Monday, October 8, 2018

On Beauty

On Terra, heterosexual human men have a greater ability to appreciate beauty than anyone or anything else.

!*Was that a controversial enough start? That one sometimes talks about politics, almost seems like someone writing a political blog, is even aware of the JP, but then there's stuff like "beauty" and "reincarnation" and I just don't know man I just don't know.*!

Heterosexual human Terran men have a greater ability to see, understand, and appreciate beauty than any other Terrans for a lot of boring, semi-technical reasons. Firstly, because humans as a group are vastly more able to conceive of, and reflect on, beauty than any other type of thing generated by this planet we're on now. It's not something that should offend dolphins or gnats; it's a boring thing of the constraints of material structure. A wood fire that you make on your little camping trip just can't generate the heat of, I dunno, a professional pizza oven; it's not a question of desire or goodness, but of the stuff involved in making it. The dolphins might be wonderful, might have a deep and true and superior connection to the ocean, and so forth, wanna eat things in it and fuck things in it that humans just don't, but they still can't generate the appreciation of its beauty as can some chick on a city barge.

So too with human heterosexual males. And that doesn't need to offend anyone, anymore than saying, "This rock is harder than that piece of cotton" or "This thing is better at math than that thing." It's just the matter we use. To deduce this needn't imply any other kind of superiority, much the same as rock isn't "better" than cotton or vice versa.

Terran heterosexual males cannot "prove" this even to themselves, as they can't simultaneously nor concurrently experience being a Terran female and compare the thought patterns, so as far as they initially posit, the thoughts may be identical. They can generally, though, sort of guess it by tracking the way Terran men generally respond to the women, and vice versa, particularly as "first world" societies become even more about males mandatorily subsidizing females without sex being included, and relationships are tracked between people who hold some kind of tolerable physical regard for one another but don't need one another for obtaining resources because State takes care of that.

Human women are designed more beautifully than anything else material on Terra, and humans have whole parts of their brains devoted just to recognizing how hot chicks are, which is to say, when they tell you about whatever percentage of the brain is devoted to distinguishing facial characteristics. Part of this is about kin and suchlike, but what they don't mention is what a large role that plays in "hot or not," mate-recognition and -appreciation, and so forth. That's part of the mechanics that makes humans better at it; it's the design specifically for that, a lot of which cross-interfaces and makes humans that much more able to appreciate sunsets than beavers can.

--oh god this one just meant to write a post about triangles and now we're talking about beavers--

So, women are designed with a certain emphasis on shape and character that you don't get in non-human species. No fur, no knotty protective skin, and the contour of body and face can be developed to such a greater detail. And we can get racial again, and notice how all the human species think Caucasian females are the most desirable, which includes the really pale "Indians" or "Thai" or "Japanese" et cetera, and it's a Jewish lie that all those people all over the world exhibited a certain type of consumer response to those features just because of the "color," and if you watch television in Mexico you can see why they prioritize attention to the paleface actresses so much. Even the indios don't have the same response to the indio women. The design of the skull and the facial features, and the bodily ones, are such a difference, and the expressions of delicacy that were honed into a culture which could maintain a more delicate sphere were vastly different than combat-cultures. But combat-cultures had more sex, and whites are proportionately priggish, and have more ED problems without obesity, and everything has a trade-off, Christ, it's not "racism" just because it's "racism," can't you get that? This is all a two-edged sword. In a way, any truth is.

!*Man she's talking about race again doesn't she realize that makes me like really uncomfortable? Okay, I like the kind of spiritual stuff but it should not be connected to your real views on the real world, that's just rude.*!

Lust creates life on this planet, and it makes incredible, should-be-obvious sense that this process--which is completely rationalized under Bang's evolutionary dogma, though many bulls have been issued on the race issue--that male ability to appreciate, distinguish between, recognize and protect, et cetera, a reproductive partner are stronger than any other planetary ability to visually "like" or "want to protect" or "want to fuck." Humans just have better brains, better-designed for such functions. And with males being the disposable genetic concierges and females the repository, it's sort of fair that males' keener abilities to recognize and appreciate are better. One of the advantages of being the disposable half of the biological dyad is to enjoy the experience more, and that's sorta understood by people even though we don't like to give it thoughtful voice. We'll write book after book about how to pick up chicks, but the more explicit stuff is generally avoided, such that there may be 4 new books a year about meeting women, 0.5 annual books about how great Jesus is, and 0.001 annual books about men dying due to their biological disposability.

!*Oh yeah, conclude that "lust" is the same as "appreciation of beauty" you great arse, I'm really paying attention. Lol you are so dumb.*!

This one equates beauty with lust because that is one aspect of appreciating beauty. Maybe we think [famous natural wonder] is beautiful, or Rachmaninov's work is beautiful, and that seems to have nothing to do with some dude wanting to bang some hot chick. And that's true; lust is relevant because it's the "father," if you will, of all material human ability to recognize, differentiate, or appreciate beauty, not because that's as far as it got. As a sexual organism, reproducing by sex and surviving and having existed only because of sex, not appreciating landscapes, most appreciation of beauty is a seemingly quixotic fringe-benefit as to life here, a distant subsidiary to "recognize and fuck mate." All of that unnecessary redundant stuff springs therefrom, which is why stupid vocalists write so many songs about failed or great relationships, similarly to how so many stupid thinkers develop close relationships with imaginary divine parental caretakers as a subsidiary of "nice," e.g., "time when parent fed and sheltered me."

Okay, this one has covered some of the basics now. Born as a human on Terra, assuming you're correctly generated i.e. heterosexual, you--

!*You did NOT just say that! And here you sometimes almost act reasonable about gays!*

--This one told you already, it's "queers." Stop re-identifying words with your twisted NuSpeak. And good grief, this one means "correctly generated" as in "sexually reproducing organism" like all your predecessors without which correct tendencies you'd never have existed. It's just like with the dunking pygmies or mathematical Congoids, can't you accept that there are certain material requirements to do certain things around here and that your subscription to or refusal of one or more of them does not mean that this one has a problem with you in any way? It's like saying "I see your green car" or "I see your blue car" and this one's ability to recognize that really has no bearing on the driver. It's the pretense that the recognition should not occur which has created all of the hatreds and oft-justifiable anger that bothers you, you know--

--assuming you're correctly generated i.e. heterosexual, you derive therefrom the desire to do sexually reproductive stuff and your type of organism is supposed to still be around after your body dies, oh what a lovely circle of life. And all of that really fundamental stuff that goes into material structures here produces the locally-referenced appreciation of material that enables us to perceive "beauty."

Maybe there are homosexual men or heterosexual women who think they can appreciate Terran human males as much as straight men can appreciate women, but they're wrong; similarly, homosexual women who think they can appreciate Terran human women as much as heterosexual Terran human men are in error, in each case because all of these groups cannot tap the pure product of the "sexually reproductive organism" font, which was designed expressly for, and only for, sexually reproducing organisms who can partner. Ironic, too, how some quadriplegic straight dude can be unable to act on desires that his brain was designed for, thereby achieving a truer appreciation of some chick he sees despite his inability to act on it than the lesbian who gets to actually perform and/or receive cunnilingus from that same chick.

The blind might be great music lovers, but if you show them a really good oil painting, their opinion that they can appreciate its beauty as much as the sighted is not simply untrue, it's ridiculous, and it's not even their fault that they can't understand the difference, anymore than some queer man thinking that he can too appreciate his hot life-partner as much as some straight dude appreciates his hot wife, and so forth.

All these people who do or might have wrong ideas about their ability to out-footrace motorcars or rockets are not wrong in that Pollock-esque fantasy shitland of "everyone has their own opinions," but wrong in an objective way, where the X-jillion years that went into developing a reproduction mandate and then a "sex" mandate make them amazingly, completely wrong.

The point transcending this discussion is the way material beauty as seen from here is generally relative. Women are the most beautiful, to straight men, because of Terra's developmental rubric. If Terra had somehow stuck to a self-cloning method of complexity-increase--not likely, but possible--then we'd all be Narcissus, so to speak. Not in a funny asshole way, but a creepy, sicko (as perceived by us from here-now) way, in which our version of "attraction" was so skewed, and us sexual things here wouldn't really understand it, but which would include versions of arousal at cloning-conducive things and behaviors, and which would probably seem really sicko to us. Or if we'd evolved with three or four sexes (less mathematically efficient in scale, greater risk of early failure, but vast increases in sophistication much faster), we'd have all sorts of trisexual or quadrisexual lusts that were completely normal and non-sicko, corresponding to the path evolution had taken. E.g., if you're a straight male, maybe you think that a certain kind of tight, clean vagina is a nice sight, or an airbrushed-looking hottie presenting such, or if you're a straight female, maybe you think the thought of being filled by someone who makes you feel safe is appealing, and a sight conducive to that later feeling a good sight, but all sorts of people can think that sight is bland, uninteresting, or fucking disgusting (e.g., woman not really wanting to go out of her way to see someone else's vagina versus straight man never wanting to be filled and feel safe), and all of those negative reactions can come from someone who is a legitimately healthy and/or successful evolution-by-reproduction one, not just from someone with a skewed execution of the design (i.e., Terran male human who got "nice pussy" mixed up with "dude's ass" and is therefore queer, or Terran female human who got her size and filled-desires mixed up with the complacent neutrality of a lot of sapphism).

Use the heterosexual, or "most commonly occurring," male human as the easy, understandable example. Posit a planet where there isn't some advantage in birthing near the germs around the anus, and the reproductive and birthing organs of the female are not located by the anus, but in the midsection near the stomach, which would have a lot of advantages even with otherwise-Terran design. You go to that planet, there might be a few pretty faces, but like some standard straight dude who's making out with a hot chick and then she takes off her dress and oh god crossdresser ewwww, it's all completely fucking gross when you find out she has this pussy-thing by her ribs on the left instead of where it's supposed to be. Or more illustrative from our perspective, imagine the man from the planet with that design process coming here, making out with a hot chick, and then he puts his hand under her shirt and...instead of a pussy, she just has smooth skin and ribs, omigod how fucking gross. The point is, the developmental style of the planet can utterly change the appreciation involved in notions of beauty.

(We must take note here of the way that this sensible recognition is not in any way related to the twentieth century assault via academics on western society, where a bunch of evil people, yes primarily spawned by Jews, tried to claim beauty was all in the eyes of the beholder, when in fact a preference for equidistant-from-center features, and waist/hip ratios on females, and not-being-obese, and so forth, were universal, transcending even all the human species, and the increased testosterone and rump-size of African women was immediately not preferred by African men when the evil project of westernizing them began [yes they still like big asses but they prefer rounder slender or mildly-chubby white women to fatass black ones, even so]. This discussion is not trying to, not wanting to, be related in any way to the content of that psyop. Wanting slender women with good hips and even features is completely compatible with Terra, and we're not at all challenging that here, but buttressing it.)

This obviously extends all over Terra. There are a few outliers who might genuinely want to screw some animal not for money but actually for private lust, like the tiny community of people who make a big deal over mare pussy or the lonely sicko who bangs his dog, but it's impossible to tell what percentage of that tiny percentage is actually interested in that, as opposed to using it as a venue to share expressions of lust with a human partner, or desperately alone and in need of contact, et cetera. In general, though--and as to all species, rather than just humans--animals of different species don't get sexually aroused by others. Orangutans don't want to fuck kangaroos, chimps don't get stiffies for chickens, crocodiles don't rape wildebeest before they eat them, and so forth. Paying humans money to stick a fish up there, or bribing animals with food (if they could understand the transaction , they'd do it all), is different than actual desire, if it could even be accomplished, and as each transaction cost rises, we reach a point of impossibility, where some low-grade Brazilian porno slut would bang Great Danes all day, but would refuse to try with the panther for good reason.

There is some overlap between species in the realm of "similar enough to cause arousal," where an elk might do a deer, or a horse a mule, and so forth, but you either eventually get a throwback, or it just dies out, and that's why species are species. There's also some "sex up the scale is a plus," and some male dogs legitimately want to fuck human girls, but they can't reproduce, and that's just a by-product of desiring something evolutionarily much more advanced, the same way that maybe 0.1% of human males would bang a mare just because, but 10% of males would do some super advanced alien female researcher with a bulbous head and skinnier than skinny body and natural neon blue glow who'd come to study the Terrans.

Speciation as well as sexuality have affected our concept of what looks good to us, and local experience has joined with that to compose our notions of beauty. What is a good song or a painful racket, what is a good sunset or maybe drifting smoke from a menacing wildfire, is largely dependent on the context from which we come, a lot of it telehistorical genetic memory. For example, an infant can recognize the clarity and orderliness of a sunset, just as s/he can be scared of the column of smoke, despite not having ever learned from other people about the specifics of why that should make her/him cry. It's probably not yet instinctual to fear certain arrangements of color, but there are a lot of pieces of telehistorical knowledge that inform us, and when we think it's really nice to stand in front of a really new and architecturally interesting museum downtown, and appreciate how cool the steel angles are, much more pristine and nice than a tangle of weeds, which is far more natural, we're not doing so because of some longstanding instinct about alloys, but some telehistoricity and some of our non-material characters. And in that, there are separate aspects of our non-material selves that affect things we like, the ultimate combination producing a melange of quirks that represents our true individuality combined with the powerful influence of the material body we're using. Ergo some people like the new building with all the external girders, some people think it's a monstrosity of sins against architecture (or that all non-tipi architecture is a sin against existence, or any relevant point of gradation), even when they both come from the same genetic background of "people deep-ancestrally from Finland" and should in theory have identical instincts about what kind of surroundings are safe, comforting, beautiful, and so forth. The strange mystery of why certain people have certain tastes in food, music, scenery, and so forth, is one of those inexplicable bullshits of pop evo, where you have to imagine that someone's great-great-X-grand-relative once had a gene for "likes sandwich wraps" that carried down to the present day, but then, even that kind of crap isn't conclusive, because someone with a completely landlocked genetic history beginning at 300K B.C. that didn't include any seaside travel until 1970 A.D. might randomly like seafood, so the enduring fitness of that gene, if such it is, is again called into question, and the rationalizing bullshit fails again.

--Can we get to the triangles already? This whole thing was supposed to be about triangles!--

Part of this is just going to appear fantastical; there's no way out of it, just like when this one says a higher stage of any one's participation in lightform evolution is being a glowing ball of immaterial, solely-energy "nebula" or "light amoeba." And that's where triangles come in, in the sense of a more developed you being able to appreciate, more intensely than anything here, things like "pure shapes," in ways that can perhaps best be analogized as sexual, since that's one of the most viscerally sensationist things we can do here. We use the triangle as merely an example, because it's easily identifiable here, and although it's a great shape, it's not the most complicated nor intricate shape there is, and if we could perceive what we'll someday like, we'd be able to see the simplicity, and perhaps the "comparative boredom," of the triangle.

!*Oh God, this is so perfect, I can, no must, ignore this crap forever, racist and homophobic and now she's saying people want to fuck triangles! It's complete lunacy, I'm so vindicated!*!

This isn't an orifical essay, and the discussion here isn't about penetrating some type of triangle-shaped orifice. In the sense of appreciating geometry, it's more like being close to, or temporarily melding with, said shape. And per whatever domestic rubric you prefer, it's better than rubbing together urinary- or fecal-related organs.

Again, stressing that triangles aren't the most important, frequent, nor emblematic function within this concept, yet a useful example that can be easily understood here, the point of discussing beauty is to metaphorize toward a fuller understanding of objectively better things. Again, take a straight dude for example, and construct some imaginary image of the face he finds desirable or pretty. Sure, it's pretty, but it has five holes that leak fluid and two more that slowly produce wax, and although the curve of its cheekbones, or the shape of its nose, may be lovely, the bulk of the parts that can be appreciated are truly utilitarian, and it's arguable that no appreciation of the beauty can be divorced from its utility of representing a temporary fertile highlight between two infertile, completely un-sexy periods of time, that it leaves even to current local life expectancies less than half the total for being sexy or objectively attractive (i.e. the snot-nosed kid that's not yours is just some kid, and the old man who hasn't been your husband or grandfather for however many years isn't some bastion of warmth and reassurance, but just some old man, et cetera). All boringly, uncontroversially true for heterosexual human Terran males, but for those with a flaw in execution that are pedos or those much, much rarer errors who go for old chicks. Which brings us back to our original point, namely that so much of our appreciation of beauty is tied to the utilitarian now, utterly separate from anything timeless or idealistic.

Despite this, there's that stuff that doesn't make any random-evolutionary-struggle sense. We like the night sky, which is only a distraction from the material here and now that can in any way effect our reproductive success. Why is it beautiful when you're out on a white-person hike and come out onto a hill far from the city and the stars are extra big and bright? Why do people keep thinking "the Horsehead Nebula" is in any way a nice sight, considering you can't fuck it, it isn't your offspring, it doesn't provide resources to permit your own survival nor the more successful raising of offspring nor the survival of your closely bonded genetic kin nor anything else on the entire fucking planet that would in any way affect your random struggle for survival.

(The local faith really breaks down at that one. The professor of Bioluminescence or Astrofucktology or whatever just shrugs, a good little priest who says after the shrug, "We just don't know! Lord Random works in mysterious ways!" People nowadays are like people have always been, believing that their great thinkers basically understand the cosmos, and it's so much bullshit; they never did, and their personification of the sun as "Ra" was at least a better story overall than the crap they come up with now. Even various forms of Yahweh-worship were more honest about their inability to understand; the theory "Sky Man did it and he's way smarter than ignorant little me" is more sane than the ridiculous theories about space-kaboom and "um, made better genes?" that our wise men spout now. If the priesthood didn't have such a lock on the Crown, drawing huge resources away from people who actually work, this stuff would dissipate like dust in the wind, but the Crown needs them as much as they need it, and baby, they're not gonna let go.)

Beauty is one of the avenues of perception that transcends the material now. Dudes like pussy for all sorts of materially progressive reasons, and human Terran female faces for similar reasons, but even there, the local pop evo faith falls apart. Example: take the average Earth-male, and answer for him this question: would you rather fuck ten ugly fat chicks, or one pretty dainty chick? The said male would choose the one pretty dainty chick, despite the fact that ten times the potential offspring, even if several of them are fat or ugly, is clearly mathematically superior to whatever gain is to be had from the dainty-pretty with the nice features. Ten kids who have heart attacks at 49 is way better, evolutionarily speaking, than one kid who makes it to 92. And yet, people still like the completely irrelevant stars, just as they are seemingly hardwired for the stupid failure of giving a shit about other things they think are nice-looking in utter contradiction of the fantasy that they have been designed for aggressive random competition. This doesn't even broach the issue of how many of these evolutionary competitors are apparently okay with living an utterly sterile life when they're displeased with Jewish spousal, child-rearing, and divorce laws, or just some bland perception that American society since the 1965 immigration changes, or the longstanding Judaization of Europe and the pre-1865 Judaization of America, because pop evo holds that the drive, and the random crafting of every living thing on this planet (or "everywhere at all" depending on your pop evo interpretation) includes the complete mandate to reproduce, regardless of whatever the social crap has been for 2500 years or 5000 years.

And yet, people still like beautiful things. How can we try to save pop evo? This one supposes we could say that the stars are like some kind of feeling of being in a reassuring womb, all dark, and with lots of little lights...oh fuck, there really is no way to save it. It's such hilarious, poisonous bullshit, there's just no way.

No comments:

Post a Comment