Does a deformed body = deformed mind (physiogamy)

[Anonymous No.20111784]

Check me on this please.

>mind is certainly immaterial yet its actions correlate with the body
>since material (body) has no way of direct mechanical interaction with the immaterial (mind) the body must then be also immaterial
>mental events correspond with proportional physical events which suggests they are reflections of the same cause
>Thus a deformed body would be a reflection of a deformed cause which would also simultaneously project a deformed mind

I really hope I'm not right. I've been deformed since birth (marfans syndrome) and I'm starting to doubt the notion that personality can redeem looks as many of us have been taught.

[Anonymous No.20111793]

>>20111784
If you say no you're a coping ugly so unfortunately I'm going to have to say yes, just so people know that I am attractive and sexy in real life.

[Anonymous No.20111807]

>>20111793
Whats the best way forward then? At least in this life I didn't choose this due to the fact it was congenital. Is the will that willed my own conciousness into existence corrupted? Why was my separation from ouroboros so botched? I want to escape so badly but suicide is likely to result in the same issue later

[Anonymous No.20111826]

>>20111784
Not in itself but an ugly exterior will give way to an ugly interior as well due to the treatment of others in most, given enough time.

[Anonymous No.20111837]

>>20111826
The current state of my mind is unquestionably damaged. I am afraid to go out in public. The only places I go is work and the gas station to buy booze. I've lost my job because I told my therapist I had, in a moment of rage and humiliation, planed to take my own life in a staged industrial accident. I just want to know if the form in my next life will suffer the same fate as the one currently giving you (you)s

[Anonymous No.20111865]

>>20111837
.>He told his therapist the truth
We really need a PSA campaign for young men struggling to navigate the world

[Anonymous No.20111905]

>>20111865
I have my doubts about dying. I remember literally sitting at a fork in the road where I could've turned left and returned to work or I could turned right back to my apartment and ended myself via hot bath and pocket knife. Part of me wants to stay alive in the case that I'm wrong and there's still hope. On the other hand the more I think the more hopeless it becomes so hopeless infact, suicide cannot save me. Someone please help me. Im so fucking lost right I'm terrified

[Anonymous No.20111921]

It's a two way street. Your mental state also affects your appearance. I know people who are ugly and even deformed, but come accross as atractive because of how they are. And it's not just a charisma thing.

[Anonymous No.20111942]

>>20111865
what would even be in this PSA? I told the truth because I am afraid of dying

[Anonymous No.20111962]

>>20111905
>hot bath and pocket knife
Don't fall for this girly nonsense. Use a rope. Not the in the retarded way they do in the films emulating drop hanging (an execution method), but by constricting your carotid artery with your bodyweight. Just take your dick out so anyone who might care about you can pretend you were just having a bit of autoerotic dizziness play.

[Anonymous No.20112086]

>>20111784
Big if true. However, since OP has admitted to being a deformed goblin, his deformed mind cannot possibly produce true wisdom. Thus it must necessarily be false.

[Anonymous No.20112106]

It's true that immensely ugly people often have ugly souls. But the mistake people make is believing that objectively handsome men make for good writers. Wrong! The best writers have INTERESTING faces, weird, eccentric faces bordering on the ugly.

[Anonymous No.20112109]

>>20112086
I raise you pic related

[Anonymous No.20112143]

>>20111784
>>20111826
>>20112106
I just don't get it really. Ugly people have ugly souls, but what's the basis? If it's because they're treated like shit, I've known plenty of people who were hideously abused and turned out like saints, so I don't think that's necessarily true. Furthermore, what constitutes an ugly soul? I think it would be one that lacks virtue, but what is virtue? From what I read, virtue is best cultivated in isolation, where appearance doesn't really factor in because there's no one there to observe you.

I'm not willing to discount it, but it just doesn't seem coherent. Many incels are ugly in spirit, but to me these incels are twisted internally more by the dynamics of society rather than physical traits alone, and on top of that incels are often weak of will and strength on top of being ugly, and perhaps can be more defined by that lack of strength rather than physical appearance. So it might be better to say that, at least in the case of men, physical weakness makes for an ugly soul, but one can be quite strong while looking like a deformed ogre.

Seems to me like doomer cope.

[Anonymous No.20112161]

>>20112143
Thats the issue. If your anecdote are true then my understanding of metaphysics must be false and I don't see the error in my logic

[Anonymous No.20112174]

>>20112143
Just look at mugshots of convicted criminals bro. China uses video technology that hones in on citizens with criminal physiognomies. There's something to it, a smidgen of truth at the very least. As for incels, I don't get why you're bringing them up. They're invariably handsome.

[Anonymous No.20112205]

>>20112161
I would like to see your logic, and I mean that legitimately. I wish to know the fullness of your explanation as it is interesting.
>>20112174
Criminality isn't a good measure. Many things that are positive in a man lead to criminality, and many successful men as a result have at one point or another had a significant dip into a criminal culture of some kind, and I don't necessarily mean anything as dramatic as insider trading. Many of the handsome boys in my High School would also end up dipping into selling weed, or engage in the occasional robbery or felonious prank.

Ugly people are no doubt treated worse, and if you treat a person poorly they're bound to turn out shitty and troubled. But it's hardly a simple case of ugly = bad person, since different people respond to trauma in different ways.

Thus, ugly people are abused, and thus weakened, and being weak have despicable souls. Thus, weakness = ugliness, and criminality does not necessarily = weak or despicable, and in fact, it can even be said that those who follow the law to the letter are morally inferior, but that is another conversation.

[Anonymous No.20112217]

>>20112174
In some sense the word incel at best fits me in the purely adjective sense of the word. In reality I desire human intimacy though I am afraid of it be it platonic or otherwise. I cannot bring myself to be exposed to others

>>20112205
I cannot hold both of the following ideas to be true since they are contradictory

>1. My understanding of mind and body requires that ugly bodies are host to ugly minds

>2. Your claim that you know ugly people who have beautiful minds

If I knew people who were ugly but still had beautiful minds their very exisistence would fly in the face of my logic which is frightening least of all because it would make me look bad for being ugly in both regards

[Anonymous No.20112242]

>>20112217
I don't claim they have beautiful minds, they just conduct themselves in a way that appears genuinely kind.

Work on being strong and letting go of your hate. It's no easy thing to let go of hate and in my experience takes years, since it requires forgiveness of yourself and others, but also not to become weak and servile. To find a strength to fit, one must study strength that is not based on hate, and then cultivate the strength.

[Anonymous No.20112259]

>>20112242
>I don't claim they have beautiful minds, they just conduct themselves in a way that appears genuinely kind.

Does not their ability to conduct themselves so suggest that they are capable of beautiful minds?

None the less your words are comforting I tried to cultivate strength though the martial discipline in my countries military but I have proven to be mentally and physically inadequete in comparison to my comrades. I hate myself for thinking I could ever be their equals but I am trying to find a space for myself to grow

[Anonymous No.20112266]

>mind is certainly immaterial
What do you think you have inside your skull? Pixie dust and rainbows? In your case, maybe so

[Anonymous No.20112278]

>>20112266
I dont think I have a skull at all. The only thing I can be absolutely sure of is that the thing I consider "I" is a think that is aware of itself and perceptions of things that may or may not be false

[Anonymous No.20112283]

>>20112278

[Anonymous No.20112297]

>>20112283
What? you mean to suggest that either materialism or dualism is valid? I think not

[Anonymous No.20112304]

>>20112297
I think reality doesn't even real, maaannnn

[Anonymous No.20112319]

>>20111784
This is retarded
>mind is certainly immaterial
It's not certain. You can argue the mind exists in electrochemical signals and neurological tissue, which is material.
>since material (body) has no way of direct mechanical interaction with the immaterial (mind) the body must then be also immaterial
What logic are you even following here. Why would the body be immaterial just because it can't interact with immaterial things? That makes no sense. What the fuck
>mental events correspond with proportional physical events
Ok, so I think you're saying thoughts resemble the actions they cause? What does that have to do with this
>Thus a deformed body would be a reflection of a deformed cause
Well, biology is not exactly cognitive, is it. I can't sprout wings from my back if I think about it hard enough, so that just seems like a contradiction in terms. A deformed body is the result of a biological cause, but that cause is really inaccessible to the mind.
>which would also simultaneously project a deformed mind
It depends on the 'cause' behind the deformity. All deformity is not uniform. If it is a cause that affects electrochemical or neurological functioning, then sure.

[Anonymous No.20112323]

>>20112304
Reality is what ever you think is valid regardless of its contents so for you to say reality isnt real makes no sense. In order for you to say this you must have a conception of real you are comparing it to for the purpose of falsifying it

[Anonymous No.20112347]

>>20112319
>It's not certain. You can argue the mind exists in electrochemical signals and neurological tissue, which is material.

My perception of these supposed signals is not material. You cannot pin point a space in which they exist. Only an organ that appears to correlate with them.

>What logic are you even following here. Why would the body be immaterial just because it can't interact with immaterial things? That makes no sense. What the fuck

A material object can only impart phycial force upon another phycial object. The mind is immaterial thus a physical object cannot impart any force upon it since it doesn't exist within the same space

>Ok, so I think you're saying thoughts resemble the actions they cause? What does that have to do with this

Exactly. They can only resemble the actions. You cannot establish a direct physical linkage between the thought of moving a limb and the thought itself of moving a limb. At best you can label a particular neuron but not what causes it to fire

>Well, biology is not exactly cognitive, is it. I can't sprout wings from my back if I think about it hard enough, so that just seems like a contradiction in terms. A deformed body is the result of a biological cause, but that cause is really inaccessible to the mind.

Biology is linked to cognitive abilities. Even the material view acknowledges this in the terms of IQ and literaly retardation like down syndrome and brain damage though again I will deny the direct physical connection

>which would also simultaneously project a deformed mind

Again this view is reductionist

[Anonymous No.20112393]

>>20112347
>Biology is linked to cognitive abilities
Obviously. What I mean is my cognition can't affect my biology (although the reverse is true). That means any cognitive 'cause' can't have produced my physiological 'effect.' Ergo, my retarded mind can't change the fact that my phenotype is beautiful. Certain physiological causes (like down's) obviously do result in cognitive effects, but the reverse cannot be the case.
>You cannot establish a direct physical linkage between the thought of moving a limb and the thought itself of moving a limb.
I think you're arguing against yourself here. If the link between physicality and mentality is so weak, as you yourself are saying here, then why would that result in a phrenological paradigm?
>At best you can label a particular neuron but not what causes it to fire
Sure you can. Say I encounter visual stimuli that triggers an evolutionary flight response. Blood rushes to the brain, endorphins are released in response, adrenaline pumps, and then I run. All cognition has a cause. It is often complex and unclear, though.

[Anonymous No.20112414]

>>20112259
>Does not their ability to conduct themselves so suggest that they are capable of beautiful minds?
I don't know, I can't claim to see into their minds and know their innermost motivations. I'll give an example:
>Ugly Cholo at Work, keeps his word, [always arrives to where he says he will arrive, and does what he says he will do.] hard worker. Compliments people without aggrandizing, is happy for the success of others, but not prideful or expectant of recompense.
It should be noted of course that he comes from a different culture, one older and more traditional. Ugliness may cause issues, but the strength of family and community cannot be overstated, and are perhaps more important than anything else.
>but I have proven to be mentally and physically inadequete in comparison to my comrades.
The military has a very big emphasis on technique as a way to hone spirit, but strength of body and mind is only correlated with spirit, the connection is still a mystery to us, and while it may be that you are not as strong or smart as your comrades, what matters more is that you are unwavering in the face of hardship, which is bravery, which is the essence of spirit. You already have the seeds of this in you, because everyone who can sorrow over something irrevocable has accepted in their hearts the terminal reality of their mortality, and by living on and not giving to despair you succeed. Live enough and you will become stalwart, and people will see that you are iron, and being iron will want to welcome you among themselves for the security you bring.
If I have to sum it up in a few words, it is not to lose hope.

[Anonymous No.20112451]

>Obviously. What I mean is my cognition can't affect my biology (although the reverse is true). That means any cognitive 'cause' can't have produced my physiological 'effect.' Ergo, my retarded mind can't change the fact that my phenotype is beautiful. Certain physiological causes (like down's) obviously do result in cognitive effects, but the reverse cannot be the case.

It is my fault for using the word linkage because it would imply causual relations when I mean correlation. What I am suggesting is that there is an intermediary or original formal cause that produces both mental and physical forms. Imagine a mountain. Now imagine a painter making a picture of the mountain. Next to him is the reflectin of the mountain on the lake. Both the painting and the reflection are different depictions of the same origin.

>I think you're arguing against yourself here. If the link between physicality and mentality is so weak, as you yourself are saying here, then why would that result in a phrenological paradigm?

I am only suggesting that they are effects of the same cause rather than the two (mind and body) existing as cause and effect. There is a third party involved. They are two modes of the same substance

>Sure you can. Say I encounter visual stimuli that triggers an evolutionary flight response. Blood rushes to the brain, endorphins are released in response, adrenaline pumps, and then I run. All cognition has a cause. It is often complex and unclear, though.

You are conflating cognition with a physical cause such as you described. Destruct the endorphins down to the atomic level. At which point do they interect with the urge itself. There is a missing link that allows my speculation.

[Anonymous No.20112481]

>>20112414
I think you are getting at what I have issues with. There is a third party which may be thought of as the greek nous or spirit / will which is personal but still distinguishable from mind. I think my spirit/will is weak but like you have said I am young and lack experience

[Anonymous No.20112489]

Lift heavy.

[Anonymous No.20112494]

>>20112489
Nigga I got marfans

[Anonymous No.20112504]

>>20112481
I wouldn't think of it as experience, since it's not something strengthened by lifting weights, or competition. At every point in people's lives there comes a time where terrible grief enters their world, and those who chose to live on are strong of spirit. Some people's test comes when they are children, many people's test comes when they are feeble and alone, but eventually everyone will be tested.

[Anonymous No.20112508]

>>20112451
>Both the painting and the reflection are different depictions of the same origin.
This is interesting but I think it's a conclusion that can't be come to logically, per se, since this third-party 'origin' appears purely speculative and probably must exist outside of reality.
>Destruct the endorphins down to the atomic level. At which point do they interect with the urge itself.
Sure. The original 'urge,' or primary 'cause' behind cognition (or any process whatever) is basic physical properties. Gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces, magnetism, these are what impel life, fundamentally. Cognition and behavior exist downstream of these properties.

[Anonymous No.20112511]

>>20112494
I'm sure you have a beautiful mind then, because to me, you are beautiful : )

[Anonymous No.20112519]

>>20112494
My bad I don't read

[Anonymous No.20112537]

>>20111784
>since material (body) has no way of direct mechanical interaction with the immaterial (mind) the body must then be also immaterial
>since material (reality) has no way of direct mechanical interaction with the immaterial (body) the entirety of reality must then be also immaterial
>thus a deformed reality would be a reflection of a deformed cause which would also simultaneously project a deformed mind
>there is nothing ugly in the world aside from the ugly mind, which projects it's deformity all around it
You were this close to greatness anon, you only had to go on a little further.

[Anonymous No.20112547]

>>20112508
>This is interesting but I think it's a conclusion that can't be come to logically, per se, since this third-party 'origin' appears purely speculative and probably must exist outside of reality.

I didn't write this as a proof only as an artistic representation of what I had been getting at earlier because I will be the first to admit I am not good with rhetoric. However, to even acknowledge its existence be it as it may out of typical reality would imply the possibility the super-real.

>Sure. The original 'urge,' or primary 'cause' behind cognition (or any process whatever) is basic physical properties. Gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces, magnetism, these are what impel life, fundamentally. Cognition and behavior exist downstream of these properties.

Do you see what I mean? The original urge which you have noted exist neither downstream nor upstream of physicality because the urge (mental) has no space and thus cannot impart force upon the physical (body) and vice versa. It is only rational that they occur in tandum (psychophysical parralelism) due to an entirely external force unless you think both are mental

>>20112537
How much further fren?

>>20112511
>>20112519
Its ok. thank you

[Anonymous No.20112549]

>>20111784
>since material (body) has no way of direct mechanical interaction with the immaterial (mind) the body must then be also immaterial
If you can invert a proposition, the logic isn’t sound. Why would this conclusion lead you to believe the body is immaterial, rather than thinking the mind is material?

Also:
>mental events correspond with proportional physical events which suggests they are reflections of the same cause
For one thing, you haven’t defined “reflection” and the way you’re using it here is vague as fuck. Secondly, there are mental events which don’t correspond with physical events at all, which means that there isn’t a 1:1 correspondence or “reflection” (as you call it), proving that physiognomy is not absolute.

[Anonymous No.20112564]

>>20112547
>How much further fren?
Explain how material (reality) can have direct mechanical interaction with the immaterial (body).

If we follow your earlier assumptions, this leads us to conclude that the reality itself must also be immaterial, and instead of ugliness of the mind being responcible for the ugliness of the body, the ugliness of the mind ends up being the sole cause of any ugliness or deformity in the reality, period.

[Anonymous No.20112592]

>>20112549
>If you can invert a proposition, the logic isn’t sound. Why would this conclusion lead you to believe the body is immaterial, rather than thinking the mind is material?

Because the only thing I have immeadiate access to is my mind which is immaterial. Physicallity relies on motr ssssumptions than mentality does so I chose the latter.

>For one thing, you haven’t defined “reflection” and the way you’re using it here is vague as fuck. Secondly, there are mental events which don’t correspond with physical events at all, which means that there isn’t a 1:1 correspondence or “reflection” (as you call it), proving that physiognomy is not absolute.

I never used the word reaction only correlation which is the nexus that allows this wiggle room. Secondly I am not aware of any mental event that doesn't occur even slightly with the body. What mental events that are discontinous are you referencing?

>Explain how material (reality) can have direct mechanical interaction with the immaterial (body)

This is the exact opposite of what Im claiming

>If we follow your earlier assumptions, this leads us to conclude that the reality itself must also be immaterial, and instead of ugliness of the mind being responcible for the ugliness of the body, the ugliness of the mind ends up being the sole cause of any ugliness or deformity in the reality, period.

No. Mind and body cannot be directly related and are effects of an as yet unknown object. The mind does not cause the body and vise versa. Reality itself has to be immaterial but this allows for both the mind and body to exist

[Anonymous No.20112605]

>>20112564
>>20112592

[Anonymous No.20112621]

>>20112278
If you let me I'll show your own skull to you, might hurt a little bit though.

[Anonymous No.20112626]

>>20112621
There is a skull bearing my likeness but its not mine but by all means emancipate me from this pathetic life

[Anonymous No.20112631]

>>20112174
>As for incels, I don't get why you're bringing them up. They're invariably handsome.
>They're invariably handsome.
lol

[Anonymous No.20112648]

>>20111784
Ok OP, you've clearly made this thread to self-flagellate, and no amount of arguing with other anons will change your views, so I'm just gonna give you what you came here for.

Yes, an ugly body equals to an ugly mind. Both your interior and exterior is disgusting, your continued existence is negative not only to yourself but also to everyone around you, therefore it would be in everyone's best interests to end your life as soon as possible.

[Anonymous No.20112649]

>>20112605
>Reality itself has to be immaterial but this allows for both the mind and body to exist
This only supports my argument here >>20112564

[Anonymous No.20112665]

>>20111962
kek the opposite happened to my uncle, guy was having some funzies with a belt around his neck tied to a doorknob
christian family rather deemed it a "suicide" than a fetish gone wrong

[Anonymous No.20112674]

>>20112665
based uncle

[Anonymous No.20112697]

>>20112648
He’s clearly reassurance-seeking so this is just mean.

[Anonymous No.20112707]

>>20112592
>my mind which is immaterial
That is based an assumption, as you agree, not a given fact. But if we haven’t solved the hard problem of consciousness either way, then this is a bias that you are bringing to the table and people could justifiably disagree. The conclusion could go in either direction as a result and still be valid.

> I never used the word reaction only correlation
I said “reflection”, not “reaction”, and yes you did. I understand you’re using it to mean correlation but that definition doesn’t add up imo, correlation doesn’t imply a 1:1 correspondence like reflection does, things can correlate without being symmetrical.

>I am not aware of any mental event that doesn't occur even slightly with the body.
This is correct, I wasn’t thinking when I posted that, I meant the other way around.

For me the difference between correlation and reflection is important here- if the relationship between mind and body is purely correlational, then one is not necessarily a reflection of the other. And if there are asymmetries between them, then that leaves room for doubt when considering the validity of a concept like physiognomy. For example, if I undergo surgery without anaesthetic, there is a direct correspondence between the cutting open of flesh and the pain I feel as a result. However if I undergo surgery under general anaesthetic, then the symmetry between the cutting of flesh and a feeling of pain is broken. I don’t feel it when it happens- I will certainly be able to feel the aftermath, but that is not the same as feeling it in the immediate moment of being cut open. The symmetry between body and mind is broken, calling into question the concept of physiognomy. It’s important to note here that even though I’m approaching the topic from an inverted perspective (body affecting mind rather than kind affecting body), the funny thing about symmetry is that if it’s broken on one side, it is by definition broken on both sides. So the point still stands.

[Anonymous No.20112746]

>>20112707
My apologies for vocabulary. I have done it twice now within this thread because I am rather drunk.

Thank you for the asymetry argument you provided. I can see now how they are incongruous as modes. Guess I'll start from zero again

[Anonymous No.20112757]

>>20112746
>I have done it twice now within this thread because I am rather drunk.
No worries mate, I am hungover with a splitting headache so I can’t really say my brain is functioning at full capacity either. Just know that all I’m trying to show you is that even if you’re ugly or deformed on the outside, it doesn’t mean you’re ugly on the inside. Due to my own weirdly disproportionate limbs I was tested for Marfan’s so I can definitely empathise, from what the doctor told me it sounds like a horrific condition.

[Anonymous No.20112768]

>>20112757
Yes. I've concealed so many illnesses in order to pursue a military career and I feel guilty because of it. None the less I appreciate the discussion because you've given me more to think about