Traits & Features

Recognizing certain traits and identifying them according to what they may mean is not going to be a method of comparison for superior/inferior, but only of their place and uses.

As an example, we will begin with eyes.

Starting with colors, we will range from light to dark. High pigment can come as a lack of clarity, a blending in of a certain kind. But this can also lead to a kind of harshness and detraction. Melanin carries properties which actually better deflect the sun, and so also tend to catch less attention of the human eye. It is almost as if to say "please do not look at me, I only wish to be and to blend"...and again, it can even give off a defensive vibe. This can range from harmful to harmLESS, in its purest of form.

Light colors with less pigment, by contrast, draw us in. They want the attention. Any kind of bright, or lighter color by definition stands out. It does not want to blend or hide; it prefers to assert itself. Lack of melanin means more vulnerability to the sun, as well as to what it may attract. Light colors say "gaze, admire and come over to me". They are very inviting. As for these colors, there does not tend to be any switch between extreme ends of very open or closed. There is a steady kind of pulling, and no concern for what this may bring. A kind of innocence only in its lack of defense, and a boldness that can nearly come across as a threat.

For a baby or young child, it is irrelevant of what color their eyes are, they will appear sweet & naive. As we get older, however, our eyes tell a different story.

A child with light eyes may appear even cuter being that this young age allows for both innocence & seduction. A child with dark eyes, however, does not possess both qualities.

But, with time, the innocence of a light eyed person begins to fade, whereas that of a dark eyed person stays. This is because their innocence is actually innate.

Light eyes will forever carry the quality of seduction, boldness, and a mystery, which in fact, may appear cold as well as conceited.

When I look at a brown-eyed person, it often seems as though their eyes are always shifting out of precaution, and UNassertiveness. They always seem to be unsure of their place. There is almost a kind of sheer ignorance that gives way to being a push-over. Hence the term "doe" eyed.

On the other hand, they are not anything out of the ordinary, or out for show. They tend to be careful of what they appear as, or what the consequences might be. Therefore, no real impression is made.

Their darkness indicates vacancy, a stopping point- go no further! As well as the deepest of heart. This is what entices those to protect, but also stay away; they have much to guard.

All qualities operate on a level of friendly/unfriendly, the nurtured, protected, and sheltered and the nurturers, protectors, and shelterers. Each feature can be balanced with others to show boldness in one area and softness in another.

We will group lighter eyes as friendly, and in need of no protection or shelter; brown eyes unfriendly, and in need of protection and shelter. This can seem confusing, and is rather deceptive, because lighter eyes are rather UNfriendly, and as a result need no protection, so this supports their openness. Brown eyes are very friendly, and as a result need protection, so this supports their closedness.

This could be referred to as a good tactic for both types. One uses a method of seduction and the other diversion.





The Land Of Milk & Honey

We will also be grouping the soft and the bold and their relation to sheltering/sheltered.

The archetypical female is mother-like in her softness, curves, and fullness. She is giving of life and teaches submission. She shows love, and compassion.

The archetypical male is father-like in his boldness, structure, and tone. He is taking of life and teaches to fight. Showing indifference, and little mercy.

If lack of masculinity is present, the feminine will become a dominant shelter. Uniformity will always take on the female role. Those within this shelter will represent the feminine and become like she is, while seeking protection not only from the womb, but also for a missing male figure; to become the womb in which the male is to impregnate. Womb can be replaced with 'comb', for honey comb.

When the male becomes sheltered, he can no longer be considered masculine. That is why the masculine figure remains outside of uniformity, or becomes female. That is; men must outgrow the mother.

The woman, however, can remain under the guided watch of her father and stay feminine. This is because the male fosters a strong pushing forward, and moves uniformity according to its direction.

We can see by the way relationships have turned from younger females being paired with older males to the new 'cougar' trend that we are most certainly experiencing an 'over-mothering' phase. MILF being one letter away from MILK.

Physically, we can see softer features become more prominent, as harder appearance staves off. This can simply be observed (for those keen) through old highschool photo books of your of your great grandparents----the children were not as likely to be attractive as they are now. This not only comes from an increase of genetic mixing (uniformity/femininity), but modern increase in estrogen boosts.

The bold has been replaced almost entirely with the soft, and the friendly. Features will most likely revert to the maximum estrogen provides, and then to their final state of androgyny.

Any feature which is constructed out of bone shows a more masculine side (a 'boner' for ex), whereas those of a 'squishier' or transient nature are feminine (hair, lips)

Men being the builders; women the decorators. A sturdy frame, and comfortable interior. The feminine acting as a filler, interesting that she is also a filter.

Generally, women are trained to be more superficial than men, and more concerned with buying their appearances, but this is no longer the case.

Men are now going the extra mile to upkeep their muscles and perception of 'manhood' at the gym; hyper-masculine, yet metro-active. They are told they need only look the part, leading to an entire loss of male essence.

There are some excerpts from a gay male blogger who, on occasion, has mentioned some very interesting philosophical outlooks and given personal views that may be of help:

Quote :

Gay muscle growth fiction revolves around the idea of a man growing immensely huge and powerful, blown up as if by magic... like a Jinn. The growth is all male (giant muscle and cock) but in order to GET the growth, an action is required of a symbolically feminine nature: the guy has to suck cock or get fucked to receive the gift! The man has to symbolically become a woman - the male made female.

And another:

Quote :

My antennae have been buzzing on the synch that it is female beauty contestants who cast themselves in the role of the defender of heteroxy, Miss California Carrie Prejean being the latest example. But I'll never forget Anita Bryant, the Miss America orange juice queen who became the voice of the emerging Evangelical Right. Perhaps beauty contestants feel threatened by gay love? Kinda leaves them out of the running.

The masculine equivalent of the beauty pageant is a bodybuilding contest, and in the old days we had Mr. America and Mr. Universe, inviting the obvious comparisons. While female pageants are undeniably straight, the male side has always had a strong homosexual sub-current, as much as Joe Weider always tried to sweep it under the carpet. Dare I say it, but perhaps it is that homosexual subconscious-current that draws in the fans and pays the bills? Apparently homoerotic is fine, as long as it avoids the label. In this respect, erotic male love is STILL "the love that dare not say its name".

Eros is his name, and for the last 2000 years Eros has been "our little secret" - something men do behind closed doors but never, ever discuss in public. Until now, when suddenly Eros is on all the talk shows.

Every archetype needs expression, and perhaps the reason that homosexuality finds itself in the cross hairs of religion and politics is that Eros is demanding to be heard? If an archetype is denied conscious expression, then it will seek subconscious expression. What if... the natural desire of a man for another man was cut off, through social and religious control? Perhaps it would seek covert expression - "perverting" other archetypes in order to express itself.

Naturally drawn to venues where men congregate, it would find subliminal expression there. Gyms and locker rooms, monasteries, soldier's barracks, construction crews - all fertile soil for Eros. But still, an existence in the subconscious margins of a straight world isn't exactly Living. So Eros infiltrates and perverts, and all the other archetypes hate on him for it, but maybe... all Eros really wants is a place to call his own. Like a gay bar is a place to call our own, and a gay neighborhood or even a church. But Eros doesn't want to live in a bar or a church, he wants a place in our consciousness. What if Eros has grown weary of all the sneakin' around, and like the prodigal son, he just wants to come home?

I know it sounds crazy, but what if the integration of Eros into the Collective Consciousness is what is going on right now? And maybe the other archetypes like Aries are angry and afraid, because on some level, they understand that Eros is the secret engine behind much of their success, and if he ever fully comes out of the subconscious closet, that might be the end of their careers.

To the scions of politics and religion, Eros is the Destroyer, and he seems to delight in bringing them down. But to us...

To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. I know your deeds. See, I have placed before you an open door that no one can shut. I know that you have little strength, yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name. --Revelation 3:7-8

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

What I know of him is that he is around 50 years old, of German descent, and is body-building crazed. Aside from this, he truly is an excellent writer and carries a streak of brilliance through satire, so please, for the love of Gosporn, do not go trolling on him.


We can delve into the gay topic at a later date.

More fun facts:

Cows are referred to as the foster mothers of the human race because they produce most of the milk that people drink.

IGF-1 is a naturally-occurring hormone found in the milk of both cows and humans. It affects cell growth and is responsible for the quick growth of infants in both species. This is why it is biologically present in mother's milk, since it is meant to be consumed by infants. While the IGF-1 hormone already exists in humans, it is usually bound to protein and thus has less of an effect than unbound IGF-1 in milk.

IGF-1 is the ONLY hormone shared amongst 2 mammals out of the 4,629 species, those being human and cow.

Genetically-engineered bovine growth hormone (rBGH) was introduced by the Monsanto company.

Cows have 4 stomach divisions, one sharing traits with the honeycomb pattern:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The reticulum (derived from the Latin for net[1]) is lined with ridges that form a hexagonal honeycomb pattern. The ridges are approximately 0.1 - 0.2 mm wide and are raised 5 mm above the reticulum wall. The hexagons in the reticulum are approximately 2-5 cm wide in cattle. These features increase the surface area of the reticulorumen wall, facilitating the absorption of volatile fatty acids. Despite the differences in the texture of the lining of the two parts of the reticulorumen, it represents one functional space.

The reticulum, the smallest compartment, is known as the "honeycomb".

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]



Are you a Dairy Queen? Be a Burger King, and have a chicken wing

Not to take away from the thread at all; I think you have some valid insights here, but:

Quote :

MILF being one letter away from MILK.

That made me laugh.

Good :]]

Hermetic word-play should be humorous ;D

without-music wrote:

Not to take away from the thread at all; I think you have some valid insights here, but:

Quote :

MILF being one letter away from MILK.

That made me laugh.

That's why your kissing her ass. Internet rendezvous with somebody without-music? Good luck chuck....

Poison what exactly are we talking about here? I've read this thread like three times and I still can't make any sense of it.

Joker, you're infinite insight never manages to impress me. You're correct, of course: I'm kissing Poison's ass because she's adept at "hermetic wordplay."

Some things to consider:

Black is a non-color.
White is the sum of all visible hues, the spectrum, in one.

Black is how the mind interprets what it cannot find any pattern in, or what is changing so fast, or too slow, (spectrum) for it to process.
It is also a sing that there is no medium available to stimulate the eye.

White is the aggravate of all visual cues, lost in a brilliance where no distinction is possible, unless one can slow or fragment the light.

Therefore black has come to represent evil, danger, the mystical, the threatening.
White has come to represent the reverse.

So, white is a representation of thingness, in its multifarious manifestation a Some-Thingness, whereas black is the absence of thingness, a No-Thingness.

Ergo from here white=existence; black=non-existence.

How close to one or the other each color falls determines our psychological reaction to it.
Men must be tall, dark, and hansom, where women being blonde is a plus.

Men must appear threatening, mysterious, deep, when women must be open, childlike, seen.

Because dark colors absorb light this is interpreted as an indication of depth, whereas a light-eyed person is thought to be superficial, naive, but the absence of a distinctive area on the eye to focus on also makes them seem alien.

Black & white picture show.

The Holstein Heifer, Hugh Hefner variety.



[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

without-music wrote:

Joker, you're infinite insight never manages to impress me. You're correct, of course: I'm kissing Poison's ass because she's adept at "hermetic wordplay."

I think it's just because you have a hard on for her.

Poison IV wrote:

Black & white picture show.

The Holstein Heifer, Hugh Hefner variety.



[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Yes, it is why black&white pictures and movies have such an effect on us.

The lines are drawn but not quite....the white blends into the black, in shades of grey, without the distracting hues to distract us form the effect.
Study the background picture of this very forum. Violence and conflict in black and white shades.

Now, notice how "anarchists" also hide a secret longing for their own death.
Under the guise of "freedom" it is the world's destruction they wish for...anti-order.
To vanish into the black.

In their dreams of anarchy is it always they who sit there laughing, in vengeance, against those condemned to die, along with themselves.

Freedom simply projects independence from need: an absence of an absolute...in this case that of absolute power, life, thingness.

Like all projections it can take on the binary form of white/black....according to the individual's psychology.
This is why the person's ideals reflect his attitude towards life and his own existence.

So freedom can mean many things.

In the negative sense it means an absence of Thingness...the absolute nothing.
The Buddhist emptiness, the void.
The desire here is to be lost forever; never to be reborn.
Salvation from suffering...as an extreme case of need.
Independence via annihilation.
This is a feminine attitude. To be lost in the absolute otherness.

In the positive sense it means a presence of Thingness...the absolute something, but no longer ambiguous, a Thing outright....a Being.
Order, Authority, the Apollonian ideal. Dionysus simply indicates the madness associated with this improbability.
Independence via control, assimilation, completion, the attainment of the perfect: Godliness.
This is the masculine attitude. To make the world obsolete.

Both are nihilistic tendencies.

Satyr wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Yes, it is why black&white pictures and movies have such an effect on us.
The lines are drawn but not quite....the white blends into the black, in shades of grey, without the distracting hues to distract us form the effect.
Now, notice how "anarchists" also hide a secret longing for their own death.
Under the guise of "freedom" it is the world's destruction they wish for...anti-order.
To vanish into the black.

Associating the Chaos with the Trickster figure:

Quote :

Liminality and the Trickster.


The Initiators.

"Initiators" play an important role in the transitional state of liminality; in the present case, not the elders and medicine men of tribal society that Turner describes, but those bearing no less power (magical and non-magical) in the European Commission in Brussels, the IMF, the World Bank, Wall Street, and a few other such institutions. They do, indeed, behave like the initiators of old: they are strict, at times ruthless, secretive, they chant eternal verities, will not be gainsaid, will put one to shame or threaten castration when necessary, they bind one hand and foot – all this in the firm belief, or on the excuse, that this is all in one's best interest: when the initiation rite is finished one will be able to step as an adult into the world of grown-ups. The process may be successful in the majority of cases, though the official initiators at many points around the globe have already ruined and permanently crippled a good many countries, societies and groups of people. Hungary, though, might come off better than that.

Shamans and prophets.

It is common in transitional, liminal periods for irrational propensities to gain strength in society, for rational analytical and critical faculties to weaken. In such an atmosphere it is not uncommon to see the appearance of shamans, who cast a spell on their flock, or prophets, who preach about apocalypse and a new Jerusalem to come. In Hungary, Viktor Orbán and Ferenc Gyurcsány possess such gifts, though from time to time they seem rather to cut the figure of a sorcerer's apprentice, and one can only hope that the magic word which will stop the floodwaters will spring to their mind in time.

Tricksters.

The confusion of the transitional period also tends to favour the appearance of "tricksters", those clever and cunning hobgoblins who played, and still play, an important role in the mythologies of innumerable civilisations, destroying and creating, playing the innocent and resorting to trickery, cheating or assisting, turning the world upside down and putting it to rights again; there is no way of knowing whether they are for us or against us, they can drive us to distraction or dazzle us with their tricks, make us miserable or happy. Even such an outstanding politician as Tony Blair has something of the air of a trickster about him: a charming, smiling trickster. On the far side of the ocean is Arnold Schwarzenegger as the giant trickster in the seven-league boots. In Europe Milosevic, Meciar, the Kaczynski brothers, Berlusconi and Putin would also stand good chances of bidding for that label, while in Hungary, too, several specimens of the type have cropped up. "
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


"Mimesis, or the imitative aspect of human behavior, is an important aspect of liminality[61]. Individuals that are trapped in a liminal situation are not able to act rationally for two reasons: “first, because the structure on which ‘objective’ rationality was based has disappeared; and second, because the stressful, emotive character of a liminal crisis prevents clear thinking”[62]. This can lead to “mimetic” behavior on the part of the trapped individuals: “a central characteristic of liminal situations is that, by eliminating the stable boundary lines, they contribute to the proliferation of imitative processes and thus to the continuous reproduction of dominant messages about what to copy”[63]. Without stable institutions (which are effectively broken down in a liminal period), “people will look at concrete individuals for guidance”[64].

This notion of imitation is closely tied to that of the trickster figure. The trickster is a universal figure that can be found in folktales and myths of nearly all cultures. These tricksters can be characterized as follows:

[they] are always marginal characters: outsiders, as they cannot trust or be trusted, cannot give or share, they are incapable of living in a community; they are repulsive, as – being insatiable – they are characterized by excessive eating, drinking, and sexual behavior, having no sense of shame; they are not taken seriously, given their affinity with jokes, storytelling, and fantasizing[65].

In the context of liminality, the trickster is a very dangerous figure: “in a liminal situation where certainties are lost, imitative behavior escalates, and tricksters can be mistaken for charismatic leaders”[66].

This means that in their search for guidance, the individuals caught in the liminal situation might choose to follow a trickster, whom they confuse with a charismatic leader capable of “saving” them. Liminal periods that affect entire societies are characterized by the absence of a “master of ceremonies” (the leadership figures that are supposed to lead the initiands out of the liminal phase), which can in turn lead to the rise of tricksters into positions of power. When a trickster enters into a position of leadership, “liminality will not be restricted to a temporary crisis, followed by a return to normality, but can be perpetuated endlessly”[67].

This can be explained by three important characteristics of the trickster: his lack of a home (the trickster is, by definition, homeless and an outsider), lack of deeply felt human relations, and lack of existential commitments[68]. These traits cause the trickster to have no interest in solving the liminal crisis; “on the contrary, being really at home in liminality, or in homelessness, his real interest lies in its opposite, in perpetuating such conditions of confusion”[69].
On the other hand, the trickster is also a mime. “Imitation, whether in learning or in social activity, is only possible in so far as we are not aware that we are actually imitating…because as soon as we do so, imitation becomes a mere miming and would produce no effect in learning or no pleasure in involvement”[70]. Seeing as the trickster is incapable of “experiencing learning or the pleasure of sociability” as others do, he can be considered a mime rather than an imitator[71]. He thus appears to act just as everyone else does. With this in mind, there are “two characteristics [of the trickster] that under certain conditions could turn to be profitable, even [leading him to gain] unlimited and total power”: “his permanent state of exteriority helps him to think rationally and makes him a good mime: he cannot learn by genuine imitation but learns how to mime others and this produces laughter; thus he receives appreciation that otherwise he would never obtain”[72].

The term schismogenesis, developed by British anthropologist Gregory Bateson, can be used to describe situations of permanent liminality. Through this concept, Bateson suggested “that societies can be stuck for a long time in a state where the previous unity was broken, and yet the schismatic components are forced to stay together, producing an unpleasant, violent, harrowing, truly miserable existence”[73]. Bateson further suggested that “entire cultures might systematically produce schizoid personalities” and, by combining such an idea with the work of Turner and anthropologist René Girard, one could say that the trickster is capable of founding such a culture. Girard’s concept of mimetic desire (and, more importantly, the phenomenon he called the “mimetic crisis”) can be linked to the trickster and to absence of masters of ceremonies in large-scale instances of liminality:

When a mimetic crisis is artificially staged in the ritual process, it always happens in the presence of a “master of ceremonies” who maintains order once the stabilities of everyday life are dissolved in the rites of separation. When the schism takes place in real life, however, it is not certain that charismatic heroes emerge that are up to solving the situation through eidetic perception, in the Platonic sense[74].

In any normal situation, the trickster would not be able to gain any appreciation from others, but in a crisis situation (which, as an outsider, the trickster has no emotional connections to), “might come up with a rational way of ‘solving’ the crisis by turning things into his own image”[75]. It is precisely in these situations that “schismatic doubling and copying are escalated, and the erratic, even repulsive, becomes normal” Once others become aware of the true nature of the trickster’s behavior, it “becomes a genuine problem as a trickster character cannot be altered, so there is genuinely no solution”[77]. It is also not possible for the trickster figure to be punished, as “punishment is only meaningful if there is a chance of correction and improvement, which is hopeless in the case of a trickster character”[78].

When trickster figures are mistaken for saviors, then emotions will be continually and repeatedly incited, until the community is reduced to a schismatic state. Societies can maintain themselves in such situations of oppression and violence for a long time, without returning to normal order, if stable external referent points are absent. This is why schismogenic societies need to maintain themselves in a perpetual state of war; presumably surrounded by enemies who try to conquer and destroy them[80].

Thus the culture that is established by such tricksters following their rise to power “can have its structure and persistence, as the negative sentiments of hatred, hostility, fear and envy, based on vital instincts of self-preservation, can indeed maintain in the long term a social order in a relative state of stability”[81]. But in addition, this same society would “preserve, forever, its broken, fragmented, schismatic character”[82].

In Reflexive Historical Sociology, Szakolczai elaborates on the classification of “Soviet-type Bolshevism” as an example of the third kind of permanent liminality:

The communist regimes in Europe and Asia were all established under one very special kind of condition: the end of a world war. If all wars are liminal situations in which the cycle of mimetic violence escalates beyond measure, then the closing stages of a world war, and especially the process of reconstruction that starts after such massive warfare, can be conceived of as a rite of reaggregation. The singular specificity of communist regimes, however, was to play continuously on the sentiments of suffering, revenge and hatred, prevent the settling down of the negative emotions, stir up the worst in human feelings by submitting a population…first to an endless civil war and then to a period of forced and unintelligible terror. Communism was a regime in which the Second World War never ended.[83]
The trickster used the technique of “flirting” to achieve this, meaning the “systematic teasing of the population with an imminent state of bliss”."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

N. identified three Liminal Seductions as the cause of modern chaos [WTP, 585]:

1. The Concept of the Unknown World.
Insinuates this world is 'knowable' in itself.
Eludes this world with its inquisitiveness - "as if the more interesting were elsewhere".
Seduction of the Philosopher who invents an other-world of reason.

2. Another World.
Insinuates this world could be otherwise - abolishes all necessity and fate.
Eludes with its submissiveness - "as if it were not necessary to submit oneself, as if this world were not a necessity...".
Seduction of the Religious Man who invents a divine world.

3. True World.
Insinuates this world is deceptive, inauthentic, untruthful - a world not adapted to its needs, and better resisted.
Eludes with its sympathy and respect - "as if this impure dishonest world did not deserve it".
Seduction of the Moral Man who invents a free world that is good, perfect, just, and holy.

Philosophy. Religion. Morality. - As the threefold seduction.

"Blood type was a contentious issue in the 1920's and 30's. The interest in blood types in Japan grew as a reaction against Western racism. Scientists in the west found that type B was common in Asia, but rare in Caucasians. As type B was typical in animals, they argued that Asians were inferior, lower on the evolutionary scale. Japanese scientists were keen to disprove this ludicrous theory, debate continued and it became a popular ology."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]