On Sep 9, 6:12 am, Executive Function
hotmail.com>
wrote:> On 8 Sep, 22:37, dead
gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sep 9, 12:28 am, dead
gmail.com> wrote:>
>>> On Sep 9, 12:06 am, dead
gmail.com> wrote:>
>>>> right part of my perspective that made it interesting was that the
>>>> imagination became involved in the bedroom scene and theres a
>>>> crossover of mind with matter i suppose.
>
> I think you've went to a core subject that isn't spoken much about,
> even on alt.magick. Most of the time, what goes on in our
> imaginations regarding other people are just that - the workings of
> our imagination and we acknowledge that to be non real. At other
> times there is evidence of such startling coincidence between lovers
> that telepathic and emotive communcative transfer seems to be the only
> explanation possible because the rate of coincidence is far too high
> for even the most rigid sceptic.
hmmmmm yeah it is a "wonderful" thing
for two imaginations to synchronize with
love. love's a connecting bridging feeling
wouldn't suprise me to connect that with
heightened synchronicity.
> And then there is the mix which is
> like the fridge magnet that says 'I know that when one door closes
> then another opens, but these hallways are really a drag.' :)))
>
>>>> i remember the first times i had sex in australia i was driven into
>>>> philosophizing about solipsism during it, nothing feeling real and
>>>> thinking dominating the senses i guess solipsisms a conclusion.
>
>>>> so that's the negative functioning of a mind during sex i guess.
>>>> it makes me think of nonduality vs pure witnessing put by ken.
>
> People disassociate sex and love a lot, but the former without the
> later seems a useless degradation of energy - and those times in the
> past where I have fucked someone without loving them also, then a line
> from pink floyds 'the wall' goes through my mind....is there anybody
> out there? For me that is a moment of total duality and an utter
> profanity to my temple.
probably the duality is felt because you're human
and going that far below the belt.. we cant simply
shut down the rest of us completely. :)
on the other hand we do develop split personas
especially when sex is involved.... people make
almost a sex version of themself they turn on in
particular situations, more or less a part of their
general personality (often less, humour helps?).
>
>>> emotions are important but they are also driving people, especially
>>> woman, blind and stupid. it's important to control them or atleast..
>>> important to keep emotions checked by lucid grasp of reality even
>>> when emotions are let to be wild..... ah whatever! :)
>
> :) Sex is an animal instinct as well as a spiritual marriage. There
> is a certain amount of animal and physical bonding involved, espcially
> with love. To do it without love is to profane the act to meet your
> desires. This is legitimiate, but only if you don't know any better.
yeah i understand the attitude you have but wonder
if that's overblowing the sanctity of sex like religion
might overblow the sanctity of marriage and ban all
marriages that do not conform to agreed higher and
righter standards concerning love and marriage..
>
> People often walk into situations that objectively they would call
> themselves wild and stupid for entering into, but rarely without a
> honest reason that has a basis in reality. The wildness of our sexual
> natures is what it is, but it rarely infringes upon reality except in
> the direction of the expression of desire. (scuse me - *wappo!*
> lol;-)) Sexual magnatism.... ah, I have never understood that on a
> purely sexual level, - it is with love or it is not for me. That is
> the way it is with me and I don't want to know other forms of love
> that are not love.
i understand your feelings and it was impossible
in my first relationship to turn off that higher way
of partnership as love and as conformed ridgidity
and i ended up making the sex difficult at all cos
to me sex was dirty, love was hard to integrate.
i had imagined sex as a non personally involved
thing and you know, making the body an object
and just plain empty fun. in reality she is not a
stupid bimbo and does have feelings and i find i
do care about them.
recently i found myself able to play on the more
old fashioned dirty sex side of the field because
it was playful i think, you have to laugh about it.
you keep respect but you let yourselves be like
stupid children and just fuck around without any
disrespect for one another, imagination and the
role play thing doesn't have to get too heavy and
there you can bring out that sexuality without a
sacredness but a playfullness protecting that id
maybe say. there is a line to draw and i've felt
guilty after some things and then grateful that i
atleast experiment to find those limits and you
can't do everything right without trial and error.
i had a non physical girlfriend on the internet
when i was very young and romanticized her
so much that i only made out that i even had
sexual thoughts about her so she didn't think
something was wrong, but actually to think it
sexually was totally off putting to me and the
romanticizing was ethereal and imaginative...
mostly because it was the internet... based.
you might understand there. i have a kinda
split way about things, feeling too sensitive
to a person puts me off the way i'd like sex
to be, and if i sexualize a person love might
be harder, but ive been learning to integrate.
>
>>> yeah sex as metaphor in particular is a good teacher, and learning
>>> there rubs off into other areas of orientation and interaction in
>>> life...
>>> different to the golf spirituality craze, another audience i suppose.
>
> They aren't psychic (mostly) but thier intuition is very good. They
> account for that in very different ways according to how they see
> their reality. Psychosis is a temporary coping mechanism indulged in
> for far too long.
>
>
>
>
>
>>> i think sex is over rated by people though, but on the other hand, i've
>>> decided sex like life can have more gotten out of it if you are
>>> patient
>>> and let the Way become clearer with experience, and if people were
>>> doing more than the mediocre stuff, they might extend their interest
>>> into later years! :) but it is just one part of things and symbolic..
>
>>> somehow it does have a directly animal instinct, lower physical
>>> consciousness centrism, although other levels and states come
>>> immersed into part of the whole game of what sex about yknow?
>
>> i take it back, sexual contact can be a mere physically
>> conscious basis of other inter subjective states of mind.
>> the sexual embrace doesn't have to be the central play,
>> if you are either in a more subtle love state or else even
>> "working" spiritually on cosmically conscious embrace.
>
> *nods*
>
yeah it just sorta cements the deeper love, the body
is almost a vessel for energies far deeper union than
mere sexual. it's very important though, physically..
the physical is the basis for all relationship except if
you do consider the psychic element but how much
of a role that plays vs how much imagination and an
physical interaction plays in what we feel for others.
even communication we depend on this world about
us here to connect to others whether speaking else
using computers and writing.
whether more than electricity and signals are going
from user to user on the internet is the question. id
say primarily it's just that and the pixels on screen.
anyway just what was the point oh that we meet in
the physical but on behalf of our minds and hearts.
it's important as a input of true information about a
person outside our mind, touching and seeing. and
the idea that our selves are together itself knowing
that were sharing space is settling to the emotions.
our bodies are all cuddly and stuff anyway we're
physically made to be physically lovable i think!
our heart chakra isnt the only structure evidence
of the feelings we have.
>> well if you're just wanting to fuck then that's a splash
>> of freezing holy water on the fire of lust, not pleasant.
>
> *again*
>
>> sometimes the imaginative additions and physically
>> applied technique are all just about dirty old fashion
>> sex in the end but we add to it because we're crazy
>> humans with strange tastes and inventions, and we
>> are unable to stay interested in what we used to be
>> all about, back in them days of history and our lives.
>
> When we first saw a fantasy in our future? Isn't the future always a
> fantasy though?
yeeeah......:) why the question.
>
>>> it's stylized, intellectualized, fantasized, spiritualized.. although
>>> under all of that it's just our brains way of embracing a physical
>>> bodily value system that's a part of being human, not the only.:)
>
> Adam and Eve, why are we here?, and the 'fall'.
>
we seem made for more structurally in our brains,
our energy systems, and in the back of our minds
we seem to have more to us than we live up to.
>>> it does have a way of spreadings itself out symbolically into the
>>> other parts of reality and the psyche like freud obviously becam
>>> fascinated by to an extreme making himself the alpha sexually
>>> bent psychologist of the pack that followed him.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Do you think sexual domiinace is related to the exercise of the
> creative mind? :)
somethings i heard dawkins say that the brain
is like the peacocks tail made to show off and
impress the females and i wonder, he must be
pretty sick if brains turn him on, but now know
what his books and television gigs are about.
>
> That's a wonderful question for alt.magick.
>
> Welcome D. :)
thank you very much! :)
