Natasha Tori Maru

@coca I did not mean to be insensitive to any implied health issues 🙏🏻

I didn't comment or pass any sort of negative judgment. I think offence was taken as there was some implied bad intent that simply wasn't there - if, for example, @coca had replied he was taking such and such but was off meds etc I would have reached out via PM to check in. I don't think mental states are anything to be ashamed about and don't reflect who or what we are, or our worth. A PM with the question may have sufficed? @coca I don't think you know who has received a warning, PM or disciplinary action as a result of this thread.

Missed this comment - yeah we keep a lookout. Sometimes we have users pass through who are in a pinch. If someone fits a loose profile or other users are concerned and contact us we look into it.

@coca no offense was meant @Jirh no

@coca I can ask. Doesnt mean you have to answer. You need technology to tell you if it is a transgression? It's about perception Do you think maybe I have some duty of care?

I think you need to chill. There is no transgression. You are taking this completely the wrong way. I'm not against you.

@coca Just based on your responses I am quite concerned. You wish to know context? You are providing it now. Concern

@coca there is no insult - you are taking this tne wrong way. You don't have to answer the question if you dont wish to.

I think Leo knows about epigenetics 😁 Leo's take on genetics (I could be wrong) is more deterministic in a non-nuanced way; he focuses less on the minute individual expressions of phenotype genetic potential and more major differentials IE 1% difference in genetic expression you would be dead. You can have a relatively small difference in some underlying biological parameter that produces a very large difference at the level of an organism. But within the "genetically permitted" range, there can be enormous phenotypic variation. Anyway, I could be totally wrong about my understanding of Leo's point. Or his take may have changed - this was based on a threat topic last year 😊

My brain. You don't want to answer?

There's no need for such hostility.

What medications are you currently taking or prescribed?

I think the desire for harmony is causing you to compromise authentic expression. I do suspect this is something - perhaps, I am never 100% - you might struggle with more than someone like me. A lot of your tension would rest in the space between harmony & connection and self expression. Big marks of maturity, stability and self trust in relationships are often not lower conflict or friction; but how well we action resolve and handle ambiguity. It is the repair process that is a marker of higher consciousness. Friction is a given. I think this is why he is striking home so well with you - probably less some of his other traits

I am not for Naftali Moses in terms of women - he doesn't understand women. His ideology of the feminine is busted. I bet you anything he has no sisters. Maybe he is good for men to listen to and benefit from, but not women. I think his philosophy is also rather poor. I've listened to 6/7 interviews with him. No offense to anyone who gets something from him. He seems very green.

Definitely. We need to be in truth with ourselves in order to feel secure in our vulnerability. The issues being discussed in this thread have very little to do with our relationships with others, and everything to do with our philosophy of self and our capacity to trust ourselves. Vulnerability becomes far less threatening when we have internal alignment and honesty. The problem is not what another person might do with our vulnerability; it's whether we trust ourselves to recognize what is true, respond appropriately, and remain grounded regardless of the outcome. There are issues with attachment going on that are part of our conditioning as humans. Until these are inspected we will get no where.