1. i wrote a note to myself few mins ago: porn is structurally equivalent to advertising. both are visual art forms designed to focus a part of the attention on something in particular and by inversion to attempt to exclude consideration of other things (such as context/matrix). everything is intended to disappear except the point focus. the room disappears leaving only the people. the people disappear leaving only the organs. the organs disappear leaving only the action. the action disappears leaving only the desire. and the desire of course is not "real" but "artificial."
a (linear?) spectrum of "attractiveness" from porn to purdah. looking toward a conception of the general ("three-dimensional"?) field of attraction. if seen from "outside" the field what would that be like?
yes? no? i need comments here please.
2. this morning i found myself in a strong state of quiet eyes with the moving layers very sharp and enhanced ability to maintain the quiet in horizontal head turn, my hard-thing-to-do. an idea came and i tried doing the eye exercise sequence with one eye closed. the "moving layers" were present with only one eye, either one, and not only with head movement but also with eye movement only. i found my self surprised. obviously then the layers are not produced by the shifting parallax of the 2 visual fields, or not entirely. i wondered if there is parallax between the 2 sides of the visual picture produced by the curvature of the retina.
i further reasoned that if that is so then the idea that "depth perception" is dependent on having 2 eyes and that if binocularity does not exist then one can't judge depth is not true. i tested that by the reach-out-&-touch-things-with-1-eye-open technique & determined that as far as i was concerned there is actually depth perception with 1 eye.
i look at the stats of readers of this blog & find that some 300 people seem to have looked at it. most have come from the website, some from fb, some from unknown path. 16 countries. i now need comments on this sensory work i'm doing. my aikido teacher knew immediately what i was talking about, so this is "real." i feel like i'm boldly going where none have been before, conceptually of course, because this is just "ordinary" sense experience seemingly described thus for the first time. surely this is not correct. help me please. your own experience, your own reading. conceptual parallax. please help.
"confusion" perhaps the impact of unexpected aspect of reality on one's preconceptions, in absence of those preconceptions confusion cannot arise. when one is advised to "leave no room for doubt in the mind" it can be taken either as advocacy of the process of filling one's "mind" with conceptual concrete (mantra, etc.) or to leave "it" empty like sweeping dust out of a room.