Journey to Nothing

[LastThursday]

What makes Beethoven's music great? It's his great dynamic range in volume, he can be quiet and sweet and loud and obnoxious. And so it is with great people.

Are you one dimensional? Do you know how to be quiet, pensive, listening, receptive? Do you know how to be brash, abrasive, loud, in your face? Does it feel comfortable to be stupid and unintelligent and a joker? Could you be an intellectual praying mantis, ready to cut the head off people less intelligent than you? Could you change your wardrobe and hairstyle tomorrow? Can you be non-judgemental and diplomatic? What about a rude dickhead? What about a flexible political attitude? A person with criminal tendencies? Or a pragmatic rule follower?

No. We are fucking multidimensional entities. There, I swore, so there. I hope you weren't offended?

Edited February 17, 2021 by LastThursday

[LastThursday]

Is it precognition or law of attraction?

Sometimes we have glimpses of the future. We get clear sensations that something is going to happen. And then it happens. We saw the future.

Other times we just wished something would happen, and then one day it happens. We affected the future with our thoughts.

What if both were true at the same time? That there is a kind of loop where the future affects the present and the present affects the future? How could this be, isn't there a paradox here? Questions questions.

Maybe our thoughts and will is directed precisely so that the future occurs. Occasionally that future leaks into the present moment, it's smeared over time and space. 

Unlike the disconnected still frame of a film, the present moment is an alive process. The present moment has tendrils of possibility growing into the future. We are not disconnected observers of the present moment, we are the present moment, the present moment is us. When a feeling or thought arises about a new potential future, we both affect and are guided by the tendrils feeling their way forward. We both have free will and not. The future is both fixed and totally unknowable.

Edited February 19, 2021 by LastThursday

[LastThursday]

Is non-duality really about counting?

The duality in non-duality really is mislabelled. It should read something like non-multiplicity. However, the underlying notion is based in arithmetic quantities. The non part of non-duality is also mislabelled. Again the ambiguity is caused by mathematics and more specifically sets.

If you have a defined set of items, say different breeds of cats, then the "non" signifier is useful. You could have a non-Siamese and understand that you talking about all breeds of cats except Siamese. It works because the set of breeds of cats is finite in size.

But when talking about unbounded (infinite) sets, then non becomes non-sensical. What is non-3? Is it 2 or all positive numbers except 3. Or all positive and negative numbers - except 3. Or all complex numbers except 3+0i? Or what. You see that taking the inverse of a finite item in an infinite set is nonsense.

So what does non-duality actually mean, if anything? More strictly what does non-multiplicity mean? If we take multiplicity to mean infinity, then what is the non of that? Is it zero, one? Is it a number at all? What the hell do numbers have to do with transcending everyday reality? Nothing in my opinion.

Numbers are simply a mental construct, whether that's zero, one or infinity. And mental constructs are something we are trying to point away from in spirituality. The word non-duality is leading us down the wrong path.

Instead there should be a recognition that there is an underlying sameness to all of experience. "Sameness" seems dull and drab, but it's a much better descriptor of where we want to get to. It signifies the strange fact that no matter what seems to happen in our conscious awareness there is this sameness that permeates it at all times. For example, we recognise vision by the sheer fact that it shares a commonality in itself. Red may be different from green, but they share a kind of sameness called colour. And, we can climb this ladder of sameness until we reach a summit where the whole of experience shares a commonality.

But there is a paradox to sameness, in that it's defined in terms of itself. We can't use the word colour without invoking the idea of reds and greens. In other words, the differences are involved in the sameness and vice-versa. To have a difference you need to compare to members of the same class. Duality is couched in sameness (or unity) and unity is composed of duality. And that is the key insight or paradigm.

We don't care about sameness or difference, unity and duality. We care to recognise that we can't have one without the other. The deep truth is that we are able to recognise non-duality precisely because of duality; and that we're just playing mind games with numbers and ourselves.

Edited February 22, 2021 by LastThursday

[LastThursday]

One of my shadows that has haunted me throughout life is embarrassment. Embarrassment, I know now, is closely related to shame, humiliation and fear. I'm not sure of the source of my embarrassment but I'm sure it's from a combination of factors built up over time. One manifestation of this being a reluctance to engage with people and having a certain aloofness as a consequence. I guess the base of it is an inherent shyness either biologically or socialised into me. Another manifestation of my anxiety over embarrassment is my secretive nature. 

I've recognised my anxiety for a long time and I have done plenty of work to overcome it. My main allies have been a strong curiosity, building a sense of self worth and developing an openness or vulnerability - actively working against all my tendencies. I think in order to try and untangle this embarrassment and finally free myself of it it's worth laying out some of the history of that embarrassment.

My mum was naturally a very anxious and defensive person. Unknowingly, I took on that persona from her as a kid. She was profoundly deaf and was badly treated by her siblings growing up. Essentially from what she used to tell me she was ostracised or made out to be stupid. And until she met my dad in her mid twenties her level of communication was bad - she never learned sign language. 

That history in itself doesn't explain my embarrassment in life, but goes someway to explaining my natural anxiety and fear and suspicion of people. Of course I could have just as easily have identified with my dad and not been that way. But my dad was largely absent and not a strong role model for me growing up.

My parents are from two different countries: Spain and England. Since my dad was the breadwinner we eventually gravitated back to England (I was born in Spain). This put my mum in a difficult position in that not only her communication was bad, she also wasn't able to speak English - she never did learn it. But it was the end of the seventies and the man of the house was expected to provide and the woman primarily looked after the kids and kept the house. My dad did anything complicated and worked, my mum took us to school and fed us.

As a consequence of the arrangement I would often have to translate from my mum. Whilst this felt "normal" to me at the time, with hindsight I can see that this exacerbated my anxiety and feelings of embarrassment. I was being asked to translate things which I didn't really understand. There was a certain attitude in England that foreigners were dumb and a certain lack of tolerance for non-English speakers. I felt that intensely and was embarrassed by it. That intolerance for non-English speakers is still apparent in 2021, and is a low level form of racism.

Of course being "foreign" myself, despite my completely Anglo appearance and fluency, there was casual racism in the school playground. It was minor, but constant. I believe that in itself eroded my self worth and there was a level of embarrassment I felt about being half Spanish. Saying that, I held on to my self worth by knowing and displaying my intellect, I always knew that I was the smartest kid there. But the consequence of all this was that I was always marked as a know-it-all foreigner, and an embarrassed outsider.

One of my biggest fears as a young kid was adults and especially teachers. I started school in Spain in the mid seventies and there was a formality to interacting with teachers, very unlike now. I was very young and fearful of teachers. Many times I would need to use the toilet, and would be afraid to ask, and instead would wet myself. Obviously, I found this humiliating and extremely shameful, but my fear of asking was greater.

Those incidents I think set up a strong emotional connection between asking people for things and embarrassment. For years afterwards I would wet the bed as a young kid. It was only after my dad took me to a clinic did the bed wetting stop. My mum would always make a drama out of my bed wetting which reinforced the embarrassment. But in the end it stopped.

The bullying continued into secondary school, but was less racially motivated, and more because kids don't take well to loners. I had one or two friends I hung around with, but was never really part of any group, so I was easy pickings. I did eventually learn to stand up to myself and toughen myself up, but it ground down my self esteem. Luckily, it was mostly older, bigger kids, and I knew they had to leave school eventually. My last two years at secondary school were easier, I got a girlfriend and life improved. But by this point a lot of my embarrassment and fear of people had taken root and become part of my identity. 

Around this time, my parents split and I was left as my mum's primary carer. A deaf woman in a country whose language she didn't speak. That time was tough and dealing with adult responsibilities as a teenager was unpleasant. Again, I felt a constant sense of embarrassment when having to deal with authorities and re-explaining the situation every time. 

For the most part I'd always had other people to lean on after my time at school, to do all the social stuff. I was very sociable at university, but I was still the poor kid amongst middle class friends, I always felt that inside and felt some shame around it. Two close friends lent me a lot of money to keep me going, and as grateful as I was, it marked me out as different.

Even after university, I had a long term girlfriend who would set up all the social stuff, I was simply incapable I had that much fear. I finally started to overcome my entrenched embarrassment when I split up with her and was on my own for the first time in my life. I then had to fend for myself socially and to make my own way.

That leads me to now. I'm a super capable person and very proud of my achievements, and my social abilities are very good. Yet there is this young embarrassed person still there having to take on adult responsibilities and sometimes just it's too much.

Very very recently I've started to realise that the fear and potentially embarrassment that stops me from doing things and talking to some people, is just an emotion - it isn't anything to do with rationality. There are two ways out: one is to eliminate the emotion - because it's not helping me; the other is to push through regardless and have faith that I'm able to handle any situation with confidence. Lastly, whether I choose not to act out of embarrassment or fear, or to take action, it makes no difference, the world still revolves.

[LastThursday]

Normally I would go to bed by midnight. I've noticed this tendency within myself that I do nothing during the day, but the moment I realise I don't have much time left to do anything at all, I get sudden motivation. It's 23:46. This is a style of approaching things which I adopted in the mists of time. I think originally it was borne out of a need to do things my way or do only the things I wanted. The best way to signal to other people that you either A: won't be pushed around or B: that you're unhappy about being told what to do, is to DO IT SLOWLY and APATHETICALLY or if possible NOT AT ALL. The capitalisation is for effect. 

In time I internalised this rebellious attitude and started applying it to everything. The upshot is that I now sit on everything until the last minute. I never do things immediately. This strategy has some benefits even if on the whole it's annoying. The main one is thinking time or preparation. Giving myself the space to not just react, but to actually plan what I should do and say, allows me to be more effective if things go wrong. The thing with being an adult is simpy the fact that most things you have to do, are for yourself (especially if you don't have kids). It bodes well to be prepared.

It should be blindingly obvious that there are a large number of downsides to not acting "in the moment". Firstly, it doesn't allow my intuition and improvisation skills to kick in (and to practise them). I'm big enough and ugly enough to be able to wing most situations - all the preparedness nonsense is time wasting and sometimes anxiety inducing - I'm doing myself a disservice. Secondly, it gives off the wrong vibe. It's common courtesy to at least acknowledge requests promptly or that you're "looking into" something that somebody else needs from you. It makes people reluctant to bother you or rely on you in future and creates disconnection or even worse to be labelled as "unreliable". Thirdly, most things have to be done anyway, there's no getting around them, putting them off takes up mental space with being concerned about when the thing will be done. Having too many unstarted things to keep track of, creates anxiety and fatigue.

In short, my strategy of apathy is no longer working for me, I should stop being so childish and only employ it when there's a strategic benefit.

00:03 another month bites the dust. Over and out.

Edited March 1, 2021 by LastThursday

[LastThursday]

I like myself a good thought experiment. If it's good enough for Einstein then it's good enough for me.

One recurring concern is working through discomfort, pain or trauma. I often wish I could just somehow switch off, go on to automatic for the duration of the discomfort, then switch back on. If it were possible it would be a kind of avoidance strategy. Is it actually possible however? That's where the thought experiment comes in.

The thought experiment revolves around philosophical zombies (p-zombies). This is the idea that people other than yourself do not have an experience of consciousness. Instead, people only have an outward manifestation; they behave and appear like someone who would have a conscious experience, but this is an illusion. This is the same idea as a non-player character (NPC), i.e. a computer game character that is totally driven by programming, it has no internal world of its own, it is an automaton.

It's clear that if another person is going through pain or trauma, that you yourself are not experiencing that trauma directly. What you do experience is a second hand explanation of their trauma. You can them empathise with them or imagine what it would be like to have that trauma. Or you can simply be cold and detached from their trauma and live your life without concern for them. 

It's also clear that if other people are in fact p-zombies, then they are not experiencing trauma directly at all - because they are not conscious in any way. All there is, is an outward manifestation of their trauma - it's all behaviour. They say the words, cry and so on, but there's nothing going on inside. So the stage is set for the thought experiment.

What if it were possible that you yourself are a p-zombie? Or at least temporarily became a p-zombie? For example you fell asleep on 1 March, became a p-zombie for a week and woke up 9 March? You managed to avoid consciously having to go through the trials and tribulations of the week, but outwardly behaved like a normal person. You can see that for dealing with trauma, it would be extremely beneficial.

The whole crux of the thought experiment then rides on exactly what happens on 9 March. When your consciousness comes back online and you stop being p-zombie, what exactly is your experience? Here are a few scenarios:

A. You wake up but have no memory of the week at all. You have to piece together what you did from second hand information. You have no residual trauma from the week. In fact you don't know if you even had any hardship at all. You "lost" a week of your life.

B. You wake up and have full recollection of the week. You can remember exactly what you said and did and thought. You have residual feelings from the trauma and understand why you had the trauma.

Which of the two scenarios makes more sense? In scenario A, other people would assume that you'd had some sort of amnesia which had wiped the trauma from your memory: the trauma had been too much to process. It seems far fetched, but could happen. In scenario B, you never consciously directly experienced the trauma, but everything else is consistent: you have memories, and so are not suffering from amnesia. In other words in scenario B, it's almost as if you had never been a p-zombie. 

Scenario B is strange indeed, because it's indistinguishable from normality. P-zombie or not, you can never go back in time and directly re-live a traumatic experience; all you have at all times is only a memory of the trauma happening. The outcome of the experiment is that we could easily have been p-zombies in the past and we've just woken up. The world just sprung into conscious existence with our memories fully formed. And, that we could easily wake up one day and all the bad things of the past will be forgotten. Time heals all wounds.

 

Edited March 1, 2021 by LastThursday

[LastThursday]

Holding on and letting go.

When should you hold on to/keep/identify with something? When should you let go of/throw away/release something? Is there a right time, place or reason to do either of these things? Should we relentlessly pursue renewal and release or doggedly hold on to everything and maintain our identifications at all cost?

These are not easy questions to answer. One thing is certain, and that's that holding on is an active process. Life is relentless in its ability to renew and change: our bodies get older, our dispositions shift, we move houses, change jobs, change friends, and lose family members. Things break, get lost, breakdown, dissolve. Accidents happen which change our lives randomly. We have insights and epiphanies and good and bad life experiences which nudge our perceptions. We constantly have to fight against this maelstrom of change, to hold on to anything at all.

Even if we do manage to hold on to something, it's meaning and purpose can change beneath us. The blue teddy I had as a child has a completely different meaning now than it did then; nothing I can do can re-instate that old association, it's lost forever. 

Given the odds are not in our favour, what purpose does holding on to things serve us? Indeed why do we even bother to hold on in the first place? There's really two sides to it that I can see. 

Firstly, it's actually a delusion that we can hold on to anything. The most cherished thing we hold on to is our identities: that unique blend of personality traits, skills, culture, life experience and attributes that go to make us up. But with a few seconds thought, we know it's blatantly false; we know our identities are in a constant state of flux: we learn new things, pick up new mannerisms and ways of speaking, and grow older. Yet we insist that we "don't really change" or even worse "can't change".

Secondly, we seem to desperately need stability in all that sea of change. From where does this need arise? We can argue that in order to exist at all, there must be something unchanging that is being held on to. After all, how can a thing exist if it constantly changes? If a car has all its parts replaced, how can that original car still exist? It doesn't. The thing being held on to in this case, is the concept of a car with particular attributes. We as humans are in a constant battle against death. That death is either slow or quick, in bits or as a whole, but it's unavoidable.

Holding on is existence, letting go is death.

Edited March 3, 2021 by LastThursday

[LastThursday]

I often think about age, it's said that it's just a number. The problem I have with age is one of emdodiment. I feel like there's kind of double standard that goes on whereby other people are "old", but you yourself feel "young". It's a peculiar effect, because you look in the mirror and lo and behold there is an old(er) guy looking back at you.

Don't get me wrong I know that I look young for my age, one of my exes told me as much - she thought I was ten years younger, it's not self bias honestly! But I can't deny my history, that alone tips the scales. I can say, that for myself my mindset is really stuck in the 1980's. It's not that I'm old fashioned per se, I'm very up with how the world functions right now and very much part of it; however, the 80's were my formative years, the years where I became me and when my essential nature took hold. It's like the core part of my operating system was etched into me then.

For example most of the music on my iPod is from the 80's, despite having a wide range in musical tastes. I know nearly nothing of the popular music of the last twenty years, it just doesn't gel with me in any way, although one or two songs stand out. Or, if I watch old TV shows from the 80's it feels totally natural, the fashion of the time doesn't seem odd to me. It nearly feels like I went to sleep on 31st December 1989 and just woke up on 7th March 2021. It's not quite that jarring, but you get the picture. So despite living and breathing in 2021, I feel like a time tourist who ended up in a foreign place.  I suppose I should be thankful I wasn't born in 1923, the difference between then and 1972 would have been enormous, I wonder how my grandmother felt? I was born in 1972 and she would have been my age then.

I'm certainly very different to the teenager I was in the 80's in a lot of ways though. But those differences are mostly natural progression rather than the result of doing solid work. For example, most of my confidence is just the result of having had lots of experience in dealing with people and situations. And, I'm a lot more emotionally stable than I was back then, but that's largely due to circumstances then and having a stable life right now. The largest difference is really one of understanding the world in all it's different aspects and that naturally changes your approach to it.

Other differences from teenagehood are that I'm a lot less anxious and a lot less emotionally needy. But I also feel as though I lost some of that spark and energy I used to have, and that high optimism that all my troubles were just temporary and there were golden days ahead. That spark and energy is something I would dearly love to embody again, but work life and social life just simply don't allow me to express that any more, I'm expected to behave like "my age", I've had my time.

So is there a better way to compare ages and get a feel for how us older people understand time? Yes, and that is to use a logarithmic measure of age (my nerdiness was born in the 80's). The formula I'll use is 50 x log(age), which really captures how you should think of ages and how to really compare them:

Age 5: 35

Age 10: 50

Age 15: 59

Age 20: 65

Age 30: 74

Age 40: 80

Age 50: 85

Age 60: 89

Age 70: 92

Age 80: 95

Age 90: 98

Age 100: 100

Edited March 7, 2021 by LastThursday

[LastThursday]

Is it possible to name God? Surely, that's what I've just done?

Slapping a label on something doesn't exactly tell you what that something is. The other problem is that the label must be attached to something that is definable. Here's where we come unstuck. To name God we must define God otherwise we're just playing word games and getting nowhere. What I mean by this is that we can band around "God" as if we knew what is being talked about; but in actuality not having defined what God is, we don't actually know what we're talking about - this is a problem.

Ok, let God be defined as everything. Very good, nice and simple and we can state that whatever we choose to focus on, that is God.

So then there's the small problem of parts or whole. If God is everything and we concentrate on a small part of that everything, say an apple, is that apple God or not? If not, then if we take two apples, is that God? If we go on taking larger and larger numbers of fruit and throw in cows and sheep and people and and and... is that God?

Clearly there's something fishy going on. Ok, let's change our minds, let's say an apple is a part of God. Is that God? No. God is everything (that's the definition), an apple is an apple. Ok let's shift our definition. Let God be composed of parts that when taken altogether go to make up God. Good. God is the set of all parts taken together. So is God one thing or many things?

What else is like God? Hmm. How about consciousness? Yet another label, yet another definition. So substitute "consciousness" for "God" in the above and rinse and repeat. Where does this get us? Well if God is everything and consciousness is everything, then surely they must be identical? They are two labels pointing to the same definition.

Notice that the problem here is not the labels, but the definition. Everything means everything without exclusion: objects, thoughts, memories, smells and so on. Included in that definition however, is the concept of everything itself (now we're on really shaky ground), this is because all concepts are included in everything.

We can indeed have a definition that includes itself (for example a fractal). But it's not at all clear that our direct experience of consciousness includes itself (you know what I'm talking about eh, or do you?). This is were the map is not good enough to describe the territory. The concept of everything is simply not up to the task of describing our supposedly concious experience. Consciousness cannot describe consciousness (!).

It is possible to name God. But what we think the word refers to is only a map to an indescribable territory. Words are not powerful enough.

Edited March 8, 2021 by LastThursday

[LastThursday]

I'm on a roll...

A Love Letter To Nobody

I can't stop thinking about you. That first time you were an apparition of beauty and sensuality. I was transfixed, but then immediately I blushed at my uncontrolled emotion. I thought I had temporarily gone insane. You saw me as translucently as glass smeared with my embarrassment and childlike fascination. I knew that you knew, it was unbearable, I was blissful and euphoric.

When you decided to bring your cherry red lips close and whisper those words I shall never forget, my love for you blossomed and has been unshaken ever since. I do believe I have become lost to you and unable to return or even remember that insignificant former incarnation. When did we become one?  That first day we awoke together exposed and at each other's mercy? That second day your laughter took hold of my soul?  I don't know. I don't want to know. This love is not something to unknot with fleeting thoughts.

I love you.

 

[Leo Nordin]

@LastThursdayWho are you? 

[Preety_India]

@LastThursday  even though whatever you think about your age, you got beautiful cute cutie pie eyes. My high  school crush used to look like you a bit. You remind me of him. You got glass in your eyes. Are you like British? 

 

Edited March 8, 2021 by Preety_India

[LastThursday]

@Preety_India you're so sweet, you make this old Brit's heart feel younger.

@Leo Nordin I ask myself that question every day and get a different answer each time.

[LastThursday]

What's the best strategy to win a game? Depends on the game right? What happens when the game is real life?

Take sex, attraction and finding a mate or even plain just finding a friend. Is there a best strategy? The answer appears to be no. For every good logical strategy there's an alternative non-intuitive strategy. I use the word strategy because I'm talking about games. Let's talk about chess for example.

What are the basic intuitive strategies in chess? Well the most obvious one is to take your opponent's piece if possible. Of course you have to maneouvre yourself so that you can actually take a piece. The second is blocking, where you intentionally block your opponent from being able to maneouvre into position. These two basic strategies can then be piled up on to each other by both sides. A pawn can be pinned where there are a series of threats and blocks leading to a position were either side finds it hard to act.

Are there any unintuitive strategies in chess? A slightly less so one, is pawn promotion, where you doggedly push the pawn forward until it hits the last rank and turns into a powerful queen. Another is to reduce your chances of blocking yourself by sacrificing pieces. Maybe another is to play quickly or slowly to confound your opponent's pace. The non-intuitive strategies are endless.

And so it is in real life. In reality the number of options available are large in any one moment. To employ a one size fits all strategy is both unimaginative and can be innefective or at least less efficacious. Real life requires imagination, improvisation, lateral thinking and risk taking in addition to convention or tried and tested methods. But just as playing chess is an endless process of mastery, so is finding your next girlfriend or life partner.

Edited March 9, 2021 by LastThursday

[Leo Nordin]

@LastThursdayWhat are you doing? 

[Leo Nordin]

Please let me me know why you won't let go of your attachments 

[LastThursday]

@Leo Nordin you're going have to be more specific with your requests.

[Leo Nordin]

Simply for starters I am very impressed by your capabilities. You have an amazing mind to be able to wrote such long paragraphs day in and day out. But such capacity in intellectual dissection and thinking inherently gives of the feeling that you might be attached to your patterns of thinking. Don't you ever feel how nice it would be to let it go, how noce it would be to sometimes let loose on the writing without checking for misspellings etc. That you live an experience of writing one time and then you don't look back at it to fix what doesn't fit in etc. 

Edited March 9, 2021 by Leo Nordin

[LastThursday]

@Leo Nordin you're very kind.

I only edit spelling mistakes and missing words. You see my fingers have a mind of their own. I don't generally edit anything else, it comes out all in one go. For example my love letter was done in one go without editing at all - not even spelling mistakes - that was most definitely me letting loose. But you are definitely right, if you want to communicate well you have to put things together well, sometimes choosing a better word helps. It's all about improving my communication skills as much as possible. Plus, I've always fancied myself as a writer, but don't have the passion for it.

This spills over into other things. If you notice where you go wrong or make mistakes or could have done things differently, then you should correct yourself for next time. It's a simple and effective strategy.

Anyway just for you, my next post will be completely unedited and loose, warts and all.

 

Edited March 9, 2021 by LastThursday

[LastThursday]

What's your kink?

Patent pink leather high heeled shoes. Black opaque tights. Long striaght black hair. Blue eyes. Gold in abundance. Tights? I mean stockings, thigh high. Enough for a handful, C or D. Confidence and knows their own mind. Skin colour optional. Must have energy and verve somwhat sill humour. Ablilty to laugh easily and show some teeth. Good with tongue. No pouting. No horses, pets, or familiar exes. If can speak several languages or can sing or play an instrument or all of those, then that makes me intellecutally wet. In fact anyone that can outdo me in the word department.

Must be able to run hand through hair and it just flows. Vertical length has varying different effects. Acreage and smoothness is something to get lost in. Compactness is better for enveloping and sending to ecstatic bliss. Curly haired can be kink too, but must be wavy for best effect. Sensually wavy like actual ocean waves.

Dress wearing, everything flowing as one, no dijoint aspects. Enjoys sunshine water sand surf exhibitionism. High maintenance exterior low maintenance interior. Must travel must wield a hammer or power tools must be able to change a bulb or a plug without assistance. Not bitter, a bitch, unhinged, neurotic, astrological, new age or offwith the faries. Dark and heavy eye liner with a flick. No eyebrow plucking whatsoever. Tatoos must be strategic or everywhere. Did I mention smooth and translucent skin? Must enjoy makeup as a form of expression rather than a mask. Must be able to go completely natural.

Intelligence is a bonus, especially if can outdo me. And a bit of kink goes a long way.

@Leo Nordin how did I do? Marks out of ten please. Categories are Letting Loose, Intellectual Disection, and Attachment to Patterns of Thinking.

P.S. Fuck I forgot, must love pink.

Edited March 9, 2021 by LastThursday