LastThursday

It's been twelve hours. So... Is there magic left in the world? For me there are moments of minor magic. For a number of years I used to get up on the summer solstice, go down to the beach at 4am and sit in the silence and chill and slowly watch it get light. There's always a surprise and secret delight at the new day coming into being. Equally, sat with friends on holiday watching the sun go down, and being blanketed by the stillness and warmth, and feeling a strong connection to the earth and each other. Does magic have to be sought? It does, because we forget. We are creatures of novelty, it's a very few things that can repeatedly hit us with magic. The sight of my ex-girlfriend's behind in tight jeans (!) The laptop in front of me is pure repeatable magic: the younger me read about things like this in science fiction stories. People are endlessly fascinating and magical (but also annoying in equal measure). But my table is not magical, nearly everything is functional and unexceptional. We have to increasingly go further and further to find the magic. But that sensation of magic can be stirred inside of us. Because magic is a sensation of wonderment at how a thing can be. A car ceases to be magic when we realise that it's a machine for turning gasoline into motion. A car ceases to be magic when we have to sit in traffic twice a day, every day. But when you actually walk the same route, you start to appreciate again the magic of your car. And that's the anwer, we have to bring magic back by shifting out perspective. If we can shift our perspective on the entire world, then it all becomes magic again. Another way to bring magic back, is to pay attention. There is so much in the world to see, that we easily miss nearly everything. Curiosity is key. With curiosity we are pushed to explore the nooks and crannies of reality. And, when we come across something new, we sit still and observe and in that moment we can see magic. That should be the pursuit of spirituality to reach a state of magic.

@modmyth the enjoyment is mutual, your journals are great! I'm doing this in reverse order. I realised I was fairly intolerant to caffeine in my late twenties. It takes an age to clear my system. Mostly it gives me a kind of lightheaded detached sensation (I guess it is a psychoactive substance), and makes me sweat, which I find unpleasant. Those two bodily reactions indicates that it's doing no good at all. The last effect is insomnia, which is also sucks. Realistically I can only get away with one cup of caffeinated coffee first thing in the morning or suffer the consequences. The video was informative. He talks about inspiration as if it were separate from ideas, but I'm not so sure. It strikes my that inspiration is just an idea that gains momentum or that particularly captures the attention. The source of both is the same. The genius in this case is not the inspiration itself, but the application of skill and effort to execute on it. For a piece to be moving, either it is crafted that way through having a good understanding of emotion (a skill), or it's blind luck. Especially with art, the emotional reaction to it depends greatly on the person experiencing it. Take Jackson Pollock, is his work moving, to me? No. Is it exceptionally inspired, yes, because he had the ability to break out of tradition and create unique experiences in his artwork. Genius is also thinking out of the box, but that's synthesis or creativity, which everyone has to a greater or lesser degree. Maybe genius just comes along with a confluence of the things the guy mentions in the video: talent, skill, turning up every day, creativity, inspiration and ideas. But also genius especially in the arts comes through consensus. Bach was disregarded until Mendelssohn came along and made him a genius by consensus. In that sense, genius is conferred not innate.

What is my morning routine? It varies. There are elements that I like to incorporate if I can, some are non-negotiable. Very roughly an ideal morning for me is: 7:30 Wake up 7:40 Shower + Clothe 7:50 Take supplements and water 8:00 Meditation/self hypnosis 8:30 Qi Gong stretching excersises 8:40 Walk at least 30 mins 9:10 Work 10:00 Breakfast Naturally this doesn't pan out every day. Shower, supplements and breakfast must happen. Most of the variation is due to waking up times. I'm not super strict with waking up and it can vary within a window of an hour - and is largely dependent on the time I go to sleep, which hovers around midnight. I'm better in the spring than the middle of winter and this is soley to do with lighter mornings. However, during lockdown I've been fairly disciplined about getting walks in, just not always at the ideal time and not every single day. Pre-lockdown I would have walked about 40 minutes to and from work, but I tend to get 45 to 60 minutes or more in now. The other things can also be done out of order and at different times. Walking does triple duty: exercise, light exposure (body clock alignment), meditation. I often don't do formal meditation and I'm not particularly invested in it. I've never been a gym bunny it just doesn't fit my character. I used to run regularly and long distance, and it was still good as a way to kill the internal monologue, a kind of meditation. But it requires a lot of concentration to run well and I was always competing against myself - a completely different mindset from walking. Pre-pandemic I played badminton once a week, for fun, exercise and a different way to engage the body. I've never been a strong enough swimmer to enjoy it as exercise, although I do enjoy being in the water. I used to do Tai Chi for many years. But I'm out of practice and I don't have the space to practise the forms. It was excellent for calming the mind and for poise and posture and having a base level of muscle tone. The Qi Gong stretching, really is just stretching exercises, but I find I feel very much looser and less physically tense afterwards. The meditation does the same thing, except for my mind. The two in combination are ideal. In this country (UK) the levels of UV vary greatly and most folks don't get enough daily exposure on their skin - we are wrapped up against the cold. Vitamin D supplements are a must. I also take Omega 3 as a matter of course, as intake of this tends to be low in diet and so is out of balance with Omega 6, which is higher in diet. There is also some evidence that it improves brain function, although it's not often touted for that function in adults. Anecdotally, I haven't been ill at all for at least three years, not even a sniffle and I put that down to vitamin D - but also having good sleep hygiene. I'm not particularly fussy about what food I eat. I wouldn't say I eat unhealthily: I very rarely have takeaways, and I don't drink much alcohol, caffeine intake is barely above zero (decaff coffee or tea). But, I could improve definitely in this area. I do have pre-packaged meals and I know these are less than ideal and my vegetable and fruit intake is inadequate. I'm not sure of the solution, some days I just don't want to prepare a meal completely from scratch (it takes a lot more time and energy), and fruit and vegetables don't keep (I shop every fortnight). I should completely quite caffeine, I know for certain that it disrupts my sleep and intuitively know it is bad for my body. Even decaffeinated coffee and tea has small amounts. I very seldom eat chocolate as that contains caffeine. But I like a hot drink with some flavour and fruit teas etc, just don't do it for me. I stay away from alcohol as this also affects the quality of my sleep and again is bad for my body - and can reduce immunity. Right! Time to start the day.

Honestly, I'm not going to keep up this level of posting. Even once a day is a lot. But somehow writing is becoming easier, is it just practice, habit, or energetic need, channelling something, attention? Hm. Next subject: figure and ground. The conceptual framework for this is nearly the same as my last post (bas/relief, ground/figure). But in a completely different context. I find the underlying commonality interesting. Today, something that I do regularly came into sharp relief. One version is about interacting with people. The normal sensation is that here I am, and there you are, and there is this exchange of information between us. I have a strong sensation that you are this separate being with your own troubles and thoughts and ways of doing. We both share this space of the material world and can agree on things happening within it. On occasion, and because of much spiritual work, I get the figure and ground flip. I get this equally strong sensation that all that is happening is an interpretation. The only thing I have to go on is the information that I get from you. I literally have to construct an idea of you in my space of awareness. I know this construction is mostly not done consciously (although maybe this is a belief rather than truth), nevertheless the feeling is unsettling. It's as if everyone is a character in a novel, and what I deem as normal, is actually just getting lost in my own interpretations. Then of course, I have to go meta, and realise that I myself am just another character in a novel. Awareness is interpreting me. Just as I'm "fleshing out" the uncommunicated details of other people's lives, am also doing the same thing to myself. As a previous post alluded to, I'm confabulating a narrative on my own life, and the life of others. And then the figure flips back into place, and everything is normal again. The other instance where this happens regularly is believing in a past. The normal state of affairs is to emphatically live in a timeline and where stuff happened (you remember it with memories). Then sometimes, again, the figure and ground flip. I realise the past is complete fantasy, and that I'm completely free of it, and I sit there suddenly unchained and liberated. The sensation is like playing hide and seek and hiding in a cupboard. I know I've found a great hiding place, and I could hide there indefinitely without being found by the past or the future. I, the character in the novel have learned to hide from the author. These two things often combine. I'll get together with friends and have a good time. During the event I'm fully present, but loosely attached so to speak, I don't think about anything that will happen in the future, or think much about the past, I'm just there. After the event I don't feel a need to go over things in any way, I simply move on to the next activity, the past becomes fantasy and the characters that I call my friends go into hibernation. I may pull them out and give them some thought, but it's rare. One big side effect of all this ground and figure flipping, is that sometimes I'm so detached from worry, that I can't bring myself to act, I simply shelve it and it doesn't occur to me. I'm very much just in the moment mostly. I then get a rude awakening when some deadline has passed, or I realise weeks or months have passed and I haven't maintainted some thing or other. It's very much like time has concertinaed into the present moment, there's no depth to it as such. This state of affairs is completely counter to how I was, say ten years ago, when I felt very much conventional. I wouldn't say there's a sense of unrealness per se, in fact I'm more in flow and connected than I ever was and I'm very much at peace most of the "time". Where's this headed? I suspect that at some point the ground will permanently be switched with the figure. Or more likely they will blend into one. I will simply stop existing as a character of my own making and I'll be the ground of existence, in a timeless dimension. Other people will also stop existing as characters and there will be no difference between me and you. That day will be soon: says the author.

Any form of response can be taken as one-upmanship, even agreement. In any situation you have to carefully consider if saying nothing at all is the more conscious response.

Narcissism is about people and an unwillingness to acknowledge that they are the same as you. That inequality must be maintainted by the narcissistic ego at all costs, it's the only way it survives. We all need to be special at times, some more than others.

One thing I learned from the way I was taught NLP (see a previous post) was to do first and explain after. That is teach by example not by theory. So in my quest to explain self-referencing questions, I'll talk about words, of course, using words. Words have a dual nature. If you run your hands lightly over a bas-relief, you feel the most prominent aspects of the sculpture. That prominent aspect is the dictionary definition of a word, with its web of familial attachments to other words. When words are used in conjunction with each other they create the sense of the sculpture beneath your fingers. A word is the relief of the sculpture the bit that is mutually agreed upon by its users. The unspoken side of words is the bas, the shadows. It's the unagreed upon tacit context of words. If I say "red fox" immediately an animal is produced with its russet fur, white underside and black socks; it skits and jumps and smells the air. That's my context, my bas, the relief is just the plain web of words relating to "red" and "fox": what the dictionary says. So it's clear that a web of written or spoken words defining each other can only ever be a relative enterprise. Any system of relative relations cannot have an absolute base, the system is untethered and free floating and finite and enclosed. The conclusion is that a word has no absolute meaning; indeed words themselves change over time and new languages are born and evolve. But this relative layer of relief is grounded absolutely by the bas, the parts the dictionary doesn't define: the living red fox. When someone asks the impertinent question "What is God?", they are looking for the bas by using the relief. Responders can only describe the sculpture of God with reference to the reliefed parts they can touch: the words on the screen. The questioner still has the job of filling in the bas around that relief, it must be a completely personal venture and completely silent because words are not enough. "God" has no absolute meaning other than the one we discover for ourselves.

@Corpus I was just expanding the definition of thought subtle or not. If thought is not tethered to dialogue then thought can't be said to be about language. The word "mind" is obviously a language construct, so to give a definition of mind and it's substance as the OP wants, you can't get away from using words. The word "substance" also has it's own definition in language. Naturally words can explain things that are not words but only by reference and pointing. But that's all just mansplaining. @Onecirrus So what is the non-verbal part of the substance of mind? To find that you need to sit and examine your own mind, nobody else's mind will do. You need to examine the boundaries of mind and if it is actually just thoughts and conceptualising or more than than all that. How far does mind push out to? Is mind everything in it's extreme?

@Corpus I agree. Except for the bit about inner dialogue, even without it you still have a mind, you could just use your outer dialogue as a surrogate. Have you ever used your mind to complete a jigsaw puzzle? Did you have to talk to yourself about it?

Use alcohol as a spiritual tool if necessary. Anything which shifts your consciousness allows you to experience from a different viewpoint and have a different state to compare to, which can give you clarity in the long run. I'd say that alcohol is a blunt tool though, because it reduces awareness.

Maybe if I just keep on writing, it can defibrillate a career as a writer of some description. Instead of abstracting away in computer language, I can abstract away in the English language. The latter attracts me more and more as I go on, the former is phasing in and out and was just a bit of fun for forty years. Enough waffle, I'd like to talk about archetypal motifs in stories, with a view to applying them to the stories you invent about yourself. Here's a few example motifs I've noticed: Regret for past actions or lack of action Blaming externalities and people for your failures or for missing the good things in life Reconciliation with those that gave you up or fulfilling a dream you held Coming to understanding and forgiving close ones for their actions and your resentment towards them Encountering great hardship and overcoming it and either becoming stronger or weaker as a result Having nostalgia for times that were rough and inhumane, and comparing them to the dullness of the now Having grand dreams thwarted, but realising it was for your own good Receiving a mysterious gift or knowledge and uncovering its mystery or realising it gives you or unlocks special powers The above is just the marrow of soap operas, novels, and fairy tales. But they all have a grip on our imaginations. The truth be told your life as it unfurled didn't follow a narrative, it just happened, haphazardly and without a proper plot. But you absentmindedly and retrospectively thread the events together into a consistent and plot driven narrative: things were destined, how else did you get here? How else do you get over to someone else "your story" in a format they can digest? The disaster can be to fall for your own story, only to then unpick the tale and restore a non-historical view on life: shit happened and it's no longer happening. Those archetypical stories you use are like trinkets tinkling on your wrist. Personally, I have/had resentment towards my parents for messing up my life. But the only path to reconciliation is by giving up the narratives: there was no resentment, there is no reconciliation to be had. I could click my fingers now, and the stories would disappear and I would be left with reality as it stands: an elderly father who I connect to now and then. Why not love him now as he is? If I don't like him now, as he is, then it's not contingent on some story I've held on to for 30 years. No, it's because his views are incompatible with mine. We can't help but be lost in fantasy. The past has long swept away beneath our feet, but we insist on holding on to a story we have of it. How liberating for ourselves would it be to cut the trinkets off?

I just can't keep away from this journal. I guess all the introspection and review and acknowledgement is doing something somewhere. Maybe I just enjoy writing it? Do you have a genius? From memory, I think the word is etymologically related to genie and djinn, you know the type where your rub your lamp and out pops genius - sorry a genie - in a large plume of smoke. "What three wishes do you desire master?". Well, I want to be a genius in information technology (tick), languages, (semi-tick), and being human (erm...) This gets the nub of genius. Is genius given or inherent, does it or does it not belong to you? My own personal take is that genius doesn't exist or at least not in it's conventional form. There are just degrees of attainment. Was Mozart a musical genius? Mozart grew up in a musical family, so it isn't at all surprising in that sense. Yes it's quite possible that Mozart had a predisposition for music in his genetic makeup, but a baby is not a genius in any sense. Maybe his family were musical in the first place, because they too had the same musical genes. So Mozart's genius was given by his environment, he just so happened to be acutely tuned in to that environment. Are we all geniuses? In a certain unconventional sense, yes. Most of us learn to speak a language and to walk on two legs. Those two activities are extremely underrated, because it's so common. Both are in fact impossibly complex to attain. Try building a robot to walk on two legs on all terrains: a supremely hard problem. Equally for understanding language - GPT3 is good, but not quite there. Ah, you say, but we're genetically predisposed to those two activities, it's a cinch; and Mozart was predisposed to music. So genius is just a conventional way to label someone who is an outlier in some area, or many areas. Leonardo Da Vinci or Einstein springs to mind. Both had breadth as well as depth. There is a bell curve distribution to nearly everything, and you'll sit in the middle of it for most things. Learning your native language sits in the middle of the distribution (a.k.a average). Learning 10 languages sits on the edge of the distribution (a.k.a. genius). Is genius then attainable? Yes. And it requires two primary skills: pattern recognition and synthesis. With pattern recognition it's about noticing the structure in the every day that nobody else notices: scientists do this all the time. But there can also be a more spontaneous and disorganised element to it that can be improved upon, and this is mostly by acquiring new knowledge and pure repeated and concerted observation. With synthesis, it's about taking those patterns and using them to predict or build things that others wouldn't. Synthesis is lateral thinking or problem solving in action. Synthesis is about imagination and playfulness. So instead of rubbing that lamp and acquiring your three wishes, learn to acquire a genius: pay attention, use your imagination, and play!

Talking of characters, The Student version of me is obsessed with Anfisa Letyago at the moment, for the talent, the music, the looks and I just love the name to death (love is such a feminine word to use, but I love it):

This may or may not be rambling. Is that a useless comment? Are all comments ultimately useless...? Erm. Anyhow. I'm a different person to different people. When in London, I revert to type to blend in. I become more bolshy, more laddy, more Estuary English in my speech. When at my home locale, I speak like I write and I'm prim and proper. Each has it's uses. Am I fake? No'at all darlin'. All these characters are within me. Saying that, the characters don't have hard boundaries, I don't have multiple personality disorder (although that would also be handy sometimes). It's more like a change in emphasis: it's still me fundamentally. I think what I like about increasing the volume of certain characters is that they come with different attributes and mindsets. The Londoner in me is more masculine and process oriented and confident. The mid-sized-middle-class-town-suburb character is perhaps more intellectual, high brow and conscious. My Brighton character is young student, beer drinking, letching and playful (god I miss him). Not all my characters are attached to places, some are attached to people. To my dad I'm very sensible, stable and somewhat distant (he brings it out in me). To my sister I'm more jokey, slightly competitive and very rambling and casual (we were always that way), but I always have the upper hand being the eldest. To my ex, I'm disengaged, quiet and nonchalant - she knows too much about me and given half the chance will judge me, even in front of others. This brings me to an important thing I've noticed. These characters are mostly brought out unconsciously in a kind of stimulus/response pattern. The people and places stimulate the dialing in of certain characters. If I were to play the wrong character, there would be bewilderment. This has happened to me (or one of those mes) on a number of occasions. I remember having started university and then meeting up with my pre-university ex-girlfriend, I somehow forgot to switch back to form, and she thought I was drunk, despite being completely sober - bewilderment. My dad has seen me innebriated many times and been very surprised and sometimes entertained by my other characters. My sister recently got blasted with my spiritual character - that definitely surprised her - she was glad I'd come to the same conclusions as her (she having been woo woo all her adult life), and I full well know that she was expecting the unemotional atheist character. What is my takeaway from all this? Dunno. But it's sure fun to mix things up once in a while. P.S. It came back to me, the point of this post. Spirituality tells you to give up the ego, but if you want to continue living in the world of mortals, then it's much better if you can be flexible, and summoning characters on demand is the way to do it. I'm still waiting to channel my "GOD" character, God help us all. P.P.S More ramble... it occured to me that I have different characters on the forum too (must be unconsciously, otherwise I'd a noticed earlier). So: agony uncle, Philosophical Man, Mr Joker, Mr Abstracto, in yer face and cetera.

With regards to your second point, you're not alone: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-walking-through-doorway-makes-you-forget/ I would say take a break, not just from meditation, but from spirituality altogether. I've noticed within myself there's a kind of spiritual momentum which builds up over time. Sometimes that momentum is too much, because you need time to process and embody the changes and insights. Try just doing normal every day things - and be with people especially - for a month or two and put spirituality on hold. The momentum will still carry you through the break and out the other side.

One thing I enjoy immensely is songs with good intros. I'm stuck in the 80's but don't let that put you off. The Police were masters of the intro, but their best was this one: For more 70's flavour, David Bowie always had good intros: Back to 80's: The Beatles were absolute masters of the intro, for a 60's flavour: For a more 90's feel, the Galagher brothers were excellent introists: Back to 80's: A bit more 90's: On a par with the Police, the Beatles again: And who can forget the 70's and Stevie Wonder, another master of intro: That's your lot.

How do you know your self worth? I want to go over one particular dimension of self worth, that of attractiveness. Before I launch I should add that being attractive has fundamentally nothing to do with self worth, but in every day life as it is, it does. Let's talk about the face. None of us can see our faces without looking into a mirror or a webcam. We a born not knowing how attractive we are facially. In any case, when we do look in a mirror we are probably not the best judge of our own attractiveness; what do we have to go on anyway? We look at magazine covers and say, well, she's attractive or he's attractive. The standard is set by our societal mores at any one particular period in time. That's it? Do we look at others and then judge ourselves? I'd say not. We still need a yardstick with which to measure. That yardstick is other people's reactions to attractiveness. It is the active reaction to attractiveness that we use to measure own attractiveness. I'd say 99% of the time we don't even think about our own attractiveness, we are actually neutral towards it. But if every time you walk into a room full of strangers some of those strangers stare at you, their pupils dilate and their faces flush - then even the most stupid person will eventually realise that they are invoking a reaction in others. What about me could be invoking that reaction, I think? Well... every time I see a good looking person, I have the same reaction. Bingo! I must be attractive. And so it goes. This reasoning is mostly unconscious, over time you build up a map of your own attractiveness: your face, hair, body, arms, legs, skin and so on. Sometimes it becomes overt and you will consciously obsess about your attributes, because you know deep down that attractiveness is variable and doesn't last and, that it's completely in the eye of the beholder (generally society at large); you could lose your attractive self worth at a moment's notice. What happens if you don't pander to someone's unconscious knowledge of their own attractiveness? i.e. you don't flush and dilate? I'd say it's nearly impossible not to give the game away, but there's still a slim chance of pulling it off. The reaction will vary between completely being blanked, or intense curiosity. But even the blankers will wonder what's wrong with you at least - you will get their attention either way. And, if you're in the attraction game (most of us are looking for sex or a committed partner), then getting attention is half the battle. This anti-attraction pattern only works on those who expect attention (even if unconsciously). What about all those average Joes and Janes who "know" they're actually averagely attractive? Indeed, what about them? What I mean is that these types probably don't obsess or even think about their attractiveness in any big way. And they have it right, we don't naturally know our own attractiveness, only other people can tell us that. We inherently don't care and nor should we. Self worth is illusory. How attractive was this post? I can only tell by watching the viewing numbers tick up. That way I will measure my self worth.

Personally I think you're over thinking the whole situation. Switch off your problem solving brain and go with your feelings. Actually give yourself a chance to enjoy the unique situation you're in. Every relationship is different whether that's friends, FWB or full on attached or anything inbetween. If the girl can't make her mind up or wants more, then just go with the flow. Just be very clear in your communication: if she breaks up with you, then you're going to go with other women - simple, straightforward. If she wants more, then say to her "ok" and give it a go - don't over think it. Or just set a time limit if you're daring enough: "let's date for one month and see how it goes after that". Or literally just flow with it, be like a leaf in the wind, enjoy the breeze. Let her test you and pretend you're not bothered, play the game.

@Pseudom more choice just means you can be pickier. If I only have two women to choose from, then if I'd like a girlfriend, then I'll probably have to lower my standards and pick one. If I have 18,726 women to choose from, I can afford to have higher standards, and I'm more likely to find "the one". But the reality is, even if you dated a different woman every single day, you'll only get through 364 a year (with a break for Christmas). That's over 51 years to get through your pool of 18,726. In reality most men have about 3 women to choose from at any one time - and one of those is probably their sister or mother, so 2. And the remaining women think you're an awkward dweeb or so intelligent you make them look stupid or too "unmanly" or they're already involved or a lesbian (or so they say). Even dating apps don't help, unless you have a PhD in taking photographs and a degree in English literature. That is why you're desperate for this one girl - your male brain already knows the maths without working it out. I've done both in my life. Full no contact is definitely the best most loving choice for all involved.

Just sleep in your car:

I work both ways, with and without music. Although if I need to focus on something difficult, banging EDM works well or anything with a repetitive rhythm. Music with singing of any sort puts me off. Slow music like ambient or some classical I avoid.

Minimalism is generally about owning things. An object is either useful and functional or it isn't. So definitely from an environmental point of view, owning useless objects eats up the Earth's resources unecessarily in their production and disposing of them can harm the environment. If being friendly to the environment is an ideology, then so is minimalism. You can take minimalism to any extreme you like, there are very few things you actually need to own. If you go travelling the world for example, just a backpack full off stuff can be good enough. You need enough to have a change clothes for different weather, shoes for different terrain, and stuff for hygiene; that's it. Minimalism is cheap, it's the antithesis of being rich. It's true that you have to pay for accommodation and sleeping arrangments, and you need to feed yourself, and that will always be the greatest outlay in surviving - but you don't need to be rich for that. Minimalism is definitely sustainable, but it requires a certain mindset. We humans do love our luxuries and pampering and if that's all you've ever known, switching to minalism for any length of time is going to be very difficult. It can get old very quickly if you're wearing the same shoes, pair of jeans and T-shirt every single day. It really depends on what is important to you. Some people want to express themselves through the things they own and wear. Some people need objects to stimulate them - I sure as hell need this laptop! But I'm also sentimentally attached to my childhood teddy, despite not actually needing it. There's also something to be said for not being mentally attached to objects you own, you'll spend much less time worrying and thinking unecessarily about them. If you own a swanky car, you'll spend inordinate amounts of time keeping it clean, servicing it, posing in it and so on. All that thinking time could be spent on self-improvement and being more focused on the real world and people. Owning too much stuff is a real distraction from living life.

I sometimes get the What The Fuck Is Going On symptoms. The main manifestation of it comes on when I'm listening to music, especially with repetitive motifs or rhythm. Music speaks directly to my being and unlocks that sensation of WTFIGO. To a large degree so does being blasted by nature. I've had some experiences where I nearly cried at the enormity and beauty of nature. I've not yet combined the two for a double hit. I'd say it was more sensation than thought. It's a kind blend of incredulity and directness, a paradox. I can't believe it's all happening, yet it's all happening. Despite what anyone tells me or says or expounds, I know very deep down within myself that there is actually no answer to WTFIGO. Saying it's all God or non-duality or other such thing is shifting the blame sideways. In fact I would say it's unhelpful, as you're simply adding another layer of indirection. It's like trying to explain a knot, by tying more knots. Another odd sensation I get is that I'm so analytical and in my head, that I wind myself up emotionally and yet it all passes away in the end. Then I do further analysis and come to the conclusion that I overreacted, and I lost myself to thought, I wasted my time, I tainted my experience of this. Analysis about analysis. The further I push myself with this line of reasoning, the more I think that I should give up reasoning altogether: I'm just spoiling my experience of reality. And yet, analysis and reasoning is just as much part of reality as anything else. The mind ties itself up in knots. What is a better way to approach WTFIGO? I know intuitively that giving up thinking about it at all is a step in the right direction. Some would think that was defeatist, but they would be the thinking types. Another is to actually goad myself into having more WTFIGO moments. Go out in nature, explore the world and people and cultures, steep myself in it. There's this idealised notion of mine that cavemen or hunter gatherers or our ape ancestors were always in this state of WTFIGO. There were less blinded by the paraphernalia of civilisation and modern living. "Closer to the source" some mystical types might say. One more situation in which I get WTFIGO is taking an afternoon nap. It's that feeling of something deeply familiar and cosy just as you wake up, that soon gets lost as (self-) consciousness takes over. And if any explanation held water then WTFIGO is simply a feeling or knowing of a deep familiarity with everything and that you are it.

You definitely shouldn't just conform if it goes against your values. To a certain degree it's a numbers game like it or not. Ultimately, you will find someone that ticks all the boxes or most of them. The higher the bar of perfection, the more people you will have to meet before you find that perfect person. It seems like there's an element here that isn't to do with sex at all, but more to do with compatibility? It's really a two sided conversation with each new partner, you both have to be compatible with each other's needs and values. Not all values are equal and some you may be willing to bend on if everything else fits.

Do you think that your ambivalence is at the root of your insecurity around sex? I guess I would ask myself: do I really want to have sex, am I really that bothered? If the answer is no, then I'd put my mental energies elsewhere, and let yourself off the hook. If yes, then get on with it in some fashion that suits you most and don't look back. I will add, that sex is different with each person, sometimes very different. Sometimes amazing, sometimes crap. To a certain degree, you will improve over time, but there's no accounting for the other person.