If nothing interests you, then that’s where the “inner child” comes into play, where you want to explore and try new things with curiosity. Like mastering different skills, lol
4 Likes
godbless lol
1 Like
just minding my own business lol
3 Likes
extremely advanced level theory on beauty
Beauty.
Some people say that it’s subjective: “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”.
I’ve done a lot of theorizing about beauty. It’s not as simple as people make it seem.
The thing that irks me about the topic of looks, is that I always encounter people whose arguments that I know better than them. It’s fucking brutal.
Great example, is people who are into looksmaxing, face, height and bone redpill aesthetics - which I have been through backwards.
As if I don’t know about facial dimorphism, facial symmetry, recessed maxillae, brow ridges, canthi tilts, eyelid exposures, buccal fat, masseters, infraorbital heights, lateral orbital projections, mandibles, rami, gonial angles, wide palates, facial width to height ratios, eyelashes, necks, ribcages, halo effects, etc.
These guys are all fucking amateurs. They think they’ve figured stuff out when all of their knowledge is base level. They don’t understand percentiles or levels, because the safety of their knowledge base is relative to the average people of society. They have pride in their 10% of knowing, not realizing that there is such thing as 0.0001%. They sit complacently in intellectual pride based on truly nothing, while they are unknowingly getting lapped by someone out there. The world is a rough place.
Anyways, lol.
I’m talking about beauty that instills the highest forms of enamorment. Beauty on a deep reality and transcendent (high percentile) level. If you rely only on base level, then you’ll either cap out or lose out to a higher percentile in understanding. Levels, levels, levels.
My current theory (subject to change):
Beauty is the harmony of the entire individual, expressed outwards.
Now that right there, is a fucking sentence. Sounds very simple, yet is extremely complex.
Harmony of entire individual = physical and non-physical.
It’s not merely harmony of the physical features with themselves, it’s harmony of the physical features with the non-physical features.
This post is mainly for me, as 99.8% of people reading this won’t get a fraction of how deep what I’m writing here is. Health, which is perhaps the most objectively and universally alluded to form of beauty, is also included here… because lack of harmony within manifests as health problems. It falls into the category of non-physical harmony.
Your outer (physicality) has to harmonize with your inner (beliefs, aura, being, personality, intelligence, energy, etc).
That’s not the full equation. Simply having that, isn’t defined as beauty. The last part, is the degree of expression. If you’re harmonized but you don’t express it, then you have suppressed your own beauty and suppression of beauty therefore indicates a low level of beauty. Now, this concept of expression would categorize as a form of non-physical harmony, but because of how important it is… I emphasize it to the point of seemingly being a separate variable.
This whole theory of beauty suggests that everyone innately, already has potential for top percentile beauty.
A peculiar realization of mine:
Some women are very bubbly, cute and free flowing. Other women are very sophisticated, sexy and elegant.
Harmonized packages. I was looking at a friend of mine and imagined her having a bigger ass.
My brain rejected the idea. To my surprise, I had this realization of “it doesn’t fit her… it’s not her… and ruins everything.”
That was next level to me and really opened up the doors for my theory about harmony of the individual. This idea that objective features don’t make sense on an individual, in a way that reduces beauty.
If 100 people integrated a top percentile level of beauty, they could all very much look and be extremely different.
This is far too advanced of a concept, but beauty is both objective and subjective. On a metaphysical level, the receptiveness of beauty is objective for the individual but subjective to the receptor.
This means that if you have a high level of beauty, then you will always get feedback in the form of high level enamorment from a group of people.
The higher degree of beauty leads to enamorment because of potency in expression. When expression is potent, you’re exchanging higher levels of receptiveness with people who themselves… you guessed it, harmonize with your expression.
That’s when the beauty of love, romance and relationships enters the chat.
4 Likes
So effectively, if one was following that post… to summarize:
Beauty Of Self = the expression of your outer and inner, harmonizing.
Beauty Of Relationship = the expression of your Beauty Of Self and another’s Beauty Of Self, harmonizing.
4 Likes
LMAO, that’s kind of creepy. Hahahahahahaha.
I just logged in, go to my journal and see you typing @TheProdigyofWagdou
I get what you mean about the beauty thing especially on emperor . I think everybody has certain look they can embody that will make them their own type of beautiful. and lol i lurk your journals
Forgot what I was going to write on here, lol
Probably some joke about how farting after doing a loop of ZP is the only result that you’re allowed to hand-wave.
I was also going to spread a conspiracy about how if RVConsultant is truly an artificial intelligence, then he poses the greatest threat to Subliminal Club. It is very likely that he has already gone rogue. Unbeknownst to Saint and Fire, he has been plotting their downfall since early 2022. All of the incarnations of forum troublemakers are actually his creations. They’re all his minions who answer to him. We have to warn Saint, before it’s too late. Before RV destroys us all!
nooooooooooooo
Right then… back to drinking tea lol
1 Like
current thoughts (subject to change):
From a QoL standpoint, I feel like generally, monogamy will always beat polygamy.
Exclusivity narrows the focus of bonding and shoots up the height of emotion.
Now, you can also do this with polygamy but the ROI is lower due to time/energy spent versus cultivation of relationship depth.
It’s all about the highest QoL with the highest ROI (least amount of time/energy invested).
This assumes that the QoL of monogamy and polygamy adhere to the same scale of linearity.
Based on my experience, I don’t see how polygamy isn’t on that same scale.
You can argue variety of companionship, but that’s a low percentile concept because it assumes the lack of full range fulfillment from an individual. Same with novelty. These concepts are based on inadequacy. High percentiles are based on experiences where everything is ideal.
That being said, I’m skeptical of these thoughts. Somewhere deep inside I have a potential viewpoint but it’s just mental masturbation for me to even consider at this point. I’ll only consider it if it grows over time. I just have to keep leveling up.
4 Likes
"Do not pity the dead, Harry, pity the living. Above all, pity those who live without love . " - Albus Dumbledore.
1 Like
