It is kinda odd that people who advocate for “cultural Marxism” and “gender ideology” as things are unaware that they support the idea of people being heavily and historically influenced by social and ideological movements (like “Marxism” or “identity politics”) but at the same time deny the fact that we are heavily influenced by ideology and culture (economics, history, politics, otherness).
Which is exactly what Hegel, Marx and many other thinkers they are criticising from the XX century pointed out. So, they unawarely agree with the ideas they are trying to refute or mock.
how you people go to that level of telling those terms and understand each other? I have to google 80% of the conversation and understood 0% of the context and 100% of the back and forth.
How I do that?
or is it maybe because I have to read it in english terms?
I almost answered (again, because I talked about nature vs nurture above)
You’re gonna see it for yourself if you think about it.
But it’s not, it’s page one of the chickenry book
What’s worst in your case, you are on a spiritual forum.
But you know what the point is ?
All of this, it’s supposed to predict things. That’s what knowledge and models are used for, they are tools to manage.
Does Marxism and the rest work ?
It doesn’t.
Now, most people are not psychic, are not seeing ghost and live in 3D.
You’d go with real medicine, evolutionary disciplines, neuroscience and you’d have a much better chance of seeing what’s going on.
How is the brain wired ? How does the mind work ?
How do relationships between people work ?
Then test to see how much is nature, how much is nurture. Turns out a whole lot is nature and the blank slate hypothesis fails. People are biologically programmed for a lot of behaviors and most social constructs are trades off designed to manage these instincts. It’s a form of social technology.
There are broad constants in the animal world, undeveloped humans societies and developed human societies. Not everything is an arbitrary social construct some of it are labels for neurotypical behaviors and incentives. There are objective factors that leads to objective results.
This natural aspects is obvious to anyone living in the natural world and not submerged in the industrial society which is artificial and yet build on many natural principles (if they are to stand the test of times).
Just because these patterns emerge from a non-obvious aggregate of small natural principle , doesnt mean it’s totally subjective or meaningless. Again, some things work in practice, others don’t.
Then, it’s drag us into the noble savage myths and lore, postmodernism and their unrecognized reliance on Christian beliefs.
Marx was a historical materialist, which means he was sensitive to the contingencies of human existence. His language is more ‘x has a tendency to’ rather than ‘x will happen’. Tendencies might have countervailing forces and still be correct. Predictions are either right or wrong.
Nonetheless some of the things he mentioned actually happened, that capitalism would continue to grow and spread to every corner of the globe, that wealth and productive capacity would be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, that the regular crises capitalism has experienced since the 18th century would continue indefinitely — like we saw in the 1930s and 2008–09 —, and that its gravediggers — the international proletariat — would continue to grow, now in its billions.
Positive science based on empirical research ignores three things:
That its scientific view was born within a philosophical view (Res extensa).
It believes in the existence of objectivity without a subject.
Its notion of “Real” is based on Aristotle’s notion of ousia or substance, which means that objects are inherently identical to themselves and things cannot Be and Not be at the same time (there is no place for contradictions in Aristotle’s logic).
All those three things ignore the whole subjective dimension (which consists in contradictions) and brings several effects to subjectivity, which Lacan calls “subject of the science”.
One of the effects is “Identification to the Self”, which means that the subject believes to be Identical to itself, when in fact Identity is illusory and created by difference. At the same time ignores its particular subjective dimension, which is replaced for the objectification of itself.
This is crucial when it comes to psychosis, for example, this is memoirs of Schreber, a case of paranoic psychosis, which proves how the authority placed on scientific discourse affects subjective experience:
That I would at all times be prepared to submit my body to medical examination for ascertaining whether my assertion is correct, that my whole body is filled with nerves of voluptuousness from the top of my head to the soles of my feet, such as is the case only in the adult female body , whereas in the case of a man, as far as I know, nerves of voluptuousness are only found in and immediately around the sexual organs. Should such an examination confirm that I am correct in what I assert , and should medical science thus be forced to admit that such phenomena on a male body cannot be explained in a natural way, then the ‘delusion’ of by body being to a large extent subject to the influence of divine miracles must appear in a very different light even to a wider circle of people…I am subjectively certain that my body–as I have repeatedly stated in consequence of divine miracles–shows such organs to an extent as only occurs in the female body" (Memoirs, MH 204-205, D 245, emphasis mine).
No, it means that is incomplete and there is no complete form of knowledge because, any form of scientific discourse it is based on axiomatic laws and assumptions that are tautological and self-referential. Not inherent to the fabric of reality.
Believing in “reality” it is the base for ideology and madness.
There is no reality without subject, the is well known by contemporary theoretical physics, in which everything is based on probability and not causality.
So much to unpack.
Yeah, he was not 100% wrong, even lies have a kernel of common sense.
Even the most basic scammers start with some common sense.
Now, these observations are not unique to Karl Marx, the rest of what this ideology says is nonsense.
You mean to say that increasing the pool of labour leads to it losing some value ?
Basic Adam Smith.
Capital can scale and compound leading to increasing returns and inequality ?
Basic Adam Smith.
Now, I don’t see you deconstructing the “proletariat” which is a political construct. If I go around asking people if they identify with the proletariat, how many you think will say they belong to it ?
Skip, skip
You call my view positive science, I call it pragmatism.
It belongs to a philosophical view… so what ?
That’s not a debunking. It’s an observation.
The human species is relatively homogeneous in terms of traits and whether reality is a shared construct at an energetic level or not doesn’t matter at all.
You feel clever indulging in eternal recursive thinking, good for you.
But even children can recognize objects, we are wired to perceive the world in a very homogenous way and we can use one’s experience to teach another which is what you are doing. So there is enough overlap and you just waste people’s time.
My TV turns on and show the expected content or it doesn’t. You are physically alive or you are not.
You can afford to buy something or you can’t.
There are layers to reality and yes, there is a bigger picture. What does it have to do with cis-males ?
There is an optimal set of trait, there are selection mechanisms and preferences. There is such a thing as biological dimorphism. Some behaviors lead to better health, more satisfaction, more wealth and technical progress.
What do you want ?
You used the word reality, but whatever. Are there patterns of perception and beliefs that lead to higher satisfaction, are more functional cohesion and allow for a society to be more efficient. Yes, there is.
And that’s how mental illnesses are analyzed, can the individual perform and take care of himself, is he perceiving reality decently enough, not to be a danger to himself and others.
Principia mathematica took hundreds of pages to demonstrate that 1+1= 2.
Still, people have been using advanced math long before and most engineers haven’t read it. Because going on forever about the meaning of meaning is not necessary.
No one’s need a PhD in quantum physics or need to agree about the fabric of reality to set up an IKEA bookshelf.
Lol, since you mentioned the Nazis, they have a term for it “unproductive eater”.
You want to establish a set of traits or criterias to be analyzed and compared. Be my guest. Want to set some preferences and opinions, good for you.
Most of what’s left is pretentious window dressing, good luck contributing to society and being productive before you complain about inequality.
Learn something that will benefits society, get grinding to make it happen, distribute it for free and show the way. Go to the market and hustle, then show us the way out the classroom.
Go get a bunch of women, be happy then tell us about masculinity. The rest of us will rely on our experiences or follow the successful one in the spirit of evolution.
Science and capitalism lifted billions out of poverty and into space. That’s why we roll with it, without it we wouldn’t be chatting on our smartphone over the internet.
Marx’s analysis it is not based on free and independent action like Adam Smith, but Alienation. Totally two different things.
Alienation is the precondition for the emergence of social classes and relations of production.
For Hegel, humans are de-naturalized from the first moment they engage in culture through otherness (another human). So, no “free will” or “nature” there.
“Proletariat” it is not an adjective but a technical term to understand the object of specific sociological problems regarding an historical materialistic framework. It is not “truth” or “real”, just a tool.
It does matter, everything we understand and every piece of meaning we give to anything is mediated through symbolic relations that were given by Other and particularized through our limited playground of knowledge.
An arab, jew, muslim, italian, a jew that lives in italy or an arab that has african heritage will develop different relations for their access to meaning and what reality is based on multiple traditions and contexts in which their use of language came to be.
It means that your understanding and identification with a “gender” it is not based on “nature”, it is based on social bond and they way you came to know what “is” a “woman” or what “is” a “man”.
It is not “natural”.
Because “nature” does not give “identity” and “meaning” to things, the symbolic knowledge does.
So, withdrawing your emotions, smoking from a pipe on a big couch watching TV and drinking whiskey has nothing to do with “man’s nature”.
Or dressing with a pink skirt and showing your emotions openly has nothing to do with “woman’s nature”.
We came to believe in all that crap because Westerners believe in the immediacy of meaning.
Even the “evolutionary” notion of what an “alpha man” is, it is symbolically mediated, not “natural”.
Our understanding of “nature” is also symbolically mediated, which means that it has nothing to do with nature. In other words, people believe in certain “nature” and through symbolic identification they play the part.
I dunno what you mean by optimal set of trait or selection mechanisms and preference.
If men believe other men are “better” and treat them as “better than them” and women understand that they have to date the “better” man, they will understand from what other men do, who they should date, the one that other men treat like they are better than themselves.
That’s the pure lack in being playing, no one knows their own place or identity and they check in Others what is what they should do because Ego existence is artificial and orthopedic.
It is purely symbolic relationships, nothing natural at all.
I don’t deny biological dimorphism, but it has nothing to do with how we understand ourselves, sex, nature, society and any form of existence that is symbolically mediated.
70 years ago people used to smoke and believed it was better for them because movie stars used to smoke too and it was good for them, it led them to more social status, wealth and satisfaction, maybe even health because it wasn’t considered bad by doctors.
Same as cocaine in the beginning of the XX century.
I agree, meaning is plastic, plural and it is not very useful for scientific purposes.
That’s why Lacan places meaning outside mathematical formulae, because mathematics deal with pure signifiers.
Which only represent themselves in relation to each other (numbers, letters, etc). No need to interpretate a formulae.
By the way that was my last post, I am suffering from health issues and engaging in extensive debates makes me anxious and stressful, which only deteriorates my condition.
That will Please ANY Woman lol, Best Stud and Lover lol.
Also, can we use both Male Enhancement And Erectile Dysfunction? Edit: if you are afraid to answer here, then answer me in a pm, if you want to and if you know.
I know most men would not ask such questions, but I am honest as … And I want to improve (I can live with what i have though, but some improvements are welcomed).
I used to know a woman at work for whom having small breasts was a sexual attractiveness confidence issue, but after having a breast enlargement it did seem to help, but mostly because she thought it was so important. It’s different than wanting slightly larger breasts but being comfortable with how you are also. Definitely there is a parallel there… but the full parallel would be that a woman did not have confidence in her feminity if she had small or medium sized breasts, I think.
It was a general statement/for anyone/most men who could/would answer; my logic was that many men don’t want to answer/tackle these sort of questions publicly (due to insecurities).
Ignorant response. The fact that you went directly into defensive mode and didn’t get the gist of this post is sad. Why do you feel entitled when you are being rude?
He’s essentially saying work towards loving yourself, so the mindset goes from “I have a small penis” to “so what if I have a small penis”, this will make manifestation 100x easier.
He’s literally telling you the key to manifest in this post.
Does worrying about not having the size you want any essence of value? How does staying insecure reap benefits to your subconscious mind? Twice, you reached the wrong conclusion. If you want to understand, learn, otherwise stop acting entitled and work on your issues.
If you want, I’m willing to help in PM, otherwise, it’s best to not make abrupt assumption and conclude that this is “coping”.
When you don’t accept things as they are now, you reject your full flow of energy. When you reject your flow of energy, your energy is blocked from fully expressing itself and you limit your ability to manifest what you desire.
Your penis is part of your flow. Believing it is too small is to reject it. Believing it is too small is to also enforce the subconscious default perception of you being too small. Even if you got a penis surgery that makes it bigger, your subconscious will reinforce the belief that it’s still not big enough. Because you never addressed the limiting belief nor did you neutralize it. And so, the repressed/rejected energy remains within you opposing your flow.
Because it is a living memory. You rejected yourself at your worst and so as long as you haven’t/don’t accept yourself at your worst, you will continually manifest moments you feel very insecure. True self acceptance and wholeness derives from accepting and embracing yourself at your ‘worst.’ Once your worst gets accepted, that energy reinitgrates into your whole beingness and then expands your consciousness and potential even more.
And from that wholeness, you can more likely manifest the things you want. Because you arent going against your own flow anymore. You are your flow and can direct it however and wherever you want. And this flow can lead to you feeling confident in sexuality no matter how big or small your penis is and that is what will attract more healthy and blissful sexual interactions for you.
Acceptance is key. Denying any part of yourself as you are now is to oppose your flow of energy and in result, oppose what you seek to manifest.
After doing the meditation with you and hearing you explain this, I’ve been practicing acceptance in my daily life for things that bother me, make me angry, people that I argue with, and it’s been a game changer. So thanks for introducing me to this concept.
Member size is an indicator of your hormonal health around the stages of puberty. The androgen Di-Hydro-Testosterone is what contributes to it’s size along with 5-alpha reductase
Males with adequate testosterone that had a DHT deficiency were known to be hermaphroditic, that is, have micropenises. DHT finishes the masculinizing process. It is also known for secondary male characteristics
It is just not to be happy with what you have, our hormones have a large deal with how our body grows and develops. The size of your member is a key indicator to a woman how likely you are to be virile. In a study, men who had shown DHT deficiencies were often in a passive body language, and unable to assert themselves as strongly in the room as normal men
In psychodynamics, cathexis is defined as the process of investment of mental or emotional energy in a person, object, or idea. This concept was developed by Sigmund Freud in 1922. In psychoanalysis, cathexis is the libido’s charge of energy. Freud often described the functioning of psychosexual energies in mechanical terms, influenced perhaps by the dominance of the steam engine at the end of the 19th century. In this manner, he also tended to think of the libido as a producer of energies.
If an individual is frustrated in his libidinal desires, Freud often represented this frustration as a blockage of energies that would then build up and require release in other ways. This release could occur, for example, by way of regression and the “re-cathecting” of former positions (i.e. fixation at the oral phase or anal phase and the enjoyment of former sexual objects [“object-cathexes”], including autoeroticism).
When the ego blocks such efforts to discharge one’s cathexis by way of regression, i.e. when the ego wishes to repress such desires, Freud uses the term “anti-cathexis” or counter-charge. Like a steam engine, the libido’s cathexis then builds up until it finds alternative outlets, which can lead to sublimation or to the formation of sometimes disabling symptoms.
That will Please ANY Woman lol, Best Stud and Lover lol.