#moxie post

[theoliviaset]

Scientific justification for internal experiences is an interesting one. Sure it might get people on board, but for a subjective experience, there is nothing science could ever produce that could disprove said experiences.

Now, this is not to say that the interpretation of an experience's relationship to external reality can't be faulty or mistaken. If I have the internal experience of hearing the voice of god tell me to build a boat to survive a flood, and there's a drought when I'm loading the animals in two by two, we can all agree that I did not in fact hear the voice of any sort of omniscient being.

However, we can't deny that I experienced a voice in this hypothetical.

We could imagine doing a bunch of MRIs while I'm hearing that voice. And we could expect that they would show something going on then, that is the goal of psychology isn't it? But even if all things were normal, that is not evidence that I did not experience the hearing.

It's an internal experience. The only evidence one needs is the experience itself. Again, misinterpretation can happen. But the evidence would be plain as day to us: we had direct experiential access to the thing.

All the Theories and science in the world can be laid out, with suppositions on how mental states evolve and what causes a thought, but none of it can ever disprove a person's account of "this is what it's like in my mind."

If all of the scientific* evidence pointed to endogenic systems being impossible, they would have those internal experiences. Just like non-endogenic systems. Just like any internal experience. (Note* most of this discourse seems to forget that people's reports of their internal experiences are the foundation of the scientific evidence into what's going on in minds).

I like to share science because it's interesting. I like to show sysmeds studies because that's what they ask for. But at the end of the day, none of that proves the existence of plurality. Plurality is already proven simply by someone saying "I experience it."

You cannot disprove qualia.

[theoliviaset]

Okay, so it's been a week of trying out this new thing with our system, and so far the results have been positive. We have been essentially drawing names from a hat to decide who is going to front for the day (actually we roll a die and treat pk;list as a random table, but effectively the same thing). Putting a name in the hat is strictly voluntary (e.g. Octavia doesn't wish to front, so she didnt put her name in).

We haven't been dreading upcoming things as much. Whoever ends up fronting during the upcoming thing doesn't have the burden of knowing they will have to before hand.

We haven't been getting as front stuck. The "forced" switching to a random headmate every day has helped avoid our brain "defaulting" to one person.

We also don't collectively get stuck with one headmate taking on all of the responsibilities because they were just there (E.g. Faye often times would front for days on end and feel overwhelmed cause we would forget that we could give her a break).

Everyone gets time to front and do their thing without the sensation that they have to make their time "count". We would oftentimes feel like we need to do something while front and feel guilty that we were taking up other people's time. Foxy just watched YouTube one day instead of what she wanted because she had the body on a day that it was just out of spoons and didn't feel guilty since it was her randomly determined time to do whatever she wanted.

We also figured out some rules after starting this out that have been working. First, if someone draws their name, they are allowed to say no. Faye did this when we drew her name a 3rd day in a row for instance. Second, we don't make this schedule a hard thing. If someone needs or wants to step in for something, that's fine, and we don't judge one another for breaking the schedule; just remind them who's day it is. Third, we have 2 hats: one with everybody who wants to do this, and one for everyone who wants to work. We draw from the larger hat first, but if the name that comes up is someone who cannot work (e.g. our little one) we will draw from the second one for who will be the "chaperone" that goes to work or interacts with people.

Obviously this only works if your system has some amount of control over switching. We can consciously switch who is in front, but cannot unconsciously hold front (i.e. when we don't actively watch out for it, someone else will get yeeted into front). This has helped somewhat with that it seems. So even if your system doesn't have control over switching, it might be worthwhile to give it a shot, cause it could help with switch control (and it is extremely important to avoid judgement and blame when it doesn't work, cause of course there will be times where it doesn't work).

If anyone gives this a try we would love to hear your experience! Share what does and doesn't work. Tell us what modifications your system came up with!

-Moxie {O}

[theoliviaset]

Okay, so why the fuck are ve seeing that "socialized as men" is being used to attack folks?? What the fuck is this shit?

The whole point of discussing the gendered socialization is to talk about the gendered abuse, not as yet another bio/gender essentialism disguised as politically correct terminology.

People who are socialized as men are people who were abused by our society with toxic masculinity. They were subjected to a torture of having their feelings minimized or punished. They were taught that the only response to negative emotions was violence. They were shamed for not being the first to jump to violence. They were told that women were objects of their birthright and their worth would be judged by their body count.

And none of this is any sort of original sin. None of this is impossible to unlearn. None of this is inherent to men. Plenty of cis men unlearn this shit for gods sake. And none of this is universal, as plenty of folks who were never inflicted with toxic masculinity.

"Socialized as men" is a phrase that should be used to talk about the unique abuses that people who were presumed men during their development and adolescence. It talks about a trans woman who can't cry because it's been beaten out of her. It talks about a non-binary person who is terrified that their anger will show everyone that they're a "predator". It should be saved for talking about trans folks who are dealing with trauma.

Fucking hell. Figure it out.

[theoliviaset]

Having so much fun binge watching let's plays of low quality or early access games. The glitches, bugs, and physics errors are highly entertaining. But now I very much want to watch a horror movie where someone's reality is slowly shifting to one of these glitchy universes. The occasional no clip first confuses the protagonist, making them question their senses, but then the terror sets in not ever knowing what is or isn't solid. They go to open a door and grab the handle from like a foot away to start things off, and some point later on people get into cars that aren't there or sit floating in the air on non existent chairs. Our protagonist puts something in their shopping cart and some collision errors cause it to flip over early on, but by the end the car that they packed too full is flailing around the sky, occasionally dipping down to ground level like an antagonized crow.

[livseses]

Okay so that was an interesting experience. I (Moxie) just woke up from a dream that Faye and E were having. Usually we are completely unaware of who is having a dream (like the dream is from the perspective of Undefined Dream Self) or the person in the dream is the one waking up in the body.

[garchomp-ings]

140788888888888888888888

====================