Our instincts have a kind of code embedded in them whereby a certain ideal image is compared to what we see, when we look at certain types of things. This exists due to evolution and has been fine-tuned over thousands and thousands of years of natural selection. Each person’s image is a bit different, some are drastically different depending on our culture, race etc.
When you look at something which triggers this instinct-response in your brain, such as a member of the opposite sex and especially one that fits certain criteria for being a potential mate, a part of your brain decodes the visual image and breaks it down into geometric mathematical proportions. This is probably done all at once, as a single number or matrix of numbers/values. This is then implicitly contrasted against whatever ideal image you have embedded in your instincts, which image also exists as basically a matrix or series of numbers/values.
It is almost impossible for there to be a perfect match, but the closer what you are looking at is to the ideal embedded in your mind, the more physically attracted you will be to that person. And there is another similar but separate process that does this for other aspects such as markers of personality. Hence you really can have “love at first sight” although it would be rare.
Very rarely you might see something that is a perfect match, or aspects of something that are a perfect match to those corresponding aspects in your ideal embedded image.
_
…for females… or females who have grown up within the boundaries of a protective familial unit… that would include a Protector Type.
My instincts simply won’t allow me to be attracted to a man without that quality… which is probably why I don’t/¿cant?/have never, date/ed much… because such a Type/match is not easy to find, for me.
Weininger’s attraction formula must be adjusted it modern artificial circumstances.
Genes/Memes
Male/Female ranges determining which genetic type one finds physically attractive, adjusted to cultural/civilizational adjustments concerning systemic ideals, promoting a particular type of citizen.
Nihilistic systems, like Americanism, exacerbate the body/mind dissonance rooted in the adaptation to cooperative survival strategies.
I’ve said it many times before but it bears repeating…
What nurturing cultivates - ideologically - may contradict with what nature has already cultivated - nature being the sum of all past nurturing.
Females, being nature’s filtering agencies, are easily assimilated into systemic norms and regulations, placing them in internal conflict with their biological impulses.
Genetic filtering not always being aligned with memetic filtering, or to simplify:
What the culture promotes as the ideal mate may be in antithesis to what nature has already established as sexually desirable.
As you may know I divide morality/ethics along genetic/memetic lines:
Morals = natural selected behaviours that facilitate cooperative survival and reproductive strategies.
Ethics = addendums to the first that may contradict them, as in nihilistic ideologies using ethics to control and exploit.
What you may refer to as ‘modern’ I refer to as Americanism…it is the current dominant modern variant.
But any ideology can become modern.
Modern simply means the most up-to-date expression of conventional beliefs and practices.
Americanism is techno-utopina - Transhumanist, so its ethical amendments to pre-existing moral impulses tend to negate biological identifiers, so as to cultivate its ideal citizen: a Last man with no ehtnicity, no race, no gender, no sex, and in time no species, no biology-founded identity.
Yes…before technologies made Americanism so effective.
I mean, the brainwashing had began way before…the seminal point being the 60’s…when the Frankfurt School - neo-Marxism - really took root in the psyche of boomers.
Traditionalism was shamed and labeled “authoritarianism” .
the man-child embraces it to signal his progressiveness to potential postmodern mates.
The conservative authoritarian personality, as they called it, never explored the anti-auhtoritarian progressive psychosis, but described it as sexual liberation - free expression of an individuals repressed sexuality. All brainwashing through media, Hollywood, and the internets, triggering the herd psychology of liberalism.
“Drugs come in” to tap into nature’s secrets…the underlying “more real reality”.
Spirituality … opium of the masses, must be replaced in secular times with actual opium.
When the brain is intoxicated it has spiritual experiences…all coming from all those neural synapses firing…
I often wonder, that if a longer lifespan leads to a point in time where the mind finds something to occupy itself with, to keep going, when there seems nothing else to reach for or achieve… so a decadence sets in.
Have you ever had a spiritual or surreal experience, or does paganism not foster it?
You haven’t been reading what I’ve written.
Libidinal energies need expunging. Creativity, art, is a way of expunging them constructively…there are multiple ways to do so destructively.
When men are not stressed, they become bored…but few men have the imagination and the talent to deal with their ennui.
If they are not challenged, distracted, forced to expend energies.
Boredom is for the mind what stress is for the body.
Body suffers due to lack; mind suffers due to excess.
So, I use two terms to differentiate them: need/desire.
Need = physical lack - experience of existing; constantly dealing with temporal attrition
Desire = mental excess - experienced as energies with nothing to expunge them - stress of controlling them.
Most men are dullards and need someone to provide them with ways of dealing with the excess societal sheltering allows them to accumulate, e.g., porn, sports, hedonism etc.
Decadence is the consequence.
Every strange experience I’ve ever had, as a child, I’ve rationalized.
I don’t have them anymore.
Every mysterious experience has a rational solution.
In my youth Ouija boards and seances were a thing…
we used to gather in cemeteries and basements to conduct these mystical rituals.
I used to go to cemeteries, in the dead of night, and all alone, hoping to see something.
Once, i remember, I was on guard duty, after midnight, all alone in the middle of nowhere, and there were some strange lights flashing…
I was perplexed…sat there and tried to figure out what they were.
Then I solved the riddle…far in the distance there was a road, with a turn…cars would come up from behind the mountain, turn, and their lights would strike where I was, and then disappear as they finished their turn.
No sound, because they were far away.
Not once did I consider that something mystical was occurring.
Another time, when I was around 10, there was a rumour that a certain run down house in the village was haunted.
I used to pass by it on my way back home form my friends house.
Once I left and it was after sundown - dark, like villages often are.
I saw something in the window…moving.
I panicked but stood my ground and looked closer…there were drapes behind the window.
I used to walk across a bridge that was often visited by spirit, according to some people…not once did i see any.
if the mind wants to believe it will see whatever it wishes to believe in.
The brain is a tool, if it is used wrongly or is corrupted by false programming, it will be compromised.
If the mind is overwhelmed by fear it will see and hear things.
If the tool is fragile it will fail in times of stress.
Mind is like a lens - it can be concave or convex; it can be thick, preventing light from passing through - reflecting it back, like a mirror (subjectivity), or thin and fragile, yet sensitive to light - allowing more of the spectrum to pass through unobstructed, but focused (objectivity).
Fragile lenses tend to crack, from the amount of heat produced from the light they can focus.
More light passing through, more heat. As such many of the greats suffered from their own genius…and some were warped by it, in time.
Fragile lenses tend to break, or warp losing their perfection…and once broken they cannot be returned to their original state. The cracks will create shadows corrupting their focus.
Like a gems, lenses are shaped by friction: adversity.
Nature determines its hardness, pliability - constitution. Potential. Inheritance of a general form/shape.
Nurture determined polish; friction eliminating or adding imperfections.
Drug/drink-fuelled experiences are questionable in my book, so only valid when sober, or nah… they don’t count.
All my metaphysical experiences happened when I was stone-cold-sober [I don’t do drugs] so I can go over them in my mind, to validate them having happened… freaked me out, ev’ry time.
The body can produce its own intoxicants.
The mind can deceive itself.
Lust/Love is “blind” because the brain is flooded with biochemicals.
When the ‘high’ dissipates, sobriety reveals the truth…and women, primarily, suddenly fall out of lust/love.
They say “we’ve outgrown each other” or “we’ve or I’ve changed”, meaning the inebriation has subsided and you aren’t what I thought you were while I was high.
Our inner-laboratory… bringing a whole new meaning to the term “You be tripping”. lol
Wouldn’t that depend on how continually-lucid a person is?
Uuuumm, animals exhibit all kinds of extra-sensory perceptions… and most people don’t think anything weird about that, so why about this?
What if such perceptions were lost, over the generations, from large swathes of the modern human populus?
Love/lust is a gamble but never a bet, the starting-point needing to be an attraction… for if that isn’t there (for me, specifically) then the odds are too low to even bother get ‘involved’.
…anyways, I go for a ‘spark’ rather than ‘inebriation’ …as a spark isn’t solely based on biochemical warfare, like inebriation is.
Follow my [bio]chemtrails baby and I’ll get you lit, on my [napalm]love<->lust-bombs. lel
I consider Weininger’s formula of attraction to be a general framework…though a bit lacking in nuance.
I would add to his male/female formula of percentages the additional mind/body divide, referring to genes/memes, or physical/mental symmetries/proportionalities…and I would add the Platonic triad of the psyche, corresponding to the triad of types of love, according to the Greeks: eros/agape/philia.
Pages of explanatory details would be necessary for their unpacking.
I’ve sprinkled some, across the webs.
Suffice it to say that an individual’s own inherited personae - his/her personality as it is determined by the particulars of his/her organic hierarchies - would adjust the formula according to physical and mental/spiritual contexts, and the degree of self-awareness and self-love, would be a decisive factor.
In brief:
How self-aware you are, determines how self-accepting you can become.
This determines what kind of person you would find attractive.
IQ would determine the mind’s dominance, and whether or not the emphasis will be on physical symmetry/proportionality or mental symmetry/proportionality.
Women tend to evaluate both, simultaneously, as a complete package.
Men tend to separate the two - depending on their own IQ and self-awareness /self-love.
Female psychology makes it difficult for them to settle, considering it a stain on their social status, or on their self-esteem.
A downgrading.
Hypergamy is the rule for women.
Seeing that I have never really taken life seriously, I really couldn’t tell you if all that^ is so… my thinking, on the matter of attraction, is that someone is either attracted to a person or they aren’t.
Not always… many women support a male partner through university and beyond, and many cultures require the female to come from an affluent and highly-regarded family… but I’m not saying that that’s the norm.
Yes…you complete me.
For those who feel incomplete and don’t know why.
Weininger’s formula should be adjusted to individual self-esteem.
Self-knowledge either increases or decreases self-esteem. Know Thyself is a challenge - how much objective truth about yourself can you endure?
The degree that you like yourself, or accept yourself the way you are, determines the degree of compensating traits you are attracted to in another.
Exaggerated self-love - narcissism - leads to a search of someone exactly like your inflated self-apreciation, which is false, so you can never find this idealized version of yourself, and so you begin resenting others for failing to meet your standards.
Self-hatred leads to a search for an exaggerated, idealized, compensating other - god being such an abstraction. Self-hatred expresses hatred of what is - existence - in the way it is…imagining an alternate ideal world.
Drugs are bad, and being physically attractive is correlated with health. Including mental health. Although the correlations are not perfect. Especially once you realize that people who are especially physically attractive often quickly learn how to use this fact to their own benefit by manipulating others.
No matter what evolution brought together for maximum optimized selection and good outcomes, hubris and narcissism and relative human madness will never cease to tear apart.
_
Did COVID and the vaxx play a part in their demise?
Why Are Fitness Influencers DYING? Surgeon Explains | Dr Chris Raynor
235,646 views Premiered on 22 Oct 2023#joelinder#larissaborges#fitnessinfluencer
In this reaction video orthopedic surgeon Dr Chris Raynor reacts to some of the fitness influencer tragedies that have occurred (Joesthetics and Larissa Borges) this year and discusses some of the medical factors that may have played a role in their deaths. #fitnessinfluencer#joelinder#larissaborges
lel
…it still amuses me, to this very day.
