On 9 Sep, 01:24, dead
gmail.com> wrote:> 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?).
>
That explains a lot actually. I hate it when lovers put on a mask/
split persona. In the most intimiate moments I look up to see a lover
that is hiding and pretending. Major turn off for me, but yes -
humour helps if it's just someone being a bit scared of their
feelings. Fortune favouring the bold and all that.
>
>>>> 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..
>
Maybe. If my ex hadn't of fucked a whore and told me all the details
I didn't want to hear about, then I might have been more liberally
disposed right now.
>
>> 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.
*thinking about that*
> 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.
>
I have all the emotional intelligence of a teaspoon, but I understand
that. Just. :)
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> 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* I'll be back later or tomorrow.
Good post btw. :)
>
> 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! :)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
