MetabolicTrash
Member
If looks can change and/or exist depending on background, diet, lifestyle, hormones, somatic effects, mindset, stress levels, prenatal effects, bioenergetics, electrics and epigenetics as a whole, is this where the criticism over appearance is possibly rooted in the form of a broadened body of understanding or such? Not purely lookism but the idea that the features of a person have some intrinsic, unfortunate or even celebratory tell-tale of one's choices, lifestyle, background/development, and energetic structure as a bare organism. This is different from the idea of genetic evaluation of looks since the construct is hardened and weakly argued for, whereas bioenergetics could more deeply explain what brings about certain appearances, fluidity in looks, and what -- if anything -- explains variations or rigidity in some appearances more strongly.
One case is how people say actors tend to be good looking, as if the profession naturally came to those attractive because of the bottom line of Hollywood/lookism/etc. Maybe -- turning the tables a bit -- good looking people are more driven to or bound to embody the arts in some sense as a form of their physiology, health, etc. For example, as some are liked for their looks, maybe it isn't solely their knowledge of said looks that only drives them to want to perform, but their physiology which could coincidentally bear said structure along it. It is a bit like saying a criminal will steal a car. Sure, of course a specific, time-and-time again criminal is more likely to steal a car -- whatever physiology that made them supposedly become a criminal is what arguably could be the result of the car theft, as opposed to seeing criminality as a cause and effect justification (criminal->crime) which sells everything short on the understanding of root issues as how the idea of DNA is expressed.
Does lifestyle and problems make criminals? Maybe.
Does lifestyle and problems make one either more ugly or more attractive? Maybe as well.
If every choice or consequence can affect us, maybe our looks kind of tell the story of our lives currently, along with the history of energetic status/changes/etc. that have led up to our being now, partially existing as a being inheriting and processing the world both now and in the past simultaneously. If we inherit things -- but things are always changeable and/or changing -- we can certainly carry a burden on our shoulders, but that is not the same thing as arguing, say, one is either ugly or good looking based solely on some hardened concept of some gene with no deep explanation as to how.
Not arguing that judgment or bias over looks is inherently good or right, but just trying to see if the understanding is somewhat justifiable given the presumption of physiology, traits, capabilities, pre-judgment and so forth. Lookism seems more bare and mean, whereas physiognomy can maybe be more refined in understanding more accurate representations of cause and effect than just insulting someone to their face or dissing them because of how they immediately look. If you know why someone looks the way they do then maybe your opinion on their looks are more backed by rationality than just hurling insults to something that looks bad but you have not the faintest idea in understanding why they look the way they do and/or what it could imply.
It might make more sense to understand the concept of being as a free-form case of development circumstances rather than as a pre-fabricated or fixed blueprint of intelligent design or such. Some people say that one's appearance becoming "fixed" is evidence of a blueprint -- but maybe it's just a consequence of our limitations on the understanding of bioenergetics and biochemistry rather than magical genes locking our chins and bug eyes in immovable place by the forces that be above us so women won't bang us and the world will hate us. Maybe the planet and the universe isn't against us, and did not selectively or directly give us bad features in some predetermined sense so we can suffer and die out while Chad was crafted by God's bare hands to be happy. I mean I am part joking here, but take these closing words how you wish to.
I figured I'd throw in the rhetoric at the end here since I've seen quite a few posts here leaning on the immutable view of genes/excuses, sexual success, incels/blackpill/etc.
One case is how people say actors tend to be good looking, as if the profession naturally came to those attractive because of the bottom line of Hollywood/lookism/etc. Maybe -- turning the tables a bit -- good looking people are more driven to or bound to embody the arts in some sense as a form of their physiology, health, etc. For example, as some are liked for their looks, maybe it isn't solely their knowledge of said looks that only drives them to want to perform, but their physiology which could coincidentally bear said structure along it. It is a bit like saying a criminal will steal a car. Sure, of course a specific, time-and-time again criminal is more likely to steal a car -- whatever physiology that made them supposedly become a criminal is what arguably could be the result of the car theft, as opposed to seeing criminality as a cause and effect justification (criminal->crime) which sells everything short on the understanding of root issues as how the idea of DNA is expressed.
Does lifestyle and problems make criminals? Maybe.
Does lifestyle and problems make one either more ugly or more attractive? Maybe as well.
If every choice or consequence can affect us, maybe our looks kind of tell the story of our lives currently, along with the history of energetic status/changes/etc. that have led up to our being now, partially existing as a being inheriting and processing the world both now and in the past simultaneously. If we inherit things -- but things are always changeable and/or changing -- we can certainly carry a burden on our shoulders, but that is not the same thing as arguing, say, one is either ugly or good looking based solely on some hardened concept of some gene with no deep explanation as to how.
Not arguing that judgment or bias over looks is inherently good or right, but just trying to see if the understanding is somewhat justifiable given the presumption of physiology, traits, capabilities, pre-judgment and so forth. Lookism seems more bare and mean, whereas physiognomy can maybe be more refined in understanding more accurate representations of cause and effect than just insulting someone to their face or dissing them because of how they immediately look. If you know why someone looks the way they do then maybe your opinion on their looks are more backed by rationality than just hurling insults to something that looks bad but you have not the faintest idea in understanding why they look the way they do and/or what it could imply.
It might make more sense to understand the concept of being as a free-form case of development circumstances rather than as a pre-fabricated or fixed blueprint of intelligent design or such. Some people say that one's appearance becoming "fixed" is evidence of a blueprint -- but maybe it's just a consequence of our limitations on the understanding of bioenergetics and biochemistry rather than magical genes locking our chins and bug eyes in immovable place by the forces that be above us so women won't bang us and the world will hate us. Maybe the planet and the universe isn't against us, and did not selectively or directly give us bad features in some predetermined sense so we can suffer and die out while Chad was crafted by God's bare hands to be happy. I mean I am part joking here, but take these closing words how you wish to.
I figured I'd throw in the rhetoric at the end here since I've seen quite a few posts here leaning on the immutable view of genes/excuses, sexual success, incels/blackpill/etc.
Last edited:
