> 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.  :)
>