Deliberate Consent Violation

[Ecmandu]

What credence do you give that diagnosis? Does the diagnosis affect the way you evaluate your ideas/thoughts/experiences, or those of other people?

I actually think schizophrenia is a very dangerous diagnosis. I understand to one dimension that it's about compassion, but the flip side is, anything not deemed rational by the state is considered 'psychosis'

Drugs don't do very much.

I think it's really important instead of using the term "psychosis", if you just ask someone, "are your symptoms violating your consent?".

Most would say "yes"

Then it's a disorder.

But I would investigate further...

"Is it your disorder or the disorder of others that is facilitating this?"

That's the really hard question for the diagnosed and the clinicians alike!

That's where we have subtler conversations about species wide psychosis and a rational response to it.

[Carleas]

"Is it your disorder or the disorder of others that is facilitating this?"
That's the really hard question for the diagnosed and the clinicians alike!

Indeed, it seems intractable.

Shouldn't that make us skeptical of our own beliefs? Whether I'm the clinician or the diagnosed, knowing that there are people who see the world very very differently and can't be convinced it actually operates in another way, the rational response seems to be doubt about how well I can know the world.

This seems a major blind spot for many of us. Even as I type this, I struggle to think of ways in which specific cognitive abnormalities I know I have could be causing me to see the world incorrectly. When you've only ever seen the world in one way, it's hard to imagine what it would even mean to see it differently.

[Mowk]

That's where we have subtler conversations about species wide psychosis and a rational response to it.

I agree, but is the person suffering from such symptoms capable of rendering such a clinical diagnosis accurately?

How does one with these symptoms apply that classification to the whole of a society? Much less of a whole species. Society nor species is an entity individually, this member has one this one has another and so forth, but the whole of the symptoms isn't represented by all of a society or a species. That certainly would make the circumstance of the conversation convoluted.

How would someone suffering from a delusion be in a position to recognize an other's hallucination?

It would render everyone incapable of having such a conversation. In other words if everyone exhibited the symptoms then it would not be perceived as a disorder in the first place. And no one would be diagnosed individually as a result.

It might get twisted around by the person suffering such symptoms that they are the only one symptom free and it is all of society and even all of a species that is psychotic. That would seem to be the circumstance that should be questioned first by anyone capable of asking the question. What is normal and what is not? And by what yardstick? And is that yardstick valid? A person in such a position would find any rationale to convince them self the truth of their own measurements. That is one reason why subjective experience is not proof.

If for example I were the only sane man not seeing pink elephants everywhere in an insane world that claimed pick elephants were everywhere I would have to ask if I was sane, give the awareness that insanity was the norm.

[Meno_]

That is a priority within those admonished to hold to absolute values.
Anything else consists of fearful reticense, inviting defensive postures usually meant to reverse course into the road most traveled.
In other words, expect blindfolds to shield from the hyper-mirroring of sensation.

All that, to try a jest for it's reversed self valuing of consented violation.

Ecmando, You're ok in my book,
unless Descartes' Method, be classified as well.


" What is the Cartesian method of doubt?
Descartes' doubt is a methodological and rational doubt. That is, the Meditator is not just doubting everything at random, but is providing solid reasons for his doubt at each stage. For instance, he rejects the possibility that he might be mad, since that would undercut the rationality that motivates his doubt."


The thing is with immortality, as any vampire worth his blood lust should know, (and my idea of partially differentiated , or , cut away parts, fits in here neatly), is, that fear of an anonymous eternal continuance, bears into the question : that Hamlet's ghost can best advise him on.

Is it worth the hunt for a new identity only to find yourself hunted , ghost hunted into such eternity?
Fixed into an immutable crystal , through which forever you are condemning to hunt for your doppelganger?
Two identical spheres one a necessary part of the other? Surely, it is the basis of.absolute identity of.precognition. Re cognition has a this as a sine con non.

[Mowk]

That is a priority within those admonished to hold to absolute values.
Anything else consists of fearful reticense, inviting defensive postures usually meant to reverse course into the road most traveled.
In other words, expect blindfolds to shield from the hyper-mirroring of sensation.

All that, to try a jest for it's reversed self valuing of consented violation.

Ecmando, You're ok in my book,
unless Descartes' Method, be classified as well.


" What is the Cartesian method of doubt?
Descartes' doubt is a methodological and rational doubt. That is, the Meditator is not just doubting everything at random, but is providing solid reasons for his doubt at each stage. For instance, he rejects the possibility that he might be mad, since that would undercut the rationality that motivates his doubt."

Ecmandu, you're cool, even if I don't agree with some of your conclusions. You've got thought. I hope you read that some where before.

[Mowk]

I asked if you've seen the movie "A Beautiful Mind". If you haven't I think you'd see a little of why I like your mind.

We aren't so different. Save for a few circumstances that were out of our control.

Carleas is cool too, as is Meno_ as is Pedro as is ET. I learn from you all and my guesses have changed as result. I've learned from a few others too, but it wasn't what they were trying so desperately to teach. I do admit they remain guesses. Framed in a moment in time. It would scare me completely if they ever became any more then that.

I believe the moment knowing sets in, curiosity is lost. I have a curious nature. I like being curious. I like guessing. And I appreciate the capacity to guess again. Being available to intuition and insight sort of precludes the notion of knowing what you are doing. Nothing I've done on this board has been a plan. I respond on the whim of a feeling, and think about it after the fact. Then guess again. Rigid thinking doesn't stand a chance. But go with the flow and opportunity is everywhere if you are flexible as well. Adapt, evolve, develop and be free. And when the shit blows throw out as many anchors as you have in your hold, and be sure they are secured to your vessel. I've thrown out a few and forgot to check if the ropes were secure. That really sucks as a sailor to see the line disappear from it's cleat.

I should send this to draft as a sandbox addition, but this time I won't. The grass is green on this side of the fence. Just manic, ...could be?

[Ecmandu]

I'm just going to accept the acceptances and thank you.

I know enough about guilt in sin that I realize that we're all totally fucked.

Now here's the deal... hitting on women is WAY to big of a line for me to cross. BUT!!

I still listen to music (mostly made by men)

I'm scratching up the same fucking wall that the rest of you are... to enjoy sin.

I hope you folks don't think I'm trying to paint you and I as other to many of these regards.

I work everyday on hyperdimensional mirror realities.

Currently we're working on the sound bugs.

[Mowk]

Hope maybe, someday you'll change your mind about some of the species. Yourself included. 98.6% fucked.
Presumptions. For example, sin. Did you make that up? Challenge that notion. Were did it come from? Who subscribes to it and why?
Of all the shit man has claimed himself superior to other animals, the only distinction I can put my finger on is the notion of sin.

[Ecmandu]

Hope maybe, someday you'll change your mind about some of the species. Yourself included. 98.6% fucked.
Presumptions. For example, sin. Did you make that up? Challenge that notion. Were did it come from? Who subscribes to it and why?
Of all the shit man has claimed himself superior to other animals, the only distinction I can put my finger on is the notion of sin.

Sin is contradiction, that's all it is and ever will be.

Putting myself in your shoes keeps me sharp. I know how to live 100% sin free. I choose little sins to give me the passion to solve the zero sum problem. If I was sin free, I'd likely become complacent. That's not helping anyone.

[Ecmandu]

Hope maybe, someday you'll change your mind about some of the species. Yourself included. 98.6% fucked.
Presumptions. For example, sin. Did you make that up? Challenge that notion. Were did it come from? Who subscribes to it and why?
Of all the shit man has claimed himself superior to other animals, the only distinction I can put my finger on is the notion of sin.

Sin is contradiction, that's all it is and ever will be.

Putting myself in your shoes keeps me sharp. I know how to live 100% sin free. I choose little sins to give me the passion to solve the zero sum problem. If I was sin free, I'd likely become complacent. That's not helping anyone.

I'll explain why listening to music is a sin. In a sex dimorphic species, male ornamentation is very serious. As is approach escalation.

Men invented all the instruments and wrote most the music. Even music written by women is derivative of men.

This is like the internet thing I tried to explain earlier, men invented the Internet, so any female work on it is derivative ... it ultimately means that another man set up a man with a woman. This is called "approach escalation by proxy."

So, basically, by using music, you are sexual signaling as a man. This is approach escalation in a sex dimorphic species which puts the relationships into no means yes status.

By listening to music, I'm in REALLY deep.

I'm not going to have sex under a no means yes banner, that's the worst. But I do actually sin quite severely because of this.

I sin to keep the fire on my ass. I want the zero sum problem solved yesterday. I do everything in my power to keep me fresh and hungry and motivated.

[Mowk]

It going to be a lonely fight. But I'm sure you're ok with that.
Me, I just ain't interested in the no means yes gig, or any of that. If that's all you have to write about. That's cool too but to me it's getting old.

I'll plant a tree and hang an Ecmanu tag on it.

[Ecmandu]

It going to be a lonely fight. But I'm sure you're ok with that.
Me, I just ain't interested in the no means yes gig, or any of that. If that's all you have to write about. That's cool too but to me it's getting old.

I'll plant a tree and hang an Ecmanu tag on it.

Non contradiction is the least lonely road that exists.

Everyone moves towards it. They have no choice in the matter.

You don't have responsibilities yes in your mind, but you do.

Non contradiction is relentless!!!

There's so much you don't understand about spirit.

It's fine, because I'm picking up the slack

[Mowk]

That's your choice, and you can consider it an inevitable if you wish.

As much slack as you believe required. I'll pick up your slack on the environmental front.

[Mowk]

The origins of sexual reproduction date back 1.2 billion years. Many protists reproduce sexually, as do the multicellular plants, animals, and fungi. In the eukaryotic fossil record, sexual reproduction first appeared by 1.2 billion years ago in the Proterozoic Eon. Sexual dimorphism by size is evident in some extinct species such as the velociraptor and dates to 71 million years ago. Way before humans showed up. You going to blame humans for an evolutionary adaptation that took place millions of years before humans walked the planet? Something that has been apart of their DNA from the get go? That's like blaming humans for the extinction of dinosaurs.

[Mowk]

Entomology of the word consent,
https://www.etymonline.com/word/consent

Old Latin is as far back as I've been able to trace the origin of the idea of consent. Old Latin in use from 509 BC to 75 BC.
Human's had been subject to sexual dimporphism for 27,000 years before the idea of consent entered the lexicon.
Around 1–4% of the genomes of all native populations outside Africa (in Eurasia, Oceania, and the Americas) derives from Neanderthals dating back 40,000 years, and about 20% of the Neanderthal genome survives today.

Seems like you're blaming the entire modern species for something that evolved as long ago as 40,000 years. That's harsh.

[Mowk]

And even if we can overcome our biological imperatives how long is that going to take?

Do we have a couple thousand years? Or is our treatment of the planet itself going to close the window a 1000 years short of the goal.

[Ecmandu]

Oh, it's not even that mowk!

The modern understanding of consent is only several decades old !!

I'm actually not that frustrated with humans (I am still frustrated with them!)

Like I stated before, I'm angry at the deities. They very rarely come in human form (I'm not counting possessions here, which are not the persons fault at all). I'm counting literal self embodiments.

When I meet with these sorts of beings, I judge them harshly, not for not knowing what I know... that's absurd! But for knowing it after I taught it and not changing. Humans! I'm easy on!

These deities who prop themselves as perfect for thousands of years... I'm hard as fuck on, and they deserve it!

[Mowk]

Back to deities again, I thought you were an atheist not a deist.

[Ecmandu]

Back to deities again, I thought you were an atheist not a deist.

There are beings more powerful than humans.

It's that simple.

You may have never met one. I've met lots of them.

[Mowk]

When you were alone.

[Meno_]

We are never alone. Within us is a genetic-psychic plenum that has eternally preceded us, and will so in the eternity that succeeds us.

[Ecmandu]

When you were alone.

Like I said. Keep guessing.

I have shaken the hands of beings like this. They aren't flesh and blood, at least not all of them.

They have a joke about us humans "they think with their meat"

I've met all kinds of beings over the years.

ET's, gods, you name it. Shapeshifters, 5th dimensional beings.

I've lived quite the storied life. I'm not even scratching the surface of it.

These beings are not just in MY head. Many people know them ... they just decided to reveal themselves to me.

[Mowk]

So they aren't just in your head, but they could be, in your subjective experience alone.

Many people know them, and they likely find themselves in a position similar to yours.

We are never alone. Within us is a genetic-psychic plenum that has eternally preceded us, and will so in the eternity that succeeds us.

Similarly subjective. While epigenetics as heritable phenotype changes is a postulate, whether memory specific psychic characteristics are passed is speculation. And given the nature of the DNA genome on the planet that they preceded us eternally and will do so, into successive eternity is also speculation.

[Ecmandu]

Mowk, you really don't understand ...

Watch the movie "the day the earth stood still" with Keanu Reaves.

That's freightenly accurate!

[Ecmandu]

Mowk, you really don't understand ...

Watch the movie "the day the earth stood still" with Keanu Reaves.

That's freightenly accurate!

So, let me explain a little bit about this...

A being, who I won't name, bowed to me and stated, "the crown wears heavy sir"

I was made the ruler of the earth on that day.

When gods and ets have political questions they need to ask, they come to me (not Donald trump!)

You have to understand, reality is divided into reality proper, dream worlds and virtual worlds. They coexist on earth.

Now, being the anointed king, I know all this shit inside and out.

You know who made me the king?

The earth itself... Gaia