Observations and Thoughts too short for their own threads - 2

Nature embodies aggression, conflict, predation, and violence. However within all of this competition there is another critical function, Sex. Sex is how nature has forced organisms into cooperation. It is not until males and females obey primal instinct (to mate) that cooperation becomes a necessity. (With mammals) A male *needs* a female to reproduce himself. And a female *needs* a male to reproduce herself.

Hypothesis: all forms of organic cooperation are rooted in the seed of sexuality (to reproduce, to extend survival into new re-generations).

If the only relevant differences between groups and individuals are their ideas and nothing genetic, then there is no such thing as 'progress' of the human species beyond the dialectical.

When it's an inalienable fact that I have implicit biases which make me prejudiced, and racism is prejudice + power, the only logical conclusion is that the only thing which can fix the disparity is: me handicapping myself so I lose power - making me no longer racist.

Then, I can be prejudiced while having no power… And some other person, who magically is able to be non-prejudiced (unlike me), can take my place. Then, if I am discriminated against, I will have to strive again to attain power. This will continue until everything equalizes - and all are equally uniform in character, culture and talent.

The nature of power is that someone always has more or less of it than you do. The idea that one should just "keep in mind" one's privilege, or "be aware of injustice" is what men call virtue signaling. Virtue signaling is the pretense of concern whilst doing nothing to help. And helping inevitably means the above situation playing out. As a result, of this masculine disposition to ACT and resolve a problem, the contradiction is fixed by the 'system' or 'establishment' by instead feminizing men and flipping reality on its head to prevent the exposition of its weakness and impotency as an institution.

Keeping men from acting by whatever means necessary.

Part of this problem is the vagueness which people reference "power" - typically replaced with money, though. Generally speaking, someone always has power over another - and most people (99%) have people with power over them. When it comes to social power, money has been used as a stand-in for less scientific methods. Money itself cannot be used alone as an indicator, or else we'd see that Jews hold the vast amount of wealth over other groups and come to the logical conclusions. Therefor they include things such as political power and representation as groups in governance.

The difficulty of synthesizing these two views of power (money/representation) is being unable to equate people with money, which those promoting this idea can do easily because they dehumanize everyone they're talking about.

They have already narrowed it down, if you are White and don't do what they want then you are morally at fault. And 'they' is basically those who hold positions of moral authority, which is simply those who have the means and the will to inform you. The (((media))) for the most part.

Let's be objective about our existence.
Let's pretend we are not who we are but a neutral observer without being invested into anything, having no values of any kind.
Now lets determine the worth of the European race.
Gotcha.
Otherwise that's just your subjective opinion and that necessarily means that it doesn't mean anything because I imply so.

Me, I'm merrily being objective here, that's why I focus my identity deconstructing argument only on those who I want to deconstruct.

Objective, refers to a goal.
In philosophy the goal is to see the world as clearly, honestly, as possible.
This is what is meant by approaching, moving towards objectivity.
To be subjectively as close to with the world outside, beyond, your subjective interpretations.
Your interpretations, your ideas/ideals, to be as close to an agreement with reality.
But reality is not a static thing...it is interactivity - Flux.
That alone, besides the imperfection inherent in all organisms, makes absolute objectivity impossible.
As is absolute knowledge - omniscience.
As is absolute power/strength - omnipotence.

Therefore strength is a measure of weakness...and knowledge is a measure of ignorance, and objectivity is a measure of subjectivity...in relation to the world we are all a part of.
The ideal, is another term for the objective - the goal, as a movement towards it.
In the case of philosophy the goal is approaching the objective, attaining clarity.
If the objective is not pure, if it is corrupted by an alternate objective, such as survival, self-interest, pleasure, then it cannot be approached.
Pretending to be interested in world, while you are not, will not make you see world as it is.
Declaring yourself as someone who has as an objective seeing world, as it is, and not as he wishes it were, will not fool the objective, but only you, and perhaps a few gullible fools.

If someone admits that his goal is not to see the world as it is, but to find pleasure in it, to gratify his needs, to comfort your fears, then you are not interested in philosophy.
Ironically, your objectives become more impossible the more you fail to perceive world as it is.

So, 'objective', in the context of human awareness of world, encompassed in the discipline of philosophical discourse, means to have as a goal the approach, as far as you can accomplish it, to the world, as it is - to harmonize the subjective interpretations of world, with the fluctuating interactions called wold.
The only sign of success is through application, and the cost/benefits, the consequences of this application, relative to the goal itself.

So, if we switch objectives from world to the delusion of Christianity, then the approach to the nihilistic objective of christian salvation, purity of motive, complete innocence always fails when applied, because world enacts a heavy cost, if the individual is not somehow protected.
The christian must lie, to himself, and to gullible companions, on the same quest, with the same objective, otherwise if the Christian ideal is applies honestly and as it is defined, it suffers the consequences.
This is true of all nihilistic ideals, to the degree that their ideal is in disharmony with the real, or their interpretations are contradicted by the world; their opinion are not in agreement with world.
If sheltered, as in Modern social systems, then the costs may be postponed, or reduced, when others are forced to accept the costs of your errors in judgments, on your behalf, as part of a social arrangement.
But then no adjustment is ever attempted....and the entire system slowly declines....if it does not impose strict rules regulating judgments, and actions.

Such as forcing people to wear helmets, or seat-belts, or forcing strict rules in the market, to make them safe for fools, to protect idiocy from the consequences of its inferior judgment.
The institution becomes a parent, protecting infantile minds from themselves, and what get by, is shared, so as to reduce the severity on the individual.
This is dumbing-down and how it must maintain a moral and law and order severity, allowing its citizens to remain as childish as possible, without the entire system collapsing.

It's like -
Trying to be objective about myself, it becomes clear that I am not detached from myself as a subjective being and that I am not objective in the sense of what I am.

So me being objective means I recognise that I am a subject.

Anfang wrote:

It's like -
Trying to be objective about myself, it becomes clear that I am not detached from myself as a subjective being and that I am not objective in the sense of what I am.

So me being objective means I recognize that I am a subject.

Yes...and to what degree your self-interests, ego, emotions, corrupt your judgments
Know Thyself.

Placing the standard outside self, is the best way.....and this is by the consequences, measured against the world.
Ideal evaluated against the real.
Costs/Benefits....intent versus outcome.

Next best way is by evaluating abstractions, ideas, against the real, by the quantity and quality of references to it.
Another way is via a third party - empathically.
Observing the application as a detached third-party.....this eliminates the immediacy of the corrupting elements of ego, emotion, but still retains self-interests.
Costs/Benefits suffered, or enjoyed, by another, measured against the objective.

All mental abstractions, all theories, can be evaluated in this way.

Compromising one's own behavior, always, for the sake of peace, will inevitably mean an infinite number of compromises "between the sane and insane" (Satyr); between lies as an act and truth as an act. Not evil and good.

Every truth you will to power for yourself and speak politically, will encounter a more easily 'discovered' lie.

Women love who they want.
Men love who they can.

Æon wrote:

Women love who they want.
Men love who they can.

I agree as I understand it.

"I just can't love you."
and
"I don't want to love you."

The starting premise of both of you is wrong. Women can't romantically love men. Men love, women are loved.

Love is a product of imprinting, or attachment.
If the individual, male or female, likes himself, to the extent that he knows himself, then he loves his traits in others.
If he does not, he loves in others, what he lacks in himself, as far as he knows and understands it.

Love is self extended to other.
One can love a pet, or an abstraction, like nation, like God, when his identity is founded on it - if he associates his understanding of self with this otherness.

Love i an evolution of lust.
Lust is an automatic attraction to perceived symmetry and proportionality, in body, as the primal, first stage, and in more complex organisms, like humans, in mind, expressed as attitude, demeanor, humor, creativity.
The physical is immediate, and instinctive: a genetically determined reaction to evaluated potentials - health, fitness, reproductive, resistance to parasites etc.
The mental is slow and ambiguous, accentuating or diminishing the first. This is more evident in females who must evaluate the male's potentials even though he does not know them, or has exaggerated them either negatively or positively: over-under-estimated them.
Overestimation is the fall back error, when reproduction is in question, because reproduction is a product of excess, of collected and contained energies, therefore the attitude is one of excess in all areas including self-estimation.
Otherwise, how would males even dare to compete?
The excess energies put the mind in a state of frenzy...if you watch males compete in the wild they do so at the cost of their own survival, taken over by desire - lust.
Excess energies produce a sense of imenseness, of hyper-ego.
Love, by comparison, is hyper-self.

Hyper-gamy, is the female's intuitive desire for what is above her, which is based no her self-esteem, and self-knowledge.
The male is only interested in potential offspring, and so his criteria are less demanding and judgmental, when he is young, and become increasingly so when his own energies wane and his commitments, in time and energy, require more care.
Female and male judgment converge - the females due to the burden of gestating and weening a large-brained offspring, and the male, gradually, due to natural decline of his energies forcing him to be more quality oriented,a s opposed to his youth when quantity was his criteria of success.

Of course, in all this mess, we must factor in the social conventions concerning male and female promiscuity - memetic rules.
Unlike in natural environment, in human social systems controlling genetic dispositions permits the continuance of more stable social systems.
Males are forced into more feminine attitudes, concerning sexual relationships and reproduction, because of social restrictions imposed upon him by the system - holding him accountable, or restricting his access to females due to monogamy rules and regulations, enforced with moral codes and law and order, as well as by peer pressures.

In nature there would be no MGTOW, for example, because 1% of the males would seed 90% of the females, excluding 99% of the males from the gene pool.
Men would not 'turn their backs on women' because they would never be in the running - males expendabilty is nature;s way of passing on superior genes.
Also explaining why males dominate in all disciplines that require creativity, and thinking outside the box, and why females are good at repeating established truths, replicating them loyal, following rules and rulers, evaluating potentials, despite hyperbole, fitting into, adapting to, established systems etc.

Their commitments have an expiration date...in humans around 5-7 years, or the length of time a human, big-brained, offspring can mature and enough to be self-sustaining.
then she begins 'shopping around' for new genetic material.
Female loyalty is fickle.

I've managed to pinpoint only one instant where [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] would be a product of inante qualities and not a consequence of circumstantial factors, like waning energies, lack of options, socioeconomic pressures.

Idealism, using my own terminology, refers to the noumenon, which is more, or less in reference to reality, or the phenomena of interactivity.
In the case of romanticism it describes Modern Nihilism - a purification of humanity, and of sexuality.
It detachment form world, and conversion into a pure noetic construct.
Modern do the same with the word 'human', replacing 'God' with it.
Love, in this context, remains the same.
A projection of Divine love - spirit connecting the Father, in Heaven, with the Son, sent to save the soiled, sinner, to bring salvation as a option.
Spirit is the connector, elating to Mind/Body as the nervous system.

Brain - God
Body = Son
Spirit = Nervous System

Romantic love is this sanctification of a primal mechanism making heterosexual reproduction possible.
In other words it is non-existent, except as pure idea(l).
Therefore, since males are more able to abstract, and are prone to creatively take themselves out of the 'box', it is males who are more prone to be dominated by the idealization of lust/love...whereas females, being more pragmatic, less capable with the abstract, are taken over by lust/love, as innate, visceral, emotion, sensation, and cannot relate to masculine idealization.
They are confused by male conceptions of them, and of sexuality.

Female brains actually lose respect for males that fall into this state of lustful paroxysm. They consider such males weak...weaker than themselves, immediately losing sexual desire for them.
Placing females on a noetic pedestal, as many beta males do, as part of their alternative method of gaining sexual access, is pragmatically beneficial to females....but not sexually attractive.
Now...why would an inferior male benefit from idealizing the female sex?
Well, because unable to compete with superior males, his only other options is to become useful, to a female, within the context of a group, social system, with internal hierarchies and conflicts.
To make of himself a willing slave to her whims, he must place himself in a state fo surrender - seeing the object of his desire, as a divine creature he must give himself to.

Explaining why inferior males tend to be passionate feminists.

Idealism is the convenience of 'living in your head' rather than using ideas as connectors to world.
It is easy and so it becomes popular if the conditions are present, like sheltering.
An ideal remaining in the mind, cannot be confronted, challenged, soiled by reality.
It can never be discredited, because any flaw can be blamed on the mind, leaving the idea(l) pristine and pure.
In the mind anything is possible, because there is no indifferent world to set it straight, to correct it.

But for all that think that the ideal is the contrived one, the perfect, the whole, let them not forget that the nil is also an idea(l), that only means something in relation to the absolute ideal of one.
Pure Nihilists think it is a result of their maturity that they've advanced from the childishness of an absolute one, to the absolute nil.
Just as easily as the naive idealist can construct ideas, unbothered by anything outside his head, so can the pure Nihilist negate it all, and everything, with a word, a symbol....0.

It is true that only advanced retardation can go from absolute one, to absolute nil, but this still remains trapped in the Nihilistic paradigm - binary, dualism...1/0...absolute one, and absolute nil.
Easy construction of ideas, unaffected by fluctuating contradiction world, and absolute negation, of the previous, unconcerned with the presence of world.

The process is one of potential and maturation.
Disillusionment with ideals that are detached from reality, gives way to the cynical, denouncement of all ideas, trapped in its reference to the previous.

Positive Nihilist = the absolute, the ideal, exists, out there, somewhere, waiting to be discovered.
The idea(l) is me, and I will create it.
Pure Nihilist = The idea(l) is nowhere, is nothing, all is equally nil.

All of it a product of linguistic confusion, supported by a sheltering environment that permits it to imagine as fantasy.

AutSider wrote:

Women can't romantically love men. Men love, women are loved.

It's not the same kind of love but they do love.
A babe in love with her bad-boy does many stupid things and in the sense that love is a state of madness they can be very mad about him.

Now I don't think that a state of madness is the only thing or way how to think about love but if it wouldn't alter your thinking when it comes to the loved one then what would love be?
Love adds irrational elements, premises, to your thinking.

And so I do think women can be in love.
Though I also think that it's different from men in ways.

Men seek out power in life.
Women seek out powerful men.

"Down a winding pathway in a garden old, tripped a beauteous maiden, but her heart was cold. Came a prince to woo her, SAID he loved her true; maiden said he didn’t, so he ceased to woo. Came a perfumed noble — dropping on one knee; SAID his love was deeper, than the deepest sea. But the winsome maiden, said his love was dead, and the perfumed noble, accepted what she said. Came a dashing Stranger, took her off by force: said he’d MAKE her love him, and she did — of course."

There are many out there who believe that words alone are a form of action as opposed to physical force. Words without force and reality there to back them up will always result in the production and dominance of creative cowards.

Socrates should have been punched in the face.

Romantic love has implications of self-sacrifice and a deeper emotional attachment. Women aren't self-sacrificing for men and their emotional attachment is rather shallow, as it has had to be through history because her man could get killed by a stronger one and having deep feelings for her killed partner would be counter-productive to her survival.

Calling the way women relate sexually/romantically to men "love" in the same way we say men "love" women will inevitably result in confusion and men having unrealistically high expectations of their women (basically, expecting women to reciprocate the love), followed by disappointment when almost all women fail to meet these masculine standards.

The hierarchy is rather clear:

Men love and transfer energy to women, women love and transfer energy to children, children are the net recipients of energy and the reason that the man and woman cooperate.

This isn't an absolute hierarchy - children don't always just receive resources from their parents, they have their chores and little things they do to contribute as well. Just like women don't only extract resources from the man himself, but may do some easier work to extract resources from nature. And like children, women rely on their appearance, on being cute and having neotenous features to extract resources from others (primarily men), men in general can't do that.

However you look at it, woman is a half-adult, half-child, and her purpose is as a mediator between the man and child, a sort of an "emotional glue", the heart of the family with the man as the head.

Women can love men based on blood (fathers, brothers, children...) but not romantically.

The Modern world blurs the concept of 'love'. Moderns use the term synonymous when nuance and degree are required. Paternal love, father-son or father-daughter relationships are very important, and much rarer than they are for mother-son or mother-daughter relationships. When a man experiences a caring relationship to his daughter, and daughter to father, the idea of love is differently than in other relationships, father to son, mother to son, or mother to daughter, etc. I like to watch Liberal-Left media criticize and attack Ivanka Trump when she defends her father. Because it violates and contradicts many "values" which liberal-left claim to have. Defend women. But not Ivanka Trump. Promote successful women. But not Ivanka Trump. Respect women. But not Ivanka Trump.

Be a feminist. But don't be Ivanka Trump.

The hidden message is that daughters should 'hate' their fathers, and not love them. Because what is feminism, if not a schism in the family? Is it not an attack against patriarchy, and so, an attack against their own fathers? Feminists have daddy-issues. Usually, abandoned or rejected by their fathers, daughters who grew up without a strong, proud, or respectable man for a father. And so, like with other Nihilistic tendencies, feminists tend to blame the Absentee parent or guardian.

Like with Christians, blaming the invisible Abrahamic god....

Autsider wrote:

Calling the way women relate sexually/romantically to men "love" in the same way we say men "love" women will inevitably result in confusion and men having unrealistically high expectations of their women...

Depends on which premises are taken for granted but I see how this can happen.
But on the other hand I don't think it's accurate to portray women as lacking in "love" (irrationality).
If they love something they will defend it and rationalise it against all odds.

How did feminists convert women away from their own family?
Not by rational arguments, they came later to rationalise what had happened.
By making their men unlovable to them.

Love is never selfless. That modern women are taught, through liberal mythologies to believe that it is, is how we get this behavioral ambivalence in how modern women sexually select.

A woman who is of higher intelligence, may be drawn to a man who exudes superior intellectual qualities and creative life, but only for a short time until their biological procreative drives prompt them to place aside that which ultimately has nothing to do with inherent mating rituals, leading to one of the main necessities for female sexual and psychological welfare, which is offspring, resources or security. They require their physiological needs to be fulfilled regardless of how taken they are with intellectualism. Inevitably these needs manifest themselves, subtly, but noticeably.

They will ultimately come to conclusions that something is “missing”, or that they need time to “find themselves”, translation: they desire a man who can provide more than something abstract. Conversely, their attraction to men of high intellect is only their attraction to the ideal of this man; the heroic element of him, connected to a power of mind that metaphorically transposes into a form of physical strength. But it falls short in the end to satisfy them because it lacks immediate evolutionary purposes they require to be fulfilled in the long run. A man with a strong mind provides the “safety” imperative for females through good judgement and guidance that they need, but it is not enough for them and their demanding natures. Especially if you are like me, and you get very tired holding their hand all the time in how to think effectively, then they become put off even sooner.

A females love is indeed fickle, as Satyr says. It must be, precisely because a males genius is simply not adequately conducive to the genetic survival of the life of the woman herself. A woman’s love is based on higher standards of self-preservation and survival which is why women are so unforgiving in the game of sex. A man loves only when it serves a higher function for the advancement of principles based on aggregate energies, both sexual and intellectual.

Kvasir wrote:

It must be, precisely because a males genius is simply not adequately conducive to the genetic survival of the life of the woman herself.

...in the modern environment.

Genius, if allowed, can be quite like what they call in the military, a force multiplier.

It is far more dangerous than muscle or sociability will ever be. The repression of its expression is why females today do not select for it.

Unbalanced modern men (all muscle, all brains) are not adequately conducive to the survival of the women in nature, but in artifice, these human dildos and cogs become preferred under the watchful eye of ONE.

I just wonder how they can be tricked by the environment so easily, you would think that thousands of years of evolution would have given them a taste for the balanced man....or perhaps they still have it... which would explain why divorce among modern men has risen.

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

Kvasir wrote:

It must be, precisely because a males genius is simply not adequately conducive to the genetic survival of the life of the woman herself.

...in the modern environment.

Genius, if allowed, can be quite like what they call in the military, a force multiplier.

It is far more dangerous than muscle or sociability will ever be. The repression of its expression is why females today do not select for it.

Its repression is mostly genetic and partly mimetic in modernity. But, sociobiologically, its purpose does not compliment sexual selection, which is why it is rare and goes by the wayside when progeny is concerned for women. The point being that a female is drawn to traditional aspects of immediate genetic fitness that are basic in function, not timeless in spirit. The organic genus of a civilization is what females are drawn to.

Kvasir wrote:

Its repression is mostly genetic and partly mimetic in modernity. But, sociobiologically, its purpose does not compliment sexual selection, which is why it is rare and goes by the wayside when progeny is concerned for women. The point being that a female is drawn to traditional aspects of immediate genetic fitness that are basic in function, not timeless in spirit. The organic genus of a civilization is what females are drawn to.

It was not simply "immediate genetic fitness" that ensured the survival through the harsh cold of the ice age.

Of course, if you mean a hot, sheltered, and resource-rich environment, then yes, immediate genetic fitness is the default and genius becomes of little concern.

But we are not creatures of the jungle, not anymore.

Our females still feel the scar the event left on their psyche, which is why most of them remain unfulfilled despite having someone with immediate genetic fitness.

Primitiveness in relation to success to fitness is not meant to be taken merely prehistorically. imprinted urges towards long term expectations of biological survivalism is inherent in their drive to select. Intelligence is fitness but in different ways for different autonomous purposes that find their way into group selection.

Civility is the domestication of these urges, but does not negate their significance for females. It manifests culturally and individualistically. The same needs, taking on different adaptations, that's all.

Intelligence is mental fitness to ensure future stability for cultural life. But brood, offspring, children are the evolutionary need to be fulfilled in them. The conduits of life spring forth from natural sources of strength that are practical. Genius is not practical, it is an anomaly that determines degrees of unique success that caters less towards a collective whole and more towards a continuity of thought processes. The needs of females are collective and pragmatic.

Has anyone else than me found reason to believe that the PUA and anti-PUA communities were created by the same group of people? (Unfortunately, PUAhate is no longer operational, so I have no direct evidence for this.)

Lyssa wrote:

Science and Religion must be like a torc.

To Uroborically reduce gods into scientific propositions, or science into religious mysticisms, both end up in self-annihilating absurdity.

How much of a 'discriminate' identity is it, to explain away gods as thunder and lightning and sun,,, when the next tribe does the same with different labels...

To do so may say a lot about our Beliefs, but it says nothing about OUR beliefs.

Abs. scientific reduction and abs. religious reduction are nihilistic.

The Daimon has many heads.
Alertness is the state of intense calm that is sur-charged on the edge, without convenient collapses.

We do not grow without such tensions.

Do you think science and myth can ever sync up, or does myth always outpace science?

Considering thunder and lightening in modern scientific terms seems less useful as explanation than as a way to manipulate the phenomenon. It seems a person looking for an explanation to such things  would find much use in mythology, more so to the extent he has genetic, and even cultural, ties to the tribe that created the mythology.

perpetualburn wrote:

Do you think science and myth can ever sync up, or does myth always outpace science?

Are you asking that in terms of science and myth syncing up through a tribal system of belief or an individual's own endeavors?

Judgement:

1. What is the appearance of the thing, its body-shape, its face, what does it indicate?
2. What are the thoughts of the thing, what does it speak, how, and why?
3. What are the actions of the thing?

The third factor, actions, is most critical since actions *cannot* lie. Actions reveal all, especially the inner-thought of the thing.