â„–94576[View All][1][2][Quote]
Hey 'teens, as you might have deduced from the title, I've come here looking for anyone knowledgeable in either spheres of semen retention, PE, or even general esoteric knowledge to guide me to the right path. I've been practicing retention since late January of this year, have had some slipups, but the longest streak I've had lasted 140 days and I'm about to hit the two month mark of my current streak. I told myself I would no longer look at porn or any erotic imagery after my last failing, but since then I've been learning of PE and have practiced some techniques. I haven't practiced it long enough to conclude if it's effective, but I have noticed the increased blood flow in the area. My issue comes with wondering whether or not the principles of PE go against my retention, as while it is theoretically possible to regularly consume porn and even fap while retaining, I suspect that it may reduce the potency of the retention. I've been using erotic imagery to gain erections for whenever I need it for the penis exercises, but I do worry that this can devolve into lust that eventually culminates into wasting my seed.
<
There is also the concern of what mechanics and functions are used by retention to give us the benefits of it. In particular, one theory I've heard is that due to the buildup of semen transforming into energy, if you trigger a lustful reaction then your body is signaled to produce sexual fluids. However, it's being wasted unless you're intending to impregnate a woman, so even if you don't release your seed, your body spent energy creating fluids it didn't need, then it will try to salvage that energy back after the fact, but for the same reason that we only obtain a fraction of the energy from eating another being in the food chain, our body only salvages a fraction of the energy back. The other philosophy I've heard of regarding the functions of retention is that the semen 'elevates' every month of successful retention on your astrological moon cycle, which seems to imply it doesn't matter how much lust you hold as long as the seed is held successfully. As intrigued as I am by astrology, I'm still on the fence of believing it since I have no clue what functions it would be asserted through, but this theory is interesting.
<
The other concern I have is the psychological one; why do I practice PE? Why do I want a larger penis? Is it driven purely by lust (even though I'm a virgin)? Is it out of insecurity? Semen retention seems to be a tool to grow into a better man and overcome lower though processes and states of consciousness, but maybe I'm still entertaining those feelings with PE?
<
Input from knowledgeable 'teens will be greatly appreciated. Inb4
>you're schizo
>retention/PE is fake, trust the soyence bro
Your input isn't needed then, but I'm open to discussing the mechanics behind retention and PE since I could be misunderstanding how and why they work entirely. I could just be a schizo rambling on about things I have no knowledge on after all.
61 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view. â„–94722[Quote]
>>94712Forgot to respond to this part
>>You can have multiple temperaments, so for example, you could have a Sanguine jawline, but Choleric forehead. The forehead represents intellectthis
That isn't partial meanings. The jawline and forehead represent different things within the temperament of somebody, but are all part of it. The forehead is the temperament/energy of the intellect, the jawline is the temperament/energy of one in the material world. So if one has a Choleric forehead, but Sanguine jawline, that isn't a partial meaning, but it means that the intellect represents all that is Choleric and the physical represents all that is Sanguine. I remember prosopa got into a shitflinging contest with ubersoy and this was one of the points brought up, so if those videos are still up on prosopa's channel then you could watch those to see his counterargument, but it's essentially what I said. Ubersoy just misunderstood what it meant, just like you, and he conceded on that point, but I don't know if he indulged in physiognomy afterwards.
â„–94723[Quote]
>>94721That's called barnum effect, you should learn about it. With customers you cross-reference it with behavior and social manners which are more important and reliable indicators. I suspect you just subconsciously recognize social patterns and expressions and interpret it as mostly info from physiognomy. Quickly grasping others' mood and intentions is a good skill doe
>>94722my suggested "jawline energy" (how I physically behave in society) is complete opposite of my real behavior.
â„–94724[Quote]
>>94723Well if you don't mind, can you tell me what your forehead and jawline temperament is? And can you give a description of your behavior and how it contradicts that? I love discussing this topic even if it's a disagreement with skeptics, but simultaneously, my better judgement is telling me to stop derailing my own thread.
â„–94725[Quote]
>>94723>With customers you cross-reference it with behavior and social manners which are more important and reliable indicatorsI keep forgetting to respond to shit and give a second reppey, sorry. But I look at the face first. The face is ALWAYS the first thing you see unless you're intentionally looking away. I have my assumptions first, which are then confirmed and validated by their behavior, not the other way around where they behave first and then I think "woah this relates to X feature" although I also do the latter often times with people I'm familiar with, even online friends that I don't know or fully know what they look like, which I draw an example of a feature I think they have, which they've always said is correct. So I'm able to reverse engineer a face by knowing characteristics as well.
â„–94726[Quote]
>>94724I have choleric jaw but I'm naturally calm, introverted and quiet like phlegmatic
â„–94727[Quote]
>>94725if it works so well then you should make a guide or visual feature table, something like that
â„–94728[Quote]
>>94726I believe you misunderstood the graph I posted. The extraversion and introversion isn't defined in the conventional sense. If you're familiar with how Carl Jung defined the terms, then I'd say it's exactly that. Introversion means that something, like an energy, is focused INWARDS, as in the subjective, the mind, us the individual. Extraverted means something is pointed towards the physical world, like work, investment, etc.
>>94727I honestly might, that's a great idea. It just sounds annoying to try to visualize that on a single face with some features like wide set eyes and close set eyes for example, so I'd probably have to use a very average face mockup and use arrows and whatnot that are color-coded with the colors assigned meanings.
â„–94729[Quote]
>>94726Those features you described I'd say would be better represented by specific facial features rather than the temperament btw. The temperament is simply the broad stroke on a painting, as it's very general and defines WHAT energy, but the features and shapes define HOW or WHERE it manifests.
â„–94730[Quote]
>>94728that's the definition stretching which I was talking about. and I am rather reclusive and inactive so extraversion doesn't match me in any way
â„–94731[Quote]
>>94730Are you familiar with Jung's work? I'm not stretching the definition, I told you how the terms are defined in this context. Being that physiognomy explains the psychology of a person, it isn't crazy to think that Jungian terminology would be used to describe things. Plenty of Cholerics are introverted people by the conventional meaning, including me (Choleric and Melancholic), which would be represented in the features, not the temperament, because the temperament doesn't define literal introversion and extraversion. In fact, I think those terms actually had their meaning changed to what we know them now today, so I'd say the Jungian definitions are the actual meaning if anything, but word definitions change since they are a social construct.
â„–94732[Quote]
>>94731I'm not that deep into psychology, give me this definition then
also there's a discrepancy in that image, sanguine and melancholic foreheads are the same.
â„–94733[Quote]
>>94732>I'm not that deep into psychology, give me this definition thenBasically what I said in
>>94728Introversion means something, usually referring to the psychology or conscious of someone, is pointed inwards. That means it concerns themselves, how they think, feel, or perceive something, the subjective. Extraversion is the opposite, as it means that object is pointed outwards to objective reality and is concerned with how other things work, feel, think, ot perceive. But of course, if you're familiar with the cognitive functions, then obviously we all are introverts and extraverts in different regards. For example, one could have introverted feeling, but extraverted thinking, so their logic is pointed towards the objective, but their feeling is pointed inwards. It would obviously be impossible for someone to function as a "true introvert" or "true extravert", so the cognitive functions explain the variable psychology in how it expresses.
>also there's a discrepancy in that image, sanguine and melancholic foreheads are the same.I'm glad you pointed this out. If you hadn't noticed, the Choleric and Phlegmatic also have similar foreheads. If you look closely, you'll notice that the Sanguine has a steeper angle to the forehead. Similarly, the Phlegmatic has more of a bump on the top of the forehead with a rounded appearance. This represents that the Choleric and Phlegmatic, with their rounded foreheads are more high-minded and long term thinkers, meanwhile the Sanguine and Melancholic rely more on quick wit and intuition.
â„–94734[Quote]
>>94733so it's what you're usually CONCERNED with most time, right? I can't name that intraversion in classic sense
are there traits for each forehead? or is it more like a spectrum?
â„–94735[Quote]
>>94734That's one way to put it, yes. Hopefully me agreeing with that doesn't result in you explaining some contradiction that was implied in wording it that way that I didn't realize, geg. But yes, at least for now, I think that's a good way to describe it.
>>94734The traits of the forehead just correlate with the traits of the temperament, but concentrated on the intellect, as that's what the forehead defines.
>or is it more like a spectrum?Genuinely a good question, as I've wondered this too. From how mr prosopa nigger describes it, the temperaments seem very rigid, unlike features which are definitely on individual spectrums. It could be possible that the temperaments are on a spectrum, but that would bring the question of how that would manifest and look like in reality, like where on the spectrum would Sanguine be in contrast to Melancholic? So can someone be 32% Choleric, 20% Melancholic, and 48% Sanguine? I'd say probably not, because there's no clear way to divide one temperament into being on a more extreme end of a spectrum than another, they're all wholly distinct. They can only be split in what they are in individual features, the jawline and forehead, but I don't believe the individual parts of a temperament can have multiple temperaments.
â„–94736[Quote]
>>94735with that definition it's more true, I'm rather no-nonsense utilitarian guy and hate hesitation when doing what I want. I'm skeptical about this theme because it's too vague, there are no exact guides available.
â„–94737[Quote]
>>94736I understand your concern. Keep in mind that psychology is a very new science in general, there is so much about the mind, soul, and consciousness we just can't understand, as due to the very nature of consciousness, a lot of the truths we can gather come from subjective, intuitive processes rather than objective metrics, which is why it can often be difficult to even label some psychological work as science. As prosopa said in the video I linked, physiognomy is more of an art form than science. I partly disagree with that sentiment, but for most of the history of physiognomy this was true, as the ancients did not have the knowledge and metrics of modern psychological science to measure and compare with physiognomic observations. I can be rigid too, but I think many people do need to learn there is a value in indulging the intuition you have instead of going purely off observable things, as of course, our very perception itself is subjective and a distortion of reality, as we project ourselves onto it, so we can't even fully trust what we observe. Modern physiognomy right now is a balance between the sensory and the intuitive in a sense, but with how the ancients understood it, it was almost entirely an intuitive process.
â„–94738[Quote]
>>94737Using intuition is giga. It is effective in-built heuristics tool, I somewhat learned to use it to extent which is considered "cheating" or even "foresight" by other people. In fact it processes stuff outside of consciousness which is faster than traditional thinking. You need to double-check results for important stuff doe
â„–94739[Quote]
>>94738>You need to double-check results for important stuff doeThis is definitely something I can struggle with. Even in this very thread, you can see people saying my ideas are retarded and womanly or whatever, but these are just ideas my mind goes to once I have even a slither of a grasp of a topic. I do try to be self aware and say that I can't confirm these ideas to be wholly true, but they intuitively make sense to me. Hence I created this retarded schizo thread connecting two seemingly different worlds of topics together and backing it up with even more of my nonsense to backup both sides of an argument I completely made up.
â„–94740[Quote]
>>94739This feeling when you can't grasp something out of your mind and properly elaborate? Yes you need to train this, since you use intuitive thought a lot external-reliant argumentation is the thing you need. You may be right, just need to structurize this mess.
â„–94741[Quote]
>>94740>This feeling when you can't grasp something out of your mind and properly elaborate?Yes, constantly I struggle with this in the real world. I constantly try to perfect my arguments with imaginary debates in my mind, but every time, when it actually comes to it then I just don't have the words. Call me retarded for this, but today I tried to explain Jews, masonry, and international banking to my mom and I just didn't have the words in the moment, then of course she got upset with me geg. My bad for being socially unaware there to be fair, but I do care a lot about what's true and having the truth be known for a better future.
>You may be right, just need to structurize this mess.Anything in specific you could tell me that was messy and difficult to understand? I know I can often speak abstractly, but I don't know how else to describe an abstract concept, I'm sorry.
â„–94742[Quote]
>>94741Write stuff down, use graphs and other visual clear representation. You're not retarded, rather unbalanced. Your capabilities of abstract thought are too much to quickly interpret into understandable language. What you think in seconds would take minutes to extensively explain. That's what I think is happening
With previous explanations you provided "express" overview like assuming everyone knows psychology and adjacent stuff in depth. Also some words (like introversion) can be interpreted differently by other people.
â„–94743[Quote]
>>94742>Write stuff down, use graphs and other visual clear representation.I will try to do this for the future. This also probably explains why I have a much better time explaining these things to online chuds in contrast to real life, even though I still clearly struggled itt.
>With previous explanations you provided "express" overview like assuming everyone knows psychology and adjacent stuff in depth. Also some words (like introversion) can be interpreted differently by other people.Also a good note, but to be fair, I think there is a degree in which there is a bar of knowledge expected to be passed in order to partake in a discussion of a thread topic. If someone came in here asking what semen retention is, I might try to explain to get them on the right path, but it would distract from the discussion and would bother me trying to explain to a noob of the topic when I wanted to discuss the complexities of it. I likely just set that knowledge bar too high in many topics I discuss. In fact, I'd say I can generally be very impatient with 'stupid' people, which is basically just the majority of normies, which of course is very broad, and that make reflect more of an issue with me than with the society, even if there's many issues with it.
â„–94744[Quote]
>>94743I have some knowledge (like jung functions) but misinterpreted "extraversion" because commonly it = sociable.
>I likely just set that knowledge bar too high in many topics I discussexactly this, and using words in uncommon sense. dumb normies are really annoying doe. I tried to explain to a foid why in lotteries you always statistically lose (and what is expected mean value) and it was insufferable
â„–94745[Quote]
>>94744>I tried to explain to a foid why in lotteries you always statistically lose (and what is expected mean value) and it was insufferableGeg, this reminds me of when I was indirectly explaining per capita to a nigger coworker and he just couldn't get it. It wasn't about per capita, but it was the same principle of mean averages since I was trying to explain how women, on average, are weaker than men, but he kept insisting "but some women are stronger than men" and it was just a back of forth of that and "Yes, but ON AVERAGE…" so niggers not understanding per capita is real GEG.
<All of this talk about intuition and cognitive functions reminded me though, have you ever taken a Meyers-Briggs test? I'm curious what your typology would be, but if I had to guess, I'm thinking ISTJ judging from how rigidly structured and scientific you are.
â„–94746[Quote]
>>94745No I am INTJ but adopted this rigid logic style to be understandable and not to get carried away by false ideas. I assume you are same or similar type since you use intuition a lot
â„–94747[Quote]
>>94746I also scored INTJ, but I'm skeptical of that result since it was a free online test and it's apparently a very rare type. I sometimes think I'm not smart enough to be INTJ, but at the same time I know there's no way I'm INFJ because I highly doubt I have extraverted feeling as a cognitive function, because I know that I tend to not care what people think of me unless it poses a benefit or risk, like getting fired because I leaked about da jooz at work or something stupid.
â„–94748[Quote]
>>94746To further add, I'd say I can be very rigid when I'm set on an idea, but not very rigid in organizing ideas or what ideas I would entertain as long as it doesn't contradict what I already know. I do wonder what causes the difference in us if we allegedly have the same type? The answer might lie in our distinct facial features, but nobaldi here is going to facedox for a face reading.
â„–94749[Quote]
>>9474750% threshold test are coal, you should review jung function stack for every type and decide if that's true to you or not
â„–94750[Quote]
>>94748because we have different datasets in our minds, that's it
â„–94751[Quote]
>>94749I did do that and I think INTJ fits best judging from the patterns in my life of how I interact and think, but I also suspect that maybe my feeling is at play here and I'm biased and just want to see myself as a special little INTJ since people in MBTI communities often dickride the introverted intuitives and intuitives in general. At the same time, I wouldn't think I'm one to care about that and bias myself with that motive, but feelings are complex and I don't fully understand my own feelings, so who knows?
>>94750Could you elaborate? What 'datasets' do you follow then?
â„–94762[Quote]
>>94751I had similar thoughts but then compared it to other types and understood that it was closest type to myself. Anyway both of us don't boast it, I don't even have any social media.
It's like this, with each skill weaker than previous:
1. iN intuitively recycling data to get solution(s)
2. eT cut off objectively wrong/impossible stuff
3. iF determine what's of true value to you
4. eS consider current conditions you're in
I meant our life experiences and knowledge as "datasets" we have, one has researched certain topic and other hasn't, and I developed stricter objective logic on purpose. What's the point of good abstract thinking if result cannot be objectively verified and nobody understands you?
â„–94783[Quote]
I’ve skimmed some of the posts itt, so maybe I missed something relevant, but I once went 267 days without masturbating, and nothing really changed during that time. Do you know of any potential cause for this?
â„–94793[Quote]
>>94762>I meant our life experiences and knowledge as "datasets" we have, one has researched certain topic and other hasn'tMakes sense. I'd say I actually used to be more rigid in my thinking, or at least tried to be, but I'd describe it that I've had a calling recently; I realize there is so much more beyond what I can observe and theorize and I haven't done myself any good by constantly doubting the ideas that pop up. Many things that I used to instantly deny like astrology are things I now see could be seriously considered, but there is a certain state of mind I need to reach to understand these things if they are correct.
>>94783I don't know if it will display the right ID, but I'm OP. I need more information, as retention doesn't mean abstaining from masturbation, although it usually encompasses that and you really should be doing that. Semen retention is holding onto the seed, which over time will buildup and transform into energy that builds up your body and mind. Even if you weren't masturbating, you could of had a wet dream and released the seed, or if the theory of sexual fluid buildup is a principle of semen retention, then it's also possible that you had plenty of lust and the body was wasting the energy on creating sexual fluids and then tearing it back apart for only a fraction of the energy gained back which it had spent creating it.
â„–94824[Quote]
>>94793>astrologyReally? And what about it can be seriously considered? It's mostly a trick for gaining profit (or entertainment as some might say)
You should learn more about cognitive distortions like barnum effect. It's helpful in process of researching topics, also the "everyone wants to scam me" mindset. And learn basic statistics which will explain some of these distortions. I don't advice to instantly deny ideas (and I don't do that myself) but research it on your own and try to find out how it works and to whom it is profitable.
btw IDs changed because server-side salt (hash component, not the owner) was compromised and they had to change it
â„–94853[Quote]
>>94824Let me make it clear before I type anything else at this moment that I do not necessarily believe in astrology. As I stated in the OP briefly with the theory of astrological moon phases for one's chart being the points of 'elevation' of semen, I am skeptical of this theory and astrology as a whole primarily because I don't yet understand the action mechanism of how it would work for the position of heavenly bodies and their related positions to each other to affect how we are born and expressed in the material world. One theory I've seen mentioned in passing was some kind of theory with rays produced by the planets(?), but I won't corroborate any information that I'm highly skeptical of and haven't studied yet, so I'll leave my stance on the validity of astrology at that.
<>Really? And what about it can be seriously considered? It's mostly a trick for gaining profit (or entertainment as some might say)I think you fundamentally misunderstand what astrology is, which is understandable, as I've had similar misconceptions for a long time. If we think of astrology in the modern sense where people will say "I'm a taurus so that means I do x" and they buy some cringe Millenial-tier t-shirt with some one-liner relating to whatever dumb and broad claim it makes about a very broad group of people, then yes, it's absolutely stupid. You'd be right that in that regard it is a scam and I used to think the same way because the media and interactions I've had relating to astrology gave this very narrow and shallow form of it that made me think that's all it ever was.
<The primary misconception is that astrology is only the sun sign. So the sign that is assigned to you through your birth month is commonly believed to be all that encompasses astrology, which is just some cheap party trick. However, the reality is, similarly to how I explained that the temperament of physiognomy makes claim upon the broad strokes of what energy is itself, but supplemented by the minutia of face shapes and features, the sun sign is similarly meant to define the broad strokes of one's energy, as symbolically, the sun illuminates everything and reveals it to us. The reality is that all of the planets and other relevant heavenly bodies have their own signs based on when you were born. The way they cycle through the signs is based on how long their orbit around the sun is, so the inner planets like Mercury and Venus go through the signs relatively quickly, but the outer planets have signs that last for many years at a time. So just like how the facial features are the detailed strokes of somebody, the combination of signs created by where every single planet and other body was at a specific time is what allegedly leads to the uniqueness of many individuals, as statistically, it is extremely unlikely that someone could have all of the same signs with the exact same individual angles from the sun and other bodies. So with your example of statistics and studies, I'm aware there have been studies done on astrology that "disprove" it, believe me, I'm a very skeptical person, but that extends to these studies as well. These studies very often only account for the sun sign, which is a very broad stroke, and when someone, which is inevitably going to be A LOT of people, gives an opposing to the traits of the sun sign then the study will just conclude that it means that person is wrong and it's the Barnum effect without taking in the nuances of astrology. So if anything, I'd like to see a study that accounts for the whole of astrology to see if it's valid, but even then, you have to consider that this treads well into psychological territory, and if it's something as simple as asking people if they have those traits then the results will very likely be unreliable because people in general are unreliable. Do people really know themselves? Do you fully know yourself? Are you the same person from a year ago, a month ago, or even a minute ago? People, and as a result, anything psychological, is extremely complex and I think just using people's word or opinion as the basis of a study to debunk it, especially when they're effectively using a straw man of what astrology is, intentional or not, is really stupid.
â„–94854[Quote]
>>94824<reppey too long to be one awardOf course, the main issue I pointed out of why I am still skeptical is that, even if we now have properly defined what astrology actually encompasses, is that I don't know the action mechanism, so why do I still entertain the idea of it? Well another strange misconception I've noticed is that a lot of people seem to think astrology is a very modern thing, as if it was invented in the 20th or 19th century, which is just horribly wrong. Sure, the way astrology is used now and presented by mass media, intentional or not (maybe a conspiracy behind that), is ridiculous and completely undermines it if there is anything of value in it, but the practice and science of astrology is ancient. Astrology was considered a real science for ancient societies, as even today, they have to do a lot of calculation and have an understanding of how bodies move and how that correlates with other bodies and the Earth. However, that brings the question of why. Why did the ancients conceive this idea in the first place? Why did they practice it across many different cultures, regions, and societies across many different time periods? What were they using it for? What does it all mean or symbolize? Again, contrary to what mass media seems to imply, the ancient people were not stupid, and if anything, many of them were probably a lot more intelligent than modern humans being that they had to work with far less tools and had to invent philosophy itself and every resulting science to figure out the world for us. Would it really be right to call them less intelligent or primitive for using intuition in a situation where there was no way they could know something purely based off sensory information?
<Unfortunately, I don't have the answers to many of these questions, but it's something I'm trying to figure out. Keep in mind all of the symbolism within astrology though, like picrel. Many ancient societies, completely unrelated to each other, across continents, developed identical swastika symbols based on how the Little Dipper would seemingly orbit around Polaris throughout the seasons. Another example that should be obvious are the Greek gods, but also the gods of many other civilizations, but the Greek gods are probably most familiar with us. Mercury is the god of communication, and what does Mercury's position and sign tell us? It tells us how one communicates of course. Similarly, Venus is the goddess of love, and so the sign of Venus tells us how one loves and expresses love. Being that astrology is older than the Greek civilization and that it, among other civilization's gods, bear similar names to the heavenly bodies in their names in their variety of languages, then it seems pretty clear that their gods, the society's very religion, and by extension, philosophical thought and morality, was heavily influenced by astrology.
<This is getting long, but there is one last thing I wanted to write. I think another reason people often dismiss the ancient people's and their practices as primitive is due to their belief in things that seem absolutely ridiculous, like the sun being a gold chariot of a god that illuminates the Earth. However, I think we need to give the ancients more credit, or at least the philosophical thinkers of the time, as while I can't prove it for now, I would take a gambit that many people of the time did not literally believe these things. Why did they conceive and share these stories then? It's religion. And what is religion? Religion is philosophy, it's the collective conscious of a given society and all that it stands for. I'd argue then, that not just ancient religions, but religion as a whole is not something meant to be taken literally, but rather, they're narratives that put the truths of our existence and the world into allegories and narratives to be understand by the masses of said society. That itself is its own topic though and this is already a bunch of wordswordswords snca, so I'll just leave you with those thoughts to simmer and hopefully you don't think I'm schizo and easily malleable or whatever.
â„–94856[Quote]
Oh and also, sorry in advance to anyone if I don't reply for hours. I'm writing this a few hours before my shift starts and every other time I've been active in this thread was extremely late at night.
â„–94861[Quote]
what the fuck are you writing, i havent read any of your posts yet but from how long they are and the subject of OP im gonna make a prediction that youre the schizo who made cuts on his dick to punish himself for gooning
â„–94863[Quote]
>>94861Geg I remember that, but no that's not me. I was banned for a good portion of the Quote administration so I couldn't post without it being super inconvenient to try to get a working VPN IP. I hope he still lurks here though, I can tell he knows a lot about numerology and I'm pretty curious about that.
â„–94866[Quote]
This whole physiognomy thing just sounds like Nature vs Nurture. Physiognomy seems to me to be something which says that your genes are important. The nature of yourself is decided by genes. The way you act coincedes with your temperment, jawline, eyes ect.
This is what I understood, albeit I'm slightly retarded.
I believe that nurture (environment) is much more important.
Yes there are cases where psychopaths were raised in a hecking wholesome household and in the end due to inheriting genes or something they become mentally fucked up. Those cases are few and rare. For us who aren't one in a trillion humans, the environment is much more important. It shapes your brain which is the body's control center for anything and everything.
By environment I mean: external physical conditions.
â„–94870[Quote]
>>94866>Physiognomy seems to me to be something which says that your genes are important. The nature of yourself is decided by genes. The way you act coincedes with your temperment, jawline, eyes ect.You're getting there, but I could of explained it better, as there is one more aspect I forgot to explain. Physiognomy isn't arguing that your behavior is entirely inborn and permanent, although the temperament is exactly that in most cases, but rather, that the physical appearance reflects what's on the inside. If the inside changes, then the outside changes, and in the case of major surgeries, the opposite is true in theory as well in the one reppey that I explained, as the body and mind are interconnected. You're absolutely right that nurture is extremely important and I am not arguing against this, but physiognomy doesn't contradict this. Your physiognomy will simply change as you, the person change, and the most prolific example of this is puberty. People often say such things as "Oh he developed x trait because of puberty", but people don't seem to ask "Why did puberty cause that?". Why is it that one male's eyes could become really deep set at the start of puberty, but another could have the opposite result and develop more bulging eyes from puberty? Well, the answer is because puberty is a time of rapid growth of the body and mind, so all kinds of hormones are in play and some genes start expressing strongly while others stop expressing, as it's reflecting the change of mind during puberty. An essential part of physiognomic theory I failed to explain is epigenetics, which while I do need to study more, it essentially is the idea that rather than genes being static and unchanging, genes come in 'sets' and can 'turn on and off' gene expression for specific mechanics and features. Keep in mind that genes don't code for one singular feature, as most, if not every single feature in the body is coded by multiple genes, which again, is the connection of body and mind. I'm glad you do seem interested in understanding the topic though, even if this is only loosely related to the OP topic, but I just can't help myself with good conversation geg.
â„–94873[Quote]
>>94576 (OP)Quintessential /r9k/ post
â„–94903[Quote]
>>94873I'll take that as a compliment
â„–94920[Quote]
>>94853So you say that one's genetic part of personality at birth is affected by positions of all celestial bodies? Combined they can be used as a unique identifier, for example in the past these positions were used to encode dates as it's perfectly reliable, restorable and cannot be hidden or falsified. Some of these helped to uncover falsifications in history (not accepted in mainstream doe)
Also it reminded me of the fact that moon's position affects animals on Earth. Slight effect from moon on one's development during first days of life is possible, doe I'm skeptical about other bodies influencing something specific - in this case people born same time would always have similar personalities which is not true. These serve more like a tool to note one's birth date or other events.
>>94854Descriptions of gods, events etc seem to me like metaphors to encrypt something and ward off midwits who don't deserve it. Or they just didn't develop proper lexicon at that time. And it is possible to match all gods (or saints) in different cultures one with another, hinting at the idea that it's same beings and events but described by different tribes. I could even create a table with norse, greek, christian characters and so on where they match like that.
<Religion is a broad topic, it's usually one of two: share information about how our world works or tool to get power and profit. Most religion in modern world is the latter. It's difficult to separate one from the other and extract something meaningful but still possible.
â„–95003[Quote]
>>94920Sorry for the late reply. I tried sleeping earlier last night, ended up still sleeping at the same time despite laying in bed for hours, then had to go to work early. I hope I don't make any dumb typos or forget crucial details because of lack of sleep.
>So you say that one's genetic part of personality at birth is affected by positions of all celestial bodies?I didn't say that, but you must know me really well because this is pretty close to a theory I have. Assuming astrology does correlate to personality and psychology, then yes, it would only make sense for it to affect how genes are expressed via the principles of physiognomy. However, astrology is not the full story, but simply the element that is highest in the hierarchy of my theory. My theory is that the physical expression of the mind and body are determined by the factors in this order from most influential to least: astrological positions, genetics (including biological race and sex), hormones (including diet), and lastly the social environment and material circumstance.
>for example in the past these positions were used to encode dates as it's perfectly reliable, restorable and cannot be hidden or falsified. Some of these helped to uncover falsifications in history (not accepted in mainstream doe) This completely slipped my mind, but you're right that this is one very practical use of astrology. Keep in mind that the practice of determining personality from astrology still goes back though, so that remains a question of why this was conceived by ancient people.
>Also it reminded me of the fact that moon's position affects animals on Earth. Slight effect from moon on one's development during first days of life is possibleThat's an interesting connection that I didn't realize. Another connection we can make is the fact that the moon cycles affect how animals behave, which is a result of how or what the animal is feeling, thus the moon affects the animal's emotions (even doe DA SOYENCE debates whether or not animals have conscious and emotions). This is the same for astrology, as the moon sign determines how one feels and expresses emotion and feeling.
>doe I'm skeptical about other bodies influencing something specific - in this case people born same time would always have similar personalities which is not true.Well keep in mind that astrological personality reading is defined by the position of bodies relative to the person, meaning that it also depends on where you were when you were born. Someone born in the exact timeframe as someone in Britain when they were born in Australia would still have distinct signs, particularly the ascendent sign, as iirc it changes every 2 hours, cycling through the 12 astrological signs in one day starting from when the sun rises. I would like to see a study on the personalities of twin siblings though, as while I have no concrete study or evidence, I've heard plenty of anecdotes of twins acting remarkably similar, but keep in mind that differences can still develop from different inherited genes and different environmental factors, even if they grow up in the same home and are the same age, as one of them could become a pothead through meeting a bad individual or something like that.
â„–95004[Quote]
>>94920>>95003<Wrote too much snca that it had to be two reppeys again>Descriptions of gods, events etc seem to me like metaphors to encrypt something and ward off midwits who don't deserve it.I wouldn't quite say that, but rather, I think religion as a tool was developed by the philosophers and intellectuals for the exact purpose of delivering understanding to normies through metaphor and symbols. Gnosticism is unique in its approach in that it labels the majority of people as worthless hylics that only exist as part of the demiurge's conspiracy to bring those with souls back down to the prison planet, but besides that, I think most religions exist to appeal exactly to what Gnostics would call a hylic, as they realize these people are still human and have conscious and souls, but they lack the ability or circumstances to figure out the meaning of everything by themselves. Either that or, like you said, it's used for power and the interest of that specific society, like in the case of pisslam, but I have to admit even they produced some good philosophy, including physiognomic work.
>It's difficult to separate one from the other and extract something meaningful but still possible.The key is simply to be self aware and look beyond the arbitrary restrictions. Some people reading this surely won't understand this yet, and I wouldn't have either, but the idea of god as a character, the man in the sky that watches over everyone and intervenes only sometimes, is silly. God encompasses everything and we are experiencing it right now. We are part of God; all of us are miniscule fractions of the entirety of consciousness that makes up God. Another way I've seen it worded is that we are consciousness experiencing itself, but of course, we are not the entirety of God, but we make up God, as we are a piece of it. Since we aren't God in whole, we lack all knowledge and the full scope of everything, so everything we perceive isn't real in that sense, as we aren't fully conceiving what things are. If you want value from religion, then you have to read between the lines. Don't look to the authority of doctrine for truth, just read what was written and think with this awareness in mind. This isn't to say religious authorities are inherently bad, as I'd say Christianity has done so much good for European civilization, but the literal ideas that come from doctrine like the trinity is completely unnecessary and is arguing over false perceptions and nonsense. Take value in the morals and wisdom behind the messages, not stupidly literal things and opinions of what is good. Also make sure to differentiate things that are obviously outdated and designed for ancient civilization's systems to function, such as sacrificing animals or eating a kosher diet from the symbolic messages that inspired that civilization and religion.
â„–95064[Quote]
>>95003>position of bodies relative to personstill skeptical about that because children born roughly same time in same birthhouse (or even same minute) don't always have same personalities
>twinsgood topic, the fact that twins can have different personalities proves that genetics only don't determine it.
>>95004>for the exact purpose of delivering understanding to normies through metaphor and symbolsit's a bad way of education in my opinion, it's distorted and not full. To properly progress one should understand exactly how things work, not just learn by heart some snca metaphors which he doesn't understand himself and hence can't use.
>the idea of god as a character, the man in the sky that watches over everyone and intervenes only sometimes, is silly. God encompasses everything and we are experiencing it right now. We are part of God; all of us are miniscule fractions of the entirety of consciousness that makes up God. Another way I've seen it worded is that we are consciousness experiencing itself, but of course, we are not the entirety of God, but we make up God, as we are a piece of it.That's a precise description indeed, I agree with you as I had understanding of God similar to yours even before we started talking.
>Don't look to the authority of doctrine for truthtsmt
Maybe I had more thoughts to share but missed something because tired rn. Good that we've built up such a productive conversation.
â„–95119[Quote]
>>95064>still skeptical about that because children born roughly same time in same birthhouse (or even same minute) don't always have same personalitiesUnderstandable, but I believe that difference is caused by the nurture aspect of it. As I explained, the children could be hanging around different people and that influences them differently. Different media, topics, concepts, and everything relating to the environment will differentiate them, which will be further exasperated the longer time goes on and they're adapting more to their different environments. The parents could also treat them differently due to differently developing interests and resulting behavior, creating a feedback loop and further cementing them down a different path from the other.
>>for the exact purpose of delivering understanding to normies through metaphor and symbols>it's a bad way of education in my opinion, it's distorted and not full. To properly progress one should understand exactly how things work, not just learn by heart some snca metaphors which he doesn't understand himself and hence can't use.I probably didn't explain it well enough, but what I mean is that you would have the visionaries, the founders of religion, be the ones exploring the world abstractly and processing it through their mind. They had to do this almost entirely, if not fully independently and gained this knowledge simply from effort of thought and experience. When the visionary wants to share this, he will create metaphors and allegories for those whom haven't reached his state to understand and possibly reach his level of knowledge. The metaphors and parables put these abstract ideas into more literal terms, often through analogy, which is greatly helpful for common people to see the truth. Often though, if a religion becomes a major institution and starts handling a lot of practical matters, while those core values and lessons remain and they still serve this fundamentally good purpose, they also will end up developing the very literal and unnecessary drivel. This happens often because the people running the organization are themselves not fully enlightened and take some things literally, but are abstract to a degree that they can still conceptualize theories and ideas, hence when someone LITERALLY believes that Christ, THE PERSON, is the only way you can be saved, then ideas like the trinity develop because of the logic derived from this literal interpretation. Misconceptions and fluff like that is inevitable when religious organizations are a major influence in a society and priests and reverends play a part in politics, which describes basically every society ever before the late 18th century. This isn't to say I think a separation of church and state or religion and government is good at all, but that is just an inevitable consequences even though I hold the opinion that church and state should not be separated and that's a masonic idea.
>I had understanding of God similar to yours even before we started talking.Could you elaborate? I'm interested if there are any differences in your perception.
>Good that we've built up such a productive conversation.Yeah, very good convo even though it doesn't relate much to the OP topic anymore. I'm glad somebody was willing to listen instead of dismissing everything I say as schizo. Sorry for late reply btw, I may go to sleep soon.
â„–95246[Quote]
>>95119>is caused by the nurture aspect of itIt's almost impossible to prove or disprove this so I prefer not to believe in such things but not completely deny it either
>religion becomes a major institution and starts handling a lot of practical matters, while those core values and lessons remain and they still serve this fundamentally good purpose, they also will end up developing the very literal and unnecessary drivel.Here's a thing about christianity you probably haven't heard. It wasn't intended by Jesus to be an organization with hierarchy. He just educated people and then sent them to educate others. By turning this horizontal structure into an organization with hierarchy it becomes prone to corruption. Now the churches justify it by referencing some verses and saying "apostles founded the church and its hierarchy thus we have right to act in name of Jesus" but that's not true, they're twisting sense of these verses and taking them out of context for this purpose.
>This isn't to say I think a separation of church and state or religion and government is good at allI think faith should not only be separated from state but also from any hierarchies making it a horizontal thing primarily preserved within families
>Could you elaborate?I haven't noticed any differences with your explanation of who God is. Jesus is not Almighty incarnate (he's incompatible with fitting inside a human body) but one of angels. I should add that purpose of his creations and experiments is to research the properties of world he appeared in.