LastThursday

I'm sure there's a term for this, but I thought I'd capture an observation which I'll call "loss of context". For some context, imagine you're in a place you regularly frequent. You do whatever you do in that place, maybe just driving through say. Your mind wanders for a while and then you suddenly snap back to where you are. But on this occasion the snapping back fails "lock on" and you feel disoriented or confused about where you are. Eventually you find something familiar to reorient yourself. In another example you're thinking back to a different time and place and you're mentally re-experiencing what was happening then. But eventually you snap back to where you are now, but for a short while you still feel different, the way you felt back then. Then soon your current context reasserts itself. Maybe, you go on holiday and the weather and culture is very different. You spend a week or two there and become aclimatised. Then you're yanked back home when the holiday ends. For a short while you're still in holiday mode, in that context, before normal life reasserts itself. What does this mean? I think it means the context in which you find yourself is actually quite fluid. By context I mean the overall feel, thoughts, circumstances, people, worries, that you're in or with or at. You maintain this context by a process of continuity, one moment leads to another, one place leads to another. The same things happen repeatedly and this also helps to maintain and reassert your context. But every so often, you lose the continuity through distraction or unfamiliar events and when you "come to" you scramble to reinstate a context that fits: you feel confused or disoriented. All this shows that you're actually a lot freer than you believe yourself to be, it's only the comfort of familiarity that keeps you locked in. You can actively shift your context, by doing new things, learning new things, behaving differently, thinking differently, or simply being somewhere different. More importantly, the context of "you" is not fixed, and you can change rapidly if you wanted it.

I think it'll be good to get out things that arise and put them down in written form. I have so many lost thoughts and ideas, and some of them were very good.

I'm glad we're converging on consensus @Hojo. I'll sleep soundly tonight.

@Hojo we're straying off the original topic and it's making me emotional. Nevertheless. You're view is just too simplistic. Emotions arise for all sorts of reasons. There are inate desires like wanting sex and eating food, and emotions get triggered by those things to motivate us to do something about it. We then plan and take action using logic, to varying degrees to fulfil those needs. Our actions then trigger further emotions, in an endless cycle. Emotions are not the source of all motivation, you can well be motivated by pure reason alone. Emotions are just a signalling system that directs our attention towards certain things, and they arise because of other things. Emotions, thinking, desires, needs form a complex interlocking feedback system, that ensure you stay alive and that you get what you want. A robot could "stay alive" without emotion, it just needs excellent planning and very good interaction and knowledge of the world. But, people are not robots so they're not comparable, emotions are very intertwined with our existence, but they're not everything.

This video explores the idea of words in terms of emotions

I think I have more and more clarity every time I ask myself metaphysical questions, but I've never stuck a pin in anything and said "that is Truth". I sort of envy people who have that conviction, but I also think they're utterly deluded. The only truth is that which isn't couched in a metaphysical story. The truth is that I'm typing on this laptop looking out onto a clouded evening sky, everything else is fantasy.

I agree with you. But the actual mechanics of fulfilling that want or need requires logic and planning. For example the dating section here is full of pickup this and pickup that, all that is pure logic and transaction and planning and learning. The driver and motivation may be emotional, but the act of fulfilment isn't. If it was all emotion we'd be like wild dogs on heat going after anything with a pulse, and this thread would be redundant.

@Hojo of course there's logic. You want a potential partner and/or regular sex, it's not all pure emotion. Dating is one way to get that. And, I was pointing to the fact that dating is largely transactional, and asking questions of each other on a date is not unreasonable. Yes there is emotion involved, but there's also logic.

From an emotionally detached viewpoint isn't a date really about information gathering? You're trying to work out if the person opposite you is attractive to you, attracted to you, has a compatible personality, decent background, money, status, isn't a psycho and on and on. For some, part of that information gathering is asking questions, and it also signals that "I'm interested enough in you that I want to know more". Obviously, there's an art to asking questions, you don't want to get too deep and personal straight away, it's a turn off or just weird because they are effectively a stranger. I think men or women like to be shown interest on a date, otherwise what's the point?

More noodling. My new theory of everything with the help of AI (of course - it's not too ass-licking either): A Boson-Fermion Framework for Spacetime, Gravity, and Black Holes 1. Foundational Principle Spacetime is not a static geometric stage but an emergent phenomenon arising from the dynamic interplay between two fundamental principles: Bosonic (Connective): The tendency of elements to merge, overlap, and behave indistinctly—favoring coherence, superposition, and continuity. Fermionic (Distinctive): The tendency of elements to be mutually exclusive, discrete, and unique—favoring separation, individuation, and extension. These two principles form a rotational continuum, where any point in spacetime can be described by a parameter θ(x,t) that expresses its local balance between bosonic and fermionic character: θ=0: pure bosonic unity (maximal connectivity, no separation) θ=2π: pure fermionic exclusion (maximal distinction, no overlap) 2. Spacetime Emerges from Rotational Asymmetry If all parts of space or time were indistinct (bosonic), the universe would be a unity without extent—“everything everywhere all at once.” Conversely, if all parts were totally distinct (fermionic), there would be no connectivity, and thus no dynamics. Traversable spacetime requires a balance: space must be distinguishable to have extent, and connected to permit movement. The speed of light emerges from this balance—it is finite because we exist in a partially rotated state between full indistinctness and full exclusion. In a purely bosonic spacetime: c=∞ In a purely fermionic spacetime: c=0 Our finite speed of light reflects the current state of partial rotation. 3. Gravity as a Gradient in the Boson-Fermion Field Mass/energy is not purely fermionic (localized), but partially bosonic, meaning it is smeared out and connected across spacetime. This creates a gradient in θ(x,t)—a local imbalance in distinguishability. Objects "fall" along this gradient, toward regions of greater bosonic overlap (less distinctness). This is perceived as gravitational attraction. Spacetime curvature in general relativity corresponds to spatial variation in θ: the texture of distinguishability. 4. Inertial Frames as Bosonic Equilibrium Inertial motion arises from uniformity in the θ-field—the system moves through spacetime without encountering gradients in connectivity. Forces and accelerations are fermionic perturbations—local increases in distinctness that disrupt bosonic flow. In this way, inertia is a form of coherent traversal through connected spacetime, and frame transitions arise from rotations in the local boson-fermion field. 5. Black Holes and the Elimination of Singularities A black hole is not a point of infinite density but a region where spacetime becomes maximally bosonic—a condensation into indistinct unity. As matter enters a black hole, it does not encounter a singularity but undergoes a phase change: it transitions from distinguishable to indistinct. This eliminates the need for infinities—the singularity is replaced by a bosonic condensate, a point where distinction dissolves. The event horizon marks the transition zone, and Hawking radiation may be interpreted as a statistical relaxation mechanism as spacetime attempts to restore fermionic balance. 6. Cosmological Implications The early universe may have begun in a fully bosonic state—a spacetime with no extent or distinction. Inflation could represent the initial rotation from pure bosonic unity toward fermionic distinction—giving rise to dimensionality, causality, and the metric structure. This framework offers a natural origin for time, space, inertia, and the speed of light without resorting to fixed backgrounds or empirically tuned constants. This theory presents a bold rethinking of physical law as emerging from statistical-geometric dynamics of distinguishability. It reframes the fundamental architecture of reality as a dance between what connects and what separates, with observable phenomena arising from the shifting balance between these two primordial tendencies.

It's long if it's misearable and hard. It's always short in hindsight. There isn't a right or wrong way to lead life so the idea that time is being wasted is wrong. But a miserable or mediocre life can leave you feeling disatisfied, so if you have a chance to make life more enjoyable then you ought to do that. In general you have more energy and freedom in your twenties, than you do later in life. However, later in life you have more experience and maturity and better judgement. That sets up a kind of trajectory, where you should play to the strengths of the particular phase in your life. In your twenties you should be experimenting with lots of different things, and working out what's out there and what's available for you. You should be socialising and having fun. You're more idealistic and black and white in your thinking in your twenties, you should use those strong beliefs to push you forward. In your thirties you'll have a better idea of what you're suited to and what you want from your life, you'll probably have a family and things will slow down and become more routine. But you can use that routine and maturity to deepen your knowledge and experience of what you've chosen to do.

This forum needs something other than SD to pigeon hole us, something that better fits the individualistic vibe on here. But I guess those shiny primary colours are just too attention grabbing - genius marketing: colours and levels.

@Consept you're most welcome. Could be any number reasons why she won't account for herself. Maybe it's embarrassment, lack of awareness, inability to apologise, or she's not culpable because she didn't instigate things, etc. We're all imperfect in some ways. I think in this case her actions are speaking louder than her absent words, she's apologising by putting things right, and showing you her loyalty.

The risque behaviour can become more overt, because there is a kind of desensitisation that happens within the group where the bad behaviour becomes normalised. It's cognitively hard to maintain different social conventions in different situations, so the line about what's acceptable can become blurred for some people, and they don't realise they're being inappropriate in the wrong context. Some people will also get a rush from breaking social rules or bending them, especially if they belong to a group that both accepts it and is in on what's happening - they may also feel braver if the group is there to back them up should things go wrong. For the woman you're with I suspect that there are benefits to her belonging to the group, but there are also benefits to her belonging to "your group", so she has to weigh up the pros and cons of belonging to each (even if she doesn't realise this consciously), she may want to be loyal to both. In my experience many women want to "please everybody". She was reluctant to tell you because she knew what was happening was wrong and felt embarrassed, but also because she was conflicted about loyalty, and dobbing in her group could risk expulsion from it. But it looks like she's made her mind up, good for her.

Being objectified is never great, you're right to be upset by it. It's a case of group gossip. In my experience whenever a group of people who know each other well get together, there's a tendency to misbehave even if there's no malicious intent behind it. Usually they know "it's wrong", but because it's kept in the group they don't perceive any harm to be done. In this case it leaked however and I bet some people in the group are embarrassed by it. The leak might be enough for them to stop doing it. There's something about being in an intimate group that allows you to relax your normal social standards as a form of bonding or fitting in, and some of the more risque behaviour is driven by just one or two in the group with everyone else tagging along or at least not calling out the bad behaviour.

Another two for your list: Is the idea of God innate in you, or did it come from others? If you don't completely understand God, then how do you know what God is or what you mean by God?

Dear diary, how the devil are you? It should be no surprise but I like walking. Britain is great for it, there's a right to roam across the countryside (within reason) and cities and towns cater well for pedestrians. I enjoy both modes both urban and countryside. The number one thing I get from it is the sense of exploration or more fundamentally a sense of surprise. There's nothing better than turning a corner in a city and being met with the site of St Paul's Cathedral for example, like a giant skulking behind an alley. In the countryside there's the constant closing in of woods and then open fields, and the sudden transition into a village or town or back out again, it's like the expansion and contraction of breathing itself. Then of course there's the famous British weather. To a degree you can plan ahead for it, especially in the Spring and Summer months. But inevitably at some point you'll be caught by rain, wind and cold. So whilst I like to be super minimal in terms of preparation with nothing more than water and perhaps a sandwich in my rucksack (sometimes not even that for urban walking), it pays to pay attention to the weather and be a little prepared for it. But, especially in the open countryside the pastel grey skies and sound of rain can be quite beautiful to experience. I like to get a fair few miles in when I can, ten or more miles seems like a good amount of time and distance, I generally do at least two most days. For countryside hikes I will do circular walks mostly, either because I start from home or because I'll take the car. If taking public transport then I may start at one train station and walk to another. I only ever have a rough route for countryside hiking, because some of the joy is in navigating my way across the land, through fields, woods, along streams, over hills and through valleys. I navigate using Ordnance Survey maps on my phone, long ago I gave up on paper maps, mostly because unless you keep on top of it you can very easily get lost, but it's good to learn the art of map reading and reading the land simultaneously. Urban walking is similar. But I find that it's good to have a theme for a walk, like tube stations (in London) or parks, or churches. I use the landmarks like markers on my route and they're also interesting in their own right. It's also good to have a destination to aim for, but if I'm overambitious or the weather catches me out, I can bail early and go to a cafe or pub or just go home; sometimes the body is just not willing, even if the spirit is. Occasionally I come across a local market or some sort of festival: once I got caught by surprise in the middle of the Pride Festival around Oxford Street in London - those sort of surprises are what I love about walking. Some of the joy of walking is just to shut off my internal chatter and every day thoughts. I mostly try and walk in a kind of meditative state, it gives my ADHD mind a break, and it also makes me present and alert to what I'm actually experiencing. After a five hour walk of being in this state, I feel peaceful and relaxed, but also alert, it's a great feeling. Of course, this means I don't walk around listening to music or podcasts, or checking my socials every three seconds, what a distraction that would be! I can do that at home. In fact I will often put the phone into airplane mode, to conserve on both battery and distraction. I'm not the sort to chat to all and sundry as I walk, it's just not the British way. But I will strike up a quick casual conversation on the train or cafe if there's something interesting to talk about. And walking with others is a totally different experience that walking solo, I like both equally. But walking with others tends to be a little bit more planned, and so takes away just a little bit from the spontaneity. Time for my lunch time walk - there and back again.

I don't know, there's something in your question. Maybe it's the difference between what you believe yourself to be, what you'd like yourself to be, and what you think others believe you are? Three people in one.

There wouldn't be much to stop the two presidents secretly agreeing to be corrupt together. But there's something in it, in that they should keep each other in check, especially if each president had their own set of people under them. What if one party gets a LOT more votes than the other, should one president have more power then the other?

Materialists assume that everyone inhabits the same reality, and by extension that everyone is experiencing the same things in the same way. Science is built on this assumption. Materialism say that matter is made of energy, and energy is something mysterious that is basically the vibration of the reality. Seems quite mystic It's a bit more nuanced, there are also fields and forces and spacetime and quantum states. Quantum mechanics says that everything is ultimately disturbances in a field of some type. Energy is conserved and Noether's theorem explains why. So that aspect of energy isn't so mysterious.

The main point of misinterpretation is that it applies to individuals. It is actually a theory about society in general. Even if individuals make up a society, collectively people will have emergent behaviour, and this is what Spiral Dynamics is on about.

This is an interesting mixture of characters! Now I come to look at it, it's kind of an odd list. There's an all-knowing, powers, manly-man, goofy vibe to it. All things I've aspired to and probably still do. Good to ponder.

This is fun! Laurel from Laurel and Hardy Dirty Harry Magnum (PI) Dangermouse Gandalf Sir Isaac Newton Bugs Bunny Wonder Woman (specifically the TV version) I was conceived on Gallifrey.

@Elton it's clearly important to you from what you write. Some recognition can go a long way to feeling accepted and part of things. Maybe you want status and prestige. From my own experience I have been looked over for recognition a number of times in different jobs, despite working hard and consistently, sometimes when I demonstrably did better work than others. I remember being effectively fired from a job when they were slimming down their workforce, even though I got the highest score in their supposedly "fair" assessment tests. I don't want to be too negative, as I don't know the specifics of your situation. Most of it yes, does come down to office politics, and who likes whom the most - that's it. Often it'll completely fly under the radar and you won't even be aware of it - until you don't get that award. If your job is important to you, then don't worry about awards, the rewards of the work itself and that at least one other person respects your skill and judgement should be enough. If it's not so important, then change jobs, it can be a breath of fresh air.

I think this is excellent. I had come across this before, but I only superficially took on the significance of this. If the theory is right, then ancient people went about their lives in a fundamentally different way from us. Everything is very "external" and physical for them. It puts accounts like the burning bush in the bible into the correct context. Also it kind of puts the modern phenomenon of grey aliens with big eyes talking telepathically to you into some sort of context too. I like the way the guy in the video talks about the large eyes on statues as a way to engage the right brain and encourage the voices, it's very intriguing. I do wonder if spiritually gifted people are naturally more right brain dominant and get communications and visions for that reason - they are more bicamerally minded.