When it's gone it's gone

So, let's talk about the Magic of it all some more ... and maybe get to some other things in the process.

So - uhm ... shock value. I've mentioned it - on and off - as something I go for ever so often - and primarily it stems from my own realization concerning the harmonies that I discover. Put to an expression then, there are images and concepts that resonate with the condition; And it seems like I yet have to clarify a few things about it.

In that regard - I think the most pivotal term or concept to all of it is LUST. Which can at times also translate into sense or meaning. Perhaps a bond. It is a manifestation of the transcendental, being as a common or mutual motivator. Or ... so the belief at least.

And next to it, there are so far - as to my consciousness right now - two general ... problems we might say ... that are pivotal to understanding it - while on the other hand ... I suppose ... easy to misconstrue.
One concerns the presence of morality; And the other concerns depth of experience.
Woven into it all is the fact, that it deals with emotions that are specific to a given context. And this context can easily exist as 'in the real world' - or normal perception - and isn't in and of itself a validation of these things. So, Rape, Murder, Abuse, Sadism, Sorrow ... these concepts exist in their own right alongside some emotional spectra. And so we get to the first ... I suppose we can think of them axiomatically. So, the first axiom ... were it ... concerns the entailed experiences themselves and how they are produced. Not necessarily the action. So, say, a Rape Kink could be pursued by either going for the rape or the kink. So the idea is not to legitimize Murder or Pedophilia or any of that, but to decouple the problematic aspects from the Kinks. Well, it would be so if we could ... do so. But, alas, if God is helping us - that's also nice.
So ... to describe this axiom in terms of a problem, it is: How can a good heart commit acts of evil? So, how is it rape if it isn't rape? Or, how can I "get disrespected" - or humiliated for that manner - in accordance with the fetishes and kinks - if we inherently approach one another with a baseline of respect that is above these things?

Let's flag this as "the moral paradox". And ... to my concerns ... there is no need to really dig in and be all technical about it as though ... there was anything we could do but find unity with God. That is what clarity is about after all. So, primarily do I herein see a ... well ... inevitable source of confuson that ought to plague the unenlightened. Because it just presents itself as such - and without access to 'the LUST' - one is stuck with the ... well ... normal modality of the concerning conditions.
And sure - I suppose - that's now one thing for me to keep in mind to figure something out.

Anyhow ... there are ultimately however still ... discernible things at play that I can try to mention at least ... . First of all - mentioned often enough I assume - the immersion. So the whole bit about how the theory is beside the point - and the point more to the point is to relax (Between Heaven and Hell - pages 189-192). So for instance might the topic of consent be on peoples minds. Without it - it's ... bad. With it - it's no longer ... real. Or so the moral paradox. But within the aspired conditions, the consent is already implied. Or in other words: It doesn't matter. To then be able to discard those concerns and give into the LUST instead, bypasses that problem entirely.

And from there we get to the next problem. This is generally a matter of realism on the one - and a concern over boundaries on the other side. So - one ... thing ... that happens to be a significant ... thing ... is a ... kink ... that runs counter to my Clarity. And it's generally "a ... do to [them] as you want [them] to do to you" type of thing. Now, I'm not really a fan of "to know how to deliver pain you also need to understand what it's like to receive it" philosophy - mostly because I don't think Clarity is logical like that. But I suppose there's truth to it nonetheless.
And when in one such state - I certainly do as makes sense to me - but ... in concerns of realism there sure isn't a concern for boundaries. So was the previous issue - where now however the question becomes that of ... whether or not it could be trusted.

And so, for the time being, we loop back and around - speaking of righteousness. Or the Light. If not only to highlight one thing in particular: The difference. If there so were no difference between standing in the Light and standing in the Dark ... the whole thing is mute. So, speaking of absent defensive mechanisms - one might compare the situation to alcoholism maybe, or a general addiction at least - there clearly is an "all is possible" statement being made. Certain things would however not fly in the Light of Righteousness - yet so it would seem we're back at issue number one. Unless ... we could for the start just trust it.
To that end, we have to distinguish between two categories of LUST. Or ... Clarities. The one is aligned to one's own being regardless of 'realism'. It is there to help one grow an understanding of ones self; As per how one were to unfold within presented possibilities. And yea, that can get quite brutal and what not - or unreasonable ... such and such. This isn't about being reasonable - but about personal insight. And ... I would think that it takes time for one to find ... "safe spaces" therein. It's like ... first the seas need to get charted - and then one can start to extend 'reason' into it. And that's ... Clarity in and of itself.
Mostly without the 'reasonable' part.
The other is what we might call the 'immediate Clarity'. And in the sense of taking baby steps - we wouldn't start at the end of where Clarity takes us - while there's a lot that comes to bear out of the immediate. And here it sure makes sense to talk about safewords and boundaries and such.
Between the two, ultimately, a balance ought to emerge. In other terms: Outside of Clarity, in the real world, these days, we generally can speak of 'transgressive' and 'consensual' activity. We can try to understand these two in accordance with the two Categories of Clarity just introduced. Transgressive activity corresponds to the one ignorant of 'realism' - and would be what's classically known as 'Lust' - and Consensual activity corresponds to the 'immediate' part; Thus involving matters such as communication and getting a feel for one another.

And so can we finally come to name this thing. The problem here emerges when this separation is misunderstood. So, say ... I'm into Snuff. In my ... 'primary' Clarity I'd just ... Warp 9 into the Chaos Rift to High Five Slaanesh and get comfortable. I'd get high of the sensations, orgasm, sleep - and the experience impresses itself onto my personality or how to put it. The next day I wake up and have to navigate reality. I'd make some coffee - breakfast and stuff - and while my mind is occupied with matters of the day, the matters of Clarity are being discarded - and while we're at it ... I can extend some realism into those experiences. Which wouldn't stop me however from doing so yet again ... that night.
Uhm ... maybe that's unnecessarily extensive.
Though, it might be worth mentioning that: Although the theory (no norm theorem for once) is quite simple - it took me a looong time to really get to the bottom of this. Like ... truly. Which is a matter of the primary Clarity - that ... there is depth beyond what the physical world can accommodate. And ... uhm ...
What I want to get at, for once, is that 'transgressive' activity is an enactment of these urges that are primarily personal and not really concerned of consent and such. That is one way of saying, that once these urges are pursued in the wrong environment, it's wrong.

But more importantly now - in respects of Clarity - does one develop an understanding of self. The urges take one into unexplored territory, but are also only a part of the whole. So, I may be into Snuff ... but most of what I care about as per my Clarity does not involve Snuff. Uhm ... how to ...
Uhm ... OK: The 'immediate' Clarity isn't concerned of any one individual pursuit found within the 'primary' one, but is itself a pursuit in its own right.

So ... described as a problem, is this axiom a matter of not letting fantasy get in the way of reality. And, for that matter, also of not letting reality get in the way of fantasy.

Or, perhaps more to the point: Primary Clarity is transcendental and the focus is one's self. Immediate Clarity is direct and 'from' the involved selves.

And now ... I suppose there's only one issue remaining. How does it come together?


So - in oversimplified terms, the condition now is, that one were to indulge in all sorts of things in their fantasy, while outside of that having really just normal sex. How is that now ... achieving the goal?
Well - because ... it's not just 'normal' sex. So, when writing it all out - after years of delving - Clarity ... is pretty complex. Overwhelmingly so. And whatever "remains" - what matters - is as a summary or average of it all - where now ideas and things that approximate certain things can ... well, trigger ... deeper aspects of ones self.
So is my understanding that I'm enslaved forever and always something that may pop into my consciousness from time to time - and when it's a time in which I'm not effectively enslaved, like ... restrained or whatever, it just doesn't matter. I do whatever I do ... and that is just that. When however in a situation, like ... being of service, or even just when I'm urged into virtual exhibitionism, my understanding of reality implies the reality of my Clarity and hence the situation ... resonates. This way it's not 'normal' Sex and stuff because the corresponding practices get like ... a bend of sorts ... .

So - those that Rape ... in this context ... gain their LUST, we might say, from understanding that they are a Rapist; Rather than 'trying to Rape'. From there they connect with facets of their self that make them so - which then has an effect on how they conduct themselves - as yet still a 'self' thing rather than a matter of the condition. So then someone who wants to get raped - gets raped as a rapist indulges themselves upon them. And that is 'the magic' of it - the part where we for the time being have to trust it. To say that this situation between rapist and victim is the quint-essential point. And whatever 'reason' now affects that situation - is entirely beside the point. I mean, it is important; But - it's like: Taking a situation that is as in-conducive to the fantasy as possible, the dynamics between the personalities yet exist. Personalities that further exist in cognitive and social structures that are ... the fantasy.

So - on a side-note: Without 'real' experience it is difficult for me to really talk much about the 'immediate' aspects of this. I can tell that my 'primary' Clarity led to me to express desires that were seeking 'primary' satisfactions in the 'immediate' - and it took time for me to get that filtered out. And technically I also just can't. So, I assume that LUST, in the immediate, just wouldn't ... let it be a thing for no reason.

But, there's also an anecdote that I have. So, browsing through the closet where we had all the BDSM equipment and Sex Toys ... I started to really fancy one particular Dildo. The size just turned me on. So, here ... in the sense ... my 'primary' Clarity came through for me to follow in the 'immediate'. Turned out however, that this Dildo was too big. Or fat ... rather. And my butt ... wasn't used to it and so ... something tore and I bled. But ... the obsession didn't fade. And so some time later - nothing bled and I had some time again - I tried again. This time being more careful - and long story short ... I had a lot of fun with that thing throughout the years.
So - yea. It ... may sound dangerous or risky ... and I'm sure we could think and talk this through ad nauseum - and sure find a 'best way' to go about things. Which is ... then ... certainly ... what we'd default to.


And that's ... that.