An unreasonable Update

Well ... titles shmitles.
However ... there is one thing that keeps on bothering me - and - because it does that, I'll keep on writing about it. The thing is that I kindof mentioned that it does that, but I didn't really realize how that would go on. Of course ... . Well. The basic idea is that once I write about it, it goes off my mind because there isn't really something to tell about left. Realizing the 'it doesn't go away' part as that, that it won't go away, means -obviously- that I'll write about it for as long as it keeps bothering me.
Hmm ... that went as well as expected!
Which means, ... not so much!

This wasn't much about the subject itself, but about how I recognize various things on my mind and deal with them.
In this regard I have to resort to Mathematics to 'actually' provide a clean and easy concept of what I'm up into here.
There is the issue, that I'm bad at maths. But also do I kindof need to be good at it, for what I want to do. So, you possibly know that ... bad at maths, but good at geometry. For instance. Then, math works good as an example because if we think about 'logic', or someones logical capabilities, math is that 'one' thing that cannot be corrupted - its the constant of everything logical. So we can go and say: The better I am at math, the more logical of a being I am.
And I would say that this is true!
But, good at geometry, bad at the rest, ... what 'is' that? How can one be good at this but not at that?
That I fear I haven't gotten an answer for!
Yet, the very thing I've just been working on and gotten around to solve 'FINALLY' - gave me a good example of what I can and cannot do! The thing is that I've had this part work twice already. Once in the prototype, then previously in a "well rounded" manner; And now I changed the approach a bit. So I logically knew what I needed, how things work; And so I eventually got it to work the first two times. Same with this third one. I knew what I had, what I wanted, etc. - but I probably did get each individual calculation but the most basic ones wrong ... and although I tried to reason it out yet ended up solving the problem rather by accident; And am effectively still not a bit smarter than before. Well, a little bit. The problem is: 2/1 is not 1/2. Of course! Silly! But now, once I think about it (emphasis on 'I') - there is the task, there is the solution and the desired outcome. Task: Do write functions containing [solutions] for (outcome). Now is in my head 'solution' however a cluttered up mess. I take the three as one. So I take 'task' from 'outcome' and fill it up with solutions, but because my mind is utterly bad at the math part I end up with undesired results, wonder what went wrong and that eventually becomes a tedious journey. That I might speed up if I went about it on paper first, but that is yet another thing. Sometimes ... I can't really get it to paper.
What this means is that math holds multiple disciplines of logic. What I'm familiar with is stuff like, when multiplying a rotation matrix onto an offset matrix, you get a rotated offset matrix. But don't ask me in which order of what algorithm. If it doesn't work the one way, it works the other. And that is basically how I work.
I know in about how divisions work visually in various cases - how factors function - but its quite accurate to say: When I have to make an effort of visualizing something, those resources are occupied, ergo: I'm still bad at math!

The reason why I don't really believe in practice is because I believe in a simpler fact: Some things I have an easy time picking up, others I don't! Simple! Good at geometry, bad at algebra. The reason why I should still believe in practice is because sometimes we need to know something before we can understand another. And so there are glitches. Glitches like: I'm perfectly capable of understanding algebra, I'm just utterly bad at it. There is a functional side to it - and a priority/order side. So, I have an easy time doing this and that, but a hard time doing that and this - and if I keep doing it I'll become better at what I'm bad at; But ... this isn't about that one particular thing I'm bad at and that I'm bad at it!


So, there is this thing that keeps on bothering me. As within the previous example it was pretty much clear to me that it might keep on bothering me and that I would have to then get back to it, eventually, and so I'd try to solve the issue each time I'm getting down to it.
That is simple. There is basically nothing wrong. But depending on the nature of what bothers me I could understand how it were to reoccur. So, the dilemma here. Well yea, not too big of a deal! Some things simply do come back after time and I'll write about it in more detail. Same goes for this.

The thing is though that I've seen something coming - and I prepared for that. Now I think that I rather saw something fairly common to expect. Sooner or later someone would stumble onto 'just' those writings that without the proper context ... and so I thought about that context and made sure that nothing is too isolated from what matters. Yet all of that given context is 'futile' when the negative things themself overweigh. So, lets give it a name and say thing X is about Sex. Or, no, it just has a segment that revolves around sex. So, taking 'Lars van Trier's 'Antichrist' - the thing is as much as asking: Is it actually porn? If you don't know the movie - its some psycho drama that has one sex scene where the actual intercourse is visible, like in "any porn". After that scene their child gets killed and thats where the movie begins. So, not much porn effectively. At that matter you however have your "Its an artsy movie" glasses on. You don't see the porn! Its just there! Someone might however browse through your VHS (?) collection, see the scene and go like: "Yea, porn!". And so there is that group of people that would label the movie that way - eventually - by which I mean: it depends on what 'filter' people have on.
If you read that something herein is about Sex - you'd isolate its content; And coming back to Antichrist: You'd take that porn scene, sort it away like: "too little" and OK! Except you are kindof obsessed against nudity in movies - then the whole movie doesn't matter - what matters is a nipple here and a nipple there.
Now, if people aren't too stupid - then all this rambling so far didn't really matter!


This might then even be an incident of me ... basically overthinking something. It happens in code every now and then too. What I mean specifically is that I get an idea - but the code I have doesn't really hold up for it. So, once I don't have a lot of it I'd just go and write stuff up independently - but thats victim to the rule of "Don't try to do too much at once".


Well, what keeps on bothering me - lets just try it simple - is all about my Identity, or should I say: Sexual Identity? Its the one thing that every now and then comes over me and makes me basically reject everything I've written about it thus far. And I'm sure I also mentioned that before. And so the nature of this topic is none re-emergent as of growth, but re-emergent as for a record of continuity.
There are then signs and traces here and there that would even conclude that. For instance is the human mind not a static thing. As previously mentioned: We can compare it to a flux that summarizes our totality. So, consciousness I mean. It can never capture all at once, is always different, and as we grow will never be the same.
Therefore when I get to a point of saying "this is what/how/xyz I am" there is always this and that which might occur to me and changes everything. Like, the one moment I'm more liberal, the other more conservative, while in the end the thing is of more static things on my mind than my contemporary awarenesses.

What I say when I say that I'm [whatever], is more like that I have [some and some] kink. Its the expression that puts [whatever] as a constant which causes this problem; Plus that the 'I am' version does not provide for random changes.

And so, I have these Kinks however - and what I mean by identity is a conclusive 'center' that summs up what belongs together. As so, there is 'Clarity' - where it aren't the Kinks that made my Clarity - it was my Clarity that attached to some of them. As of that, I am a whore. Thereby I'd firstly speak of Kinks, because thats how it makes most sense to me, ... and whatever the detail, thats basically it - what I'm saying! That I have some kinks which eventually would make me a good whore; As much as Kinks could do that.

There now however are things that changed - and things that remained. And the back and forth between them is basically what constitutes the problem I'm having. As made up so far: I'm trying to deal with a finite issue that by something overseen became a recursive one.
The point is that as for what I'm trying to tell, the thing is pretty much ... solved. Anyhow. There is clarity, there is that, this and so and so. Done!
The most frequent and significant change to whatever that is has so far been my programming ambition. To the extreme that takes me to situations where my current situation is vastly ideal, except for minor issues - like how clean my room is or how I relate to stuff around me. Which includes how I'm 'supposed to' deal with my time. Once I'm ignoring how government wants it (because I'm on social aid) - all is well. Even just one day 'off duty' throws everything into chaos! I've been there, I've tried ... and its just a thing. Trying again ... isn't something I would do!
In this ideal there is no time or space for Sex. Or anything sexual. Until I go to bed, but then my fantasy can do! Possibly even better than ... real life.
Except that I still have vast stretches of time where I end up doing nothing. Where I just can't get a clear grasp of what the hell I wanted to work on again, or how to do it, ... so eventually I ended up just smoking weed all day thinking about what to do next - and weed isn't really an issue. I get to good and bad times either way.

Anyhow - what these changes effect the most are my social implications as of my clarity. Those would pretty much be conceived, firstly, in regards to my clarity. Logically. So, there is an ideal that comes of clarity - and the ideal social frame would support that, as clarity is supposed to be the ideal between individual and its ideal surrounding.
And so I get to my programing habit that way - where I say its a minor part of what I am that I'd eventually come around here and there, when properly fit into my environment. So, draw a circle, draw a smaller circle into it, and thats my programming mindset. There I would go on and visualize it as "my room" or "a office" - where the outlines of that inner circle are just more of whats in the larger one, well, drawing the transition in slavery.
And so there are terms aside of my clarity that tell me what I am. Each however becomes effective in its individual surrounding. Doll and Pet - per se. This is all about the larger circle - while the fact that my conscious freedom is outlined by slavery is what gives the Doll Kink its oomph - while that again is what establishes the 'Pet', alias Doll + Living Freedom - so, as one up from a dead object (within what people would find pleasant).
So do I then get to relate to those terms in two ways: 1) When I got nothing else to do in term of Kinks. And 2) When I am invested into programming as something negative. All that can or has to be expressed in far more detail - but there is still a short and logical way around: When the inside of the smaller circle gets set equal to whats inside the larger one - I have to reject it. So - there is the 'glitch': I wrote whats true about me - possibly high and totally immersed into that reality - then get back to do some other thing; And it is said that we shouldn't work in the same room we sleep in. Bad! And so I'm consciously in an 'all is sexual' mode and in transition to whatever I want to do have to kindof push that aside.
And so it comes down to the 'I am [clarity]' sense, where the thought itself - that of what I am - is easier to handle 'as is' than it is to adjust the thought to reality. So that smaller circle first gets ignored - which whenever I get back doing the other thing now I know I mustn't do. I should rather look for that 'legal opening' in there. But its something I think we're not all that used to! Like, religion! Yea - I mean - its easier to take a religion by its looks and deal with it that way than it is to look inside and change your idea. And then there are those nasty parts where you have to totally change fundamental concepts of reality to grasp this and that. So your mind would initially tend to discomprehend something.

So, as it stands its easier and more 'right' - at this point at least - to say that I am [my name] and I have [clarity] kinks. Period. Not saying how much clarity is or any of that. I yet refused to leave it at that, as I mentioned, because I 'want(ed)' the absolutes thereof to be stated as absolutes. Or so - I didn't want to slander its relevance.
The realty is still the same. Be it clarity or kinks - compatibility is compatibility. And in the "disarmed" version there are similar problems as in the "armed" one - regarding compatibilities where depth matters. Here the thing to me is that 'full depth' is the place where I ended up satisfied. And yea, that is where my 'snuff' kink comes in. As, before I embraced it, I couldn't tell me how to properly express the rape-kink I have. So, after I got there I knew it was "the bottom" as things became round, ... and thats one thing to depth. Speaking of rape for instance are there a variety of "Levels of" we could think about. Having it just be a kink, getting a slap on my butt might be as much as there is to it. Regarding 'absolute values' I am however more on the other end of the spectrum.
What matters next however is yet another modification of values - so we're back at the "just a Kink" side. The primary modifier is ... well ... 'reason'. So is there an extreme: Rape. My depth goes "so far" - but one thing about Clarities is that they are more of an "I am" than an "I want" type of thing. So I "am" despite how much or little of it I actually 'crave'. But well. On another note is there 'reason' - and 'reason' is settled in 'reality'. So to each extreme there is the individual 'reasoning' - which is in this case as simple as + or -. I think of it as of a ring - representing 'reality' - and the kink/extreme is a radial line from inside to outer infinity. We have multiple of those lines - and our mind is located on the circle. So, to say, that a motivation of preserving life would draw the "action line" inward. Uhm - ... ^^ ... - if I went on to say that I wanted to be snuffed my life were to end right away, which would be as far outward as possible. Except we lived in an alternate reality where rebirth is part of the inner ring so that death can be wanted 'within'. However ... the thing is that if I had a kink to get slapped - and each slap would make me worse at programming - then reason would alter the amount of slaps I would get over time. Or, ... should.

Other changes that happen every now and then are just and simple failures. When I connect a certain identity of mind to any given individual - the nature of this connection is random. So I might also be wrong. If I so made a wrong connection and wrote about it, that would come and haunt me. Yet, in about the same effects occur when I wrongfully assume that I'm wrong about something. The ... most public of these errors however were round about how I assess my male/free future.
For a time I've been thinking about it and I couldn't make friends with the idea that there is any sotospeak 'escape' for me. So, that my clarity is 'one thing' - with all that belongs to it - and there is no way for me to escape it. And there are also two ways of relating to it: Both circles as two separate thing, or Both as one within the other.
With this on mind it should be relatively simple to fathom 'where' my mistake was. I solved it already anyhow - but - just because now its actually obvious, here's the thing: When it gets to how I as the whole I am, am to exist within my social setting, the issue is pretty much up to the setting. So, for once: Naturally what "they get" is the 'whole of me' - which means: Smaller circle inside big one. But when it gets to real life, the sizes of each circle change, so that the smaller might even be the larger one. So, there is what I'm used to for once - then there's what they'd expect. And that is where I might end up both ways. On the lesser or on the further end of whats right. So I've been onto something, to the point of saying that there is little space for my male self, if any at all. But that is as with my snuff kink - it is the end-all be-all, but not!

For this bit we can kindof use bacteria as an example. So, about life and growth. Starting with the "just a Kink" side of things, there is first of all 'nothing' actually set specifically. Yet there are those 'Kinks' - and those would be fertile ground for the bacteria. So, once a compatible relationship were to exist, things would sooner or later grow on these spaces. Thinking of my smaller circle within the big one - 'a' thing were that first of all the outlines around the inner circle would show. So, the outlines of slavery. The - pretty obvious stuff (outlines). So I would be male - and with the one other constant in my life being those kinks, I would identify myself as 'slave' - though at first only within that relationship. And no: It is 'not' easily possible to cut corners here! I mean - I have made contact with snuff often enough to know that I didn't right away "fall" for it. Now that I know it would be possible - but ... there are those issues, like, if thats were all that there is, why bother having any other kinks at all? Uhm, sortof.


As for changes in general: No matter how I consciously align round about my Kinks: How I make sense of them is one thing, how I experience them yet another. How I experience them pretty much doesn't change - outside of sometimes feeling more and other times less ... blissful. Though the bliss element isn't the core element. Well. But how I make sense of them changes - and more often than not things aren't all that complicated anyhow.


So, for you all to take home: Regarding the greater extremes of mine: Try to not get 'tolerance' mixed up with 'embrace', where 'embrace' is ... basically 'immersion'. I mean, you could say: If I do a thing and you side with me it is as though you'd do the thing. Thats that "if I saw someone shoot someone else, I'm as good as the murderer if I could possibly have done anything about it like 2 million years ago having looked left instead of right" stuff. In that regard we can draw a line, representing a kink, with left being full-extreme and right being zero, you're on either side if not exactly in the middle of in about just any line we could draw. If you're on the full right of something - and you're asked to tolerate something - that doesn't mean you have to change your position on the line from right to left. If its that boolean of an issue, its just about which direction you're facing. If you're facing to the right you lean towards rejecting the thing. If you're facing to the left you lean towards 'tolerating' it. And the secret of peace is to learn that there is pretty much no line that we shouldn't "approach with tolerance" - except a few nasty ones. Maybe there are just as many of these as of those though ... so, hmm. But yea, in more easy this is a thing about 'learning of things that can be 'pro life'', as 'pro life' is what this is all about. And in the end also 'pro life with God'.


As for a reasonable 'change log' however: I discarded the changes I've made regarding the geometry of things after I thought a bit more about the Antichrists repentence, so now he's disconnected from it again, and it feels good again!
So I still have a 2-4-1 thing going on - saying: Still the same 2, 4 and 1 - ^^ - and I'm still no less certain of who those are. At least on 2-1-1. Though even if it were 2-4-2 actually - there are still some that wouldn't fit in.
As for what it is - its 'still' an abstract individual(ized) perspective onto a timeless reality. So I come to realize that the 1 in the 2-4-1 'is' my legitimate love interest, similar to the 3 of the 4 and the 1 of the 2 - but each is a little different. In the 2 and the 4 the love interest goes "through" a modification, like 'Friend'. So, 'love interest' is different if the lover would also happen to be your (appropriately gendered) best friend. Its like with multiplying matrices - the other determines the outcome!
I could however be with either of them together at the same time because thats how reality works. It doesn't 'end' once those abstract barriers are broken. And so is the question "who is my Mother?" either one for my biological heritage, or the answer can be: More than one. Here I'm not so sure regarding compaitibilities - but - ... I would first of all assume that the quality of an individual satisfaction isn't dependent on how deep each compatibility goes, ish, because time also matters. So there is person X who in a certain thing [a] eventually feels better than Y - while with Y I'm 'more compatible all in all'. What makes me unsure is whether or not there is something about X that makes [a] feel more positive than someone who's just compatible with that thing. And what about it? Still depth then ultimately matters when we're facing the idealization of everything - which is a matter of 'time' - where time is infinity.

After all - I still would argue that the answers that matter are those that remain true even when not having thought everything through thoroughly. I mean, I can't say that I have thought everything through thoroughly or else I wouldn't have any issues left. Yet there are answers that I could have given way back/since ever - like, would I prefer to be male or female? In the nitty gritty of my thinking it mattered more and more and became more and more of an elaborate question - for sure - and so the big trouble of letting go of my male side also got more and more an issue of 'what it is' - or 'what the act implies' - but ultimately the answer is two sided. Or - a percentage. Then the question were: What constitutes either side? Though in the end I'd still easily prefer being female; And thats a sooner or later thing. Kindof.
So do/did the answers not even get better! Thats the thing! Thinking of Snuff I'm more certain that I would eventually kindof come to agree to it when pointing various things out - while my reluctance wouldn't constitute an 'error' that has to be eliminated, but a 'love' for other things that are more relevant to me at that time. And so does the 'yes female' thing grow the more I separate being male from stuff I do. Although at some point that 'stuff I do' is ideologically a male thing. In the end there is no real saying anyway. I mean - ... changes ...!
I mean ... this would be OK for now - but - now I got something on my mind that I just can't ... skip on. If I had been done with this ... I would now look for a really short update eventually.

There is a 'real' saying - where we allow ourselves to be as real to our 'core' as necessary. I've been there before too. This means that 'in the beginning', when we haven't thought about it all that much yet, we should allow ourselves to be crazy. To just go on and fill out the blanks as it feels best - and for the most part thats enough! Or entirely! I mean - thats how it works!
As for details - we'd need a proper form with proper blanks to begin with and that to see how much we know per se; Individually; But what I mean is on the surface. I'm male, am into women, consider myself female, my clarity is 'whore', I want to be a slave - stuff like that. The simplest bits. The rest is down to real life and establishing relationships.
However - yet another thing, or 'the' other thing? ... my mind is totally screwed! ...: Am I transsexual? This is actually the big problem! So, am I a woman inside of a mans body? I wouldn't say that! I'm a boy inside of a womans body, inside of a male body. Here it are the circles, their sizes and priorities - we might say. So, if I were female I'd be a guy in a female body - but I would be female enough to not bother a transition. That because the female part is the larger one. So right now I am male inside as outside - but the larger chunk of me is female to the point that I would want to bother a transition!
Which in terms of filling out them blanks though ... I can see how I wouldn't want to acknowledge that - and therefore would need time to wrap my head around things. I mean, no matter how easy and simple it is - we possibly all need that every now and then. Yet, easy to say, there is a way of overkilling it! Like - or well, what are all the things I might possibly be alright with and how and would or should or could I mention it? Like Cuckold - thats something so far off my mind and totally not near anything that matters to me that I so would say: "I couldn't". And there are positive as negative things to it - as of which I would, if I had to, say that its nothing. That is a line of things where 'Love' is more important. So, if someone I liked were into it - whichever way - there is only a minimalistic chance that I (all things considered) wouldn't be OK with it. That'd be hypocritical anyhow. And yea, it would finally be Gods work to make us see beyond our own errors - or blind spots - and see what matters. So, if there's Love - its got to be.
Whats more important to me anyhow is 'what I want' - or don't want - like, for reals. In regards of Cuckold, I'm not really into it. There is that certain implication that within my deepest privacy there would be someone else next to me and whom I'd be with - and thats not really my thing. But eventually 'privacy' is far more of a circle than it is a dot! And that is where things 'explode'. I mean, thinking of two individuals in a circle, the one thing in the middle that the two revolve around might not be what either of the two really wants - and the fact that either of them really wants something the other doesn't want as much causes this gap to be in first place. So, its like the YinYang symbol - a bit - or ... can be.

So, being with [X] would give me pretty much all that I want except there is thing [1] that I didn't really mention which I would have to be OK with in order to ... ziiing ... where do I need to sign? ...
Like with food! If I happened to like x, while the other 11 don't, and x would spoil before I could eat it, we wouldn't have it as often as what more do like in common. So, I maybe don't like y, ... and oh yea, I guess there are people who would make a tremendous deal out of it! ... ough ... no ... I can't deal with that now!


(I'm dealting with a different type of spoil right now!)
(And thats my own type of ...)


But oops - yea - I can definitely see myself as being entitled to the one or the other thing ... eventually. Which is maybe even so the better topic to go on with. Its a huge mystery for me though; And I think it wouldn't ... if I had more socially strong experiences. Or ... hmm. Anyway ... its the same thing as wondering whether or not I'm male, or which circumstances, or how all the different relationships I'm wound up into come together when put into one place; Or what changes in this or that situation/environment, or when just removing X and Y - in any combination of whats up. There is no way of having everything 'to the ideal' without considering our ways to get there. Though there is a certain humility one certainly does need to make it 'in'. A humility for the truth - and possibly for Gods will as well.
I mean, certainly - otherwise, one wouldn't get baptized!

Maybe.

But then ... .

As for any random situation where two of my 'spouses' were around - there would be a definite situation of priorities and stuff - but none of us would really know them. What I think I know for a fact is however that there is Love, there are genuine attractions, saying that if a relationship wouldn't work out right away or on the surface - but there certainly is that positive drag ... it is that Love that would make us want to figure out what we're missing on the surface. I mean, if I thought of my 'main Love' as solely or firstly 'love interest' - there is all on my mind that says 'yes' - because thats what this relationship is, period. But she isn't that 1 in the 1 (but the 1 in the 4), which makes it so that thinking of her feels odd when taking that 'love interest' as first.
What really crawls up in me - regarding any of them issues alike - is a concern for my mental health. There would be a bunch of things I feel like I should be entitled to them - and that in a universalistic (as opposed to a contemporary) sense - but in the universal sense the other side to it is relevance. The way we so would figure them things out were over time. If we settled on a way and it showed that I'm having problems with it - we'd eventually come to change the way, and that because of issues that then make way for privileges. So, it are yet 'side issues' that don't really bend things over. But so it might be one way of how I get to be entitled of opting out of working outside of my home ... or ... finally ... disallowed! I mean, when are we ever really disallowed to do something? So, lets say ... it would be a no go (mutually inclusive)!

And ironically, this might even be a point to this issue thats been bothering me!



Pro Life

CNS.2017.04.17|08:49