What would you do if you found you weren’t in reality?

Here’s the scenario: You’re in bed, asleep, dreaming and then things happen that seem too weird – too at odds with what you know to be the case and you go “Shit, I’m dreaming” and then you wake up. It’s probably happened to you. No big deal. Only thing is what if you realise you’re dreaming but you can’t wake up? There is such a thing as sleep paralysis which means that you’re not fully able to wake up but you’re also not still within the dream world.

Well, what if I was to tell you that that is just like the actual situation that we find ourselves in? That is that we are in a kind of cultural and social ‘dream’ and even if we realise that, we can’t wake ourselves up from it. Now I don’t care if you believe me or not. It doesn’t make any difference, because just believing or not believing that to be the case won’t change anything for you. What this is about is what you would do if you believed it to be the case?
That is, what would you do if you believed to be the case what actually is the case but that you have no incentive to believe?
My presumption is that there would be nothing much that it would change for you – everything would continue to have the same weighting that it does now.

Let’s step away from the ‘what’ for a moment and look at the ‘how’. How would you know that you weren’t in reality? What kind of event would have to occur for you to say: “That’s it, I’m not in reality”. We might think of this as the Truman show hypothesis. The unreal thing about the Truman Show is that he realises he is in the Truman Show. I don’t think that’s realistic. Think of a series of events unlikely happening to you – either fortuitous or not. For instance, imagine that you just win every single thing that you do. You win every lottery, competition and game. What would your explanation be? It will no doubt be that events are being manipulated, that someone or something is making it happen. You will have any explanation for highly anomalous events but it will never be that you’re not in reality, because what can you do with that? The important thing to see here is that it is the ‘use’ of the explanation that makes it the case that the explanation is not entertained. So if it is the case that you’re not in reality there’s nothing you can do about that, or with that, so another explanation is always chosen. Once you understand that there is nothing that could convince us that we’re not in reality you will see why people don’t advance that as a hypothesis and even if they were to believe it there would be nothing they could do in that case.

Incel as reverse pedophilia

A lot of the power of the incel community is drawn from the communities’s denial of incel as a real phenomena.  This denial contrasts strongly with the lived experience and even anthropological evidence that the incel community has at its disposal.

Having been incel myself a one stage I don’t disagree with it being a real phenomena and it’s not specifically about the incel trying harder or doing better or ‘personality’.  It’s deeper than that.  However, I fully believe there is a way out that does not involve ‘rope or cope’ as I found a way out myself.

The trouble is that when I try and help, I just run into a wall of negativity that is ‘cope’ in itself.  There becomes wallowing in the lived experience at the expense of all other options.

One positive way to look at incel is as reverse pedophilia.  It is typical for the incel to describe themselves as being in the worst possible position.  Yet on honest reflection he has to admit that pedophiles are in an even worse position, having a strong legal and moral prohibition on their actions.  The pedophile for instance can’t have porn or prostitution.

In some other ways however they are similar.  The pedophile desires children, but the children don’t know or care about the pedophile.  They probably don’t even know what a pedophile is.  That’s like a lot of women with regard to incels.  They certainly don’t understand the lived experience of incels.

With regard to children and sex the prohibition on sex with them isn’t to do with the sexual desires or lack of them in children, but rather the lack of emotional and intellectual maturity to consent to those acts.  This means that even if children started experiencing sexual desire for adults that wouldn’t necessarily help pedophiles.  Children experience desire for lots of risky behaviour, and are still prohibited from partaking in it.

If male children suddenly started experiencing sexual desire for adult women then they would be like incels.  Probably worse, because they also wouldn’t be able to access prostitution or porn.

What kind of mental prerequisite is necessary for a person to become sexually mature in order to be able to have sex?  At the moment is thought to be mostly intellectual understandings reached by a certain age, so that they are able to make informed choices with regard to consent.

What is it that primes someone to be able to operate sexually as an adult?
The current model it that it is simply a release of chemicals like testosterone at puberty that primes the person.  Nothing else is needed.  So for instance if you took the brain of a ten year old child prodigy who is (say) attending university and transplanted their brain into an adult body then you would suddenly have a fully functioning sexual adult.  They would be both smart enough to be able to make informed consent choices and the right physiology and chemicals in order to go out and be able to have sex.

Well I hate to disappoint people but it takes a bit more than that.  I person has to be primed sexually in order to operate sexually.  Unfortunately there is a gender bias in the priming.  Women are much more easily primed than men due to the methodology of the priming.

Basically women are primed by being presented by sexual behaviour by men who are responding, primarily to their physical appearance.  Essentially by being hit on by men they are forced to start acting sexually in order to manage the implicit and explicit demands for sex.  This is the case for 90% plus of women who are physically attractive enough to warrant such attention.

For men however it is a different story.  They are primed primarily by male on male competition and developing a stance befitting of that competition.  Once that process has been completed the male will have traits that females find attractive.

The problem for incels is that while it is guaranteed that women will be exposed to sexual priming by men, many males who become incels miss out on sexual priming for one reason or another, and are trapped in an emotionally pre-sexual world, all the while with chemicals causing sexual attraction but unable to act on it.

The internal experience of incels with regard to women is always operating from an inferior or familiar i.e family standpoint whilst simultaneously experiencing sexual attraction.  For the incel it is like there is an invisible force preventing them from acting on their attractions and no apparent interest from the woman in them acting in a sexual way anyway.  From the woman’s point of view there is a puzzle – someone who would be male, but does’t seem to be acting like it and yet complaining about their lack of sexual success regardless.

There is one other thing I should mention, and that is that safe modern society also makes it less likely that a female would give due regard to a male.  If she doesn’t have to worry about her personal safety there is no reason to treat males well or go to them for protection.  I call this the “man sized protection agency thesis”.  That is that being in a more dangerous society gives males an advantage with regard to females as they will need to go to them for protection.  It’s hardly a solution to incel’s problems though as it comes at a high cost in human life.

Oh, there’s one other final thing in terms of sexual priming of women.  It can’t actually be possible because that would mean that males were hitting one women who weren’t primed i.e still in the childlike state.  That can’t be possible because everyone hates pedophilia and that would mean that we were in some weird pedophile society where it was just common and normal at an emotional level.

And that certainly can’t be the case

A bunch of links

Many things are ignored. This should not be:

“In fact, we make most decisions unconsciously, and only become aware of them consciously afterward, once we already start acting physically on that decision.  The delay can be as long as 9 seconds.

For most of the things that matter, your unconscious mind rules you, not the other way around.” – Nick Morgan







He also has books!

On Eye contact and autism

For all the time I knew about it as an issue I had what I’m going to call a ‘blocked channel’ theory of eye contact and autism.  That is that when you’ve got a question like ‘why don’t people with autism like eye contact or make eye contact?’ then the answer is just simply that it doesn’t mean anything to them and they’re not getting anything out of it.  So in other words the emotional information being sent and received is not being sent and received by autistic people.  And I have to say that I thought that was pretty much part of the definition of an aspergers or autistic person.  It turns out that’s not the case – at least not the case for everyone.  I found a question on Quora.com:

Why can’t people with Asperger syndrome make eye contact? Is it scary for them? Do they get an intense indescribable feeling when they make eye contact? What goes through their mind or what do they feel when they make eye contact?

Although there were some answers like:

“It’s not that I can’t, it’s that I don’t. I’ve noticed that when I do look into someone’s eyes, I see nothing but their eyes. So when someone says “the eyes are the windows to the soul,” I can’t see anything. I had no idea that people could actually “see.” That’s really cool.

I don’t get anything from it, so there’s no purpose to it. That’s probably why I don’t do it.”

(Which is what I expected) There are many many more like this:

“Eye contact? It is often very difficult and uncomfortable for me. It is intense like the person’s face is shouting.”


“For me making eye contact isn’t a huge thing, but when i am feeling overwhelmed, making eye contact is WAY too much information. I can’t be honest whit someone when I can see all of their micro expressions, it’s like trying to solve a math problem with someone counting out loud near by, I can’t both be honest about whatever I am talking about and take in (and sometimes even feel) their emotions at the same time. Sometimes it’s scary, like looking a lion head on knowing at any moment it could lunge at you and kill you. Sometimes it feels like I am under interrogation, and I have to use every small expression on their face to pass and not get thrown into a pit of snakes.”

This is a big deal that suggests that my theory is wrong in the sense that autism isn’t one condition with regards to eye contact but two conditions in much the same way as mania and depression are two seperate conditions but are both mental conditions.  One condition is a lack of awareness of eye contact and another is two much awareness and understanding.  I have to say that personally I have migrated from one to the other – (Little to too much)


Phillip Schofield isn’t gay

What a terrible thing to say!  Everyone must now believe that Phillip Schofield is gay (which is a big deal apparently) Before he wasn’t gay and everyone must believe that he wasn’t gay but now he’s said he’s gay we must believe that.  I don’t believe it because I don’t believe that anyone’s gay because I don’t believe there is such a thing as ‘gay’.  No one cares what I think but I’m going to tell you why I think that regardless.

Phillip Schofield isn’t gay because no one is because there is no thing that ‘gay’ is.  I would love it if there was a thing that it was because then we could divide the world up into people that are gay and people that aren’t, but we can’t because the concept makes no sense.  It makes no sense because it is unfalsifiable.  There is literally no way for me to prove that Phillip Schofield is or isn’t gay because there’s no facts of the matter.  It is literally believed to be the case that whatever Phillip Schofield’s honest opinion of the matter is is what the case is.  So if Phillip Schofield thinks he is gay then he is gay, and anyone who thinks they are gay, is gay.  I am confident that no-one would ever think to challenge this religious principle.  It would be like telling a Christian that they hadn’t accepted Jesus or something.

Being gay is just a modern religious principle.  There are no underlying facts there.  It’s the modern version of religion!

It’s so mind bogglingly obvious to me that the whole thing is fake.  Being gay is supposed to have something to do with same sex sexual attraction but when you break it down it’s really just a cultural statement.  It’s saying “I want to be seen as a certain kind of exalted person”.  The exalted person is willing to sacrifice their opposite sex sexual relations onto the altar of gayness because it makes you a monk or priest of the moral society.

What if everyone became conscious of their same sex sexual attractions?  Would that make everyone gay then?  No, because then it wouldn’t mean anything.  Then it would specifically have to mean people who behaved in a certain faggy kind of way.  But Phillip Schofield already behaved in that way before he announced he was gay, so I suppose no secret could be kept on that basis.  Why don’t we just say that anyone who has some effeminate behaviour or non macho behaviour is gay?  After all they are producing those traits.  And why don’t we say of those remaining macho guys that if they react to the effeminate on a sympathetic basis that they are gay too and if they don’t – if they’re threatened by it well they must also be gay.  

What about anyone who comes into contact with a gay person must themselves be gay? 

Once upon a time (briefly) I thought that ‘gay’ people must really have it going on.  That they must have some kind of enlightenment that others lacked.  What a dream.  It turns out that in general, not only are they just as dumb as other people but they are immeshed in cultural niceties and rubbish even more.  Many don’t have a clue they just experience some same sex sexual attraction one day and think “op I must be gay.  That’s bad news, but at least I get to be exalted by society”.

‘Gay’ people may have not been able to self delude when it comes to sexual attraction and so that’s a positive, but they just buy into a pile of self delusions in other ways.  They can’t choose their sexual attractions.  They can’t behave how they want to behave.  They are slaves to certain passions and they have erected their identities on the basis of sexuality as opposed to some other cultural rubbish.

Maybe I should announce that I am gay.  That way if I have sexual relations with women then that’s seen as some kind of weird deception that that the moral society doesn’t like.  At least I could punish it slightly in that way.  If I was to say like I have with gender “I’m gay – everything else is the same” that would confuse people.  Well it has no meaning so it doesn’t matter whether you say you’re gay or not except in people’s perceptions of you.  I suppose it would be better to say one has no sexual identity.  No sexual identity.  No gender.  What a free way to live!  Then I could just be a homo-sapien out in the world.

Should I give up Personhood?

Give up Personhood?

I’ve recently been thinking of giving up on personhood.  A little background:  The first to go was sexuality.  I didn’t really realise it so much at the time, but it became obvious after a while that those sexual categories were never going to cut it in a descriptive sense and it didn’t make much sense to make more.  Penguins can’t be gay and ducks can’t rape!  Why use these mad categories for humans?

Our sexual categories are self deception on a grand scale.  To define yourself in terms of them is an act of self harm.  There’s a lot of people self harming out there!

Anyway, I reject sexual categories and call them myths.  


Gender.  Good old gender eh?  We’re saddled with it from birth unlike sexual categories which we can pick up on later.  Invariably it fails so what do people do?  Do they reject if?  No, they just invent more and more… and more.  FB has a list to choose from and pronouns are seperate.  Mix it up!  Your gender might be she, but your pronoun can be he.  (I can tell I’m going to use a lot of explanation marks in this blog)

So I specifically thought about it and thought I’ve just got to get rid of it, I’ve got to get rid of my gender and so I did.  I’m glad to have it gone.  No one cares so long as you don’t do anything different in terms of your actions and appearance.  Oh, I also keep the same pronoun.  That helps.

It not being any different just goes to show how useless the whole thing is.  It’s not like denying the holocaust.  But surely it should be so much more important to people because EVERYONE has got to have a gender and the gender they have is via them thinking some thoughts in their head.  Whatever thoughts they think is the reality, out in the world, of this central tennant of social reality.

So if someone was to deny their gender that should destroy how people relate to them so how can it all be the same apart from people saying “that’s a little bit weird” etc.  Where is the oppression?


Finally it had to come down to this.  It sort of slid into view.  People can call you a ‘person’ after you’ve given up your gender.  They shouldn’t be able to do that.  I’m not a person!  Take your culturally laden accusations of personhood and get out of here.

I’m non-aborted human life.  I’m fertilised egg that got a bit too big for it’s host.  I’m living it up in the environment by being some dumb voyeur.  I’m some entity banging away on a keyboard to make you understand that banging away on a keyboard is NOTHING.

How can I be a person?  A person has rights.  I have no rights.  But attack me and I will attack back.  The attack may not be physical.

A person is a cultural being.  I see culture.  I pretend culture, but at least I know that I’m pretending.  You don’t.  You don’t know how to.

I can make statements like this out of pure frustration.  We’re not in reality here folks, the very least we can do is recognise it.  Get to grips with it.  Live with it.

But personhood?  Come on.  We’re not going to go and believe in that after rejecting everything else are we?

Still, it does seem a little risky to go and say “I’m not a person” it does open up the entity to some kind of nasty attack so that the cultural upholder can say “Ha, you’re a person after all”.  After all got to be a dick in the world to keep the creatures you believe are people to keep on being persons.  That’s persons being dicks BTW.

At this stage there’s no real benefit to socially giving up personhood.  I mean it’s nonsense but it’s not being updated with more nonsense that would require me rejecting it.  No one is saying they’re a “gersion” [That’s a made up word BTW].  I’ve got to talk using this damn language and talking about myself without using personhood would be very inconvenient.

Maybe I won’t give up personhood quite yet but it’s definitely on probation.

Hmm, someone has already falsely equated giving up person with physical suicide.  I much prefer my suicides to be non-physical thanks very much.

Give me convenience or give me death.

What to do if you meet someone who is aware?

There are aware people out there, so what to do if you meet one of them?

It is an understatement to say that in general people aren’t aware.  That is, aware of the psycho-sexual environment.  It might be that only one in a thousand people are aware.  It might be less but even if it is a very small percentage of people there should be a large number of aware people out there.  For instance: If it is one in a thousand, then there should still be a thousand people per million so for instance in a city like Auckland there should still be more than a thousand aware people.  Even if it is one in ten thousand then there should be a hundred or so.  The much bigger problem is that these people have no words for their experience and importantly no shared language to describe it or even label their state.

This means that even if there are aware people around, they would have no way to talk about it with other people.

I’m not talking about “self aware”!  If you look up “people that are aware” on Google then it comes up with all material about self awareness.  Self awareness is all very well but interpersonal awareness is much more important in my book.

The thing is that if you’re aware then you eventually kind of ‘forget’ that you’re aware.  It just becomes part of life.  But if you meet someone that is aware you’re suddenly made ‘aware’ of it again.

The question for me becomes – when this rare event occurs, what to do about it?

First up, how can you meet an aware person?  It can happen any time at any place.  It can be anybody, although in my experience it is more likely to be women perhaps because they are often more socially aware to begin with.

What is the experience of meeting an aware person?  It’s a very difficult thing to describe.  It’s noticing someone and them noticing you.  An analogy would be like meeting someone with an extra sense.  The idea of the land of the blind might be too blatant.  If everyone was blind and a few people were sighted then if a sighted person saw another sighted person then that would be pretty obvious and a big deal.  It would be obvious to everyone if someone was sighted and they were blind.  They would get around the world so much better!

If everyone was deaf and there where two people with normal hearing that met and no one knew anything about ‘hearing’ then it wouldn’t be obvious at all.  Two people with hearing might spend quite a lot of time together (talking is sign language of course) before they noticed that the other person could hear.

Maybe there would be a loud noise which would startle the hearing people but no one else would notice and then then might notice from their mutual reaction that there was something different about each other.

Being aware falls somewhere between these two extremes.

It’s instantly noticeable when someone is aware when you’re aware, but it’s not noticeable to other people – obviously, because they are not aware!

The biggest issue that I’ve had when rarely meeting an aware person is what to do about that at the time?  Do you pretend that it isn’t happening?  Do you act the same way you normally would?  Do you try and say something?  If so what?

You can’t exactly say “Hey I just noticed that you’re aware.  Pleased to meet you.  Do you want to talk about it?”  

Note [I have a linguistic convention to say “you” instead of “one” in this instance] 

I mean you could say that but no one would know what the hell you were talking about – even the person themselves probably wouldn’t know and they almost certainly wouldn’t use the word “aware” to describe the experience, if they even had any words at all.

A more accurate way to say it might be: “You know how you noticed something about me which seemed different to the regular person?  Well I had that same experience.

Well actually they probably know all that.  They know everything but they don’t have any words for it, that’s the weird thing about it.  It’s kind of like saying to someone at a funeral. “I feel sad”. Really? You don’t say!

All that is happening is that each person is noticing that the other person is noticing or at very least that something is different.  

More accurately, each is noticing behaviours that are regularly unnoticed.

Who knows what the internal experience of those people is?

I suppose there are two levels of awareness of this sort.  One level would be the sort of semi-aware person.  They’re noticing the behaviours but they’re not able to articulate that the other person is also noticing them.  This usually causes an amount of confusion in them internally.  It’s kind of an odd situation.  I kind of want to say “It’s ok, I’m here”.  I’m just like you.  That’s what’s so weird about me!

I read a story about a girl who go raised by monkeys.  She considered herself a monkey.  If she saw another human among monkeys she might think there was something mighty strange about the ‘monkey’ but she wouldn’t necessarily equate it with herself.

That’s like the semi-aware person.  The fully aware person (in this analogy) will see another human rather than a monkey.

When it’s fully aware meets fully aware it’s a bit of a freak show.  When you’re an aware person alone in the mythspace it’s like: Ok I have to deal with the mythspace and just pretend to ignore the environment.  When there’s another living breathing person in the environment and you’re still dealing with on the basis of the mythspace, then that’s a higher level of insanity.

In a way though it does remind me of why I don’t want everyone to be aware.  I don’t want everyone knowing everything and judging me.  I want to keep the advantages that having access to the environment gives me.  I’m happy to keep the mythspace I just want to connect with a few aware people on an intellectual level for mutual support and appreciation.

Please get in touch if you believe yourself to be aware!

What I won’t talk about

That which cannot be spoken of must be passed over in silence – Wittgenstein.

I’ve done a series of myths whereby I say such and such is a myth.  Now if anyone ever cared they might say such and such sexual categorisation or social practice or understanding – is that a myth?  Yes it is, but there are some specific things that I cannot go through in that way.

There is actually a lot in the environment that I don’t talk about because it’s too upsetting and disturbing to talk about in a general sense, but there is a specific subset of these things that I can’t talk about because they are taboo subjects and the like.  With some of these things people might believe that I have a favourable view of these things or participate in them.  I do not.  I don’t even do stuff which is effectively socially acceptable, but I’m so conservative that I don’t even do it.

Not being allowed to talk about something is an interesting thing because people generally think we can talk about anything.

The kinds of things I talking about not being able to talk about here are things which can’t be tested out by science because people believe they already know the answer.  For example I couldn’t kill someone if I was convinced that I could bring them back to life.  I couldn’t test my theory out.  Well I could do it, but that wouldn’t be allowed by society.  There are quite a few social and sexual things in this category.  Things for which there can be no empirical research.

Mostly this involves issues of consent.  I don’t believe in consent as a religious concept as it is believed by society, but I have not violated supposed consent regardless.  Nor have I taken a different view as to the kinds of entities and persons covered by the religious concept of consent.

But I just wanted to put this disclaimer that I haven’t violated any social norms in this way.

I have seen things which I imagine I haven’t interpreted in the correct way as far as society is concerned, but I’m pretty sure at this point that it is permitted for a person to have any kinds of thoughts that they might happen to have.

I hope this has been illuminating.