Osaid

I think a lot of the confusion in this thread, and most threads about nofap, come from a failure to recognize that masturbation can physiologically affect people differently. There are conditions like POIS, and probably milder versions of it which afflict people. I don't think it is normal to feel bad after masturbating, and I think most people don't. This only seems to be a popular sentiment online, because online communities create an echo chamber effect which normalizes it or amplifies it beyond what would be seen when looking at society at large. I am not counting any projected negative beliefs about masturbation as an affliction, although this is probably the more common case, where people will simply self-deprecate themselves because of some negative beliefs after orgasming, and then interpret this as "masturbation makes me feel bad!" I think the genuine physiological affliction is rarer and amplified online. But, the latter more common case of projection is not uncommon at all, and is seen online and in real life, commonly through religious indoctrination or whatever else. I had this exact contention with @Someone here before, and he ran a poll on the forum, and you might be surprised to find that the majority of people who voted felt completely fine after masturbating:

I don't think it's actually a gender thing, men can deepen it to a similar degree, although yes your biology is different and "has more parts" and perhaps a different dynamic to it. Although, admittedly, it might be less common for men to pursue that type of thing, which might be where your assumption comes from. But I have achieved "full-body" orgasms and nipple orgasms and all of that. I can orgasm without even touching myself down there if I wanted. And I can relate to this sentiment of being able to dictate everything in masturbation, it's a more personal flavor for sure. I also don't agree with this idea of zero reproductive value, I actually think all orgasms have zero reproductive value. It's just the instrument that's being used to access it which has reproductive value. The experience of orgasming itself isn't anything like that though. If you still want to argue reproduction, vaginas definitely have built in mechanisms to aid in reproduction just like any other reproductive organ. Otherwise, I'm interested to hear how you think that male orgasms have "reproduction" built into them, but I assure you it doesn't, it's just a phenomenon that occurs purely by itself, just like female orgasms.

Completely relate to this sentiment. This entire non-emotional dynamic led to some very weird friendships. You say a real friendship should be intimate, but it was never that way at all for me. I just viewed it in spectrums, some were deeper, and some weren't deep at all. I just kind of accepted that I'll always be at odds with them emotionally, and I just focused on what they actually brought, which would just be similar interests or hobbies like video games or whatever. I've definitely had this exact thought before, which is that female friends tend to have more "depth" right from the beginning because of the higher EQ. It's just a vital part of proper human interaction I guess.

This is basically what needs to be focused on, IMO. Most guy friends in my limited experience are basically emotionally stunted. There's nothing further than like "Let's play some video games, bro", which I don't dislike at all, that's always fun and has its place. But it never gets super deep with them, but to be completely fair, there are "deeper" friends to be found. It's just scarce. And the culture could promote it more, is all I am really saying. Toxic masculinity basically suppresses any of this type of empathy, and so you get the "no homo, bro!" phrase, lol. Really just anything you would say to a female as well. Our preference for compliments is the exact same as any other human, but we do perceive it differently depending on the gender, which is what your thread is about. As for "how to compliment without hitting on him": Just make it a genuine and natural observation. Not something that you have to go out of your way to say or put extra effort in, that will make the guy think "Oh, why is she putting energy into saying something so extra?" Just like, a genuine and seamless observation will work well, since it will just fit in perfectly with the interaction and won't seem extra. Not gonna lie, it's entirely possible, and it might be a common case, that the guy just misinterprets it as something else even though you've said the compliment perfectly, so not always your fault. This happens very easily, probably because just getting a compliment is normally such a rare thing, which is why I say that "guy friendships" need to be worked on rather than having women worry about this stuff (as you talk about in your third point). But, it is entirely possible to do, just make it a genuine expression and don't push it too far or make a big deal out of it. Even just having a normal enthusiastic conversation with them could be seen as a compliment or positive acknowledgment of their existence, and this might just be the simplest way to do it.

The quote itself is limited and biased in a very human way, and you are just intuitively sensing that. It's putting another experience on a pedestal and discounting the human experience, which is ironically a very human thing to do. It hasn't integrated the logic of the human experience with the psychedelic experience (since the insight is being accessed through memory), and it's just like "This is absolute Truth and if you don't experience it you're wrong."

The solution to a mental model? There is no solution, it's a mental model. All mental models fulfill the purpose of being a mental model. It never represents what is real so it never "solves" what is real. You know, if you're constantly editing and reimagining truth, maybe the way you're perceiving it is just wrong, straight up? How is it that you EVER misinterpreted truth? This is a serious issue.

Locking for lack of productivity

No such thing

But you made an entire thread inquiring about it. And then continued an argument after you said this. ?

No matter what happens, you will always have to perceive the "unawareness" through awareness, or else "unawareness" doesn't exist, and so you always perceive it through some sort of memory, no matter what. You can't escape awareness. You can see that this "unawareness" is always entangled in awareness, somehow. Existentially, this unawareness is not actually some existential and metaphysical unawareness, that is impossible. Rather, it is a change in memory, time, physical function, etc, so it has all to do with awareness and things that you are aware of. You are perceiving drastic differences in experience, which make you infer a gap in experience, but this gap is only inferred through the differences that you are absolutely aware of, and not unaware of. This bundle of experience is what the average human calls "unawareness" or "unconsciousness", but truly it is neither of those things existentially or metaphysically, it is just an experience of you inferring unawareness, but never unawareness being experienced (this is a paradox and can never happen).

You're not actually surrendering to anything. You're just giving up your ideas about existence. When those go away, you realize, "oh there was nothing to surrender to in the first place." What exists is what exists. The only thing that could need surrendering is just some idea about something that doesn't exist, otherwise you already have what you want, which is what is real and exists. Tune in with what is real.

Oh no, the Matrix got him?

You wouldn't happen to own any bows or arrows, would you? Just out of pure curiosity.

I mean, I wasn't in Vegas, so maybe you know more about Pete than I do.

Memory is not awareness. How are you perceiving this "unawareness" you speak of?

He has a new neighborhood to stroll through: Heaven

mental model syndrome

Yeah

I don't think they are operating from self-image, which I believe is the basis of the shift. If you want to add the qualifier of "self-reflection" to it, then enlightenment just becomes a human phenomenon. I don't like this, because it kind of implies that it's separate from other states or experiences, and it also turns it into something human. It's just the natural and truest state of things. It's just a complete relinquishing to experience, whatever that experience may involve, whether it's being a cat, a bird, etc. I don't think cats second guess their experience or imagine anything on top, same for babies or other organisms which have not developed an imaginative intelligence as high as normal functional humans. It is normal, but I think this can be changed. Most people just don't take any of this seriously, and they are sick of hearing the word enlightenment. It needs to be communicated in a more direct and palpable manner, so that you don't have to journey off into some cave somewhere, but rather just do it from home or something. But yes, this is the reality of most people nowadays.

True, if everyone relinquishes their carnal desires, cave demand goes up. The next version of capitalism.

Thank you. Don't know how to define it really. I've always been super critical of reality and its metaphysics, so to speak. For me, reality was like a video game, and I was always trying to question it and find "bugs" in my experience. Same goes for humans and any ideologies they tried to push onto me. But really, it was just simple sober contemplation and self inquiry. I look at experience, and I ask, what are you hiding from me? Do you really work this way? What if I assume that you work this way instead? etc. And, experience can't hide anything from you of course, you just have direct access to it all the time. If your assumption is wrong, it will just get rid of it for you through your own conscious experience. If it's right, it will just be confirmed by experience. It's all direct, right there in front of you. I genuinely believe any human can become enlightened through simple sober inquiry. It's not directly some genetic thing. It's learned. You can unlearn it, and become enlightened. Cats are enlightened. Worms are enlightened. Babies are enlightened, since they have no object permanence. It's just that humans gain intelligence in the form of memory and imagination, and we get tangled up in this intelligence. Our intelligence starts telling us "You have to always use this form of intelligence to navigate reality", and so on. My specific enlightenment experience is briefly described in this post:

❤️

Aw, that makes me happy :)

You can't actually think you're enlightened, it's just an experience. So there's no "thinking" that is involved in enlightenment, it's just an experiential shift. I still have my old personality or whatever, but all the neuroticism has been removed. Just like a cat wouldn't become an "enlightened person." Cats are naturally enlightened, and they are not human, and they don't have any ideas about it. I am well aware that "enlightened" is a label that appears to describe people who achieved this. But, it really isn't about the person. It's about what the person achieved. And that word isn't even used in some circles. There's no certain way I'm supposed to act after enlightenment, really, the way I act either naturally changes as a result (the neuroses disappear), or I'm just completely the same. I'm definitely more loving and all that, but that's a strict consequence of the experience shift, it's not something I'm forcing or intellectualizing out of some newfound enlightened ego. You can think of it that all of this is just me looking at my experience and thinking, how can I communicate this to this guy? It's just intellectual, not embodied, probably. He remembers understanding it from some trip, but now it's just converted to memory, hence, no embodiment. There is an existential aspect embedded in experience that supports the intellectual conclusion and allows you to actually just live in it without depending on any intellectualization or philosophy or memory, and then this would be "embodying." If I had to guess, he might be misinterpreting enlightenment as an end to exploring psychedelics or something of the sort, which is not the case. I also saw him make this analogy that people chasing enlightenment are "just trying to reduce suffering" and that "truth has nothing to do with suffering", which is again, not the case, because enlightenment is truth, the reduction in suffering is just a side effect. If I had to guess further, he is misinterpreting newer and more intelligent states as "more to understand", but like existentially, they literally become untrue once they are not being experienced. So, more "stuff", as Ralston puts it. It doesn't change what you are. It just recontextualizes "stuff", which is relative. The truth of what you are never changes though, and then that is not relative, and it is experienced in every experience.

Vita Coco I wouldn't even consider coconut water because of the added sugar and acidity, it has a very odd flavour profile for sure. It's very tangy because of the added vitamin C.