Results 451 to 460 of 646
01-06-2008, 07:44 PM #1Senior Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
After some initial doubt, I've for several reasons decided to start this topic. Most likely it will die a silent and unmourned death. We shall see.
First I want myself and the closet-sextourists to get out of each others' hair. I can't abide the fourletter words, the bad spelling, braggings and "I almost made it" stories, spiced with expressions like "hot babes" etc. On the other hand the !!!!WOW!!! types do not like words with many syl-lab-les, so here such is concentrated in one place, which they can avoid. In other words, the contributers to this topic can, without interference, bore each other to death, if we wish to.
Next: Having a soft spot for conspiracy theories I'm convinced, that not only anti-scammers read anti-scam sites, a lot of other groups do it also. The scammers themselves, agency representatives, ultrafeminists (just-hating-men-on-general-principles), chatters (having nothing to say, but doing it with many words) and those just curious. The possibilty of disinformation is real, but maybe it's possible to suppress it by being longwinded and circumstantial.
And last, the most important. Internet-dating is after all only one aspect of the the eternal "war of the sexes". To understand net-dating, I believe it's necessary to paint a broader background canvas. Say, are we just a bunch of grumpy querulants or is there really a difference between not being able to get along with your next-door childhood love and a FSUW? Where and what is the difference? Even without a computer, a different cultural background or alcoholism, Sue-Ellen could still be a conartist or pro-dater. Especially if she's good-looking.
I'm not completely sceptical about FSU dating (internet or not). In the last app. 18 years I've had three longer relationships (in the biblical sense) with SFUW, lasting alltogether 14 years. These relationships broke up for the same personal reasons, as any other relationships do. And I've had my share of scandinavian psychos. For me the question is the PROBABILITY of meeting "straights" or "bends" in each group.
So I invite for wievs on this. And I have a few proposals for background-basics:
I believe, that we like all other animals fundamentally are biological robots. We have a digestive system with two openings, a need to reproduce and to fight for a place in a predatory system. That's our startingpoint. But compared to other animals, we also have rather complex emotions and intellect. We have a possibility, individually or culturally, to be more than just reptile-brained. And different individuals/cultures/subcultures use this possibility in various degrees.
And I also suggest to sort out the differences between women and men. For the present bunch of probably half-machos it's maybe an idiotic question. But believe me, in this time of unisex, feminism, equal opportunities and so on, the issue has seriously, repeatedly and heatedly been raised, if there IS any difference (in spite of different plumbing and men's inability to get pregnant). I strongly support the idea, that women and men are almost different species, and as in any other contact with ETs, we need a lot of diplomacy to establish peaceful contact.
11-02-2008, 08:51 AM #451Senior Member
quote:Originally posted by swede
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
PS I noticed, that the subject of tantra has turned up on the adds below this thread. Apparantly someone higher up in the forum hierachy IS reading, what we post here and react to it. So I'll return to presenting my version of modified tantra soon.
Wayne Dyer and Deepak Chopra represent everything wrong with so-called "New Age" Philosophy that you have commented on Swede. It's this incredibly sacharrine "get what you want without the heavy lifting" school of thought for fat, middle aged baby boomers. I am constantly amazed that a market exists for this kind of thing, but apparently there is a large market for wistful, feel good, don't think too hard or you might hurt yourself thought. Blech!
11-02-2008, 09:08 AM #452Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
Me too Swede. Welcome to the Matrix. This would be that part where we are in a subway station to nowhere.
11-02-2008, 12:01 PM #453Senior Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
you surprise me, and maybe I've been a bit unfair to you in my private thoughts, believing that your interest in mammary glands and sport didn't leave much place for anything else.
You have my sincere apologies.
Obviously I'm very interested in the spirititual, existential, theological and epistemological aspects of life, but the Disney- or Legoland new-age variety is an abomination in my eyes. The pseudo-spiritual equalent of soap-operas.
So you're a matrix fan also. Though the writers and directors of the movies did a lot of homework on the subject, it can't be denied, that some of the content is rather superficial. The theological associations get too contradictive at times, as if the idea is to make believers of all religions happy at the same time.
Spoonbendning at zen-level and Zions don't fit into the same box. But then I've only seen the films 10 or 15 times, and could have missed a common denominator.
But still, the gnostic startingpoint is clearcut, and the human battery-symbolism is an act of genious.
Most of my writings here (and elsewhere) center around the matrix idea, which is getting less and less paranoic conspiracy theory and more realistic every day.
When I finally get enough energy to start my tantric 'lecture', it will be on the basis of considering modified tantra more as a tool for awareness than just a method for exclusively physical gratification.
11-02-2008, 02:17 PM #454Senior Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2007
Hey guys! Well, I guess I can try the awakened test. aware/scriptwakened . You're saying it changes to aware/scriptwakened? Strange???
No swede, I haven't directly proposed the issue of the FSUW 'soap-opera' syndrome to my Olga. It's a subject that I have not tried to avoid so much, haven't thrown into the conversation. I've been more or less attempting to pick up clues as to whether or not she lives in this clouded state of self-delusion by more covert means.
As I say, she talks of love and romance, but hasn't crossed the line into "soap opera" fantasy yet. And her talk of love isn't of the old, "I love you with all my heart, person whom I've never met..." type of over the top declaration.
We talk about possibilities, maybes, what ifs and such. Like I've said, she really interests me, despite her younger age and seems to be serious, at least about finding a WM as a future mate. Whether she and I really are a good match, our meeting will tell us about that.[8D]
Interesting anomaly! The bizarre metomorphisis of awakened into "scriptwakened" when paired with aware/. New test, a space between the / and awakened... aware/ awakened
Well, there we have it! Just add a space. I generally do this anyway, so I probably would have never noticed this word morph.
11-02-2008, 03:14 PM #455Senior Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
Just a short comment on the sometimes strange behaviour from the forum.
Ofcourse there are filters for 'beeb' words, something I personally find completely acceptable, otherwise the thing could change into a lavatory wall with N-words and puerile sexuality.
But I went back to my own saved posts, and noticed, that the deleted period on the forum corresponds almost exactly to the period, when I started posting my 'mad priest' pastiches on humouristic conspiracy theory.
It could be a coincidence.
Or it could be, that the filters reflect more than just a decent use of language. As with my observation about tantra-adds on this thread,
I have formerly noticed, that the adds often seem to follow some of the topics, we are taking up. Maybe there's a mechanic function presenting adds according to certain central words in our texts.
It is peculiar. This thread has a certain popularity, but on an international basis, and for commercial reasons our 100-200 visitors a day isn't that impressive. And that this should happen on a manual basis seems even more unlikely.
It's not that I mind commercialism on this scale. For me it's OK to try to make your fortune as a private enterpriser, as long as certain fundamental ethic standards exist. And that we as writers and with a few hundred readers are given the opportunity to roam around mentally has ofcourse to be paid somehow.
But these small inconsistencies intrigue me.
As to put questions of 'soap-opera' addiction bluntly or slowly is probably a matter of how the communication develops. When I formerly made my personality profiles, I was very careful about accentuating my 'outsiderness' in a clear way, while I also promised a certain social stability (which I like PeopleS can demonstrate and live up to). NO FSUW, even the potential 'real' ones, reacted to that aspect of my character.
And as there's a craze for anything 'esoteric' (as they call it in FSU) going on, albeit on the worst level of new-age junk, my 'weirdness' should have been related to in one way or another. So maybe any approach to existential analysis is met by a blind spot, just like the moral question whether american, lovesick men are natural prey or not.
FSU answer: "Well ofcourse they are. Anything wrong with that??".
Do cats eat mice?
11-02-2008, 05:55 PM #456Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
Here's how my morning went.
FSUW gets up and makes everyone breakfast for a change: GOOD.
FSUW begins picking fight with my 10 year old, before breakfast is even served, in which she calls him "mentally ill" "sick" and other similar things you should never say to another human being, much less a child: BAD.
I've lost my appetite by now, as the two are screaming across the table at each other. I scrape the untouched breakfast in the trash and take my coffee (a particularly fowl concoction FSUW is fond of called "mud") out back by the pool: BAD.
FSUW follows me out back to argue about, in no particular order: her strep throat, her wardrobe, her Halloween parties, and of course, my son. An assault on the senses. BAD.
I advise FSUW that lease is almost over and I am getting a place for myself. "I am just telling you to get busy making arrangements. I don't want you do go into shock when the moving van pulls up." GOOD.
FSUW sits on my lap and informs that she will not allow me to leave her, and if she ever finds me with another woman, "I will kill her." BAD.
I went to the office with my son. GOOD.
FSUW called screaming that she's home alone and she "wants to spend some time" with me today. BAD.
Get the picture? [xx(][xx(][xx(]
11-02-2008, 06:35 PM #457Senior Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
Considering what we are talking about, 5 BADs and 3 GOODs looks like a fairly nice day.
But I follow you, oh brother in misery.
When I visited my ?fianc?e' in UA for the first time, she had a tantrum a few days after my arrival, because I in the presence of her best friend (also a gold-digger), absolutely refused to present the: 'Traditional ukrainian gift from the suitor to his new love'. Say somewhere around $500 in cash or goods.
I was told, that she (my 'fianc?e') had never been so shamed in all her life as by my stingyness, and that she reconsidered our relationship because of my bad character.
When I like a gentleman offered to agree with her, that she was free to reconsider as much as she needed, and she could contact me back in Sweden, when she'd arrived at a conclusion, she behaved much like your specimen, by performing attentionspan-collapse and loving me forever. At a considerably reduced price.
Words come cheap.
11-03-2008, 12:00 PM #458Senior Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
Modified tantric sex. Part 1.
I warned at the beginning of this thread, that it occasionally would be abstract and somewhat highbrow. But no-one is forcing anyone to read it.
For my purpose here, I will use our present knowledge of the universe as an approximative truth.
At a certain level in the formation of the universe, various forces create by their interaction of attraction and repulsion, what I will call 'structures'. From our standard point-of-view, at first relatively uncomplex such, as f.ex. elementary particles, but as the universe-formation continues, such simpler structures will, still influenced by the interaction of forces, connect into more and more complex structures. Atoms, molecules, cells and up to the extreme complexity of f.ex. biological life.
From the perspective of human perception, we can observe two of these forces without use of scientific knowledge or apparatus. Gravity and elctromagnetism. There are two known ones more, which we can't percieve directly, as they operate at subatomar level.
These four known forces together make up the basis of what we perceptually experience as the universe, by acchieving a balance between them. But, and this is a very important point, such balances are seldom (if ever) completely stable, they eventually break down. Even the strongest of such structures, created by the strong nuclear force, will dissolve in the end (though we don't have to worry about this now. It will be a long, long time until it happens).
A reasonable explanation for this unsteadiness in the fabric of the universe is, that the aforementioned forces aren't completely symmetric, it's difficult to arrive at a perfect harmonic balance or equilibrium between them. In normal language it could be said, that most structures created by force-interaction are incomplete, or simply 'lack' something. And as it's in the fundamental nature of forces to strive for equilibrium, by being attracted to the 'missing' part, the 'lack' leads to an unending search for this missing part.
(E.g. anything with a surplus of negative electrical charge will be attracted to something containing positive electrical charge).
If we look at this process of never perfect equilibrium, but this time on the level of biological life, we will, with allowance for a considerably greater complexity, still find the same fundamental pattern. In simple language again: Everything is looking for something. In the sphere of animal life this 'looking for something' manifests as instinctive needs at the physical level, with corresponding psychological drives at the mental level.
Alltogether this means, that the universe is dynamic in its character, ever changing, and that evolution in a way can be said to be the description of the universe's inner 'natural' workings.
As human beings we all acknowledge the need for air, water, food, shelter and safety. And as with other mammals we also have a need for propagation (sex and sometimes parental care).
This 'looking for something', expressed in our needs and as a manifestation of a universal principle, can by an aware/conscious species (like humanity) be considered from a theological/existential/cosmological perspective (depending on your map of life). That our needs exist is hard to deny, but the way we gratify them can be approached in two different ways. As we so often have talked about here, we can either accept predation as the main 'natural' way of the universe to gratify needs, including the claw and tooth inconvenience for the eaten part in a predatory situation. Or we can consider symbiosis as a method for gratifying out needs, knowing that symbiosis has its explanation/justification partly outside the known laws of the predatory universe and necessitates 'intent' (directed will) to be used.
The difference of these two approaches exemplifies the difference between the middle- and the far east-originated religions. But I will not go to deep into this now, only say that tantra (and tantric sex) is a highly pleasurable way of solving the problem of how to accept the existence of needs and combine it with a wish for a symbiotic. It functions by transmuting the sexual need and drive into something, which can be used symbiotically. It originates from some part of India.
Here I must explain, why I want to use a modified tantric sex, and not the original. For two reasons: Original tantra has some deep roots in the chakra/kundalini model, which I not only consider incorrect, but actually dangerous if used practically. And secondly there is an element of sexism, with a glorification of male sperm as a kind of divine substance reserved for the male's spiritual development, making the female in the relationship into a kind of technical asset, necessary for the process, but unable to benefit much from it in any case.
11-03-2008, 02:24 PM #459Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
I think that with the Enlightenment, the Rennaisance, and the Reformation, Western man got caught in a trap of intellectual inquiry, a need to dissect and explain everything in the driest of terms. The trouble is, spirituality was the first victim of this process. Hence it was not enough to partake of communion as the literal and figurative body and blood of Christ, we had to create the doctrine of "transubstantiation" to explain how that occurs in the chalice and the recipient's body.
What I love about Eastern religion, including my own Eastern Orthodoxy, is that some things are just accepted to BE. There is no need to understand in technical terms, rather it is enough to merely experience.
The 'structures' that you identify, to me, are merely the presence of the divine life force ("God" if you will) that exists and transcends at the molecular level. Thus mankind, and the world, are more of an enviro-organism that acts and interacts at all levels, rather than independent free spirits that enjoy a unique separate identity. I think this Western emphasis on individuality belies the fact that we are not truly individuals, we act in concert with plants that give off oxygen and consume our carbon dioxide. We act in concert with a host of organisms in our own bodies that make digestion possible.
Thus meditation, yoga, tai chi, and meditative prayer, are all a means of shutting down the inner dialogue ("the voices in your head"), to permit interaction with the divine life force in silence. I suspect that is why tantric sex (modified or not) is so pleasurable. It is plugging back into the essential life force to relish the essential unity we share with every living person and every living thing in creation.
But please continue! Look forward to the next installment.
11-03-2008, 06:10 PM #460Senior Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
what a pleasure to recieve communication at such depth as in your last post. But first let me ask you: The eastern orthodoxy you confess to, would that be the christian orthodox church or far eastern religion in general?
And before I continue with responding to your post, I know very well, that part one of 'modified tantric sex' could have been compressed into something like: "We all look for something", but I consider this insufficent as a communicationbasis. Hence the pedantic and somewhat detailed presentation.
To return to your post. I'm ofcourse familar with the antagonism between science and organised christianity, and for that sake between science and a lot of other theological/spiritual maps. My own stand is a bit unusual, as I'm not a fighter on any of these sides, and especially not as a proposer of reductionist 'scientism', which epistemologically is as about as undefensible as many religions based purely on 'faith'.
In my opinion people can believe in any ideology they like, as long as they don't turn it into crusades. But as you probably have noticed, we have an abundance of absolute and ultimate 'truths' on this planet (some of them disagreeing wildly with each other), so for a truthseeker as me, it can be an arduous process to weed out in this jungle.
My own answer has been to construct an epistemological method (as epistemology is the first hurdle to pass), where I can choose and pick from all the information, I recieve from various 'maps', belief-systems, tunnel-realities etc, each of them based on what I usually consider rather narrow axioms or assumptions. My criteria for information-validity is based on: The axioms and assumptions each beliefsystem rests on; its willingness to selfcensure itself; and finally on my personal level, how well such information fits into a greater pattern, where the resulting answers actually seem to describe existence.
Seen from this angle and with communication in mind, I count 'faith' rather low on my list, because what's f.ex. written in one silly book is as valuable or invaluable as something written in another silly book, differing from the first. Whereas science (as long as it remembers its place) ranges higher, as it does seem to give a fair description of what it's talking about. When science forgets its place, as when it starts to argue about phenomena outside its competence (as in the case of spirituality, para-normality, transcendence), it's just as valueless as any other beliefsystem expanding beyond its own territory.
Well, this was my usual circumstantial way of approaching things.
You take up some interesting points. The 'just to be' (instead of analysing) model, the existence and character of 'god', individuality as compared to unity and the various methods of acchieving a higher spiritual goal (e.g. union with 'god', nirvana, universal awareness AS 'god' etc).
It would be a long post, if I tried to answer all this at once, so let me end for now, by stating my own fundament. I have some approximative truths, I believe in as a basis, and I evaluate information as potential facts by seeing if they (in spite of origin) can give sensible answers on a grand scale. Alltogher this places me loosely somewhere around intellectual gnosticism, with a bit of hinayana buddhism, and a respect for science as a describer of the mechanistic manifestations of the universe.
I don't know, if this last positioning myself can help to avoid too much circumstantial talk from me, but in any case I will enjoy continuing a bit this way, before I return to modified tantric sex. So if you're game, let's see how far our common models and assumptions go in agreement. After that a peaceful debate is possible.