Welcome to The Duncan Trussell Family Hour Center for Self-Optimization

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Community Reputation

3 Chaotic Neutral


About DinduNuffin

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

555 profile views
  1. what is going against his ego sir? hmm? another aspect of his ego? one fragmentation against another? come on sir. the thinker is not separate from thought. thought creates the thinker. not the other way around.
  2. @karmor, drugs. they are wonderful aren't they sir? and then, perhaps, an impediment. then, maybe a regret. or perhaps fond memory. in reality, drugs are dispassionately defined sir, and so surely it is expectation that gives rise to classification. put differently, drugs naturally have no connotation outside of relationship. it is only when that relationship is contrasted against expectation, that there is the slanting of definition. perhaps if we discuss together relationship, we will come to a communal understanding of the nature of drugs. relationship is action isn't it sir? think about it for a moment. when you are out for a walk and you begin considering the problems of the day, the anxieties, your sources of pride or condemnation. that state of consideration is not action, is it sir? that state of consideration is akin to the activity of the house cat, licking his bum free of residue. that is activity; to groom the self image when there is not action. but have you watched the house cat in action sir? when he is shitting? when he is fighting? is the house cat so concerned with his bum residue then? surely he is not. so we see then that action can override activity. now sir, you make the distinction between drugs 'that give spiritual experiences' and otherwise, the sirs should see the significance of this indeed. that is, in reality, drugs are no more than their mechanical interrelationship with all things, it is us who learn to fear or lust for them. do see the significance of this sirs. drugs that trigger the reward system are useless actually, as one can learn to override the reward system by discerning completely one's field of expectation. but there are certain drugs that increase the palpability of that field. we know these drugs don't we sirs. the psychedelics. so then to your question @Karmor. you asked: 'do drugs continue to help the speaker? and if so, how?' we see that drugs become helpful or hindering through the process of activity. that is, the mind, when not engaged in action, which is relationship, approximates the self image, like the cat licking its anus, but the self image is not made of stone it is made of residual action. so the self image requires constant maintenance. the speaker can discern its futility sure, but he is naturally obligated to conduct action. that is, he must relate. and if he does not relate he will fall into that state of activity, where the self will be statically defined and so there will be conflict. so then one must relate without the impediment of activity. and the best way to do that is to take the fucking KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE @Karmor. and then there is the matter of drugs and creativity...
  3. real talk.
  4. @tyqo first, you must understand relativity in perception. that is, your self definition relative to reality. this contrast forms your subjective experience. so if you equate yourself as greater than your co workers on some scale, then that will be your experience! you will go to work everyday and feel bored or frustrated. your mind will rummage around and look for ways out. always looking for that which complements your self concept. but will you find it sir? the speaker puts that you will not! the speaker puts that you will never find the quietude of reality without first discerning the barriers that prevent you from accessing it. so how do you find those barriers good sir? how do you find that which blocks the reception of reality? ideals, beliefs, expectations, they are hidden in the crevices of the mind, and so there must be relationship/association to draw them out. so then the way to find reality in perception is through watching the ideals, beliefs, and preconceptions drawn out of the mind through relationship. that is, as you relate to things, thoughts associated with those things will emerge from the crevices of your mind. now if you are aware of these thoughts, but don't condemn, identify with, or rationalize, then there is a movement towards self awareness. but the moment you rationalize a thought, condemn a thought, or identify with a thought, the self definition is refurbished, and so, refurbished is the point of contrast that brings rise to subjectivity. do see the significance of this good sir.
  5. sirs, a question has been put: is it weird that the speaker and speakette, who are cohabitants, have a discussion on an Internet forum? That is, why do they choose to discuss the matters of ENDING CONFLICT on this forum over the privacy of their own home? Now sir, it is as 'weird' as it is any other static, relative, approximation. But a static relative approximation of reality, which is a moving, unfolding, flowering thing, cannot be sir! So then surely we cannot condense what is happening here into a lowly general impression. Surely there is something much more sir... @DindetteNuffin, perhaps you could answer the question for the good sir? Why are we having this discussion madam?
  6. capital letters are for capital fools madam! by jove! the 'appropriate use' of capital letters is tradition! tradition is a form of authority. and authority limits perception/thought/action. perhaps YOU will find a system of capital letter use that is tailored to your perspective, or, perhaps you will be the wind up toy to someones else's opinion. but the speaker will look without preconception. "engagement subsumes the self, from the single fleeting consideration, to the communal movements of society." the mind that is engaged is not approximating itself relative to things. this is true on the level of the particular fleeting thought, where the engaged thinker is not interrupted by self approximation. and it is true on the level of greater society. that is, when an entire population is engaged - which means there MUST be communion - there is not the rise of conflict that is the result of self definition. do see this point madam, before we move on. see the conflict that arises from self definition, inside and out. ah! madam your response elicits the question: when one is considering a memory, are they too creating a memory? that is, can you consider a memory and create a memory at the same time? will you try it sirs? sirsettes? try the experiment: consider and create a memory at the same time. can you do it? wham bam COMMUNION ma'am. perhaps if we answer the highlighted question we will find out what divides the observation of perception from perception. so can you do it sirs/sirsettes? can you consider a memory and create a memory concurrently? will you try it sirs? sirsettes? try the experiment: consider and create a memory at the same time. then describe your experience.
  7. now sir, why do you suggest that the speaker is not a man of his word?
  8. full engagement subsumes the self. FULL ENGAGEMENT SUBSUMES THE SELF. hopefully you see the significance of this good sirs, good madams. hopefully you realize that this is not just clever word play. hopefully you see that, actually, engagement subsumes the self. from the single, fleeting consideration, to the communal movements of society. now what is the self really? surely it is the observation of activity. filterable, and accessible through association. and accessible only in particular moments. then gone again to exist only as fragments, or associated perceptual overlays that are increasingly subsumed by the increasingly engaged mind. so naturally, the self concept gets tossed around by waves of engagement. that is, there is some activity, and then later an approximation. you make a move, then form a relative approximation of that move. naturally. this is how we define ourselves. engage. define. repeat. now, engagement in the observation of activity is simple. it occurs, mechanically, naturally. it is the i process. that much we understand. but it is perhaps a little too abstract for some of us to consider the continuum of engagement in regard to the observation of perception. have you ever considered the continuum of engagement in the observation of perception? that is, we see what happens to the self when there is engagement on the level of activity, which is the i process, but what about the level of apprehension? perception? that is, what is the result of increased engagement in the observation of perception, and not activity? and it matters not whether that activity occurs in environment or thought, it is still activity. so then sir, what is the result of increasing engagement into the observation of perception?
  9. so then we see that both the COCK and the MIND collect residue. and that they must be washed clean of this residue to find communion for both hand relief and perception. so then madam, let us wash our MINDCOCKs clean of KRISHNAMURTI. KRISHNAMURTI was a handsome, articulate pussy monger, but nothing more! so who cares about KRISHNAMURTI! especially when reality is right in front of us! the only thing we must do is get through the forrest of preconception that is subjectivity. and that is what the speaker hopes to communicate to you madam. that is, the METACONCEPT the unveils reality in perception. sirs, a question has been put: what is baseline identity, relative to engagement? put differently, does engagement distort identity in perception? is it a continuum? that is, at one end there is the unengaged mind, which naturally becomes concerned with defining its relative position, and at the other end is the mind that is fully immersed in some activity. now, is the mind that is fully immersed in the activity concerned with defining itself relative to things? put differently, is there the self when there is engagement? @Thel, POWOTE,@DindetteNuffin? sirs and sirsettes? IS THERE THE SELF WHEN THERE IS ENGAGEMENT?
  10. indeed. now sir, what happens when one evaluates and approximates themselves in this way? that is, labelling the self as he who swings between or is either the cynic and the mystic. what happens then? surely sir, the result is the same for the mystic as it is for the cynic, in that both exist only as labelled time, which is associated memory. put differently, an approximation of the self is an effort to describe what is dead, which is time, time is gone, succeeded always by creativity. so to approximate the self is an effort to describe what is not, and so will always lead to confusion/conflict/duality. is that not it sir? now sir, can there be meditation outside of practice? outside of repetition? outside of becoming?
  11. what the speaker is suggesting is that creativity, and not relative creativity, not creative capacity, but instead the mechanical movement of creativity, can only come about, when the mind is not bogged down by the impulses of previous successes or failures. put differently, creativity - which is the movement of originality and not mimicry - only comes about when the mind is not impeded by thought. thought is the past. and so to see what is actual, which is the creative unfolding of reality, there cannot be patterns or constraints. alternatively put; reality is creativity. and reality which is creativity is not experienced when there is expectation. now, what divides the patterns and constraints from technical knowledge sir? surely that is the next question.
  12. sir, does not pursuing the parrot of another disembowel the parrot of one's MINDCOCK? that is, the moment one walks with predetermination, idealism, beliefs, tradition, mimicry, is, to the speaker, the moment creativity stops. is that not it sir? perhaps we could go into it?
  13. is this it madam?
  14. That's it sir! You see! It is not the speaker that changes, but rather ones approximation, ones definition. The speaker is neither real nor fake. The speaker is.
  15. Sir, we are getting to it.