â„–94576[Last 50 Posts][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.
â„–94582[Quote]
Wow, I've actually had this specific thought myself. I'd like to do both semen retention and penis enlargement. I think, honestly, you just have to pick one. I'd go with penis enlargement first since I'm assuming you're young, and it'll be easier the younger you are.
â„–94586[Quote]
>>94576 (OP)Can someone make a TL:DR because im not reading all that
â„–94588[Quote]
>>94582>Wow, I've actually had this specific thought myself.I'm glad there are like-minded people on here; I was worried my query was way too specific and niche, but I knew I could trust bald man and glasses melancholic schizo board.
>I think, honestly, you just have to pick one. I'd go with penis enlargement first since I'm assuming you're young, and it'll be easier the younger you are.I also worried that I should be doing enlargement now due to my age, but I'm debating whether I really only have to do one or the other. In theory, I could still retain even with some lust, as the point of retention is to resist it after all, not completely rid of lust's existence. It could also be possible to detach lust from the requirement of getting an erection for some of the exercises. I don't know though, because I do worry eventually this could cause me to slipup and lose my retention streak. I'm not a Christian (do believe in God though), but it makes me think of when Christ said you can't have two masters, as you'll love one and betray the other.
<Another argument against prioritizing enlargement is that retention is arguably a lot more potent in general development. I've also heard that an increased size and stronger erections are even among the benefits for long retention, but I doubt it's at the same scale as a veteran PE death gripper. Retention just seems like a much larger priority mentally, spiritually, and even physically, as my long streaks give me noticeably larger muscle definition. I'm 20 btw if that matters.
>>94586Should I continue penis enlargement exercises while still retaining semen at the risk of accidentally losing seed and a long streak, or should I drop either PE or retention in favor of the other?
â„–94590[Quote]
>>94588How small is it so that you want to enlarge it?
â„–94591[Quote]
>>94590I honestly don't know the exact size, but I know it's somewhere in between 5-6 inches, likely somewhere in the middle. A perfectly average size from what I've heard, although some do argue that anything below 6 is really below average if you're white since the average penis size pool includes tiny jeet peckers and such.
â„–94593[Quote]
>>94591Yes it's average, try this dick comparison site calcsd.info
â„–94594[Quote]
>>94593What do you think I should do in regards to the OP though? You seem to have knowledge on PE, but do you have experience with retention?
â„–94595[Quote]
>>94594I haven't done PE since mine is naturally above average, I'm fine with it, and with nevergooning I decreased lust by deworming
â„–94596[Quote]
>>94595>nevergooningKeep in mind that semen retention and NoFap are distinct things, even if the goal and practices are similar. Retention prioritizes the streak more, as the idea is there is this kind of spiritual, magnetic energy that builds up the longer you maintain it, whereas I'd say NoFap is more strictly scientific. How long is your streak?
>dewormingI don't struggle with lust much anymore, but I've always been curious about deworming. What is your experience with it? What exactly did you do?
â„–94598[Quote]
>>94596I became naturally apathetic to gooning, I don't count the days since don't care much about it anymore. Last fail was around a month ago.
I am OP of
>>93739 (OP) this thread, you can read about my experience there
â„–94600[Quote]
>>94591My penis is also average when erect but its below average when soft. I dont want to do any penis extension shit and risk fucking up my cock though
â„–94603[Quote]
>>94598Oh that's good to hear. I was intending to read your thread for the past week or so, but the thread keeps getting longer and I keep procrastinating, geg. Maybe I'll get to it tomorrow then. I was intrigued by deworming and it seemed scientifically valid from what I heard, but I'm too scared to order substances that I have no clue about and just trusting the word of mouth of people on bald man with glasses website. I won't ask more since you said all info is in that thread, but I'm just curious what you took specifically and what dosage?
>>94600I thought the same; still do in regards to some practices like jelqing and clamping, but I've been doing some exercises and it seems to be safe and does noticeably increase the bloodflow. I primarily do this squeezing-like exercise for girth though, length isn't a priority since I'm thinking of buying the RestoreX extender, which is SOYENTIFICALLY VERIFIED to increase length. I'm just worried I'll accidentally release my seed from needing to get erect or just from stimulation though.
â„–94604[Quote]
>>94600Flaccid length doesn't really matter, mine looks small (like 6 cm) when soft too. It's supposed to be like that, it's convenient to keep it compact when not needed. And besides you don't show it to other people geg
â„–94605[Quote]
>>94604Tsmt. I forgot the medical term for it, but it's not a good sign if your penis is always semi-erect, as it indicates that you struggle to get maximum blood flow for proper erections. Nothing wrong with having a small flaccid size, it doesn't mean anything for erect size as far as I know.
â„–94606[Quote]
>>94603The first time (Dec-Jan) I took human albendazole in standard dosage, then after some time pyrantel. Noticed improvement, less lust.
Then in 1-2 months lust started returning, repeated it, also tried ivermectin this spring. It possibly was fake (posted a thread about it), then I decided to NOT deworm on purpose and observe the effects. I was right, the lust has returned but it was weaker than before any deworming and fetishes were less prevalent.
Then I took animal multi-dewormer (ivermectin, fenbendazole, praziquantel, pyrantel), it was nice. Also tried fasting recently but didn't notice any significant result. Doe when doing it lust was completely gone, like my body decided that I need to conserve energy.
â„–94607[Quote]
>>94606Very interesting. Not to sound like an actual soyboy, but it terrifies me to think that, to a degree, even our minds are just subjects to material circumstances like worms. Is there any singular substance you'd recommend? I'm really considering it after hearing all of the success stories here, even if my lust isn't that much beyond what I force for my PE.
â„–94608[Quote]
>>94607For me somehow pyrantel worked the best so far (I suspect that gooning lust is induced mostly by pinworms which are very common, easy to get and they hate it)
If you're unsure start with human dewormers like ones I listed, doe researches show that human-unapproved ones like fenbendazole, ivermectin have a huge intake window and it's really hard to get bad side effects
â„–94609[Quote]
>>94608Did the pyrantel or anything else have noticeable side effects?
â„–94610[Quote]
>>94609No, didn't experience any
â„–94611[Quote]
>>94610Are there any other benefits besides repelling lust? We don't tend to use dewormers on animals due to their lust, so do you think humans have similar benefits to gain as animals taking dewormers?
â„–94612[Quote]
>>94611Yes, they stop shitting up you from inside and that's a big benefit for health
Here's what you can get:
https://soyjakwiki.org/SNCA:Parasite_Pill#Possible_ResultsFrom what I observed this year I want less sugar than before
Animals are dewormed once a quarter and same should be applied to humans but
(((they))) don't want that to happen
â„–94613[Quote]
>>94612Geg I didn't know there was an article on the 'ki, I thought deworm schizoposting was contained inside /r9k/. Are the deworming meds affordable though? How much do they cost?
â„–94614[Quote]
>>94613In my country it's roughly same as cost of going to a product shop or eating in a goyslop restaurant once, and animal dewormers give you stronger effect for less money
â„–94615[Quote]
>>94614Thank you for all of the information and anecdotes. I think I may buy ivermectin or pyrantel for the future and see how I feel. Is there any way to take preventative measures of worms entering the body rather than constant maintenance by killing them when they do enter? It just seems a bit inconvenient and costly.
â„–94616[Quote]
>>94615cut your nails, wash hands more, don't touch anything but food when eating, don't eat out. But really you'll get infected sooner or later since most humans are unhygienic, especially if you're not living alone. So I have accepted that reinfection VVILL happen in a month or two and just repeat the deworming.
â„–94617[Quote]
>>94616I'm already relatively hygienic and do most of these things consistently, but I suppose you're right that it's impossible to be perfectly hygienic. Sorry for derailing the thread btw, so do you have any ideas for my dilemma in OP?
â„–94618[Quote]
>>94617What's the root cause of your wish to do PE? Are you afraid that gf will reject you after seeing your dick?
â„–94619[Quote]
>>94618I have two reasons for it: One relatively normal and the other fairly schizo. My first reason is basically just "Why not?". If I can increase the size without risk to any other aspect of myself, then in theory there should be no reason not to do it in case I find a marriage-worthy foid. My second reason, which is highly theoretical and something I need to study a lot more on, but I theorize that all, or at least some of the energy of our material body is libido. Think about it: semen retention gives us energy, muscle, mental clarity, and even a larger penis. Ancient civilizations often had phallic symbolism or even worshipped phallic symbols, which might seem geggy to us, but the phallic shape might symbolize a sort of potency of life, just as how a sexually potent male would be highly desirable as a mating partner. Therefore, a larger penis may mean higher libido, which may translate into more of this energy. I still have a lot to learn, these are only ideas I have with surface level understandings of some topics.
â„–94620[Quote]
>>94619For me PE is too much effort compared to the result. I am content with what I have, besides dick size is unusable for attracting good gfs because you don't show it around to everyone, this way you'll only attract sluts.
You should also read this article about average sizes: unravelingsize.wordpress.com (Warning: there are some pics of nude females, don't break your score)
â„–94621[Quote]
>>94620>For me PE is too much effort compared to the result.Why do you think that?
>besides dick size is unusable for attracting good gfs because you don't show it around to everyone, this way you'll only attract sluts.From the perspective of mainstream science, yes. However, I suspect that other people, especially women, can subconsciously pick up on different types of energies and intuitively understand what people are like without speaking a word to them, which can even extend to penis size. Hence, some girls say a guy has "big dick energy" and whatnot. Albeit girls that say that are often sluts, but most women and people in general are in the modern west geg. I believe every person has this capability, most without realizing it, and the normal, non-slutty women will still receive these subconscious signals and think "he seems to be big" because a big penis, if representing the potency of energy through libido, should logically mean it's expressed through the entire person.
<I will read that article btw, and thank you for the warning, even if it doesn't really matter, but it was considerate of you.
â„–94622[Quote]
>>94621I won't get any meaningful practical benefit from it in my life. But it will cost time and money. That's why.
That energy thing honestly sounds like bullshit but there are similar concepts it reminded me of.
First, bodily smell. Its importance in mating is really underestimated, basically it's your instincts analyzing chemical indicators from other's bodily scent. It's fast, reliable and informative. Read more about this topic, it's interesting.
And second, plain self-confidence. If you're behaving like that a woman can indeed think something like "big penis energy", that's pure psychological trickery and cognitive illusions of that foid doe.
â„–94623[Quote]
>>94622>I won't get any meaningful practical benefit from it in my life. But it will cost time and money. That's why.Fair enough, but keep in mind you don't need to buy machines. I've just been doing manual exercises thus far.
>That energy thing honestly sounds like bullshit but there are similar concepts it reminded me of.I mean also fair enough, I don't have the means to prove it and I'm just throwing out what my intuition tells me. I promise this is related, but do you know about physiognomy? It's something I've studied for about a year and I do genuinely believe it to be scientifically valid. I could elaborate more if you'd like, but I believe the ideas of physiognomy validate the existence of a sort of intuitive, magnetic energy.
>First, bodily smell. Its importance in mating is really underestimated, basically it's your instincts analyzing chemical indicators from other's bodily scent.Where can I read about this? I'd argue that this is something that can also be related to physiognomy, as all of our bodies are built in unique, distinct manners that our scent does represent who we are since the specific combination of genetics and hormones that we have is required to produce that exact scent.
â„–94624[Quote]
>>94623Scent also depends on what you eat, your hygiene choices etc. So it's like an express analysis of one's lifestyle. There were some experiments with it and humans use it both in mating and making friends. There was some weak correlation between face first impression and smell but the latter was most important factor. Physiognomy is not reliable enough to judge people imo.
â„–94625[Quote]
>>94624I'd like to drop a trvthnuclear physiognomypill, but I don't want to derail the thread. I do believe physiognomy tells us everything about a person though, as the mind, body, genes, hormones, blood, and everything are all one interconnected system. The example I hear the most is of testosterone; if you have someone with high testosterone, then they will look and behave as though they have high testosterone: large muscles and frame, aggressive/high will to achieve goals, etc. There's a great youtube channel on the matter if you're interested, but I might make a separate thread on here just for physiognomy.
â„–94626[Quote]
>>94625what about face surgeries?
â„–94627[Quote]
>>94626Good question, and I myself am conflicted on it, but there are two philosophies I've seen on it. The first, which is notably mentioned by Chinese physiognomists, is that it's simply a scar and does not represent the true self since it isn't what you were naturally given. The second perspective, which is more aligned with western face reading, and one that I lean towards, is that facial surgery can actually change how someone behaves in accordance with the applied meanings of the features they now have or altered. So for example, a wide bridge of the nose stands for general resistance to stress and pressure, so under this theory, a foid getting a surgery for a thin nose bridge would then become more volatile and stressed in general. The logic behind this theory is that since the body is an interconnected system, forcing the body, especially the face, to be structured differently will also change the internal structures of the body. For example, our jawline angle affects how we breathe, which our breathe affects our bloodflow, which affects how organs function, and etc. Hence, someone with a weak jawline (Melancholic temperament) compared to a strong jawline (Sanguine temperament) are practically complete opposites in behavior and in body, so a melancholic chud getting jawline surgery because of the looksmaxxing forums telling him to will actually behave like a sanguine afterwards. This is disputed in physiognomy discourse though.
â„–94628[Quote]
>>94627Have you encountered people who contradict these markers? For example someone who looks like a giga but is rather timid, or other way around (like a very confident manlet chinlet)
â„–94629[Quote]
My penis doesn't even reach 5 inches I want to slit my throat
â„–94630[Quote]
>>94628Not from my experience, but keep in mind that we, as a society, are fed falsehoods relating to looks and told to ignore our intuitions of how someone looks. The weak jawlines, aka melancholics, are always going to be kind of moody and philosophical, but that doesn't necessarily mean not confident, but I'd argue many are very timid due to how society frames them for being ugly in the modern era. There's a video I want you watch, I'll send in the next reppey.
>>94629Sorry to hear 'teen. Have you tried any PE at all? Have you had a gf?
â„–94632[Quote]
>>94631Ignore the retarded thumbnail, he tends to make those clickbait thumbnails geg. Physiognomy is way more nuanced than that.
â„–94633[Quote]
>>94630>Have you tried any PE at all?Not really, it seems like nonsense to me
>Have you had a gf?I'm a kissless, hugless, handholdless, dateless virgin
â„–94634[Quote]
>>94633>Not really, it seems like nonsense to meI don't have the link, but I remember seeing a study done for the RestoreX extender, which men did actually gain length by using it daily, with the ones that used it for longer sets gaining more, albeit length gain exponentially decreased with usage. The PE subreddits are fairly informative on the matter. Do you practice semen retention?
â„–94636[Quote]
>>94635Appreciate you being open to the idea 'teen
â„–94637[Quote]
>>94634I don't, I masturbate every couple of days
â„–94638[Quote]
>>94637Have you ever tried to maintain a streak? Do you believe it would have any benefits to do that? I can tell you that semen retention does a lot for your mind and body from my experience.
â„–94639[Quote]
>>94638The longest I went without doing it was like 3 weeks. The only benefit I have noticed from abstaining is that I'm a little less miserable.
â„–94640[Quote]
>>94639Cases like yours are why I believe semen retention is far more important than PE, but I won't get ahead of myself. If 3 weeks made you a bit less miserable, then why not go further? Imagine how you might feel at 2 months, 4 months, or even a year. Your mind becomes so much clearer the longer you go, and you build muscle more easily and naturally. It's literally a direct stat buff, I couldn't recommend it enough.
â„–94641[Quote]
>>94636So it's rather an overview video, I didn't see any full exact lists "feature=trait". And at times this guy sounds like a salesman. Can you structurize some features as an example? Or give me such a list.
â„–94642[Quote]
>>94641Yeah, I can. I'm going to do it in a separate reppey since I might get carried away and so you know I'm still here. I agree he does have that salesman vibe though, as unfortunately his most educational content is paywalled on patreon. However, I've been watching for about a year and I've rewatched many of the videos and memorized most of the core features.
â„–94645[Quote]
>>94641The hierarchy of the face goes in this order:
Temperament (jawline and forehead angle)
Face shape
Facial features
The temperament represents what energy someone has, which is named after the Greek four temperaments of course. Cholerics are leader-like, as they're intense and want to get work done, hence they're extraverted, as the energy is aimed outwards, so you can think of it in the Jungian sense. Sanguines are the stereotypical gigas, not just by looks, but they're extraverted and calm, so natural party people. Melancholics are intense, but introverted, so all of that intensity is aimed inwards, hence they're moody and philosophical, as that drive similar to a Choleric is used for their inner world instead. Phlegmatics are calm, but also introverted like the Melancholic, so they really just want to maintain the current order of things since that brings them personal comfort. You can have multiple temperaments, so for example, you could have a Sanguine jawline, but Choleric forehead. The forehead represents intellect, so the intellect of this person would be intense and oriented towards long term vision, whereas their energy of action, represented by the jawline, has that typical Sanguine type of extraversion and charm, but short-term oriented and difficultly continuing things.
Face shapes will be too wordy if I get into all of them, but just as some examples:
Mars face is the warrior archetype, so these people are naturally aggressive, domineering, and determined. Mussolini is an example of someone with that face and a Sanguine temperament. Mercury is sensitive, moody, desires attention, and is naturally witty and charming in communication.
For specific features, some of the most notable I can think of are:
If your eyes are deep set, then that means you're calculating and observe before you do something or speak. So bulging eyes have the opposite meaning, as those people aren't calculating what they do or say much, they'll just blurt things out. Every feature's meaning relates to the physical function, so the eyes help us perceive, but they also tell us about one's perception. Another example with eyes would be how wide set they are. Close set eyes means that someone can pick apart and easily notice details, whereas someone with wide set eyes is one who prefers to see the bigger picture and may struggle with details. Another example is with the mouth, as it speaks and eats, so it tells us how one communicates and how they consume or desire. A small mouth means that someone is naturally quiet and introverted in the conventional sense, not the Jungian sense, whereas a wide mouth means the opposite. If you haven't noticed, every feature runs on a spectrum like that. I could give more examples if you need, but this is already very wordy, so I'll only give more examples if you'd like.
â„–94647[Quote]
>>94646The forehead and chin shapes I have don't match my temperament. Those "partial meanings" seem like stretching the definition to get desired result. Are there any statistics on this topic?
â„–94648[Quote]
>>94647Sorry for late reply, but keep in mind that isn't everything. I would describe it as the temperament being what kind of energy, the face shape being how it's expressed, and the facial features being where or how it's used.
â„–94649[Quote]
>>94647Also what do you mean by partial meanings? I don't recall mentioning something like that.
â„–94712[Quote]
>>94649>You can have multiple temperaments, so for example, you could have a Sanguine jawline, but Choleric forehead. The forehead represents intellectthis
btw did you pay anything to prosopa guy? I feel like you're being scammed, he puts everything on sale from pictures to guides to tshirts. His temperaments article just separates people into 4 groups with exact physical and psychological traits which is just obviously wrong.
I understand this physiognomy idea as correlation of some genes of facial traits with genes influencing personality. Doe it's too weak and inaccurate to make certain assumptions on sight.
have you used this to analyze people IRL? and with what success?
â„–94713[Quote]
It's so weird to me that guys now are fixating on shit like face shapes and personality type now. This kind of stuff is meant for women. Instead of looking at your eyebrows going hmm am I a warrior or a genius how about you go find a battle to fight in or a topic to study. People are defined by what they do not how they look.
â„–94715[Quote]
>>94713only OP is doing that, I'm skeptical about physiognomy
â„–94717[Quote]
>>94713i mean this shit is hundreds of years old. i agree its retarded but you can find books from the 1800s about this stuff
â„–94721[Quote]
>>94712It's more nuanced than the temperaments. Again, that's just the general energy of someone, but the minutia of people are within the face shape and features.
>btw did you pay anything to prosopa guy?No, I'd never do that geg. He is the most informative media personality on the topic, but I don't care much for him as a person and especially his monetization tactics, but I can kind of understand it for spreading his message of esoteric knowledge. You can get the illustrations for free on the website btw or just from the videos, but like I said earlier, his actual good and educational content is mostly paywalled, so you have to really autistically pay attention to many videos and keep track to learn from his free content.
>have you used this to analyze people IRL? and with what success?All of the time. I even gave my coworkers readings when we were hanging out one time and they were all surprised by the accuracy, but I will be fair and say it could be an effect of just describing vague things that can apply to many people since I can be pretty bad with details, but I was trying to be as detailed as possible and pointing out their most unusual and polarizing features. I use this to read the people around me constantly, but of course I can't get the best idea from a quick glance nor can I just stare at them while I'm working my retail job or something, but I tend to look at eyes, eyebrows, nose, mouth, and jawline for quick overviews of people and they tend to align with how the customers treat me at my job, especially the meaner ones.
>>94713>Instead of looking at your eyebrows going hmm am I a warrior or a genius how about you go find a battle to fight in or a topic to study.It isn't about putting yourself inside boxes just for fun. It's a tool for understanding yourself and others.
>People are defined by what they do not how they look.Disagree. Why do people look a certain way? Genetics, hormones, diet. But why do those things affect how we look? What else do they effect? Why do they tend to have correlating effects of physical characteristics and mental ones? An example is Thyroid disease. Thryoid disease is commonly diagnosed by the tail of the eyebrow thinning, but how would the eyebrow be related to the Thyroid? Why do these things seem to be connected within our body? Face reading was also used for medical purposes by the Chinese, although I'm not educated enough on eastern physiognomy practices to know much about that.
>>94717I think you people should be more open to the idea of physiognomy, but I'd like to remind everyone that this isn't the topic of my thread. I brought it up briefly in conversation because I thought it was interesting and could open the minds of people, but I'd rather make a separate thread on physiognomy for people open to the idea. I don't know why you guys are so trusting of modern jew science where they constantly lobby for studies to give biased results to "disprove" things is such fields as racial anthropology, which if want my opinion on it, is a large part of why physiognomy is classified as pseudoscience in the modern day, as it implies that if a certain look pertains to certain behavior, then that would mean your biological race affects how you behave and that the race would largely behave in a similar manner, which I think it's obvious to see why they would want to censor that in favor of the egalitarian worldview they push to achieve the kalergi plan.
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.