Elitom (supposed breatharian) outed as Perv-predator -

[Apech]

9 minutes ago, voidisyinyang said:

here you go - this explains how the O at a D "works" - enjoy!

And yes I have corresponded with Professor Stuart Hameroff.

 

 

I found this garbled and inconclusive.  It seems to me they are confusing consciousness and the mechanistic effects of consciousness - because they have no model which includes consciousness itself.  The same is true of the motor effect/free will experiments which Sam Harris and others quote.  I can see that quantum effects/entanglement and so on go some way but they are still treating this on the level of an objective mechanism which cannot be free will since it is not free and has no will.

 

In any case how does this explain O at a D????

[voidisyinyang]

2 hours ago, Apech said:

 

I found this garbled and inconclusive.  It seems to me they are confusing consciousness and the mechanistic effects of consciousness - because they have no model which includes consciousness itself.  The same is true of the motor effect/free will experiments which Sam Harris and others quote.  I can see that quantum effects/entanglement and so on go some way but they are still treating this on the level of an objective mechanism which cannot be free will since it is not free and has no will.

 

In any case how does this explain O at a D????

Sam Harris is a right-wing goon. He doesn't understand science properly.

 

[Nungali]

My God you are a fuckin  idiot !

 

You dont address anything written here,  and then come back at the mention of one word to run some stupid old hat BS conspiracy crap

 

 

4 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

Wow - I hope you don't fall for this B.S.!

 

If anyone wants to bother watching this, it is about what a group that was not Freemasons did in the Freemasons hall that they rented out .

 

What a pathetic attempt to try and smudge something ... you cant even find a decent bit of youtube to make your point .

 

Soooo pathetic !

 

4 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

 

 

Freemasonry is INHERENTLY EVIL as based on the lie of "materialistic idealism" from the root lie that Geometry is God as the Golden Ratio (from Platonic philosophy).

 

So we put all their moral and ethical teachings on one side of the scale

 

and we out one self declared, totally self referential ,  bull shit statement by the idiot / hypocryte  VYY on the other side of the scale

 

and it tilts in your favour does it  ?

 

 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

The Brotherhood The Secret World of the Freemasons. Stephen Knight is a good book on this.

 

 

No it isnt , its a load of shit !  And the author was an epileptic  Bhagwan Rajneesh follower  that wrote a 'sensational' book at the time Freemasonry was 'enjoying infamy ' to cash in on the trend .

 

Good Lord ! Even I can cite a better book that trashes Freemasonry !

 

4 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

 

So you can believe all the "ethics" about Freemasonry being a "positive charitable" organization if you IGNORE that Freemasonry is the "thrust" of 500 years of genocidal, ecocidal Western "culture" spreading around the world.

 

 

Your full of shit !  And not only that, the freedoms you enjoy everyday in your  western lifestyle and democracy where won by Freemasonic  movements to liberate the masses from the clutches control  and oppression of Church and ruling families.

 

Or are you one of those people that live and enjoy all those freedoms while complaining that your 'founding fathers' where Freemasons .

... Oh yeah, thats right ..... you dispute everything and anything that isnt in your 'correct musical San bushman box' .. even though you live off the proceeds of it all  and  enjoy all the freedoms and benefits of what you detest.   More hypocrisy .

 

[Nungali]

4 hours ago, voidisyinyang said:

here you go - this explains how the O at a D "works" - enjoy!

And yes I have corresponded with Professor Stuart Hameroff.

 

 

.... are you  going to   post the email here  ? 

 

 

 

 

 

[Nungali]

4 hours ago, Apech said:

 

I found this garbled and inconclusive.  It seems to me they are confusing consciousness and the mechanistic effects of consciousness - because they have no model which includes consciousness itself.  The same is true of the motor effect/free will experiments which Sam Harris and others quote.  I can see that quantum effects/entanglement and so on go some way but they are still treating this on the level of an objective mechanism which cannot be free will since it is not free and has no will.

 

In any case how does this explain O at a D????

 

 

Well , it makes as much sense as posting a video with a screen shot of back robed people with sex dolls, claiming Freemasons had a drug and sex orgy in their temple   and then a story that explains others where renting their space for a party .

 

What more could you expect from VYY  who ... if not already, surely by now

 

has lost all credibility whatsoever about anything he posts !

[Apech]

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

 

 

Well , it makes as much sense as posting a video with a screen shot of back robed people with sex dolls, claiming Freemasons had a drug and sex orgy in their temple   and then a story that explains others where renting their space for a party .

 

What more could you expect from VYY  who ... if not already, surely by now

 

has lost all credibility whatsoever about anything he posts !

 

His replies seem very tangential.  A rant about Sam Harris when the only relevance is that he quotes the same experiments to deny free will.  I also watched the Freemason thing - mostly because of the salacious screen cap and yes, it turned out to be not about Freemasons at all.  I wonder if he watches the vids he posts before posting.

 

I go back to my previous point - or question - energy interactions can happen spontaneously (presumably including orgasms) the question of ethics comes into effect in terms of one's response to this.

[Nungali]

2 hours ago, Apech said:

 

His replies seem very tangential.  A rant about Sam Harris when the only relevance is that he quotes the same experiments to deny free will.  I also watched the Freemason thing - mostly because of the salacious screen cap and yes, it turned out to be not about Freemasons at all.  I wonder if he watches the vids he posts before posting.

 

Obously not . It was also apparent during a past debate/argument with him.

 

You know how it works ; type in what you want to 'prove' and put up the results as 'evidence' , even if its some youtube crap.  I trumped him time and time again with proper academic references and he actual whinged and complained about me having some type of super computer where I could look up things and post them at a rate he  (ie, his computer ) could not keep up with .

 

yes, I do have a super computer and I use it all the time .... its called my brain . if one actually knows what one is talking about already  and has previously done research on it , that's why things are easy to look up and find  'super quick' .

 

Quote

 

I go back to my previous point - or question - energy interactions can happen spontaneously (presumably including orgasms) the question of ethics comes into effect in terms of one's response to this.

 

 

 

Edited October 27, 2019 by Nungali

[Walker]

On 2019/10/23 at 9:07 PM, redstratus said:

The way I understand it, he emits a healing love energy, like most of the Spring Forest Qigong adepts, a la Master Nance, Master Gran, Master Lin.

 

I wonder if these individuals would agree with that statement.

 

On 2019/10/23 at 9:07 PM, redstratus said:

  And those with blockages feel drawn to him, at which point they are duly exorcised.  It's difficult to impose a conventional morality on that, because the usual paradigms do not account for paranormal phenomena.

 

Ironically, the diehard followers of all the shamed "masters" in the videos Drew obsessively continues posting here would say much the same, i.e., "Sai Baba needed to fellate little boys to cure them of bad karma, you mere mortals would not understand," was an actual argument floating around at one point.

 

I would argue that history shows us that any "master" who cannot conform to conventional morality when it comes to treatment of  children and consensual sex involving adults is in dire need of a massive dose of, you guessed it, conventional morality. 

[Apech]

7 hours ago, Walker said:

 

I wonder if these individuals would agree with that statement.

 

 

Ironically, the diehard followers of all the shamed "masters" in the videos Drew obsessively continues posting here would say much the same, i.e., "Sai Baba needed to fellate little boys to cure them of bad karma, you mere mortals would not understand," was an actual argument floating around at one point.

 

I would argue that history shows us that any "master" who cannot conform to conventional morality when it comes to treatment of  children and consensual sex involving adults is in dire need of a massive dose of, you guessed it, conventional morality. 

 

 

I get what you are saying but I don't think it is 'conventional morality' as this changes over time and culture.  Remember not so long ago being gay was considered a perversion and also a crime.  Now everything is framed around consent - but even that has its problems.  I think it is more about intent and motivation - are you acting for the benefit of yourself and others or are you just being lusty/greedy.

[Walker]

I don't disagree with you in general. Mores are in constant flux. Even the definition of consent changes.

 

But I strongly disagree with you regarding the relevant specifics.

 

I do not think bad karma can be sucked out of an 8 year old boy's penis. If somehow it could, anybody who had such an "ability" could surely do just as good a job of saving souls without resorting to traumatic sexual assault.

 

Ditto for people who are supposedly able to exorcise pubescent girls' bad qi by "shooting" (his words) orgasms at them.

 

I've personally been witness to exorcisms performed by Tibetan Buddhists, Chinese Daoists, New Zealand Maori tohunga, Catholic exorcists, and Spiritualists. No genitalia use or orgasms  necessary in any case. Seen too much firsthand to think it ever would be.

[Apech]

25 minutes ago, Walker said:

I don't disagree with you in general. Mores are in constant flux. Even the definition of consent changes.

 

But I strongly disagree with you regarding the relevant specifics.

 

I do not think bad karma can be sucked out of an 8 year old boy's penis. If somehow it could, anybody who had such an "ability" could surely do just as good a job of saving souls without resorting to traumatic sexual assault.

 

Ditto for people who are supposedly able to exorcise pubescent girls' bad qi by "shooting" (his words) orgasms at them.

 

I've personally been witness to exorcisms performed by Tibetan Buddhists, Chinese Daoists, New Zealand Maori tohunga, Catholic exorcists, and Spiritualists. No genitalia use or orgasms  necessary in any case. Seen too much firsthand to think it ever would be.

 

Did I suggest those things are ok?  No.  Children cannot consent because they are not developed to a stage to do this.  This has nothing to do with being gay - it is clearly perverted in my view.  Love and compassion for the other being truly expressed would make this kind of predation impossible.

 

 

[Walker]

I see, I thought the meaning of your last sentence in the previous post was that with the right intent/motivation anything goes. 

[ilumairen]

 

7 hours ago, Apech said:

Now everything is framed around consent - but even that has its problems. 

 

I'm curious about the problems you see regarding a framework of consent.

 

[liminal_luke]

We all effect each other energetically all the time, for both better and worse.  To do so is neither illegal nor immoral -- it`s inevitable.  Consent becomes an issue when we deliberately amp up the power of our influence through spiritual practice and then consciously direct this influence with laser-like intensity at unsuspecting hamburger-eating strangers.

[silent thunder]

Some really insightful sharings here... deep thanks all.

What a gem this place is...

 

Tone of the recent conversation reminds me of the following that rang through my awareness like a clarion bell ring, some years back.

 

 

We are each of us, Gardeners... knowingly, or unknowingly.

With every word and action, we plants seeds of effect, in everyone we affect, whether aware of it or not.

[Nungali]

I want to add more to this .

 

 

Quote

 

 

 

What would free sexual expression look like to you. 

 

Consensual ,  for a start !   

 

--------

 

AND

 

'Consenting and between adults '  .   Free in that it should be considered an equal exchange , not that one has to 'pay something' (in money, kind,  opinion or reputation ).

 

I'll go further on that ;  Due to 'certain conditioning'  some people  think that if 'the woman gives the man sex, she gets something back in return .... well, they BOTH gave each other something , so I never understood that 'payment in kind' thing.

 

And why should someone suffer and 'pay for it' with their reputation afterwards ?  Thats rather juvenile isnt it ?   A friend from OS now living here said he doesnt understand Australian women ;  " At home, men and women are equal, we train and fight together in the same army, we live and work together, we go out together as friends and each pays for themselves  . If someone wants more, they politely ask about it, you either get a no, and carry on as usual , or you might get a yes  and then you both have fun, maybe short term or leads to a relationship.  But here, I cant ask about it, I have to play this game first, treat the woman different,  and play this game that I never know the outcome of until the last minute . I tried asking a girl I went out with if she would like to have sex with me and she acted shocked and I found later she tld her friends , now they think I am some type of stalker or sex pervert, whats going on here with that ? "

 

So; free of hang ups , social judgments  and more available for a healthy psychology

 

The early Reich  writings  are relevant here . In 1928, Reich joined the Austrian Communist Party, founded the Socialist Society for Sex Consultation and travelled about in a van serving as a mobile sex clinic for the working classes. He hailed sexual liberation as an all-vanquishing tactic against totalitarianism. The masses submitted to political and economic oppression, he said, because they were sexually repressed – mainly by authoritarian fathers curbing the sexuality of wives and children.

 

Apparently this clinic, with active 'sex workers'  visited factories , it was popular with the authorities as  sick leave went down and production up .

 

" Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism, out November 20. In it, she argues that capitalism is based on exploitation, and women disproportionately suffer under it; this suffering extends to their sex lives. Because women’s labor is systematically undervalued and frequently underpaid, their survival tends to be dependent on men. Thus, women’s sexuality becomes a commodity under capitalism. This isn’t an explicit exchange, though, but rather a “set of shifting social expectations,” as Ghodsee puts it, in which women can make certain demands (emotional or financial support, for example) in exchange for access to their sexuality, usually within the confines of monogamy or marriage. Capitalism has fundamentally shaped and warped the ways we relate to each other, sexually and otherwise, she claims, leading us to view intimacy and love as things that only exist in finite quantities, and that are only worth investing in worthy relationships. "

 

Ghodsee’s book offers an alternative to this model, looking back at the state-socialist regimes in the 20th century, under which the state liberalized divorce laws, legalized abortion, invested in collective laundries and nurseries, and enabled women to attain more economic freedom — and in turn, better sex.

“When women enjoy their own sources of income, and the state guarantees social security in old age, illness, and disability, women have no economic reason to stay in abusive, unfulfilling, or otherwise unhealthy relationships,” she writes. "

 

and just more generally , free, relaxed about  and unpossessed by sex . 

 

I liked this recent example ; A friend came around for a visit and she ' A grader is redoing my driveway,  I went out this morning, cant  get back in to later today, can I hang out here for a while ? "

 

" Sure. "   Its a cold day, grey and overcast .  " Do you want some tea ? "  After a bit she ;

 

" So, what do you do around here to pass the time ?   .... Do you want to have sex ..... or something  ?  "

 

"Oooo ... yeah, we could do that . "   So we did .  Afterwards , carry on as normal .... no judgments or owing anyone anything , and more importantly ....  free of  'stuff'  that can arise later . 

 

So yeah , I am a big proponent of 'free sex' , I think the control and  regulation   of and obsession by sex is a way of controlling and suppressing freedom .

 

And I agree with Reich's  early writings on it , especially about 'impotent orgasms ' in men    ( but I only agree with him up to the point before he started shooting his orgone cannon at UFOs      

 

Early Reich and Ida Craddock  ..... should be essential reading for all developing males !

 

Edited October 27, 2019 by Nungali
left out ref. https://www.thecut.com/2018/11/sex-under-socialism-kristen-ghodsee-interview.html

[Apech]

4 hours ago, ilumairen said:

 

 

I'm curious about the problems you see regarding a framework of consent.

 

 

Me and my big mouth (and keyboard  ).

 

I agree with consent generally by the way - I was just pointing out as a general moral guide (like all general moral guides) it may have problems.  Say for instance you were in a relationship with someone who liked to self harm.  You might decide that for their own good you should work to prevent this - even though the person had not given their consent for you to do so.  This might involve restraining them against their will.   This might be a loving thing to do but outside consent as a principle.  But to them some kind of self harm might be a sexual expression which they feel they need.  This is one example of which there may be many.

 

My wider point is that morality is a kind of maze or minefield where simple rules only work as a rule of thumb but may break down in extremis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[liminal_luke]

I have a goal of checking Daobums every 15 minutes and engaging in as many pointless arguments as possible.  My partner considers this self-harming and hides my laptop.

 

Egregious violation of my personal rights or loving (albeit nonconsensual) intervention?

[Apech]

10 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

I have a goal of checking Daobums every 15 minutes and engaging in as many pointless arguments as possible.  My partner considers this self-harming and hides my laptop.

 

Egregious violation of my personal rights or loving (albeit nonconsensual) intervention?

 

 

How do you manage to wait for a whole 15 mins?????????

[Nungali]

12 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

I have a goal of checking Daobums every 15 minutes and engaging in as many pointless arguments as possible.  My partner considers this self-harming and hides my laptop.

 

Egregious violation of my personal rights or loving (albeit nonconsensual) intervention?

 

That only becasue you knew about it ... for God' sake man ... tell your partner to be a LOT more sneaky and undercover about  such things .

 

 

 

- I remember talking to a male friend  at a party , we where discussion about how his honesty got him into trouble with his girl friend and a woman was nearby,  'audio spying' on our conversation. She  walked off past us and in passing smirked and said "  Goodness me boys .... haven't you learnt yet  not  to tell your girl friends the truth ! ? "

 

....  and   that woman was my girl friend !   

 

... oh dear ! 

[Nungali]

7 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

How do you manage to wait for a whole 15 mins?????????

 

Think of your grandmother  ? 

 

 

 

 

Reminds me of a  funny Italian movie I saw once ; scene , a guy is complaining to his wife ;

 

(to be read in broad Italian accent )  " Is a--not  a  premature ejaculation ... today is a busy world , time is a-money, I am a busy man ... I  dont have a-the time to be  ......

 

[sean]

2 hours ago, Apech said:

Me and my big mouth (and keyboard  ).

 

I agree with consent generally by the way - I was just pointing out as a general moral guide (like all general moral guides) it may have problems.  Say for instance you were in a relationship with someone who liked to self harm.  You might decide that for their own good you should work to prevent this - even though the person had not given their consent for you to do so.  This might involve restraining them against their will.   This might be a loving thing to do but outside consent as a principle.  But to them some kind of self harm might be a sexual expression which they feel they need.  This is one example of which there may be many.

 

My wider point is that morality is a kind of maze or minefield where simple rules only work as a rule of thumb but may break down in extremis.

 

I don't think your broader conception of consent here is what is generally (or ever?) meant in conversations around sexual consent though.

 

I'm pretty stupid but this doesn't seem very complicated to me. I can't imagine how:

• Relying on conscious, coercion-free agreement before sexual activity would ever be problematic in itself
• Engaging in sexual activity against someone's will would ever be anything other than a moral transgression

 

[Apech]

11 hours ago, sean said:

 

I don't think your broader conception of consent here is what is generally (or ever?) meant in conversations around sexual consent though.

 

I'm pretty stupid but this doesn't seem very complicated to me. I can't imagine how:

• Relying on conscious, coercion-free agreement before sexual activity would ever be problematic in itself
• Engaging in sexual activity against someone's will would ever be anything other than a moral transgression

 

 

 

What I was trying to respond to was the idea that masters should comply with 'conventional morality'.  My point being that not so long ago if you were gay you were offered either jail or chemical castration (Alan Turing) and that complied completely with the morality of the day enshrined in law.  Also there was no such thing as rape in marriage - so current consent principles did not apply.  Therefore logically whatever the conventional framework of the day is, it is limited and some time in the future people will look back and say that wasn't enough.  I did not argue against consent I simply said there may be higher principles such as ahimsa or love.

 

 

[doc benway]

6 hours ago, Apech said:

 

 

What I was trying to respond to was the idea that masters should comply with 'conventional morality'.  My point being that not so long ago if you were gay you were offered either jail or chemical castration (Alan Turing) and that complied completely with the morality of the day enshrined in law.  Also there was no such thing as rape in marriage - so current consent principles did not apply.  Therefore logically whatever the conventional framework of the day is, it is limited and some time in the future people will look back and say that wasn't enough.  I did not argue against consent I simply said there may be higher principles such as ahimsa or love.

 

 

I would offer that the examples you offer have nothing to do with morality, conventional or otherwise. They are more related to paternalistic and institutionalized control and abuse, often excused by law and masquerading as “morality.”

 

When it comes to the behavior of spiritual masters, there is a saying in the Bön tradition that addresses this. Your view must be as broad as the sky, your behavior as fine as barley flour...

Edited October 28, 2019 by steve

[Apech]

30 minutes ago, steve said:

I would offer that the examples you offer have nothing to do with morality, conventional or otherwise. They are more related to paternalistic and institutionalized control and abuse, often excused by law and masquerading as “morality.”

 

When it comes to the behavior of spiritual masters, there is a saying in the Bön tradition that addresses this. Your view must be as broad as the sky, your behavior as fine as barley flour...

 

Well precisely - to you they have nothing to do with morality - but those who imposed those laws thought they were being moral (based presumably on the Bible).  In other words they had a code which they enforced - which is more or less what is meant by morality.  Ethics is something slightly different being your own values put into practice.  My point is that what is generally held to be moral changes over time and according to the conventions of the age in which those that upheld them lived.

 

I never thought I'd get so much shit over such a simple point

 

If this be error and upon me proved,

I never writ nor no man ever loved.