The purpose of all life

When Ecmandu talks about CONSENT he isn’t just talking about SEX. He is talking about making everyone’s wishes come true. For instance, a poor person who wants a lambo, but cannot get a lambo, is being violated of consent.
It is hard enough having to debate Ecmandu when newcomers come online and botch it all up.

Yeah, I can see your point. But the environment doesn’t give consent. I didn’t give consent to be here, how could I, I wasn’t here to consent. Too soon to say but I’ll likely not be consenting to death either.

So hypothetically… If consent didn’t matter before I got here, and isn’t going to matter once I’m dead, then why is it the purpose to life again? Seems life goes on regardless. Yes?

Yes. And we can make conclusions about this.

Consent is the most important topic of minds.

So here’s the deal. You disagree with me.

So, should you then shout from everywhere that the purpose of life is to violate consent?

How about we start with you!

We MAY have not consented to be born, yet the moment we are, we become consenting or non consenting beings.

It’s like saying the leading cause of death is birth, birth is also the leading cause of life!

I was cooking in the kitchen and the wife was talking to her dad, and across three rooms I heard the most delightful laughter. My wife is in love with her father. It makes me smile.

I’ll catch up with your reply after dinner.

The deal is this:

And me thinking you haven’t thought it out. You did claim it was inclusive of all life.

Any being from a microbe to a human has a desire/ aversion orientation - it is conscious.

I’m not really sure why this particular word game is important to you - as the key point is that consent is the core issue for all beings.

Consent violation is not an abstract world of words unto themselves -

It is the foundation of the passion that flows through all living beings -

The defining characteristic of "down to earth "

That sounds kind of…creepy

I am the yin to Ecmandu’s yang.

Ecmandu is obsessed with this consent thing.

But he isn’t aware of the other problem this universe has.

Boredom.

Imagine a wild animal, just in the woods, gets everything he wants, but just sitting there on a field, bored, nothing to do, has no purpose, everything he consented to but, just this feeling of being bored.

Also im yin because, i keep asking ecmandu to provide evidence of anything, he never does, where is the evidence microbes have consciousness, where is the evidence he or anybody else has genie powers to grant everyone’s wish, no evidence, never has evidence

Boredom appears radically subjective. I’m not sure yeast cultures experience boredom. But it is a more intriguing stretch than consent violations.

I don’t think love in a sincere form, is at all creepy.

On some meta-level the kernel of the impetus to evolve could be a sort of universal boredom. What the fuck… let’s try this. It sort of matches up with the example of a duck billed platypus.

And maybe if a yeast culture isn’t bored today, a tomorrow may come when it is.

It does seem like there is a purpose in there somewhere. But where?

All beings may have a desire / aversion orientation but the degree to which this is experienced isnt the same
I also dont think something as primitive as microbes are intelligent enough to know what consent violation is
And passion doesnt flow through all human beings and you dont know if it flows through all other living things

I’m thinking this capacity is a few rungs up the evolutionary ladder. I get some sense there is a form of consciousness that is all pervasive, but I am unsure if the door swings both ways.

The universe is aware of me and the microbe, I am aware of the microbe and have questions about the universe. Is the microbe aware of me or the potential of the universe? We’d have to redefine notions of cognition in the process.

Giv 'er a swing. I’m curious and not bored.

Maybe creation can’t be explained by boredom alone.

Well? Passion may, reasons vary. Is it fair to say that someone else is as passionate about something else as you are? Compassion may not flow through us all equally.

I am also inclined to the notion that because it is not all of it, It may be some of it.

I often say to people, “don’t tell the universe that you’re bored, because you’ll be sent to hell and hell is never boring”

More to the point though, I have solved the problem of boredom with hyper dimensional mirrors:

Imagine reflecting anyone just as they are in their platonic form and never pushing the “no” button.

Oh my… I wish I could just download my brain into you right now, because this is a VERY long post, or just talk to you walking down the sidewalk.

Think further what desire / aversion constitutes.

What it truly implies.

The evolutionary psychology gold is sex dimorphism, rape dimorphism,
and weapons and combat training dimorporphism all combine to give
females, relative to males, involuntary discomfort for sexual
signaling of any type, like when the eyes involuntarily blink when a
bug flies by them.

This means that the male and female subconscious interprets female
acceptance to male sexual signaling as a “no” for all first and
escalative approaches.

When a male does this, the male is sending a signal to the species, “I
don’t care about the first no”

If the female accepts him after this, she is sending the signal that
“no means yes”

This “no means yes” is interpreted a rape by the subconscious mind.
It is taken out upon each other and the environment.

What’s further understood by the subconscious mind is that had the
world been taught better about human sexuality at its inception, the
world would be a better place, and because all sexual selections would
have been different, nobody alive today would have ever been born.

Psychologically, people argue against all of this reflexively, that
100% of all human sex has been rape, to maintain their narrative of
meaning and purpose.

The 5 Stages that a Sex dimorphic species must traverse to not
contradict itself.

In a sex dimorphic species, one sex is larger and more threatening
than the other gender.

If it’s not the individual, it is the whole… a 5 foot man approaching
a 7 foot women is still more threatening (his other friends), because
the sum total of men are stronger and more threatening. If for some
bizarre reason, men and women decided to go to combat against each
other, men would kill all the women, they would win that war.

Because of this phenomenon, when men approach women with the same
approach a women can use for a man, the women will show more
discomfort than the man will, from minute discomfort, to extreme
discomfort. Where a man may look in disgust and say “go away”, the
women will call the police, or get a bunch of her male friends to get
the guy off her. For the same approach women are always more
uncomfortable than a male.

What this means as a whole, is that women have a “no” for first
approaches. This may not be true of all women, this discomfort for
being approached, but, since this is so extremely rare, this forces
the man to play mind reading games about female consent, which can
lead to very dangerous situations, making him believe he is the
special exception which reads the vibe better.

So the rule, is “No” for all first approaches from a male to a female.

This rule also applies to all children, as they are dimorphic as well,
compared to adults. It’s a “no” for first approaches.

But it’s not only the first approach that matters. It is the
escalation that matters as well. If a women turns to you and smiles
and holds your hand for the first time in an intimate way. Leaning
over to kiss her, is an escalation of first approach. This is also
mind reading, “the vibe”… every stalker on earth or inappropriate
person is feeling “the vibe”. Vibe is almost universally abused, as a
mind reading game, and is not an excuse for escalation.

The problem here is that any behavior that is ornamental or escalative
from the male side, is already turning a “no” into a “I don’t care
about the no”. If an escalation is used and it turns into something
more, then the female is sending the signal to the entire species,
that “no means yes”

This is where the first stage comes in:

Everyone who has violated the 5,5,3 rule, needs to split up, or never
make sexual contact until the 5 stages of a sex dimorphic species are
cycled through. Otherwise it’s just a “no means yes” relationship.

The second stage is to create intentional communities of about 1000 to
3000 people to work on the other stages.

First approaches must be 100% from the female side. This means NO
ornate male behavior.

Sex distribution ratios need to be equalized between the sexes. The
largest aggravation on the male side is that women are only having sex
without about 2% of the male population before they settle down with
somebody. For men, it is non consensual that women even have sex with these
men, but it’s vastly more non consensual to men that only 2% of men
get almost all the sexual contact with women.

The next stage is that the sexes can start to approach at a 50% to 50%
ratio, with males only using direct approaches and not ornamental
approaches. Now this entire time, females can use ornamentation and
homosexuals can as well. An example of a direct approach is saying
“would you like to go out with me on a date?” An example of an
ornamental approach is watching a sports game on television or wearing
sports memorabilia to show your dominance to a female, your
aggression.

The 5th and final stage is now that the species has been made aware of
the damage of “no means yes” for all heterosexual bondings, males can
finally start to use ornamental behavior again.

The problem with the subconscious being aware that all sexual
encounters are rape “no means yes” is that men take it out on women,
society, other men and the environment at large.

If everyone is trained to use better communication for better outcomes
sexually as a global community of intentional communities, then we can
expect nothing less than better outcomes in all areas of our lives
here.

It is important to note that the number one use of ornamental behavior
in men is that contradicting of ones self. If someone contradicts one
self through many layers of encryption, the female brain interprets as
base code “He said he doesn’t exist, but he’s still here! He must be
God!”


The 5 heartbreaks of relationship

1.) If you’ve ever been hurt by not being in a situation that someone
else is, when you get to that point and it hurts someone else,
somewhere in the back of your mind is a self hatred for doing to
others what hurt you.

2.) If someone is attracted to a person you are with, it may make you
feel superior, however, the idea that the person you are with would be
with them the way you’re with the person your with, causes fear ,
defensiveness and anger. The anger is actually at yourself. The
reason it’s at yourself is because you share the attraction to one
person in common with them, to be angry at them for being with the
person you’re with, is the same as being angry at yourself for being
with the person you’re with. This causes self hatred. This is
avoided if people follow the step of evening out the distribution
ratios between the sexes.

3.) Depending upon the person, millions if not billions of people
could be equally or more compatible in an exciting and different way
than the person you are with. One love does not outweigh millions if
not billions of heartbreaks in terms of the loss

4.) I call this is commiseration heartbreak. When we love something
or someone, we are compelled to share it without harm, so that we can
commiserate with others in a bonding way about that love.
Hoarding a relationship, doesn’t allow for this bonding to occur. And
causes the 4th heartbreak of relationship.

5.) The fifth heartbreak is that you don’t have relationship in the
way you desire.


The three objectifications:

Large Penis
Tall
Money


The three abuses: The three abuses are used to circumvent the three
objectifications, they are MORE powerful in terms of what females
consider consent !!!

1.) proclivity to marry (slave/master/celebrations of the zero sum
nature of ones reality /victor mentality, antitrust contract(making
someone say what they’re going to say and to forever, instead of
simply trusting them))
2.) sexual jealousy (if a woman has sex with another man, she will
leave you if you’re not angry at her or the man she slept with)
(conditions men to be sexually jealous)
3.) approach escalation: Women have said no to all escalations - so
any escalation that turned into relationship is a no means yes
relationship.

There is one more part to explain:

If a male puts out to the universe, the cosmos, “I want a wonderful
woman”, he has approach escalated ALL females in the cosmos, which
means he’s not allowed to have sex with any of them, whether they
approach him or he approaches them. (I made this mistake 25 years ago
and have to live with it). My only options now are a female more
powerful than all males combined in existence, a planet going through
the 5 sex dimorphic stages before they meet me, or philosophic zombie
worlds, marionette worlds (using philosophic zombies), hallucinating
ones entire reality from eternal forms, or hyper dimensional mirror
realities. Women can put out to the cosmos that the man they approach
is their wonderful man, but they cannot put out to the cosmos that
wonderful men approach them.

A man must explain all of this to a woman, and not have asked the
cosmos for her, and she must comprehend all of it, in order for their
relationship to be a yes means yes relationship.

what’s interesting about the subconscious mind, and everyone on this
planet who sees men and women holding hands and laughing, knows deep
in their psyche, that the woman is laughing at her rape and with her
rapist. This causes many minds to snap. Snapping is not an option.

I’m teaching you very deep secrets about this world and how to bring
lasting peace to it, I hope you consider these teachings well.

I’ve seen those on many a Star Trek episode… the Captain always coming away bemused by the concept.

This is what I would call a messy relationship, where outside influences ruin a relationship… along with egos, the outcome of those egos dependent on who has the better options available to them.

MagsJ, my post wasn’t trivial or a comedy post.

For example: I’ve watched every episode, every spin off and every movie of Star Trek. Not in one, do the discuss using intentional communities to work on sex distribution ratios.

So where am I supposed to start with this entire inane post to my life’s work?

I did not state in what form those scenes transpired…i. e. who discussed what with whom about such a community as that existing, so your doubt on the matter is perplexing.

My perspective on this topic/life’s woes is a light-hearted one, and your perspective is always from one of constant anguish, so how you perceive my post obviously hinges on that fact.

I was expecting a better and more learn-ed reply from you, but no matter.

Now you’re just projecting onto me.

This is likethe thread where it ended because I stated:

So you really want to tell the whole world and yourself that the meaning of life is consent violation ?

Dead silence.

MagsJ: I need to be straight forward with you:

You are tolerant: that’s an admirable attribute

I’ve read you on many boards, you are nowhere even near approaching a philosopher.

You are a web of inanity and projection and defense mechanisms.

The philosophers life is MUCH harder than having a terminal illness.

Please attack the argument, and not the character of the arguee i.e. me…