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.

DinduNuffin

Hrair
  • Content count

    464
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Community Reputation

2 Chaotic Neutral

5 Followers

About DinduNuffin

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

457 profile views
  1. that's right sir. it is PSYCHOACTIVE CACTUS that you want. CACTUS and KRISHNAMURTI.
  2. of course she doesn't have to be actively servicing the sir, @DindetteNuffin! that is not what the speaker meant by saying that the only time you have full attention of the MIND is when you have full attention of the COCK. that is absurd. perhaps the problem is encapsulation madam? that is, perhaps the problem is not the terms we use, but rather the meaning they encapsulate. let us first examine the COCK, and see if we share a common understanding. surely the COCK is not limited to the external dingus madam. surely there is more to the COCK than that. for if the COCK were merely a rubbery extension of smelly skin and pubes, it would not be chauffeured around town by the MIND. now have you every noticed this madam? that the MIND is to the COCK as morgan freeman is to jessica tandy? so we see that the MIND is the morgan freeman of the COCK. that is, it chauffeurs the COCK around town looking to find it physiological gratification. now the COCK is not cunning like morgan freeman, madam. the COCK cannot plan. the COCK cannot conspire. the COCK can only exploit the MIND, who's thought/action/perception is limited by its physiological realities. that is, its need for nourishment, sexual release, sleep, air, pain avoidance etc. these things are mechanically ingrained preconception. and one cannot run from them, suppress them. one cannot discern them away. no no. they are real madam. and so one must look to the COCK and MIND as jessica tandy eventually looks to morgan freeman. that is, one must see the COCK and MIND as integrated components of mentation. that is, one must be aware of the physiological pulls just as one is aware of the cognitive pulls. it is not a contradiction madam. you see, the plasticine speaker's wife has proclaimed herself to be sole flagellator of the speaker's external dingus. however, the plasticine speaker's wife and the plasticine speaker did not reach communion regarding the frequency and nature of flagellation prior to this proclamation. consequently, there is an incongruence of expectation. specifically, the plasticine speaker expects flagellation of the external dingus at least daily, but the plasticine speaker's wife expects flagellation should occur only upon completion of a series of unpredictably variable and secretive tasks. now, this incongruency is not specific to the plasticine speakers'. this incongruency is too the mechanical division between the MINDCOCK and the MINDUTERI. are we together so far madam? are we together on the division between the MINDCOCK and MINDUTERI?
  3. about halfway through KRISHNAMURTI CHALLENGE #6! there is much to discuss good sirs! back soon!
  4. @DindetteNuffin, my penis madam? this is not about my penis madam. the plasticine speaker wants to crush puss because that is his nature mechanically. now madam, perhaps you have tried to separate the MIND from the COCK? that is, to gain the full attention of one, but not the other. surely if you have, you have not found much success. and perhaps you have noticed that the only time you have the full attention of the MIND, is when you have the full attention of the COCK, and vice versa. perhaps we can explore this phenomenon a little bit madam, and find what is real. now the sirs are inseparable from their cocks, aren't they madam? sure, they could tear off the external portion, toss it in a river, but that would just create confusion, conflict. so they must cohabitate the same, limited cognitive space. so we have the MIND and the COCK, always skewing perception like two squinting anuses around a camera lens. the mind, filtering reality with its ideals, its preconceptions, and the COCK always looking to create illusions. illusions in perception, which is too thought and action. do you know how the COCK creates illusions madam? perhaps if we discern how the COCK creates illusions we will find out then what is right action.
  5. later guys! now sirs, perhaps we should talk about conditional approximative compulsion for moment. and through that we will understand why @The Danlo and @Hermes are so conditionally compelled. now, we know what is compulsion don't we sirs. that is, compulsion of the past. that is, our memories. the ideals we have identified with and so on. but what is conditional approximative compulsion? do you know sirs? have you ever thought about this or watched it unfold in yourselves? do you care to wager a guess good sirs? sirsettes? hmm? what is conditional approximative compulsion sirs?
  6. may we go into it sir? that is, may we, together, find communion on the matters of sex and perception free of limitation, or love?
  7. meaning madam? to the speaker, meaning is, fundamentally, residual association, which is memory. and since our particular associations vary with memory, the speaker is interested in meaning abstractly, that is, meaning outside of one's particular ideals, one's particular perversions. right interest is that which brings about communion, which is understanding. you see madam, mankind cannot move towards understanding individually. no no. individually, one can only discern an individual perspective on a problem. but to understand a problem actually, there must be understanding of the problem as it relates to all things, not merely as it relates to one's self interest. does that explain it madam? does that explain the problem of right interest?
  8. madam, the plasticine the speaker wants to crush puss because his plasticine wife has no right interest.
  9. no sir. that is not it. if we are to discuss this matter we cannot hang out in the realm of the particular. we are looking at the problem mechanically. sir, would you restate this, but instead put is as a series of questions that are, to you, undeniable. perhaps if the speaker reads it this way we will reach communion on this matter. so then there is suppression? surely suppression is duality. conflict. what is bondage sir? fundamentally. are you speaking of preconception? ideals? one's past? those things to which we are bonded. is that bondage? is that what you are referring to? taste is many things sir. gut flora, culture, availability, necessity. what divides them is the particular preconception. not the absence or presence of preconception. what is the supreme? ah! it seems the problem here is our particular understanding of the concept of virtue. to reach communion we must first understand what we mean by virtue. what is virtue to you? describe to the speaker the man who is virtuous?
  10. that's it sir! oh by jove you see! words are particulars aren't they. that is, they are each encapsulated with meaning. and, to each sir, this encapsulation varies somewhat doesn't it? so it may not be that we entirely disagree. but, instead we need to learn one another's vocabulary. the speaker has not read any of the great books like @Karmor. the speaker cannot quote the bhagavad gita, or any of the so called religious scriptures, so if we have a battle of quotations he will win. the speaker only reads the book of himself. and KRISHNAMURTI. and krishnamurti is no authority.
  11. by jove sir! do you not see what divides the particular from the abstract? what divides belief from discernment? this is not merely a deconstruction! we are discussing the mechanical composition of consciousness. the speaker will lead you right to it good sir. 1. do you see a difference between the laws of nature, the laws of reality, from those laws that are imposed by culture or religion? just a divide. we are not concerned with the value of any particular ideology or opinion here. we're just looking to see what division exists between naturally impose laws of physics and those laws that are the result ideology?
  12. sir, do allow the speaker to go into it for a moment. then, perhaps we will reach communion on the matter of the 88%. the speaker will put it differently. particulars sure complicate things don't they sir? and that is because particulars vary, while the abstract is always maintained. macdonalds to you, is not macdonalds to the speaker. so we must then look at things abstractly if we are to find communion. now surely we don't share the same preference in restaurants, so we should not use that example. imagine you were standing in the middle of the street, and before you are two HANDJOB PARLOURS. there is no obvious benefit to visiting one establishment over the other. both are staffed by the chinese. both are comparable in price. so how do you discern which one to go to. you stand there and wait unable to decide. slowly more and more patrons arrive, go inside, and leave a short time later. the customers are equally pleased upon exiting. so you begin to count the customers as they enter. after an hour of counting, you determine that 88 customers have entered the HANDJOB PARLOUR on the RIGHT, and 12 customers entered the HANDJOB PARLOUR on the left. so we have discerned that 88% of the customers used the HANDJOB PARLOUR on the right. now, the hypothetical you still does not know where to get this HANDJOB. he knows only that more patrons used the one on the right. now getting a HANDJOB is right action. so you must enter at least one shop. you consider the data you have collected and choose the more popular HANDJOB PARLOUR. you go inside and a BLACK TRANSVESTITE jerks you off. you exit confused and dissatisfied. 88% of the patrons went to the parlour with the BLACK TRANSVESTITE?! perhaps they were regulars? perhaps these men prefer the firm grip of the black ladyboy over the soft, slippery feet of the chinese woman? the fact is, we don't know. the only thing we know is that 88% of the HANDJOB patrons went to the one on the right. do you see the subtlety here sir? now, when you go to macdonalds, they are serving you a BLACK TRANSVESTIVE dressed up like a chinese woman. so popularity alone cannot determine worth. there must also be context and perspective. now this is not to say that approximation is not useful.. you did get a HANDJOB, after all... yes. they are useful. you will use them everyday. the speaker never once suggested that one should rid themselves of approximation. that is absurd. what the speaker said is that approximation skews reality when it overlays perception. put differently, the speaker is not saying don't get a HANDJOB, that is absurd. HANDJOBS are right action. instead, the speaker is saying if you choose which handjob parlour to enter based entirely on busyness, you could end up getting a HANDJOB from a BLACK TRANSVESTITE, instead of a FOOTJOB from an asian. do you see sir?
  13. indeed. it is quite arduous to find right action. that is, it is arduous because of conditioning.
  14. by jove sir! look around you! surely you can find that very street in your town! and surely that busy restaurant is called macdonalds or burger king. so the question then becomes, should you eat macdonalds because more people are eating it? remember good sir, approximation perverts thought, action, and perception. and objectively considering a fraction does not constitute an approximation. no no. that is, one can say 88/100 are eating at macdonalds and that is no perversion. but the moment one says, "i should eat at macdonalds because 88/100 people are also eating it" preconception has perverted reality. belief/discernment do you see this point sir? is it not that macdonalds does not have some desirable quality. it does. but that is not the full reality of macdonalds. macdonalds is variable. and complexly related. so a static image cannot apply. is that not it sir?