What's the deal with the moralization of sexuality?

[bejapuskas]

@Surfingthewave  It is also more enjoyable to not be attached to someone/something  It's nice that it works both ways.

[RendHeaven]

@Surfingthewave 

The thread started with the question of why sexuality is so moralized. The answer to that was survival, and cultural norms were cited as examples of survival.

You seem to really be against these cultural norms, as you keep bringing up that alternatives exist.

Yes, of course alternatives exist. And nobody said the current cultural norm is the right way to structure things.

33 minutes ago, Surfingthewave said:

And why should we use this as a benchmark for acceptance?

Nobody here is encouraging unconscious norms. We are merely stating that they exist. This has nothing to do with acceptance.

Do you recognize that these norms exist?

Well, if you do, there's not much to do beyond that. You seem to want to do something about it.

36 minutes ago, Surfingthewave said:

Just because something is average why is it the norm?

Norm is defined as: "something that is usual, typical, or standard."

A synonym for it is "average."

Who are you to demand that the minority be the norm? Do you see how you are injecting your own needs and wants into your questions?

Maybe look into that.

 

If your question, then, is "why survival?" then make that explicit.

38 minutes ago, Surfingthewave said:

I get the whole survival debate but frankly, it's a cop out.

Survival goes deep. Very, very, very, very deep.

It's not merely a matter of having food, shelter, sex, and comfort.

It's about who you think you are and maintaining that.

You are clearly underestimating survival.

[Surfingthewave]

@RendHeaven

Every heard the term mansplaining? Well I got a triple dose of that here. I take a lot of your points but I feel uncomfortable by the "you seem" "you do" and "you know". I'm not demanding anything or claiming to know anything, who does, right?  I'm just expressing my views. There seems to be a lot of projection there from you, so I will leave this discussion there, it feels like it has arrived at a natural end.

[RendHeaven]

@Surfingthewave Me being male and you being female is irrelevant. I would have said the same thing to Leo if he wrote the things you did.

It's good that you're expressing your views. My intention was to simply point out your potential blind spots.

1 hour ago, RendHeaven said:

Do you see how you are injecting your own needs and wants into your questions?

You are clearly underestimating survival.

I hope it's clear that I'm not attacking your personhood.

It would be unwise to dismiss these insights.

If my tonality was unnecessarily harsh, or you felt like I mischaracterized you, I sincerely apologize.

That happens to be some of my blind spots

[Joseph Maynor]

Whose moralization of sexuality?

[Surfingthewave]

@RendHeaven Thank you I appreciate the sentiment. I've enjoyed discussing this with you. I do get your insights on survival, I'm just not there yet. We all have blind spots 

[possibilities]

Anyone feel free to share any good correction of the following, eager to clear up any logical ambiguities or anything that needs greater distinction.

System S pertains to the whole of reality, S1 pertains to survival of those contents, of which, are synonymous to existence. Thus existence is synonymous to a survival value imperative where every property of existence has some value survival tag, ST, attached to its existence which describes the nature of this imperative. For humans, S1 in S is from the perspective of the subjectivity (which shares a relationship with the ego) of consciousness thus thoughts and desires are survival imperatives which live on the basis of the movements of the pain and reward centre, RP, thus ST is RP constrained but RP is constrained by unconscious objectives not available to conscious awareness. 

Thus we have the distinction between survival imperatives that we can be consciously aware of and those that we can only ever really be unconsciously aware of in the context of being able to make any changes here, or merely have have an intellectual awareness, such as discussion on describing our evolutionary context from the perspective of, as I'll briefly allude to, Darwinian evolution. Morality in the context of sexual preferences describes the survival imperative in the context of the competition between social ideas, Richard Dawkins describes this competition in terms of a process of Darwinian natural selection taking place between ideas, for example he refers to memes as the positive outcome with respect to the proliferation of any one idea, such as a sexual preference where positive here describes the level of its dissemination. Meme here is the higher order abstract encompassment to describe the continued survival of an idea, a thought or an impulse could be an echo of that meme, meaning the collective (given the meme has reached popularity) expressing itself in the individual, such as the preference or non preference for government, or on this subject, whether cheating is moral or immoral and on what terms.

However in saying that, as already noted there is a cultural more abstract level to the survival imperative which we can be more conscious of as well as there being a more unconscious biological survival imperative which describes the nature of a competition which will occur with or without our awareness and or existence. Remove humans from the planet and the game will continue to go on because it likely goes to the very essence of existence itself.

Without the survival imperative, nothing could exist, thus to me a good assumption to make is that all things being equal, survival is good an therefore nothing wrong with it, at least from the perspective of us existing as a race and from the perspective of our abstractions pertaining to evolution. Thus this discussion can simultaneously be about the good or non good of existence if morality is at all being discussed in the context of sexual morality. We can have defined relative contexts where good and bad are weighed against both biological and theoretical contexts (something which I’m alluding to with my previous comment) but this would be the scope of discussion, outside of these parameters, especially outside of the viewpoint of us as a species and our morality will become more and more difficult to argue. Thus in this sense, morality where it is good is merely in the inclusion and exclusion of people, thus it’s merely a social game being played where “if this person believes this then they are excluded from my party”.

As for devilry, I don’t completely know what you’re talking about there @Leo Gura, I just get a replaying of Bobby Boucher’s mom in the film, Water Boy, where she goes “Football is the devil!”. To be honest I can’t imagine a clear context in which that term could be used appropriately, given any word only makes sense in the context of other meanings and those meanings from the reference frame other meanings, and given you’re talking about the term devilry, at present I’m limited to that referring to morality, and well, because morality is defined to a context I’d have to know exactly what context you’re referring to for that to have any meaning. I’m sure you’re not saying this, but to me sex is not devilry, women aren’t devilry, survival is not devilry. You’d have to state your case clearly for that to make any logical sense here. I’ll be honest and say that I get a little annoyed whenever I see anyone state things like this without there being an agreed upon context, it’s like they’re trying to get away with being simplistic. Personally I’d expect something more coming from someone like yourself given the quality of some of the content you’ve shown you’ve been able to produce.

Moreover, any claim towards one being capable of escaping survival is indeed nonsense from the defined context here as well as the idea of “its just all survival”. It’s a nonsense assessment of the conditions, if nothing can be none other than survival then that statement can be nothing other than survival. It doesn’t mean it’s bad, it doesn’t mean it’s good, it’s not even an is, it’s just a pattern someone is noticing, but if one is going to say anything about it then obviously it can’t be in the negative unless someone is well, incorrect in this instance given survival can’t emotionally negate itself while still being able to be taken seriously. Physical existence sure, but even when someone dies parts of themselves just change into other things to fulfill some other survival objective. As far as I can tell, all we can really do in this survival is evolve the contents that generate any one survival imperative, even trying to ignore survival is just another survival objective, a delusional one.

You present these games to people whether it be about survival, imagination, someone wanting to be a scientist, someone who espouses reason or authority and so on, which is fine and to many extents you’re probably right, but to me Leo it seems you’re not the greatest at clearly arguing your case so that people aren’t confused or are misled. Maybe I’m being too harsh but to me it seems as if you don’t even really care about whether you’ve made your case well, just that you believe it, you’re adamant about something being a survival game, an opinion you’re expressing which of course just happens to be its own survival game, and that you’ve convinced yourself. To me an honest appeal to reason wouldn’t lead to this, in so saying as much, with respect to many of your beliefs and opinions, it seems your own agenda is merely self serving. That is, if it serves your survival strategy. I’m open to being wrong of course but I think you’d be better off evolving the content of said strategy, like moving beyond terms such as devilry (again, I don’t know the full meanings you have embedded in this so I can’t make a complete judgement call). For me I think you would be much more appealing if you attempted to maintain doing justice to reason in order to be properly heard as opposed to merely relying on the idea that intelligent people will fall for half baked statements like “it’s the devil”. By stating things like this, and I’ve seen you do so a bit more now that I’ve become more familiar with you, but to me it reveals potential intentions like you're really only interested in having ignorant people learn from you. By having this subconscious preference and or attitude, there isn’t going to be much of an inclination towards learning from others because the mind has already setup an internal game where it believes itself to only be focusing on ignorant people and it’s of course not really within ones survival strategy to be learning (in the positive) from ignorant people.

Just a personal preference of course but: Please no more, “this is devilry”. Please state your case to describe why. It sounds like you’re simultaneously denigrating things (I.e. morality) while propping them up but not justifying your contradiction, other than, “well it’s a paradox isn’t it”, well I could say that about nearly anything I do. “Going to McDonald’s is devilry, but today I went to McDonald’s. It’s a paradox though and I don’t have to explain why just know that I’m good and not bad and continue to learn from me as a teacher because I’m good!” If you don’t state things clearly you’re leaving too many things open, to me that’s not honest if you’re simultaneously using your initial reasoning to bring other things down. Moreover other than being annoying (at least to me it is) to state “this is devilry” is just a survival strategy, moreover you’ve stated that only a being outside of survival could truly be moral but any decision they made would just be a survival strategy. Is God outside of survival? Maybe but I doubt it, there’s no logical means by which there’s any reason to conclude there’s literally anything wrong with survival. It’s here, we’re living it, we ant going anywhere, we just gotta get used to it inside this lifetime and otherwise. You can’t argue for the virtue of being nuanced (of which you do) without being nuanced yourself, it’s tough and it’s something I have to humble myself over a lot of course, but we gotta practice what we preach in order for what we say to have proper merit otherwise what are we relying on? We’re relying on the weakness of our listeners given for any strong listener they’d much more likely have a greater level of discernment about the origins and patterns of what we say in the context of our own behaviour. But of course, this is all value based, you don’t have to, you can just play the game you want but that’s just the pattern I’ve noticed with respect to great teachers and bad teachers (you’re at least above average of course).

Take David Goggins for example, not the brightest guy in the world but he is a genius in his own right, truly an inspirational guy when it comes to practicing what he preaches. Can’t identify one single discrepancy so far between what the guy says and what the guy does, whereas with you, it’s a very different story but you’re obviously more intelligent. You’re much more intelligent and yet I can notice many more discrepancies between the saying and the doing (more wiht respect to the saying and the saying). Take Tai Lopez, another guy, very smart fellow, but between the saying and the doing there’s an inordinate amount of discrepancies. Take Tyler from RSD, he says a heck load of bullshit in terms of yabbering on about nothing but the guy practices what he preaches pretty well as far as I can tell. Not perfect of course, but he’s much more fourth coming about his imperfections. This is a real lesson I’m learning myself if I wish to one day become a great teacher, I need to mainly just master the shortening of the distance between what I say and what I do, Goggins style, ironically the least intelligent (but again, to me a pure genius in his own right) of the other three examples here including yourself. In saying that it’s arguably more difficult the more theoretical topics become because then you need to exert more intelligence to pickup on discrepancies between various perspectives one has, which is why intelligence itself, if ego isn’t checked at the door, can get ahead of itself, which is probably the case for someone like Tai. Again smart guy and I have a general liking of the guy even if others find it easy to be judgemental, but yeah, a lot of short cuts, a lot of discrepancies.

Although I don’t know if you delete them of course it seems like with the deletion of threads relating to blind spots you’re just trying to play it safe rather than have an honest look at existence, allowing it to be there as it is, then properly learn and evolve from that feedback to enhance your own survival strategy and in doing so, evolve to become a greater teacher. But that’s a different topic, anyhow, maybe this is good food for thought.

I mean well in my thoughts, peace out.

Edited July 19, 2019 by possibilities

[RendHeaven]

@Surfingthewave

 

@possibilities Holy SHIT how long did that take you to write??  

This video should answer your questions:

In the future, try to keep your points precise and short; that makes it easier for the reader.

Edited July 19, 2019 by RendHeaven

[possibilities]

@RendHeaven

Thanks for that appreciated, I'll check it out.

2 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

@Surfingthewave

 

@possibilities Holy SHIT how long did that take you to write??  

This video should answer your questions:

In the future, try to keep your points precise and short; that makes it easier for the reader.

Very little time actually.

As for post length, there's a reason why I'm not on Twitter, if long posts are not your things and you're more for "Where's Spot?" by Eric Hill then best to just scroll past what I say.

My statements still stand as far as I'm concerned and are necessary to understand the subject to a higher degree of depth, in fact, my post is a lot shorter than what it should be if any justice is going to be done with a subject. If you want to be honest with subjects, you gotta use more letters of the alphabet, its as simple as that. There's 26 letters to the alphabet and over a 100 trillion possible words, differentiating all the objects of the universe naturally take more words so its a simple case of "all lazy persons skip this book about the true nature of the universe", not that this book has been created yet. This is the nature of our language at present, given the low level of our intellect and lack of telepathy we cannot (1) relay big understandings in simple and short symbolic form (2) immediately understand the context upon which those symbols are relayed.

Secondly, you linked a video that goes for 1 hour and 30 minutes approximately, not the smartest thing if you want to be a trusted advocate of precise and short.

Edited July 19, 2019 by possibilities

[possibilities]

Honestly, 10 minutes in I think this video is going to backfire, my guess is you haven't properly read what I've stated or taken notes from this video.

I will correct myself @RendHeaven if after watching the entire video in light of events it proves otherwise.

[possibilities]

@RendHeaven

I'm not going to go off topic anymore so I'll leave it as it is from here but yeah, my points still stand. Leo does a great job at explaining things in that video but then he does a great job at digging himself a hole in the same video. Its a very good beginning though.

Quote from the video:
"So evil is the label or concept that you invented in order to marginalize those things which are threatening to your existence so that you could justify to yourself, eliminating those things, without any self reflection or any guilt"

And then he goes onto say:

"I funded evil, if you’re an American citizen, you funded evil. If you do business with America, you also funded evil. You see, if your country was a part of the coalition that invaded Iraq, which included…. You participated in that evil, you see if you’re a tax payer in those countries you also funded this evil”

Thus by his own definition, God is evil. He invents morality out of his own selfishness to shame selfishness because he's arbitrarily assigned selfishness is evil even though, he cannot be unselfish given his perspective is at all times, including my own, self serving.

Further (earlier in the video):

"You just have one substance out of which everything is made, in this substance there is no difference between a subject and an object, a self and another, these things don’t exist yet, its all one,"

Leo and literally no one will ever be able to escape their own selfishness (meaning our own perspective is always inherently, completely and 100% selfish - as noted below there's just differences in level of empathy, compassion and intelligence), indeed, God is completely selfish, this is all his/it, thus based on this reasoning he is the reflection of ultimate evil (though obviously this is probably a ridiculous assertion). Where there will be differences is in peoples level of empathy, compassion and intelligence, which are biological terms sometimes trained on the basis of philosophical dispositions. So when Leo calls something evil or the devil, based on his own definitions, sorry Leo but you defined the terms I didn't, he's just calling himself the devil, evil, unconscious. In that moment, he is unconscious of the distinctions he's creating between self and other.

Life is just life. Consciousness invents content out of its perception of reality, from this subjective perspective we all likely share, and via our biological filters it steers various meanings that we believe in, Leo's consciousness does the exact same thing with his invention of the word evil and how it applies. Like he says, its his imagination, our imagination makes approximations of reality that are less or more accurate, on this one, Leo seems offline. I think he did a pretty good job with the authority video though, I learned a lot from that one.

 

Edited July 19, 2019 by possibilities

[RendHeaven]

5 minutes ago, possibilities said:

Leo and literally no one will ever be able to escape their own selfishness, indeed, God is completely selfish, this is all his/it, thus based on this reasoning he is the reflection of ultimate evil (though obviously this is probably a ridiculous assertion).

P.S. Let's not not derail this thread any more. If you would like to respond, please consider starting a new thread and tag me. I'll be glad to discuss!

[possibilities]

Yes that's what I stated. My points are not a derailment given the point Leo has made is one in relation to what is devilry versus what is not, I was addressing said point so in as much as it is confined, it is warranted. I am not going to start a new thread because in my experience this forum doesn't take well to those things, I will from now on no longer create threads. If you create one I will however respond. My points are in reference to this discussion and that is how I will define their context for now. Next time it would be in your interest to make notes on the video before sharing, read my comments properly before responding. If you can't, please as noted just skip over my comments. Haphazard sharing, as is evidenced here, isn't going to help anyone arrive closer to truth.

Any further comment I make will be in the context of what has been stated relevant to this discussion, which as noted, pertains to the idea of using any word remotely to do with devilry or evil in the context of the morality of sexuality, which is now I hope clear is logically redundant, as I've shared, this is a subject of biological propensity and philosophical disposition (even though they're arguably largely one in the same), Leo has attempted to neglect biology and demonise philosophical (though a generous term of course in many contexts) dispositions by calling it demonisation with demonisation. My argument is you simply can't do that if you want to properly do justice to the nuances of the subject. @RendHeaven I would appreciate it if you stayed on topic with respect to the utility of my own disagreement given it is not outside discussion here.

[RendHeaven]

6 minutes ago, possibilities said:

Next time it would be in your interest to make notes on the video before sharing, read my comments properly before responding. If you can't, please as noted just skip over my comments. Haphazard sharing, as is evidenced here, isn't going to help anyone arrive closer to truth.

I wonder what makes you say this?

I've seen this video 5 times over with notes as well, thank you very much.

"Haphazard sharing?"

This video addresses your exact concerns regarding Leo's use of the term "devil."

Just because the video does not fit your preconceived notions of "devilry," it does not become invalid to the discussion.

You won't be finding Truth with your current attitude.

[possibilities]

@RendHeaven I'd appreciate it if you didn't make assumptions during discussion, or at least attempted not to. You may know more truth than me, I may know more truth than you, this is yet to be ascertained. If you wish to speak more about it please address the points very specifically and make specific refutations as I already have done so that we can talk about things sensibly as opposed to making claims that have nothing attached to them that the other person then has to refute. We'll only go in endless circles of you saying "I'm not going to find the truth because of my attitude" while not making logical statements to state why this is the case as well as forgetting to address the previous statements I have made like I have done in this comment here. If you wish to go round in circles then I will simply refrain from addressing you from now on or if you think you need more clarity before we move forward, simply PM me and we can address things more efficiently there.

Not addressing my specific statements with logical refutations however will just create smoke in this situation, thus doing what you've stated you didn't want to do, that is, not to derail this thread. Thus again, please keep statements addressed to me confined to the context in which I state them. The statement you've quoted there has been addressed previously with respect to my noting of the logical contradictions in the use of the term as well as you so far not demonstrating enough knowledge in relation to both subjects (video and my statements) that equate to as I've described to be my desire, logical refutations.

"This video addresses your exact concerns regarding Leo's use of the term "devil." "

And I've already refuted its validity and in doing so, its use in the context of the moralisation of sexuality, which would seem, a contradiction in terms, as well as with respect to the insights of the survival series, given as already noted, given any opinion, as already noted by Leo, is based on a survival agenda, which I agree with and think is a good observation. One which we should look at introspectively to the extent of utilising it to be less biased, less attached to our perspectives and in doing so, more readily able to evolve the contents of our consciousness, or more simply stated, our perspectives about perspectives (inclusive of the survival agenda).

[Joseph Maynor]

A bunch of birds chirping about things bothers you, why?  Why are you attached to experience such that it's triggering you?

Edited July 19, 2019 by Joseph Maynor

[possibilities]

@Joseph Maynor would be less confusing if you addressed who you're referring. Just in case you're referring to me, certainly not triggered. Annoyance isn't the feeling of being triggered, moreover there's of course generally a spectrum of emotions I'm simultaneously experiencing, pure annoyance would probably be expressed as anger, of which I've demonstrated none so far haha . But yeah, encouraging we keep things on topic and if anything is addressed to me, keep things on topic in the context of the moralization of sexuality so this thread stays alive. Peace

Edited July 19, 2019 by possibilities

[Surfingthewave]

@possibilities Thank you for your nuanced insights. You are able to articulate points I wasn't able to. I think you have raised some key points about Leo as a teacher, learning from this and learning from some of the blind spots he may have as we all have.

I think that is to do reflecting on what are his views, the self's own views, and views that are made  on behalf of collective ego, or devilry, which he has observed. 

You also made some key points about devilry, consciousness, the self and also about God. If God is outside of survival, where does that leave the self? Where does that leave the moralisation of sexuality? 

 

Edited July 19, 2019 by Surfingthewave

[possibilities]

Yeah I like Leo and think he's better than most teachers, I'm just stating things as I see them.

He would do a hell of a lot better if he treated his viewers as intelligent, capable of noticing discrepancies and not just being followers, its something that many other teachers do not properly do. Jordan Peterson is another interesting consciousness, he's not publicly aware of his own inconsistencies either, its why I don't listen to him anymore. I mean, 12 rules for life was a complete joke relative to what he's actually capable of, that pretty much ended it for me. David Goggins is a straight up dude though, he doesn't say things he can't practice and that's something I admire and seek to emulate. He makes mentions about his beliefs in God but he doesn't proselytize outside the expertise of practicality, that's very wise. Like I said, all these other teachers including Leo are on the surface far more intelligent than Goggins, but when it comes down to when you're actually examining the beast of actualisation, Goggins wins hands down by a long shot. I don't get why an enlightened person would espouse his beliefs in the way that he does, to me its poor form, moreover in his responses to people he definitely doesn't come across as someone enlightened. "You can lead a horse to water" as he noted recently, this other person he was addressing is just a dude with a consciousness spitting out stuff but it seems like he takes it more seriously than that with the need to use condescension there as a communication technique. Its needless. I argue on the level of what is logical and illogical relative to my capacities, but I'll admit my own ignorance during that process, moreover, if someone cannot refute my statements it seems pretty practical for me to assume the noise their consciousness is creating in that moment doesn't have a lot to serve other than trying to emotionally defend itself. I'm also not at all attached to my beliefs, which makes me question why Leo seems to be given he claims to be enlightened. Its a lack of integrity between emotions and thoughts (as well as thoughts between thoughts) here overtime, that's one thing I'm personally trying to work on and its one reason why I wouldn't at all try to be a teacher at this point in my life other than sharing my 2 cents here and there.

All in all, Leo has a very tough job, which is why I wouldn't want to do it anytime soon because its a big responsibility if you want to be taken seriously. And I do acknowledge many of his perspectives, I think they're valuable, but when things are certainly unclear there needs to be greater humility and accountability there rather than just acting directly contrary to what trying to aid interested persons would involve.

As for the discussion, although I could be wrong, what I've reasoned to so far is that you cannot have self without God, logically speaking, moreover, let's say hypothetically the self inside a human outside the scope of God does exist, logically it can't really, if it does, its a subset structure to God. Its the same as saying a part of a system if not the system but it is created by the system itself, moreover, the part itself cannot exist without the system. The latter is the expression of non-duality. His notions of collective ego and devilry are still not nuanced enough to me to the extent that they come across far too judgemental, which is the opposite of non-duality, its the expression of "okay this is my insight with my indignation", but it isn't the same as contemplation. Insights can follow from contemplation but those insights that form need further contemplation to really comprehend the the weight and context of their appearances otherwise the margin of error becomes increasingly larger the less contemplation we give those insights. Logically speaking, as far as I've reasoned to date with respect to what I've expressed in this thread, God cannot be outside of survival, God is survival, there's just various layers of that term that haven't been clearly differentiated by Leo which I think is in part because of aforementioned predictions about the relationship he subconsciously has with his viewers and his own beliefs. There's a level of prudence there that I'm not seeing which I think is needed and believe he would generate a lot of value from over the long term if he intended on better practicing it. At least he's not like Sam Harris in this sense, Sam Harris isn't perfect either, he espouses prudence almost in the midst of demonisation sometimes.

All of these teachers though, there's value to learn in both the 'positive' and 'negative' here. I would put Leo as number 1 in some categories but in other categories dead last. But we're all learning here, these are just ideas my mind is creating in this moment and tomorrow my brain will generate other ideas, there's zero fucks here, just doing my thing as Leo is doing his thing and hopefully I'll develop my ability to be able learn more and more as time goes on.

Where does this leave the moralization of sexuality? In my view, so far absolutely no where. I can't see a way around the biological (in the way I've previously described) at present and I've discovered no one that's been able to provide a good argument against it.

Peace

Edited July 19, 2019 by possibilities

[vander87]

11 hours ago, possibilities said:

As for the discussion, although I could be wrong, what I've reasoned to so far is that you cannot have self without God, logically speaking, moreover, let's say hypothetically the self inside a human outside the scope of God does exist, logically it can't really, if it does, its a subset structure to God. Its the same as saying a part of a system if not the system but it is created by the system itself, moreover, the part itself cannot exist without the system. The latter is the expression of non-duality. His notions of collective ego and devilry are still not nuanced enough to me to the extent that they come across far too judgemental, which is the opposite of non-duality, its the expression of "okay this is my insight with my indignation", but it isn't the same as contemplation. Insights can follow from contemplation but those insights that form need further contemplation to really comprehend the the weight and context of their appearances otherwise the margin of error becomes increasingly larger the less contemplation we give those insights. Logically speaking, as far as I've reasoned to date with respect to what I've expressed in this thread, God cannot be outside of survival, God is survival, there's just various layers of that term that haven't been clearly differentiated by Leo which I think is in part because of aforementioned predictions about the relationship he subconsciously has with his viewers and his own beliefs. There's a level of prudence there that I'm not seeing which I think is needed and believe he would generate a lot of value from over the long term if he intended on better practicing it. At least he's not like Sam Harris in this sense, Sam Harris isn't perfect either, he espouses prudence almost in the midst of demonisation sometimes.

All of these teachers though, there's value to learn in both the 'positive' and 'negative' here. I would put Leo as number 1 in some categories but in other categories dead last. But we're all learning here, these are just ideas my mind is creating in this moment and tomorrow my brain will generate other ideas, there's zero fucks here, just doing my thing as Leo is doing his thing and hopefully I'll develop my ability to be able learn more and more as time goes on.

Where does this leave the moralization of sexuality? In my view, so far absolutely no where. I can't see a way around the biological (in the way I've previously described) at present and I've discovered no one that's been able to provide a good argument against it.

Peace

Thank you for sharing your views. I think it's good to be as specific as possible. Because I've noticed this forum can easily be used as a ego-confirmation-thing or whatever. Quick responses, quick going like: but we're all god, we're all imagining this. Done. 

I think there is a difference in 'survival' of 'reproduce', the 'survival of the self' and 'the survival of thought' (the one @possibilities described earlier, there is also a form of 'module thinking' in which the strongest thought survives -> turns into a thought you hear, and if it's strong enough, to act).

Since I have decided I don't want children (I won't elaborate here, but it is a rational desicion, I have no hormonal-driven wish, and I think life is perfect as it is, and I like to give love to people who already exist) -> it seems like I become conscious of the 'survival to reproduce'-way of survival and I decided not to act upon it. 

Then, I identified myself with this idea, so the survival thoughts are about this idea -> the 'survival of the self' that this self doesn't want children. My identity is to choose not to have children. Although, I would never blame/judge myself if I changed my mind. I don't think that will happen.

But to have sex not to reproduce (not even in the future), as something my ego likes, give the 'I like sex'-ego thoughts to survive. So then I identify myself with this ego-thoughts. 

As in sexuality -> there first was a part 'Everything has to be right, I have to got this and that feeling, the guy must be this and that before I even can have sex with him' which is clearly a survival-thought. But I skipped that one too, not that I have sex with everyone, but just more about enjoying and let my ego just calm down a bit. For me, this works very good. Since I do the ethical polyamory (More than two, a practical guide to ethical polyamory - Franklin Veaux and Eve Rickert) and spiritual relationship (Jan Geurtz - Addicted to Love), I think my identification and survival-thoughts in this regard are not that 'devilry' but Loving in a unconditional way. 

And now is when it gets interesting. We're all God, and we're all imagining this and each other. I'm not seeing this illusion breaking down any time soon (I believe it too much, not sure if I mind), but  is there a possibility we could think about the 'best' version of sexuality in this world? How does morality relate to sexuality in the 'best' version? Why is it important? What do we think is 'best'? Can we learn a survival-thought-mode where the 'best'-version is the default setting?

 

 

 

 

Edited July 19, 2019 by vander87
2 letters added