My opinion on culture

[hollowlight]

Cultures are simulacra. The reality is the land in which the culture developed. The culture develops in response to the land, distorting its objectivity into a subjective mode of thought and practice. A culture that is practiced within the boundaries of the land in which it was developed exists in the 1st or 2nd stage of simulacra. A culture that is practiced outside of the boundaries of the land in which it was developed exists in the 3rd or 4th stage of simulacra. It is in the latter stages that the traditions and practices of the migrating culture are lost, absorbed, or adapted into culture of the land it migrated to.


Farming developed in fertile regions. Whereas hunter-gatherers and nomads existed in open terrains, like plains or deserts.


Cultures seek to sustain themselves even through migration. An example is when Oghuz Turkic nomads arrived in the Caucasus. A significant proportion of these nomads chose to settle in the Mughan plain and Kura-Araxes lowlands. These regions, the former in particular, are comparable to the geographical conditions of the Eurasian steppe, the lands in which the Turkic nomads originated.


Cultures perhaps seek not to sustain themselves as a means of evolutionary survival, but rather of the establishment of permanence: a return to the primal, pre-conscious, Real, state of absence. This is why the masses seek not change but stability; and why the implosion of change in capitalist society encourages its internal collapse. A culture not adapting is an attempt to resist change, an attempt to return to the impossibility of absolute permanence, of primal absence. Sometimes, the lands are entirely separated from the culture and serve only as the place in which the subjection is assigned to (e.g. Azerbaijan and Greater Azerbaijan, although there is some merit to it, it’s more nuanced).


For example, Azeris in the Caucasus (transhumance; summer settlements in the highlands, winter settlements in the lowlands). This only ended when it was forced to stop by the Soviets.


Evidence: According to the 1897 census, the Elizavetpol uezd of the Russian Empire, with its capital at Ganja in the Dashkasan plain of the Kura-Araxes lowland, was composed of 63.87% native Tatar (Azerbaijani) speakers. In the Baku Governorate, much of which comprised the Kura-Araxes lowlands and the northern portion of the Mughan plain, 58.68% of the population were native Tatar speakers. In the Javad uezd of the Baku Governorate, essentially all of which existed within the Mughan plain, the population consisted of 93.35% native Tatar speakers.


There are some cultures, however, that resist sustenance. These are not the ones that incorporate loss and death into themselves, as a means of sustaining the culture (like the Armenian culture with the genocide. Or even a dead culture like the Aztecs that valued human sacrifice. For, these cultures continue to exist taxonomically and chronologically. They are built into a Western historiographical narrative. They continue to exist, whether geopolitico-materially like the Armenian culture, historico-materially like the Assyrian or Kurdish cultures, or hauntologically like the Aztec culture; as the Aztec culture influenced contemporary Mexican culture. All of these cultures exist either as a warning to death, like the former(s), or as death itself, like the latter. Perhaps difficult to necessarily categorize, but still conceptually existent, whether through subjective or objective means). It is these cultures that may sustain themselves without geographical continuity, as they are based conceptually upon abstractions like absence or death. Whereas, a geographical culture is based upon the physical presence of the land in which it exists materially; its identity is conceived through its embrace of the object, but is limited to the subjections constructed in relation to the material. Though, this does not mean the culture is defined by presence, it is in fact the opposite: the culture exists to fill the void of the symbolic non-value of the material land, the non-meaning of the object.


A culture that entirely resists sustenance is one that, to academic knowledge, does not exist, at least for the moment. It is one that vanishes completely. Academia cannot bear the thought of any culture that values not existence or its preservation. Therefore, these cultures are labeled as I describe them now, as not-discovered; not-yet-discovered. The anthropologists will, by all means, make an attempt to discover these ‘lost’ cultures and place them within a historiographical narrative, even if, by reality, they exist outside of such a codified arrangement. In such an instance, the ‘lost’ culture is orgiastically subsumed into an absolutely non-referential stage of simulacra (equivalent to the third or fourth stage), existent within a simulatory historiography. Historiography itself is a simulation to begin with, no different from sociological or anthropological studies; they are relative to the cultural narratives in which they exist. Since ‘lost’ cultures do not possess a cultural narrative, one is organized in place of its absence.

As Claude Lévi-Strauss stated, myth is reality. And reality ‘is’ myth.

Humans are born prematurely and lack innate instincts, compensating for this with the establishment of the symbolic order, which is language and culture. This view solves the evolutionary puzzle of direct continuity by highlighting an irreducible gap between animal and human

@MogsGymMaxx @Jason Voorhees @chicolate131 @girthygirt @Primalsplit

dnr

 

[registerfasterusing]

dnr

PSA FOR ALL GREYCELS

This is a dictionary of terms you may have heard here but are unfamiliar with: Mirin = Nigger Explanation: Mirin backwards is nirim (nigger) Dnr = happy for you Explanation: abbreviated form of ‘dinner’ as in ur feasting, doing rly good Water = disagree Explanation: in the future, many...

looksmax.org

 

[Vantablack]

Why
This is a fundamental imo

im gonna gpt this because i dont feel like writing a long response right now, but humans are not blank slates and are guided by biology. babies are born with instinct and act on it. a fundamental principle of the blackpill and PSL scales is the study that babies tend to look at attractive faces longer than unattractive faces, proving an innate instinctual understanding of objective beauty.

GPT:

Babies are born with a whole set of instincts and reflexes that are hardwired for survival and bonding. Here is the list of the main ones:


Primitive reflexes (automatic responses present at birth):

• Rooting reflex: When the cheek is stroked, the baby turns its head and opens its mouth — helps find the nipple.
• Sucking reflex: Automatically sucks when something touches the roof of the mouth — crucial for feeding.
• Grasp (palmar) reflex: Fingers close tightly when the palm is touched — primitive bonding/survival mechanism.
• Moro reflex (startle): In response to loud sounds or falling sensations, the baby throws arms out then pulls them in — protective instinct.
• Tonic neck reflex ("fencing posture"): When the baby’s head turns to one side, the arm on that side extends and the opposite arm bends — thought to help hand-eye coordination later.
• Stepping reflex: When held upright with feet touching a surface, babies make walking-like movements.
• Babinski reflex: Stroking the sole makes toes fan out — neurologically primitive but normal at birth.

Innate behavioral instincts:

• Face preference: Newborns look longer at human faces, especially attractive and symmetrical ones.
• Voice recognition: Prefer the mother’s voice within days of birth, and prefer human voices over other sounds.
• Cry instinct: Crying is automatic for communication of distress.
• Attachment instinct: Babies instinctively bond to caregivers (Bowlby’s attachment theory).
• Taste preferences: Preference for sweet tastes (linked to energy-rich foods), dislike of bitter (linked to poison avoidance).
• Language readiness: Universal ability to distinguish all phonemes at birth (which narrows by ~9 months depending on the language environment).

These instincts fade or transform as the brain matures — for example, the rooting reflex disappears around 4 months, but the broader instinct to feed remains.


Do you want me to also give you the evolutionary explanation of why each of these instincts exists?

 

[registerfasterusing]

im gonna gpt this because i dont feel like writing a long response right now, but humans are not blank slates and are guided by biology. babies are born with instinct and act on it. a fundamental principle of the blackpill and PSL scales is the study that babies tend to look at attractive faces longer than unattractive faces, proving an innate instinctual understanding of objective beauty.

GPT:

Babies are born with a whole set of instincts and reflexes that are hardwired for survival and bonding. Here is the list of the main ones:


Primitive reflexes (automatic responses present at birth):

• Rooting reflex: When the cheek is stroked, the baby turns its head and opens its mouth — helps find the nipple.
• Sucking reflex: Automatically sucks when something touches the roof of the mouth — crucial for feeding.
• Grasp (palmar) reflex: Fingers close tightly when the palm is touched — primitive bonding/survival mechanism.
• Moro reflex (startle): In response to loud sounds or falling sensations, the baby throws arms out then pulls them in — protective instinct.
• Tonic neck reflex ("fencing posture"): When the baby’s head turns to one side, the arm on that side extends and the opposite arm bends — thought to help hand-eye coordination later.
• Stepping reflex: When held upright with feet touching a surface, babies make walking-like movements.
• Babinski reflex: Stroking the sole makes toes fan out — neurologically primitive but normal at birth.

Innate behavioral instincts:

• Face preference: Newborns look longer at human faces, especially attractive and symmetrical ones.
• Voice recognition: Prefer the mother’s voice within days of birth, and prefer human voices over other sounds.
• Cry instinct: Crying is automatic for communication of distress.
• Attachment instinct: Babies instinctively bond to caregivers (Bowlby’s attachment theory).
• Taste preferences: Preference for sweet tastes (linked to energy-rich foods), dislike of bitter (linked to poison avoidance).
• Language readiness: Universal ability to distinguish all phonemes at birth (which narrows by ~9 months depending on the language environment).

These instincts fade or transform as the brain matures — for example, the rooting reflex disappears around 4 months, but the broader instinct to feed remains.


Do you want me to also give you the evolutionary explanation of why each of these instincts exists?

Alr if u gpt i will too:

I’d respond by showing that what they’re calling “instinct” is not the same thing as human desire or culture. You want to make a clear distinction between reflexive biological programs (like sucking or rooting) and the symbolic mediation that structures sexuality, beauty, and meaning.

1. Distinguish Between Reflex and Symbolic Desire


Those newborn reflexes are just biological survival scripts — they don’t prove that humans have fixed, instinctual drives like animals do.

A baby sucking for milk or turning its head toward a symmetrical face isn’t “understanding beauty.” It’s responding to stimulus patterns that evolution wired to help it survive.

The moment you move beyond those primitive reflexes, everything gets filtered through language and culture.

– A baby might show a preference for symmetry, but whether that becomes a sexual fetish for blondes, or a cultural ideal of thinness, is 100% symbolic.

– If beauty were purely instinctual, attractiveness would be universal and unchanging — but we know it shifts wildly across history and societies.

In Lacanian terms, humans lack a complete biological “instinct code.” That lack is why we need the symbolic order to tell us what counts as beautiful, sexual, or meaningful. A foot fetish or a porn category isn’t in your genes — it’s in your culture.

2. Attack the ‘Blackpill’ Premise

The blackpill takes a kernel of truth — symmetry has some evolutionary relevance — and inflates it into an absolute theory.

But even if babies look longer at symmetrical faces, that doesn’t explain why Victorian England found pale, plump women beautiful, while today’s West glorifies thinness and tanned skin.

Biology gives you raw material, but desire is constructed. If biology were destiny, those massive historical swings in what counts as “attractive” would be impossible.

3. Short and Sharp

Reflexes like sucking or startle aren’t the same as “knowing” beauty.

A baby looking at a symmetrical face is no different from a plant bending toward light — it’s just responding to a pattern.

Humans don’t have instincts in the strict sense; we have drives, which are incomplete and have to be given form by language, myths, and culture.


Also i thought i heard somewhere that symmetrical faces arent always necessarily considered attractive

 

[Vantablack]

But even if babies look longer at symmetrical faces, that doesn’t explain why Victorian England found pale, plump women beautiful, while today’s West glorifies thinness and tanned skin.

jfl nobody found obese manlets attractive, looking and dressing like that was a symbol of status among males back then. status symbols have changed throughout history and are guided by culture (culture itself is a downstream from genetics btw, its not a blank slate but rather a feedback loop of genetics and culture shaping each other over millenia). what is truly considered attractice has remained largely stable throughout history. i.e lean bodies, well developed faces, clear skin etc.

Also i thought i heard somewhere that symmetrical faces arent always necessarily considered attractive

yes, it is a combination of factors and symmetry is one of them.

the only thing i will concede from this bluepill cringe is that reflexes and instict are different, that was a bad example. however when it comes to social behvaiours, both among friends and mates humans are still largely guided by innate instinct. humans are much closer to animals despite all the larp. its why foids and normies behave the way they do across generations and across cultures. culture can only seek to suppress human nature (like in the case of religion), and not change it.

 

[registerfasterusing]

jfl nobody found obese manlets attractive, looking and dressing like that was a symbol of status among males back then. status symbols have changed throughout history and are guided by culture (culture itself is a downstream from genetics btw, its not a blank slate but rather a feedback loop of genetics and culture shaping each other over millenia). what is truly considered attractice has remained largely stable throughout history. i.e lean bodies, well developed faces, clear skin etc.


yes, it is a combination of factors and symmetry is one of them.

the only thing i will concede from this bluepill cringe is that reflexes and instict are different, that was a bad example. however when it comes to social behvaiours, both among friends and mates humans are still largely guided by innate instinct. humans are much closer to animals despite all the larp. its why foids and normies behave the way they do across generations and across cultures. culture can only seek to suppress human nature (like in the case of religion), and not change it.

What ur saying is entirely anachronistic
What is considered attractive is ultimately a reflection of what the given society values
For example, in contemporary society status may be linked to scarcity
In Victorian society to wealth
In a warrior society to strength
In a religious society to spirituality
U see there is no universal standard here, rather an ambiguity dependent upon cultural priority
And u can see a plethora of examples like this throughout history

I suggest u read a thread i made earlier on beauty:

I recently watched “An Artist’s Story” by Chekhov in class and it reminded my of this essay I read (GIGA BLACKPILL)

https://avellopublishing.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/lacan-and-the-concept-of-the-beautiful-1.doc That art speaks of the primordial fantasy is also hinted at by Freud. What is involved in the artistic activity is not a simple undirected shaping of the matter, but an essential...

looksmax.org

 

[Luca_.]

I read curvature instead of culture and thought you were going to talk about dick curvature

 

[GhostBoySwag]

Cultures are simulacra. The reality is the land in which the culture developed. The culture develops in response to the land, distorting its objectivity into a subjective mode of thought and practice. A culture that is practiced within the boundaries of the land in which it was developed exists in the 1st or 2nd stage of simulacra. A culture that is practiced outside of the boundaries of the land in which it was developed exists in the 3rd or 4th stage of simulacra. It is in the latter stages that the traditions and practices of the migrating culture are lost, absorbed, or adapted into culture of the land it migrated to.


Farming developed in fertile regions. Whereas hunter-gatherers and nomads existed in open terrains, like plains or deserts.


Cultures seek to sustain themselves even through migration. An example is when Oghuz Turkic nomads arrived in the Caucasus. A significant proportion of these nomads chose to settle in the Mughan plain and Kura-Araxes lowlands. These regions, the former in particular, are comparable to the geographical conditions of the Eurasian steppe, the lands in which the Turkic nomads originated.


Cultures perhaps seek not to sustain themselves as a means of evolutionary survival, but rather of the establishment of permanence: a return to the primal, pre-conscious, Real, state of absence. This is why the masses seek not change but stability; and why the implosion of change in capitalist society encourages its internal collapse. A culture not adapting is an attempt to resist change, an attempt to return to the impossibility of absolute permanence, of primal absence. Sometimes, the lands are entirely separated from the culture and serve only as the place in which the subjection is assigned to (e.g. Azerbaijan and Greater Azerbaijan, although there is some merit to it, it’s more nuanced).


For example, Azeris in the Caucasus (transhumance; summer settlements in the highlands, winter settlements in the lowlands). This only ended when it was forced to stop by the Soviets.


Evidence: According to the 1897 census, the Elizavetpol uezd of the Russian Empire, with its capital at Ganja in the Dashkasan plain of the Kura-Araxes lowland, was composed of 63.87% native Tatar (Azerbaijani) speakers. In the Baku Governorate, much of which comprised the Kura-Araxes lowlands and the northern portion of the Mughan plain, 58.68% of the population were native Tatar speakers. In the Javad uezd of the Baku Governorate, essentially all of which existed within the Mughan plain, the population consisted of 93.35% native Tatar speakers.


There are some cultures, however, that resist sustenance. These are not the ones that incorporate loss and death into themselves, as a means of sustaining the culture (like the Armenian culture with the genocide. Or even a dead culture like the Aztecs that valued human sacrifice. For, these cultures continue to exist taxonomically and chronologically. They are built into a Western historiographical narrative. They continue to exist, whether geopolitico-materially like the Armenian culture, historico-materially like the Assyrian or Kurdish cultures, or hauntologically like the Aztec culture; as the Aztec culture influenced contemporary Mexican culture. All of these cultures exist either as a warning to death, like the former(s), or as death itself, like the latter. Perhaps difficult to necessarily categorize, but still conceptually existent, whether through subjective or objective means). It is these cultures that may sustain themselves without geographical continuity, as they are based conceptually upon abstractions like absence or death. Whereas, a geographical culture is based upon the physical presence of the land in which it exists materially; its identity is conceived through its embrace of the object, but is limited to the subjections constructed in relation to the material. Though, this does not mean the culture is defined by presence, it is in fact the opposite: the culture exists to fill the void of the symbolic non-value of the material land, the non-meaning of the object.


A culture that entirely resists sustenance is one that, to academic knowledge, does not exist, at least for the moment. It is one that vanishes completely. Academia cannot bear the thought of any culture that values not existence or its preservation. Therefore, these cultures are labeled as I describe them now, as not-discovered; not-yet-discovered. The anthropologists will, by all means, make an attempt to discover these ‘lost’ cultures and place them within a historiographical narrative, even if, by reality, they exist outside of such a codified arrangement. In such an instance, the ‘lost’ culture is orgiastically subsumed into an absolutely non-referential stage of simulacra (equivalent to the third or fourth stage), existent within a simulatory historiography. Historiography itself is a simulation to begin with, no different from sociological or anthropological studies; they are relative to the cultural narratives in which they exist. Since ‘lost’ cultures do not possess a cultural narrative, one is organized in place of its absence.

As Claude Lévi-Strauss stated, myth is reality. And reality ‘is’ myth.

Humans are born prematurely and lack innate instincts, compensating for this with the establishment of the symbolic order, which is language and culture. This view solves the evolutionary puzzle of direct continuity by highlighting an irreducible gap between animal and human

@MogsGymMaxx @Jason Voorhees @chicolate131 @girthygirt @Primalsplit

mmm mirin text but may i ask what made you wanna type this

 

[registerfasterusing]

mmm mirin text but may i ask what made you wanna type this

Cuz its interesting

 

[GhostBoySwag]

Cuz its interesting

do you hate cultures? or is it like a 50/50

 

[EthiopianMaxxer]

didn't know you were high IQ, you study anthropology?

tag me in future threads like these

 

[registerfasterusing]

do you hate cultures? or is it like a 50/50

Why would i hate them

 

[registerfasterusing]

didn't know you were high IQ, you study anthropology?

tag me in future threads like these

Js for fun
Ill tag u in a couple old ones

 

[GhostBoySwag]

Why would i hate them

idk just a question
I love culture

 

[registerfasterusing]

book marked, I will read this later bhai

What did u think

 

[MogsGymMaxx]

Cultures are simulacra. The reality is the land in which the culture developed. The culture develops in response to the land, distorting its objectivity into a subjective mode of thought and practice. A culture that is practiced within the boundaries of the land in which it was developed exists in the 1st or 2nd stage of simulacra. A culture that is practiced outside of the boundaries of the land in which it was developed exists in the 3rd or 4th stage of simulacra. It is in the latter stages that the traditions and practices of the migrating culture are lost, absorbed, or adapted into culture of the land it migrated to.


Farming developed in fertile regions. Whereas hunter-gatherers and nomads existed in open terrains, like plains or deserts.


Cultures seek to sustain themselves even through migration. An example is when Oghuz Turkic nomads arrived in the Caucasus. A significant proportion of these nomads chose to settle in the Mughan plain and Kura-Araxes lowlands. These regions, the former in particular, are comparable to the geographical conditions of the Eurasian steppe, the lands in which the Turkic nomads originated.


Cultures perhaps seek not to sustain themselves as a means of evolutionary survival, but rather of the establishment of permanence: a return to the primal, pre-conscious, Real, state of absence. This is why the masses seek not change but stability; and why the implosion of change in capitalist society encourages its internal collapse. A culture not adapting is an attempt to resist change, an attempt to return to the impossibility of absolute permanence, of primal absence. Sometimes, the lands are entirely separated from the culture and serve only as the place in which the subjection is assigned to (e.g. Azerbaijan and Greater Azerbaijan, although there is some merit to it, it’s more nuanced).


For example, Azeris in the Caucasus (transhumance; summer settlements in the highlands, winter settlements in the lowlands). This only ended when it was forced to stop by the Soviets.


Evidence: According to the 1897 census, the Elizavetpol uezd of the Russian Empire, with its capital at Ganja in the Dashkasan plain of the Kura-Araxes lowland, was composed of 63.87% native Tatar (Azerbaijani) speakers. In the Baku Governorate, much of which comprised the Kura-Araxes lowlands and the northern portion of the Mughan plain, 58.68% of the population were native Tatar speakers. In the Javad uezd of the Baku Governorate, essentially all of which existed within the Mughan plain, the population consisted of 93.35% native Tatar speakers.


There are some cultures, however, that resist sustenance. These are not the ones that incorporate loss and death into themselves, as a means of sustaining the culture (like the Armenian culture with the genocide. Or even a dead culture like the Aztecs that valued human sacrifice. For, these cultures continue to exist taxonomically and chronologically. They are built into a Western historiographical narrative. They continue to exist, whether geopolitico-materially like the Armenian culture, historico-materially like the Assyrian or Kurdish cultures, or hauntologically like the Aztec culture; as the Aztec culture influenced contemporary Mexican culture. All of these cultures exist either as a warning to death, like the former(s), or as death itself, like the latter. Perhaps difficult to necessarily categorize, but still conceptually existent, whether through subjective or objective means). It is these cultures that may sustain themselves without geographical continuity, as they are based conceptually upon abstractions like absence or death. Whereas, a geographical culture is based upon the physical presence of the land in which it exists materially; its identity is conceived through its embrace of the object, but is limited to the subjections constructed in relation to the material. Though, this does not mean the culture is defined by presence, it is in fact the opposite: the culture exists to fill the void of the symbolic non-value of the material land, the non-meaning of the object.


A culture that entirely resists sustenance is one that, to academic knowledge, does not exist, at least for the moment. It is one that vanishes completely. Academia cannot bear the thought of any culture that values not existence or its preservation. Therefore, these cultures are labeled as I describe them now, as not-discovered; not-yet-discovered. The anthropologists will, by all means, make an attempt to discover these ‘lost’ cultures and place them within a historiographical narrative, even if, by reality, they exist outside of such a codified arrangement. In such an instance, the ‘lost’ culture is orgiastically subsumed into an absolutely non-referential stage of simulacra (equivalent to the third or fourth stage), existent within a simulatory historiography. Historiography itself is a simulation to begin with, no different from sociological or anthropological studies; they are relative to the cultural narratives in which they exist. Since ‘lost’ cultures do not possess a cultural narrative, one is organized in place of its absence.

As Claude Lévi-Strauss stated, myth is reality. And reality ‘is’ myth.

Humans are born prematurely and lack innate instincts, compensating for this with the establishment of the symbolic order, which is language and culture. This view solves the evolutionary puzzle of direct continuity by highlighting an irreducible gap between animal and human

@MogsGymMaxx @Jason Voorhees @chicolate131 @girthygirt @Primalsplit

Good thread but the idea that culture is strictly tied to land is stretched, many cultures have flourished outside their original geography without significant loss. Diaspora communities often maintain language, religion and social structures for centuries. Similarly the belief that cultures which resist sustanance vanish entirely overlooks how even so called lost culture continue to influence language, art, and customs the legacy of Aztecs in mesoamerican traditions is a good example of this. The claim that humans seek permanance and resist change to return to a primal, pre concsious state overstate cultural motivations and many societies actively embrace change as a survival strategy. Applying baudeillards stages of simulacra to migrations risks over theorizing since adaptation does not necessarily equal loss or simulation

 

[registerfasterusing]

Good thread but the idea that culture is strictly tied to land is stretched, many cultures have flourished outside their original geography without significant loss. Diaspora communities often maintain language, religion and social structures for centuries. Similarly the belief that cultures which resist sustanance vanish entirely overlooks how even so called lost culture continue to influence language, art, and customs the legacy of Aztecs in mesoamerican traditions is a good example of this. The claim that humans seek permanance and resist change to return to a primal, pre concsious state overstate cultural motivations and many societies actively embrace change as a survival strategy. Applying baudeillards stages of simulacra to migrations risks over theorizing since adaptation does not necessarily equal loss or simulation

Ive addressed the different types of cultural in here, including the ones that dont require land, persist haintologically, etc
And u dont seem to have any evidence to support ur claims of change and over theorization
I think ive adequately addressed my reasoning behind these claims above

 

[MogsGymMaxx]

Ive addressed the different types of cultural in here, including the ones that dont require land, persist haintologically, etc
And u dont seem to have any evidence to support ur claims of change and over theorization
I think ive adequately addressed my reasoning behind these claims above

That’s fair.