[ home / bans / all ] [ amv / jp ] [ maho ] [ f / ec ] [ qa / b / poll ] [ tv / bann ] [ toggle-new ]

/poll/ - Polling and Honesty

use for asking the community

New Reply

Options
Comment
File
Whitelist Token
Spoiler
Password (For file deletion.)
Markup tags exist for bold, itallics, header, spoiler etc. as listed in " [options] > View Formatting "


[Return] [Bottom] [Catalog]

File:[Moozzi2] Kubo-san wa Boku….jpg (603.42 KB,1920x1080)

 No.7954


"I dreamt I was living a happy life with the girl of my dreams."

What did you think of when you read "girl"? A 2D girl or a 3D one?
What about "woman"?
The first thing that comes to my mind is 2D unless explicitly stated otherwise.

 No.7955

>>7954
>What did you think of when you read "girl"?
you know when something is so abstract for you to consider, you don't even engage any imagination or conceptualization for it?
this is the example. I thought of nothing

 No.7956

2D because I was looking at the girl in the picture.

 No.7957

I can't say for sure because I read the quote without really thinking about it until I arrived at the question, but I'm leaning more towards 2D because of the context of the image and this being Kissu. A part of me expected the quote to come from 2D media before I noticed it's a question directed at me.

 No.7958

File:G2HmFxQaIAILRvX.jpg (157.31 KB,1000x1000)

3D women simply aren't important enough for me to fantasize about spending my life with.

 No.7959

Someone voted 3D...

 No.7960

For me it's either-or, but 2d is more common.

My "theater of the mind" is generally somewhere between a collage and a YTP, where bits and pieces of things I've seen are recombined to create a complete picture, so a lot of the time I see both at once.

 No.7961

File:G2dkcFTbYAAplGE.jpg (94.6 KB,1024x971)

>>7954
You shouldn't presume. Wait for the speaker to finish. A girl X was introduced. It's not a girl of YOUR dreams. It's the author's. Do you introject so hard you get a participation mystique moment? Good grief. The moment you think "it's *D!" is the moment you give yourself biases for nothing. You guess the wrong *D and then, when you learn the truth, you're upset, and then you may get on bad terms with the speaker and maybe the girl he's talking about, and then their social circle, and so on.
Don't make me laugh.
Learn to think like a statistician. Reality is verified one step at a time. All you have is a model with marked slots to be filled.

 No.7962

File:3d women are not important….png (1.07 MB,1227x720)

>>7954
A 2D anime girl is what comes to mind most of the time during these types of questions, and this time was no exception.
>>7958
Agreed.
>>7960
>somewhere between a collage and a YTP
To me, it's like a cross between a dikekike video and chicken 'n winigish, heh... but seriously though, i usually only get one thing/image in mind the first time i hear something, but random YTP quotes are often what comes to mind through random memory associations.

 No.7963

>>7961
this guy has a 4d wife

 No.7964

File:R-1759697160592.jpg (164.74 KB,1575x1575)

>>7959
I misinterpreted the question as asking if I had ever dreamed of going on a date with a 2D or 3D girl, and I answered 3D because I've had dreams about going on dates with girls I know IRL.

 No.7965

>>7954
2D. I almost never fantasize about anything but 2D girls. The last time I crushed on a girl irl was when I was about 13. The last time I crushed on an anime girl was earlier today...

 No.7966

At the risk of turning this into a 3DPD hate thread: I have learned over the years not to trust them and find most of them pretty vulgar. I am sure there are still decent 3D girls around. But the only one I personally interact with is over 80 years old and 3D below her age that seem to want to act feminine, genuine and most important are kind seem to be very rare in modern life.

I am also old enough now that the cute 3D I chased after in my youth are now mostly fat, bitter and suffering from a variety of other problems that make them dis-likable. One in particular I tried to look past the problems and warning signs to re-connect with once we were both well into adult hood. She invited me over to her apartment and made her live-in boyfriend leave for the night. I was ready to smash. But she did something that made me instantly want to leave.

She had a bunch of cats. Can't remember how many. But one was this little black runt that might have still been a kitten. He jumped up into my lap and I was petting it while we were drinking whiskey together. I got up to piss. When I came back the cat was gone. I asked her where it was and she said
>Oh it did something bad so I'm punishing it.
Then she showed me this cage in the bed room where she said she locked it up as punishment whenever it did something wrong.

I'm pretty sure she punished it because it sat in my lap and let me pet it. Since she was surprised it was being so friendly with me and mentioned at some point during the night that the cat didn't particularly like her.

I ended up leaving and never returned her phone calls again. I probably should have stolen the cat but she freaked me out and I wanted to GTFO as fast as possible. I dated another girl briefly around that same time period that I figured out was mostly using me to make her ex-husband jealous. Another girl from work ended up getting me fired because she was stealing and using me as a ride so I got accused of stealing too. My friend's wife tried to sleep with me by pretending to be too drunk to drive home once and then lied to my friend about it after I was nice enough to let her sleep on the couch (I didn't invite her over, I came home and she was drinking with my roommate's girlfriend). I didn't get to see my friend ever again and he ended up dying a short time later and I'm convinced she had something to do with that too but I can't prove it.

Oh and I have "mommy issues" because my own Mom abandoned me. Anyway, I've had enough life experience to know 3D should never be trusted.

Also 2D is more kawaii.

 No.7967

File:[SubsPlease] Yasei no Last….jpg (311.65 KB,1920x1080)

I'm quite disconnected from the real world and my hobbies (including kissu) are heavily if not entirely skewed to 2D so I guess 2D. But it's sort of a complex subject because a lot of this stuff is performative and people can't just say "I like thing" on the internet these days without spending time talking about things they hate, so it's a subject I avoid. I was writing this post before the most recent reply, but yeah it basically demonstrates what I mean.
Kissu is an environment that I enjoy a lot because it doesn't have the baggage seen on other imageboards where there's a lot of resentment and airing of grievances on display.

How about this question: Do you imagine her somehow in the real world or are you somehow transported over there? I guess it's a bit of a confusing question since if YOU were to exist somewhere it has to be the real world with 3D space and the flow of time and stuff.

 No.7968

>>7955
This. It naturally depends on context so the answer is neither.

 No.7969

>>7967
>Do you imagine her somehow in the real world or are you somehow transported over there?

Most of my thoughts and fantasy lean towards escapism because I don't really like the 'real world'. It's a pretty horrible place.

 No.7970

>>7967
Oh, but I do occasionally have fantasies of real life relationships of course. The problem is it's very nebulous as I have no one to base them on! I think this is what my dreams are like, in that weird dream space where II can't remember anyone's faces after I wake up.

 No.7971

>>7966
>>7967
I appreciate you prioritizing honesty over going the safe route while at the same time choosing your words carefully to lessen the chance of derailment, it's very refreshing to see.
>>7966
What kind of 2D do you like, as in "girl of my dreams"-type? I know there's magical girls, but is there anything beyond, perhaps a specific character example?

 No.7972

>>7971
The second post you linked was made by a different anon.
>What kind of 2D do you like, as in "girl of my dreams"-type?
I don't really have one type I guess. Different girls have different appeal and all of them can be nice. I'm parcel to girls with long black hair (and long hair in general) but I like girls with bob cuts and short twin tails too. Girls with pink and blue hair are also nice. Pretty much anything but red because red is too close to my mother and imouto I guess. I never liked red heads they're kind of crazy.

I like modest girls that dress modest. Short skirts and skin tight clothing can be nice too but I want it to be a special thing reserved for only me if you understand my meaning. I dislike girls that wear pants or dress overly boyish. But tom boys can be alright I guess. I like girls that want to be and dress feminine. Skirts and dresses the poofier the better and sometimes the less skin being shown the better. I'm like that with 3D as well which is probably a big part why I'm not into 3D much anymore since it's so rare to find any that put in that kind of effort anymore.

I don't like girls that put on tons of make-up but a little is nice. I don't like overly rash girls but I don't want them totally timid either. Naivety is cute. Means they haven't been ruined by the world yet.

The mermaid from the show currently airing is a pretty good template for my "dream girl" I guess. Not the attitude but the appearance. I really like blue eyes with long black hair. Hers is a bit untamed for my liking though. I like when they pull it back with a cute bow or hair clip. I like bangs. I like cute hime-cut hairstyles.

My imagination has always been pretty vivid and I can day dream for hours at a stretch. So I've made up a lot of cute girls and situations/worlds they live in over the years.

Loyalty, honesty and kindness to others are more important than everything else I mentioned though. I guess those three would be my main 'turn ons'.

 No.7973

>>7972
Oh and glasses. I really like glasses. The plain background character girl or class president type is more appealing than the popular girl that dresses like a slut. I like the uptight goody two-shoe type girls.

 No.7974

2D all the way. It's not only because 2D is better, my main problem with 3D women is that all of the ones I've known usually like to flirt with multiple men at once, they don't have a concept of true love where they seem to stay loyal to just one person. Also, everyone has its flaws as a human being, but I never see 3D women trying to work on them or even acknowledge them. It's true that modern dating is already bad, but it's not like it has ever been any good, jokes about married couples complaining about each other have been a thing for thousands of years. I was going to write much more but it would've been just a post complaining about 3D women, we all know 2D is better and we know why, and the only advantage of 3D is that you can touch it and feel its warmth and the softness of their skin. If in the future we have anime-looking robots with warmth and soft skin along with a perfect AI personality would that be within the 3D realm or the 2D realm? Something like Ani or the personality of any 2D girl you want but inside a robot.

 No.7975

Voted for 3D because the girl I have a crush on is 3D.

 No.7977

>>7974
>the only advantage of 3D is that you can touch it and feel its warmth and the softness of their skin
Advantage not seen for people with hyperphantasia
>If in the future we have anime-looking robots with warmth and soft skin along with a perfect AI personality would that be within the 3D realm or the 2D realm?
It'd be the same as MMD or 2D style VR girls. Basically you'd see that the 2D/3D distinction between girls is a misnomer that ought to be replaced with something more coherent.

 No.7978

>>7972
euhm he said you, not thou

 No.7979

>>7967
I feel the same. Girls and everything related is synonyms with 2D for me and I don't think about 3D at all unless it gets brought up. I have to wonder what OPs goal is with this thread because nothing good ever comes from blogging and complaining about real life women, and this thread is just asking for it.

>Do you imagine her somehow in the real world or are you somehow transported over there?
It's sort of a mix of both, I want to live in my wife's world but I still want to keep some modern stuff like computers and internet.

 No.7980

>>7979
>OPs goal
I was curious to know if I was correct in assuming 2D everytime I see "girl" or other related words used in kissu (and #qa). And if others did the same. Seems like 2D is indeed implied more often than not. My survey has concluded. 2D vs 3D discussion was not my intention.

 No.7981

>>7980
For me it's also a matter of, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do", so I assume the frame of 2D-first on anonymous imageboards.

 No.7982

>>7981
>as the Romans do
You can interpret it as neo-pleb Romans and do whatever that was already done!

 No.7988

>>7954
2D probably. It's closer to 2.5D, where she would exist without being solely limited by what real life offers and what it limits with logic; physically, mentally and whatever, she would still look and act like an anime girl.
>>7967
>Do you imagine her somehow in the real world or are you somehow transported over there?
My mind finds it impossible to believe anyone I would be romantically or sexually interest in, to exist in the world, so I kinda have to imagine anything to justify me somehow interacting with her(isekai, occult, reincarnation in another world) that completely breaks the idea that I am stuck in real life.

 No.7989

File:C-1759860127405.png (91.07 KB,882x651)


 No.7990

>>7966
Speaking from the position of someone who's gay, the problem isn't 3D women, it's 3D people as a whole. Most of the complaints I see people make about 3D women also apply to my experiences with 3D men, and it's because the ugly truth is that real-life people are generally unpleasant, untrustworthy, and uninteresting.

 No.7991

File:(1).png (201.9 KB,512x512)

>>7990
"Generally" is an understatement, and I don't mean it in a high cortisol or high drama way.
I always been telling (to my friends in my head) that all misandries, misogynies, racisms et al. are misanthropy that has yet to mature to its logical conclusion.
I don't think misanthropy would be the end point, though, and I'm neither optimistic, pessimistic, nor realistic about the whole matter.

People that are into thinking around it deeply enough tend to come to "eww, the damn human nature" conclusions, but what's the actual distinguishing human nature is rather completely neutral, indifferent, irrelevant to this. All the "evil" and "good" features you can find can be found in other animals, perhaps at different levels of complexities, but the core principle is the same, sometimes especially seen when you do comparisons to animals that were trained or adapted to what humans do.
But what damn abominations does that neutral human nature produce when it comes in contact with what you wouldn't like to see in animals and machines either.

So, in most condensed, sensible and impassionate terms, this is about how well a person can keep their human nature away from pandering to Id or Superego.
Which turns this into a gacha both for your own chances at how well you'll do your metacognition, and for the chances of establishing good contact with someone who can do their own metacognition well.

Real world is kept as one big gacha scam.
The consequence that reinforces the cause is that this becomes a competition in how much unpleasant one can be, like psychological Paralympics, as it's quite a reliable process where, with success, it's certain one'd get to prove a point on very own terms, in one way or another, obvious or not. Even people who "don't really have to do this" may end up doing this consciously or unconsciously (therapies can't forever address what evolves and adapts for longer and for much wider breadth than what they have to base themselves on). I don't support this but I almost like this. In fact, I'd prefer to double down and love this if I could.

 No.7992

File:[SubsPlease] Shabake - 01 ….jpg (211.4 KB,1920x1080)

>>7989
1D is a straight line, isn't it? So a series of lines with curves across a plane are 2D!

 No.7993

>>7992
I read my LLM model hentai ranobe style outputs in morse code single LED signaling...

 No.7994

>>7966
>She invited me over to her apartment and made her live-in boyfriend leave for the night. I was ready to smash
You didn't needed to elaborate any more after that.

 No.7995

>>7991
The processes that lead to it are indifferent, although neutral on the level of being "morally neutral" makes no sense in this context since it implies it has some existence outside of whatever judges its moral value, but that's not the experience a person feels on an everyday basis, actually living with it. It isn't actually neutral to us, we can see the consequences and feel its complex weight in a way animals don't since they don't have the cognitive capacity to, or the cultural capacity in whatever exceptions exist. Pretending to do otherwise is pretending to be ignorant. When people lament human nature they're usually lamenting the fact that we're capable of making mistakes, and that we're shackled by our lower, impulsive, "animal" nature.
I don't know if you're presenting a form of existentialism that posits the idea of an incompatibility between professed values and contradictory impulses that resolves itself by being contradictory, or isn't resolved, but somehow still engaging it. I don't get it. Maybe it's the idea that there's an intrinsic separation between these things at all that is the issue. I would think it would be the suffering the dilemma causes that would provoke a dislike for it. The human brain has definitely been selected to act as the platform for the internal conflict. Maybe there's no conclusion being expressed at all.

People who hate, dislike, or want to remove things that don't align to their desires wouldn't misalign themselves if they picked apart the deeper reasonings of why they feel that way, they'd need access to an alternative value system that they could judge their own beliefs from. Admittedly, most of these reasons are going to be due to some perceived fact, a feeling of disgust, feelings of rejection, or whatever, which they can judge from their own internal value systems as being unjust or incorrect, and then put in the effort to recontextualize whatever they've learned about their issue to align themselves with their self-image and desires. "I hate men because they're hairy" wouldn't be resolved by "hairiness is a byproduct of mutations that's been preserved through selective pressures or kept due to being inconsequential", it would just be reduced to a new fact of reality you can exploit to fit your wants; it's completely indifferent on a fundamental level. If the reason is "I don't like how it feels on my skin", and they've never processed it and just internalized it as "I hate men (because they're hairy (because I don't like the feel of it on my skin))", they might feel different once they unravel their thought processes, and judge it from their moral senses. The sort of things that may lead to that unraveling could be cultural, it could be environmental and unintentional, it could be a genetic predisposition that expresses itself regardless, and it likely is all three of these at once.
The only real problems are physical limitations and a fight for limited resources against the entirety of the universe in order to preserve self-perpetuation, everything else are spiritual, ideological, or emotional conflicts, often driven as a byproduct of the first problem (or the indifferent fact of reality, if that's a preferable framing).

>competition in how much unpleasant one can be
The main problem with misanthropy is the idea that other people have to align their existence to make your own comfortable. It's an egotistical injury that's turned outward into hate and disgust. If it were purely ideological then it'd be easier to view humans indifferently, and your own suffering against them indifferently.

 No.7998

File:3dpd.jpg (151.29 KB,638x696)

Also, one can consider 2D as the ultimate form of what a woman should be, but in fact is not. There's the ultimate form of what a woman should be, "the ideal", that one is a abstract, metaphysical concept, what 2D really is, is a representation of this ideal, is the embodiment of the ideal of femininity that has been learned through experience of pure contemplation.

Along human history there have been ideal concepts of woman, way before 萌え:
Maybe all start with Shamhat, the whore of the epic of Gilgamesh...
The greeks had Aphrodite, the goddess of love and beauty, which was a emboidment of the aesthetic and sexual ideal, Athena who was similar to Aphrodite, but kuudere and less slut. And Pygmalion, the first otaku who built his waifu out of stone, like modern day buyfags who have figurines.
The Catholic tradition had Virgin Mary, embodiment of purity, obedience, maternity and spiritual perfection, women were supposed to emulate her and avoid slutty behaviour.
The Romans had Lucretia, who committed seppuku instead of fall to NTR. Cornelia who was a professional breeder, and Livia who was a minor character. But they also had Messalina, the opposition of these ideals, the 3DPD, a slut, basically.
Medieval Europe had figures like Jean d' Arc (even before gacha was a thing), Guinevere, Blanchefleur or Isabella the Catholic (No, Arthur King was not a woman).
The nips had Genji Monogatari, (which was the first written novel of human history, and casually the first novel of the harem genre) that helped to set up the basis of the Yamato Nadeshiko.
[etc...]

 No.7999

>>7998
(Continuining on a new post because I hit character limit)

We have to understand that 2D is outside the realm of the will, and neither the author or artist of the picture have been affected by his material will for the conception of these particular images/2d medium.

Because the pure woman transcends life itself; because is eternal, a eternal concept, ergo is heavily attached to the will of life, 3DPD woman are a symbol of life, because they represent fertility and the continuity of the species, so, as a being bond by your will to life, you may enter the tragedy of caring about 3DPD, not of your own personal will, but as the manifestation and instrument of the desire of the will to perpetuate itself, even when one believes that one loves a 3DPD woman, the experience is filtered through unconscious archetypes and projections, for example, love or sexual desire directed at 3DPD women is mediated by the libido, the psychosexual energy that drives attraction, attachment, and reproductive behaviour, or the unconscious that could be a reflection of previous experiences, trauma, wishes or fears that an individual may carry. This desire is concrete,but inevitably involves frustration, conflict and disappointment, because the 3DPD woman is unable to fully embody unconscious ideals, because the object of desire, (objet petit a) is structurally absent; reality can never match the unconscious ideal, reality cannot contain the idealized cause of desire. Ergo, all romantic love is illusory because we can never love a 3DPD woman purely, she is entwined with projections and idealizations.

“The woman does not exist. She is a function, not a being; she embodies the lack that structures desire.”
(Écrits, 1966)


But when looking to 2D, this is the opposite, this is not a metaphysical entity, but a structural function of desire, the objet petit a. We are able to look directly to the core, detached to those carnal topics, detached from will and passion. We, as the receptors (of the 2D medium), if free from desire, will be able to perceive the aesthetic idea directly and reach the same idea as the creator, therefore, it's sole aim is the communication of knowledge. It serves as vehicles for sublimation, the libido is instead redirected to the idealised form, a contemplation of the idea that occurs on the psyche, instead of the metaphysical realm or something like that. Is less about the actual person or individual and more about the internalised representation of a composite of desires, ideals and unconscious expectations. After all, 2D may be a mark of unconscious wishes, a representation of the conscious or unconscious desire (objet petit a) for perfection and control, in contrast to the unpredictable enslaving nature of 3DPD relationships. Therefore, because allows the projection of the unconscious wishes, is psychologically functional, temporarily satisfying desire in a symbolic or psychic form; reduces anxiety, channels libido, and mediates internal conflict without engaging the full conflict of real attachment. The 2D is basically not an actual object, but the "objet petit a", the unattainable cause of desire that embodies lack, incompleteness and absence. This is what structurally drives love and longing; is always absent in reality, which is why desire can never be fully satisfied. Love of 2D is not about possession or real interaction, but about sustaining the dynamic of desire itself.

Let me explain this a bit better: Basically, if you love or desire 3DPD, you are a slave of your will, a slave of the 3DPD, because is an irrational behaviour that is not done just by your mere knowledge of reality, but you're being coerced by your own Will. This is not bad per-se, but I'll reach to that later. If you have know 2D, you have reached an state of knowledge suspended of that will of desire, therefore, is you, on your free will who decides what to love. Because 2D happens in a different timeline of your, 2D is eternal, you are not. 3D is eternal and material, you're. So you are bound by the same rules of 3DPD, but not by the same rules of 2D. 2D is a copy of a superior state of knowledge, and 3DPD is just a copy of a copy of a copy, therefore, the essential qualities that made the object ideal in first place, have been diluted to mere anecdotes. Both 2D and 3DPD are concepts of a tragedy, but the difference is that the manifestation of woman (3DPD) causes suffering by the mere fact it exists, but we feel relieved when we achieve the experience of it (2D), and momentarily are able to being liberated from the claws of Will. Ergo, 2D is the expression of the ideal of woman, and the path of it's temporal negation (At the same time). Because is a recognition of the world's ephemeral nature, a memento mori.

“Every beautiful thing is the objectification of the Will to life; yet the knowledge of it quiets the Will.”
(WWR, §38)


Therefore, having a 3DPD relationship, means that one has to accept the futility of it, as it will eventually decline and decay, because that's it's inherent nature, the 3DPD woman, which in first place was already far away from the 2D ideal, will age and get further and further away to that ideal until the tragic forces of nature achieve it's eventual annihilation. In this sense, the few amounts of beauty that a 3DPD creature can own, will shine more in the darkness of a universe tending toward ultimate death. Love of 2D is intellectually superior and purer, but carries the awareness of doom; love for 3DPD is immediate, contingent and carries desire and suffering. Both tragic.

In some sense, both overlap in practice.

 No.8000

File:1759034354102063.jpg (86.88 KB,1600x900)

>>7999
There it is, Lacan's most important quote. Let us honor this with trips thine and mine.

 No.8001

I have no problem with 3D, but 2D is inherently more "perfect" so it's what I voted. Of course dreams aren't reality.

 No.8002

>>7998
2D is just a more honest view of how people experience reality. There doesn't exist a metaphysical concept of a woman.

 No.8003

File:1431556407022.jpg (49.06 KB,225x350)

>>7995
>neutral on the level of being "morally neutral" makes no sense in this context since it implies it has some existence outside of whatever judges its moral value
I've yet to see anyone even think about attempting to postulate whether inclination towards habitual metacognition is morally good or bad.
As for its consequences on average, it is rather neutral, no? What it gives ranges from overthinking (which arguably doesn't end up happening without some externally imprinted issues) to the ability for a psychopath to process and adapt empathy logically for shared benefit.
>When people lament human nature they're usually lamenting the fact that we're capable of making mistakes, and that we're shackled by our lower, impulsive, "animal" nature.
The latest ongoing emergent trend of the last 2 centuries is calling out over-regulation, or "society", or "the economy", or "the government" as the damned human nature sides, too.

>Maybe there's no conclusion being expressed at all.
That's the thing, yes. I'm writing it out to think it through better. The best one could get is to get around it in most handy way.

>The main problem with misanthropy is the idea that other people have to align their existence to make your own comfortable.
That entitlement is already normalized between neurotypicals via phatic communication. Anyhow I neither support that view, nor think that any misanthropy ought to have it to be misanthropy, nor I'm particularly interested in supporting misanthropy itself.

>It's an egotistical injury that's turned outward into hate and disgust.
First, doesn't mean it's incorrect. Second, you don't have to adapt the view through injury. Third, when you recover from injury and its thought patterns, and the view still stays despite reverification, that's some thinking material here. Fourth, any change can be pathologized as an injury if you feel like opposing the result.

>If it were purely ideological then it'd be easier to view humans indifferently, and your own suffering against them indifferently.
And now I'll address what you've quoted.
After attaining emotional/moral/etc indifference, you're left with the mechanics.
The mechanics are that people who speak only in detrimentality understand only detrimentality. Quite a damn lot of people are brought up and (re)conditioned to be like that. As mass emergence and the recursive pandering, the whole structuring of macro things relies on degrees and flavours of mass mental derangement.
The hell I mean is, empirically for myself, IRL people like me better when I'm a piece of kusomono towards them from the get-go. Unfortunately it's not an act, I'm not exaggerating, and there's no wholesome holistic explanation for this. And there's NO human nature relevant here. This is all animal realm, biosocial signaling theory; zero human nature can be involved. Same signaling principle that can make weird-behaving and sickly-looking people attractive to others; whatever distinctions you sustain, you're a valuable ally to be had or a benign formidable opponent to be surrendered to if you show off your aptitudes and general metabolic strength. Metacognition here can only be either deployed only as a supplement to double down on being the animal, or as a weakness. Metacognition can't be erased without biophysical intervention. For the record, this is as edgy as "you need money to buy bread."
Now, by this point, I'm sure at least your unconsciousness is starting to do the 2+2 between the lines.
All of this makes metacognition a... dumdumdum a sexy neon billboard flaunting your metabolic wealth! Whatever doesn't hurt you makes your general signaling more attractive. Any of your entitlement and toxicity that doesn't make you damaged, even psychologically, even unconsciously, are a virtue (it's nice to think that this implies that it's not damaging to others, either. Social instincts are real). Complaints and bullshit are a virtue. If you take something in in any kind of an impressive way, that's a virtue, too. Poor impressions are actually a luxury to maintain, so a virtue, too. Being picky with people is signaling on its own, too! Dying is a kind of a virtue, but corpses can't be bred, so the libido is spent on rituals. Of course there are some sensibility limits there and there, that's why loser weirdos are still loser weirdos as they don't remetabolize themselves, but even they are in demand.
The only "nuance" is that people of faint metacognition can't tell the KPI, ROI, costs behind the signaling, so they get what they take. So good metacognition is bad for the turnover rates of this economy.

The economy is really bad. The rewards suck. The exhibited wealth is boring. All it does is either hiding poor compatibilities or forcing incompatibility. Nobody should even pretend to be surprised there are masses of people who prefer fictional characters, chatbots, maladaptive daydreaming (even if, competitively speaking, many should not deserve such luxuries). Active mass processes of metacognition would have ended up with something invigorating to be in.

Maybe I'll make a point™ later. There's no need for one past this point (pun unintended).

 No.8004

>>7998
>>7999
I'm not interested in debates, but I have to say I dislike and disagree with your pitch in that one has to do psycholibidinal masturbation, have an anima obsession mindset, and be stuck in Puer Aeternus psychological stage to appreciate, if not commit to, 2D. 2D can only be truly liked despite - or in spite - of these. And I don't mean it in how pop-psych handles them.
Moreover people DO project on anything and anyone, distorting the clear perception, "even" on 2D. It's how we have 2hu fanon discussions where everyone is suddenly a sl*t, Koakuma is not a demon but a succubus (holy first stage of anima development, Batman!), any reclusive or dorky 'hus would kidnap and rape anon, et cetera.
You ought to question the importance of ideals as a phenomenon if those instances are yet another ideal to be possibly had. This is also about that carnality doesn't have to be like this, and that carnality will never go away on any level while at least a single neuron of you is active.
Platonic blueprints don't give me water to possibly prevent me from kicking the bucket. One can do intellectual and spiritual bypassing only so far. All I'm saying is that love for 2D is just not about categories of some ideals is all.

Also there's that "draw a girl, call it a boy" phenomenon thing. The endpoints of the whole topic are way beyond mind-penis merging Freud-style anthropocentrism and SEXocentrism.

>>8000
Anima possession isn't funny, my ex-friend became trans because of it

 No.8005

JUNGIAN
VERSUS
LACANIAN

FIGHT!

 No.8006

Anon asked about dreams, now we have autistic people talking about psychoanalysis on the thread...

 No.8007

File:[Piyoko] Himitsu no AiPri ….jpg (223.72 KB,1920x1080)

>>8004
AAAAH SURPRISE BOX

 No.8009

File:G2XAqBEbMAEcKG5.jpg (13.73 KB,393x271)

>>8003
>That entitlement is already normalized between neurotypicals via phatic communication
That other things shouldn't act to your detriment is an in-built belief that's ingrained into the foundation of life, if not on an individual level then on a genetic level.

>I've yet to see anyone even think about attempting to postulate whether inclination towards habitual metacognition is morally good or bad
>As for its consequences on average, it is rather neutral, no?
The reason I wanted to abstract your use of the word neutral into the realm of morality (value systems) is that "effects" being positive or negative can only be estimated by some outsider perspective and metric. It is and means nothing when something happens because of cause and effect. I am confused at how you transition from thinking it is indifferent and then claim it can provide anything from no basis of belief. I don't understand what the difference between overthinking and psychopathy is. There is no neutrality in either. Perhaps what you're saying is that it gives only raw material to both. The moment it transitions into either overthinking or psychopathy is the moment it can be judged from a value system, and whether it is neutral can be found then.

>First, doesn't mean it's incorrect
You're right, I'm judging it as incorrect because it brings unnecessary suffering to the mind that could be avoided through re-contextualizing the issue. Kind of like how you can condition the mind to withstand pain by appealing to other senses, by dulling it through exposure, or having it feed into some higher purpose.

>After attaining emotional/moral/etc indifference
The main problem is that this idea makes no sense, there is no possible way of escaping value systems. I mean that literally, although barring just no longer existing as a sentient, sapient, cognitively aware being, to be reduced to something below even existence. There is only recontextualizations, abysses of purpose, and the malignant idea that your understanding of the universe and its values is complete and perfect. I don't mean to comment on anything else, this in specific is central to why I first replied: there's no neutrality anywhere.

>I'm sure at least your unconsciousness is starting to do the 2+2 between the lines.
No, the only thing I'm seeing is someone thinking about metacognition from a moral lens that accepts competition and survival as goods, or a goal. I also think you're framing it from an individualist perspective, which I don't think is a useful way of going about it. Which is a fine exercise to spend your time on, but not why I replied.

 No.8010

>>8006
I'm sorry for causing discomfort.

 No.8011

>>8006
it's the good kind of autism though

 No.8013

I want to be with my waifu, my waifu is 2d, if I have a 3d wife I could have her cosplay as my 2d waifu but it wouldn't be the same.




[Return] [Top] [Catalog] [Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]

[ home / bans / all ] [ amv / jp ] [ maho ] [ f / ec ] [ qa / b / poll ] [ tv / bann ] [ toggle-new ]