from the observed. Anticipating the excitement/thrill is an addiction, and then the actual payoff (climax) is another addiction. Both are two movements of thought (imagery) that strengthen the ego and give it form.

Kelly wrote:
The ego dreams of what empowers: which is conquering the always-frightening. The only thing that is always-frightening is egotism itself: egotism is by nature unstable. That's why people get strung up over sex: they imagine fears of the self embodied in a person, and wish to deal with the person as a bland psychological type, to penetrate, or seduce, or lead back out of Hades.
Or they can imagine being the destroyer and the destroyed simultaneously. The fantasy can evolve into imagining being both egos. IE: watching yourself being destroyed through both perspectives.

Kelly wrote:
They are vaguely operating in a theatre of dreams.
Quite.

Kelly wrote:
That is why sexual desire is rampant for the unenlightened, and especially detested in anyone seeking enlightenment. The student of Truth cannot stand the instability of sexual desire, ie. the next-to-dying emotions of always lacking power (ego). Nor can they stand having power, because that is the same fear.
Yes, but the problem is that seeing it as instable or even suffering, or feeling frustrated doesn’t help one out of it, especially when a mechanical habit has been established.

Kelly wrote:
The only porn that arouses is that which has the identity of this anxiety-desire: ie. when some thing is interpreted as being both frightening and powerful.
Yes, and what is deadly is that the ego becomes dulled to old frightening/powerful patterns, and needs to find something much more intense.

Kelly wrote:
The mind of sexual desire wants to return to the stark clarity of childhood's terrors, and repeat the terrors, to control those ghosts. The harmfulness is projected.
I don’t know, it sounds right, but it doesn’t. It seems like something is lacking. A child doesn’t have knowledge of interracial gangbangs, you know what I’m saying Kelly? A child lacks knowledge of the ghosts that this ego has knowledge of.

Kelly wrote:
Sexual desire is psychological violence through and through.
Its also excitement/thrill/pleasure/destruction/habit/pattern/addiction/… but yes, I agree. Psychological violence covers a lot.

User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones » Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:00 am

Jason wrote:
K: Analyse accurately, yes. As soon as there is an attachment, there is irrationality, because attachments are intellectual disasters.

The fact that you conceive of yourself as within an experience *in your mind* shows multiple selves in conflict over values. This distorts the truthfulness of judgments.
Well I think I am capable of accurate analysis of at least certain things I am attached to.
You might be aware of the experience of attachment, but can't judge the causes of attachment accurately, because the attachment is attachment to it.

One can't simultaneously experience love and hate for the same thing, instead one experiences anxiety (more hate than love), or guilt (more love than hate). When there's more anxiety than love or guilt, there's more love for being freed from the attachment (attachment to freedom). If one sees freedom as arrived at through truthfulness, then attachment to truth will be aimed at, which increases the accuracy of judgment.

Intellectualising is a love of thinking, and having control over concepts. But if love of truth is greater, the inaccuracies that "intellectual desire" create can be lessened. Eventually one judges that love of truth distorts truthfulness. It is as if truth itself is being discarded. But rather, it is just love.

Note: that I still love truth, and this impairs my judgment about abandoning attachment to it. But, because truth depends on reason, the degree of error is less than the accuracy. May it edge down!

J: For example, the reasoning I gave for why the male porn actor is largely out of frame most of the time. I highly doubt my insane monkey brain is getting that reasoning wrong, and it debunks your reasoning, but you just feel happy to ignore it.

K: Do you know of people using the porn of just one's face in the mirror, and no other appearance to mind? Can one experience a guilty conscience and freely allow a shameful desire full play?

J: Wacha what now? I don't see how that relates to me debunking your reasoning. Anyhow, I've observed myself in a mirror whilst masturbating, and it was a turn on, so what do you make of that? I don't think I felt guilt or shame about it at all. My mind was likely full of many things other than just the visuals from the mirror though. Minds are busy places.
Your thinking on this matter is superficial. The one who desires some object desperately will not want to think about giving it up, or if it looks shameful. Guilt is the first step, followed by resentment (uncertain love of the guilty self, via love of its values), then anxiety, and so on.

Guiltiness and shame over the guilty self's values, means there will be no desire to see the judging self (the opposite one to the guilty, ie. the conscientious one). So, the shameful will not want to see his own face, or anything that reminds him of judgment. Hence my question.

Note: the question was about the *face* only, in the mirror, ie. the eyes and expression, conveying signs of guiltiness.

J: My point is only that the desire to put a penis in a vagina is not always the result of wanting to symbolically mute a threatening woman, by way of stuffing an orifice that looks kind of like a mouth. Which is the stupidity that you suggested.

K: What would you do to a cardboard cylinder, to make it a sexually arousing object, if anything?

J: Funny you should ask that, because cardboard cylinders were a speciality in my early teenage years. The answer is, fill it with pillow stuffing or socks, and stretch a condom or balloon through the center to make a simulated vagina. Or cover the top over and make an anal toy.
I predicted you would have to change it, and wouldn't be able to "pornalise" the object as it is. In other words, you stuffed it.

J: You've had your go on this, so here's my subtextual/symbolic/Freudian analysis that I had about your post after you viewed http://www.xnxx.com.

K: You don't believe it's ludicrous to analyse the meaning of sexual desire, after all.

I think it's fine to analyse the meaning of sexual desire. I just meant that some of the results of your particular analysis were ludicrous.
Understandably, given you'd want the results to align with your desires, in the same way you wanted the cardboard cylinder to align with your desires.

Naturally, you will resent what I write, that is, if it causes feelings of guilt. If one's mind intuits the likelihood of abandoning desire, and visualises what anxiety will be like, but doesn't have any great love of truth, then the reaction will be anger and haughty judgment (a regressive and intensified stage of resentment.)

Weininger correctly wrote that self-haters can judge and observe themselves very well. It's because they love a different self (not the self they hate) more, but resent that different self, so won't align with it more.

K: I was initially quite wary, before clicking on Oborden's link, so before the index page had loaded at all, there was a noticeable blood pressure circulated to my groin. Then, on scrolling down, and looking at each image to see what it was about, I actually experienced disappointment. Even the slightly more unusual images went down like bricks. There weren't any emotions of arousal or desire, discomfort, or any fear.

You see, it was not those sorts of images that I imagined I'd see.

J: What sort of images did you imagine you'd see?
Highly unrealistic! Myself!

Do you get it? It's not narcissicism (sexual desire for one's self), but of being caught out desiring, and seeing myself being aware of it.

Whenever I desire something materialistic (external to the desiring self), it comes with paranoia (fear of conscience, converted into fear of some other person's judgment).

Probably a series of large, very subtle erotic images, not pornography, i.e not to do with sex but the emotions of love. Something like seeing intellectual types being dominated by coarse witchy types, that are seducing them: a kind of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde scenario. A dark, shadowy, vague image with two people, focussing on their facial expressions, one person with a very subtle but obviously dominant gesture (Mr Hyde, but not an ugly lecherous type, but rather with all signs of "beauty", a Lucifer), in relation to the other person's body. But both are clearly aware that the relationship is not over their bodies, but their ego's.

Like I said, sexual desirers operate in a theatre of dreams. They're mashing things all over the place, exceptionally cunning, hardly conscious.

You know how Dan says about women: "Be afeard, be very, very afeard!" ?

K: I don't deliberately create sexual fantasies. I'm leaving that for about 2 or 3 years' time, as I'm still only 3 years' abstinant from all deliberate sexual concepts. Sexual fantasies always occur after a long day struggling with increasing "abulia" (lack of will to consciousness), and occur in the hour or so before I usually awaken in the morning.

J: That's suprising, it's Autumn, and you being a female, I didn't think you'd have to face your sexual desires again until next Spring...
No, this would be true for animals who can't convert their mental sicknesses into the realm of the mind, and heal them there. I used to experience far more sexual desire swings based on the menstrual cycle, because of relating desire to this animal body. Now it's much less.

You do realise that sexual desire isn't about physical bodies or environmental conditions?

If I ever experience orgasm, it's never to do with sex, but occurs in deep dreams, in the form of an irrational conclusion. The orgasms don't occur through masturbation but through the subconscious. And oddly enough, the orgasms don't bother me because I realise they're intellectual mistakes - it's the emotions that are difficult, because they don't open themselves to reasoning, and live long. For me, emotions are like most bush-fires in Australia: takes a long time to repair the damage.

Exploring this topic (porn, sexual desire, infatuation, egotism) with ruthless judgment is causing the love to die-back.


K: It is my mind organising a deus ex macchina, which is what I've subconsciously spent the previous day desiring, in the form of a "white knight".

J: This "white knight" suggests to me that you experience a more stereotypical female sexual fantasy, with greater emphasis on emotional and relationship details and such. My sexual fantasies are usually just instant: "naked attractive female fucking me now." No leadup to it, no background story, no personality, no imagined environment, no talking, no embrace or anything. Just naked attractive flesh grinding away. The female fantasy type seems more psychologically complex and so would probably require more work to analyze and understand.
Of course there are biological factors to sexual desire (sex itself). However, you're still looking at it from the perspective of an animal, rather than of the psyche. The sexual experiences are of the self.

So, with selves grinding away at each other, it's a battle of two co-dependents, like neurotic polar attraction, attacking each other by trying to merge with them. It's the typical sexual scenario: I'd say 99% of sexual fantasies are like this, women no less than men. Pure animal.

I used the terms "white knight" and "deus ex macchina" and "being held". This really goes back to infant consciousness: the helpless child - which is the idea behind the animal grindings, but heavily buried.

If only Freud had gotten off on understanding the psyche, more than on dominating helpless women!


K: Typically (I don't experience these very often, but they are quite startling), the sexual fantasy will be a few seconds of being held. There's actually no sex as such. It is really a terrible experience for me, and often makes me feel like crying when waking up. I feel like a criminal, because I've given up my self to *another person*.

J: You feel like a criminal? Is the legislative branch populated by ascetic QSR Buddhas in your dreams? I kid I kid.
Note that you started joking after mentioning a symbol of judgment and law. Conscience! It didn't bother me, I'm well aware what symbols of conscience are: me.

Truly, when I'm not taking responsibility for my thoughts, and experience resentment, I start seeing the names and likenesses of people who I symbolise as my "benefactors, superiors, and enemies". In these mindstate, the "ghosts" that frighten me most are the enemies. This is getting a bit uncomfortable for me now.

Benefactors are Dan, Sue and David Quinn types, the superiors are Kevin Solway (and also David Quinn to an increasing extent) types, and the enemies are Rhett Hamilton types (mostly, but also KS and DQ types).

It's a good sign, actually, when these experiences happen, as I can tell something's awry. I might be reading the newspaper, or just see a road-sign, and an association will jump into my mind. This is the idea: words like "rowdy" or "quintessential" or "Gone with the Wind" or "solanoid", or "DQ" and so on, will make me slightly uncomfortable. I'll have an emotion much like a kid being asked to wash the dishes (assuming kids usually don't want to wash dishes).

Also, Diogenes lookalikes give me the jitters. This could be read as "Diogenes gives me the jitters", or more accurately, "non-attachment hurts".

It's all about the mind bringing forth images of the judgmental self, looking down with contempt on the present self.

Hakuin gave his students calligraphic images of himself with captions like "I've got my eye on you!" Good idea.


The giving yourself to another person bit, sounds again like stereotypical female sexual fantasy. Why isn't it the person in your fantasy who is giving themselves away to you? Or not even any higher thoughts like that, just bodies bumping.
If I were more of an animal, ie. a pure egotist, I'd have conquering dreams. I used to have this sort of fantasy, in fact. E.g. dreaming of raping people, or springing on them by surprise.

But because my mind is orienting more to egolessness (slowly and gradually), the subconscious doesn't go for gaining another self. It wants to know its own self, be utterly accurate, not duplicate and create a facade.


I think that what you're attempting is all wrong, but that may be neither here nor there to you, coming from a insane monkey brain such as myself. I think if you're attempting a QSR-type enlightenment you've got it wrong, like I think they have.
I'm assuming you repeated "I think" three times in that paragraph, because "I think" is typically used to express uncertainty. It would be good for you if that assumption were true.


K: The major cause that I can see, for sexual fantasies, is when I've spent the previous day being less conscious than usual, and there's a pile-up of subconscious ideas. Then, because of that build-up, my dreams are less rational, and vague emotional thoughts take over.

J: Do you actually think you can make your dreams rational? I wonder what QSR think about that? Are their dreams rational?
I know I can. I've often had intellectually sound discussions in my dreams. In fact, they're getting less to be dreams, and more like deep thought while resting.

Kevin told me once that he lingered with dreams that he enjoyed. I interpret that as a conscious decision to reason a way out of faults. Or at least, a habitual decision.





Dave wrote:
I don't think most people could spell out exactly why they find some particular thing erotic - like, how did someone come to have a particular fetish? Or even, why is a person hetero or homosexual?
Indeed, 99% can't. More's the pity.


[edit: added reply to Dave]

User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones » Fri Apr 07, 2006 10:06 am

cosmic_prostitute wrote:Kelly wrote:
The ego works the same regardless of whether the desire is sexual, psychological, emotional, or biological. These spheres may appear to be different, but ultimately they all have the same conceptual basis.
But isn’t a sexual desire also psychological and emotional and biological, why separate them?
I didn't. Read the quote again. It's just egotism expressing itself in various ways, that we categorise into chunks with common elements, for convenience.

K: Attachment is an intellectual disaster. Logic is stuffed up, and thoughts are growing in the wrong direction.

CP: Instead of saying logic is stuffed up, can one say thoughts are controlled? Are they the same thing?
No. No.

Thoughts are not controlled in the illogical mind. Have you ever asked a psychic how they reason intuition to be reliable? They'll say: "I don't know. Because... It's a mystery!"

(seriously!)



K: One who is perfectly enlightened doesn't have an ego at all, by definition. Degrees of egotism exist in anyone else.

CP: Are you sure there is the possibility of a perfectly enlightened being? to be stuck in this biological organism is to have mechanical habits of some sort, is complete liberation a myth?
The fact that 99% of people are unenlightened because they believe delusions to be truth says to me that believing enlightenment to be truth is reasonable.



K: A vain person is interested in other people, and is a good judge of human nature. Moreover, since evil is the same in everybody ("misery loves company"), the person I stare at looks back at me; he does want to be seen by me. My curiosity is his shamelessness.

CP: Are you suggesting we should stop looking at people? Is that extreme? If I behold a beautiful face, should I turn away?
As long as there is evil in your eyes, don't spread the sight by sharing your looks with others who might see them, and then think it's acceptable to see them everywhere.


K: Sexual fantasies always occur after a long day struggling with increasing "abulia" (lack of will to consciousness), and occur in the hour or so before I usually awaken in the morning. It is my mind organising a deus ex macchina, which is what I've subconsciously spent the previous day desiring, in the form of a "white knight".

CP: I read somewhere that sexual desire occurs in the morning because the area of the brain that stimulates the individual to rise from bed is also connected with sexual arousal.
Go deeper. The self is being encouraged to leave its comfortable world of dreams and vagueness, and face an uncertain and possibly threatening, more conscious realm. It can only do this, by imagining more power to be gained in this realm. So there is fear and desire: intensified, and symbolised as the self gaining control over itself. Thus, sexual desire is the mind's best tool to achieve this.

There is no morning sexual desire when there is nothing to be lost or gained by waking up.

I'm not going to bother discussing whether egolessness eliminates the build-up of semen. The individual can find out for himself.


K: Typically (I don't experience these very often, but they are quite startling), the sexual fantasy will be a few seconds of being held. There's actually no sex as such. It is really a terrible experience for me, and often makes me feel like crying when waking up. I feel like a criminal, because I've given up my self to *another person*.

J: Why do you suffer for something you have no control over?
False assumption. (Thoughts decide over what to do).

Is the frustration caused by an ideal of total chastity? Is total chastity a myth? The body wants to multiply, it wants to reproduce, you can fight it all you want, but the desire is still there.
Spoken by an old man who has never explored chastity with his entire mind.


K: my dreams are less rational, and vague emotional thoughts take over.

CP: Are dreams ever rational?
Answered this in reply to Jason.



K: No, I am very well-equipped to create any kind of sexual fantasy. It is therefore unnecessary to go looking in a website. But how interesting that I don't want to look at any websites.

CP: I lack the ability to create elaborate fantasies, and this is why I have a little problem with internet pornography. Some men have a strong desire to conquer the woman’s body (break boundaries/explore), combined with the desire for total destruction, when these two desires intermingle with the sexual desire, the result is disaster…
Actually, as a rule I don't create fantasies, and didn't, even with that post (before or after or during).

Those two desires (to conquer and to destroy) are the same as the sexual desire, and you are right about disaster.

Can I get this clear: I understand sexual desire as well as I do only because of prioritising the understanding of Reality. The former was NOT my motivation for the latter.

Similarly, enlightenment can iron out all problems, whether it's about why science works (or doesn't), or how to heal depression, or whether to get married (or not), or even whether the roof needs to be painted. These all are made easy to solve with Ultimate Truth, because the very core of what they are becomes crystal clear.

So don't go wasting time trying to understand why sex is a bother for you. You'll end up wasting more time. Just focus on becoming wise, by pouring all your effort into understanding emptiness, and you'll be miles ahead.



K: My aim is to build up such strong experiences of emptiness, that, late at night in dreams, my mind will reflect these experiences. And then, on awaking in the morning, there will be more reflection, immediately breaking the hold of any animalistic resistance. And again, and again!

CP: Yes, I have been working at this at well, if emptiness can be primary, sex isn’t a problem at all. There can actually be a total loss of self during the act.
Even better: sex becomes irrelevant. I can't see a point for it, can you?


K: it's the emotional vagueness of *anticipating* something downright frightening. In that sense, sexual desire hasn't really got anything to do with the sexual act, and has all to do with the ego.

CP: The ego identifies itself with act. The observer is split from the observed. Anticipating the excitement/thrill is an addiction, and then the actual payoff (climax) is another addiction. Both are two movements of thought (imagery) that strengthen the ego and give it form.
No, the ego is born before any schizophrenia is identified. Its cells are multiplying and dividing as tiny delusional subconscious thoughts, until there's a mass of connections, and a conceptus is formed. In most minds, it's a bloody huge "miscarriage of reason" (to borrow Kevin's phrase). Any of its acts are merely the skin.


K: The ego dreams of what empowers: which is conquering the always-frightening. The only thing that is always-frightening is egotism itself: egotism is by nature unstable. That's why people get strung up over sex: they imagine fears of the self embodied in a person, and wish to deal with the person as a bland psychological type, to penetrate, or seduce, or lead back out of Hades.

CP: Or they can imagine being the destroyer and the destroyed simultaneously. The fantasy can evolve into imagining being both egos. IE: watching yourself being destroyed through both perspectives.
You're using "ego" interchangeably with "self". I think it would help if you used the word "ego" to mean all the thoughts and ideas that are driven by belief in the inherent existence of a self.


K: That is why sexual desire is rampant for the unenlightened, and especially detested in anyone seeking enlightenment. The student of Truth cannot stand the instability of sexual desire, ie. the next-to-dying emotions of always lacking power (ego). Nor can they stand having power, because that is the same fear.

CP: Yes, but the problem is that seeing it as instable or even suffering, or feeling frustrated doesn’t help one out of it, especially when a mechanical habit has been established.
I covered the movement out of deep egotism (desire) early in the post to Jason. Love truth, and let truthfulness feed the ego. That will establish a better mechanical habit, a more logical one, than that of loving sex.



K: The only porn that arouses is that which has the identity of this anxiety-desire: ie. when some thing is interpreted as being both frightening and powerful.

CP: Yes, and what is deadly is that the ego becomes dulled to old frightening/powerful patterns, and needs to find something much more intense.
This is plain old cowardice. It's a good technique to try something enjoyable, but less harmful, and more mentally calming. It might be some intense exercise like rock-climbing and hiking in the woods, or taking up a regular solo sport.

I use cycling for a few hours each day until tired, and skipping (using a rope), to quieten down the self's need for power (the delusion of perfection, converted into a bodily image). When I'm mentally quieter, I can sit in a comfy chair, and enjoy thinking without agitation.



K: The mind of sexual desire wants to return to the stark clarity of childhood's terrors, and repeat the terrors, to control those ghosts. The harmfulness is projected.

CP: I don’t know, it sounds right, but it doesn’t. It seems like something is lacking. A child doesn’t have knowledge of interracial gangbangs, you know what I’m saying Kelly? A child lacks knowledge of the ghosts that this ego has knowledge of.
I'm talking about the primitive experience of a child knowing things for the first time. It's like an innocent, with a load of associations yet to form.

To get clear of all the mental sickness, one has to want first to be free. To want to know truth, directly, without all the agitation.

That love, to be free of suffering, only works if one doesn't *care* about suffering - will accept any suffering to be free.

This is why truth is far more valuable an attachment than any other, as it accepts suffering. In fact, suffering no longer has much significance, and less power, so is less attractive.


K: Sexual desire is psychological violence through and through.

CP: Its also excitement/thrill/pleasure/destruction/habit/pattern/addiction/… but yes, I agree. Psychological violence covers a lot.
It's exactly the same. The difference between the psychological violence of loving truth and that of loving sex is the former kind of violence is far more likely to know what suffering is, in general.

By keeping things simple, and just focussing on cause and effect, the truth-lover can put any love under its universal microscope. It detects all diseases of the mind.


-

MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi » Fri Apr 07, 2006 2:05 pm

I noticed you didn't answer my question, "On what basis do you decide how a person ought to behave?"

Why?
Because I am not interested in petty argument.

I have never decided how a person should behave. I did assert my opinion.

Since you noticed that I did not answer your question, I hope that you also noticed that I intentionally did not answer your question.

I wrote that I wrote what I wrote and I am done with it.

Faizi

Post Reply