/wiz/ - Wizardry

What time do you find it usually happens? Try not eating too much before bed and getting up early, ideally 4am.

can you remember your dreams? in my experience wet dreams always happen because of actual sexual activity in them, or just extreme sexual excitement at the prospect of it.
so if you just learn to not act on those impulses in your dreams you should be fine.

>>224821
>I don’t masturbate, nor do I consume adult content, so I’m unsure why this is happening

>I don’t masturbate

bingo - without masturbation, your bawls will have to release unused goo in a way that's accompanied by weird dreams. Been there many years ago

>>224978
This plus meditate and do Shirshasana (basically a headstand yoga pose).

>>222667
I'm 33, 32 at the time of the summoning ritual. I've requested a succubus only to be rejected. Not harshly, it just wasn't my destiny. "The path of a warlock is a lonely one, but I would have a familiar for that purpose." That is a daughter of Lilith told me.
I regularly peer into the lower planes and find most demons to be decent folk. Even if I don't get a succubus I have no intention of turning away from this path.

IMHO real/pure wizards are those that genuinely prefer and live happier without anything related to GF/succubi. Since forever and specially since 13 I finally assumed that being single and having nerdy hobbies are literally a "doom" in normie standards bit despiste this I genuinely prefer it no matter the ridicule or mock. I'm 28 and honestly, despiste not being asexual at all, I can't understand the imperious need for female approbation.

>and with that the hatred for normies has all but died down, as I no longer crave or envy their lifestyle.

ME = WIZARD

YOU = PICREL

>>225659
I can live by myself: it's being poor and purposeless that's far worse. Being enslaved to lust doesn't help either.

Yeah pretty much, as barely an apprentice I realized this some years ago, but I'm a weird wizard since I do have a waifu whom I'm devoted to in every romantic aspect, she has greatly helped me and at this point even if I somehow got charmed by a succubi nothing would change, I've grown stronger and I'll eventually be a wizard, though I'm kind of multi classes into a priest, so that too had helped, while hatred in itself isn't wrong (righteous anger is a real thing) getting consumed by it will only lead you down a path of destruction.

>Have other wizs become hateful over time?

Had a lot of bullshit thrown on me, so, yes.

>I have to use a lot of filters online to avoid sites used by people I hate

I have a better idea - grab a chatbot and tie it to your account so "people you don't like" will get an automated message of some kind.

>I especially hate people who like the same things I do but act like faggots.

Y'know, happens all the time. Example: people in pr0n comment section who are into the same stuff you are into - but they are turned on by the fact it's taboo

I got addicted to hate and would spend half the day raging in revenge fantasies. But then I got heart problems from doing that too much over the years.

Buddha was right, anger is a poison. It's useful in small amounts in regards to injustice in the moment, but it fucks you up if you feed it.

>>226630
I never hated anyone who didn't hurt or bother me enough. In elementary school, I was pretty much ignored, but I didn't hate my classmates. In middle school, everyone hung out with their own groups of friends, and I was friends with a boy with autism. I did get bullied in my last year, but the rest of the kids knew those kids were jerks and were nice to me because they were also being bullied. Here at university, everyone does their own thing, but they always try to be nice to all and dont act like assholes.
One day in middle school, I got so angry and filled with so much hatred that I ended up with acid reflux and horrible stomach pains. That's when I realized that strong emotions can cause psychosomatic effects on the body, and I started trying to control myself and try to build my tolerance to assholes by ignoring them without attachment.
>>226632
I don't know much about Buddhism but i know some about their philosophy and meditations and techniques of them AKA Metta, Anapasanti, Kasina, etc, and I don't plan on becoming a Buddhist, but I'm starting to believe that Buddha had a realistic perspective on the human experience, even with the fantastical elements.

>>226617
>The person who invented gunpowder is the worst person in human history


it was just a toy for haha funny fireworks!!! t. that Chinese who invented the very first gunpowder, not the modern "smokeless gunpowder" stuff

>>226617
but not a single monarch in europe ever fell to the "people" until the invention of gunpowder. every last peasant revolt failed. not only did you not have any republics, you never even had a change in dynasty where some peasant seizes power and makes himself the new King.

gunpowder takes much less training. And its why the arquebus replaced the archers, even when it was less precise.

>>226599
>not that I would complain, for I am a wizard surrounded by normies who assume my lack of "normie life pieces" is … a disability-tier mental stuff/etc.


MAYBE eye WOULD THOUGH

>>226561
>an AI that will replace us in the future. What shall be done about that? This is what's happening, gentlemen, are we gonna let this slide?
Yes, I refuse to get a j*b no matter what. This is more likely to get me UBI than anything else, I hope it gets implemented asap.

>>226624
Just wait till some Rocky will ruin UBI with "A$AP means Always $trive And Prosper" mantra

>>226378
Black-Or-White, False Cause, ad hominem, composition/division, anecdotal and genetic by my measure.

It is an entirely rational position to not want one's resources taken by someone else, especially when the taker does so as a consequence of their voluntary lifestyle choice. There is a coherent case to be made that children do not count as individuals until they can feed and protect themselves - instead acting for all purposes as a 'feature' of their parents or caregivers. In every European nation and most of their former colonies this is state subsidised, i.e. paid for through taxes on men who receive no net benefit.

Provision of abortion treatments provides an option to people who may act on it for their own benefit.
The *only* variable which is not yet determined is if there is a net benefit to a community that filters out the obvious loss makers compared to exploiting said loss makers to crowd out other communities. Historically the answer to that was in favor of the crowders, but with automatic weapons and trait selective abortion that may not be valid any more. Cultures that thought otherwise were fought and bred out of existence and their subjugator's influence is still in place. If the context has shifted through applied science to the point it's maladaptive then the culture will need to shift as well.

So to the OP, who's morals?

The culture that killed and/or bred out their competitors? If you're east or central European this is the Mongols and the Turks. If you're Western European this would be the Vikings. If you're American you yourself are the invader and breeder's spawn back to the 3rd generation easily. If you're Japanese then your ancestors answer for the Ainu. India is an example of outbreeding the invader.

The culture that was never invaded and achieved population control and trait selection through other means? Iceland with its regulated avoidance of inbreeding comes to mind. Arguably the caste system in India which provides a steady supply of exploitable disposables, and preserves the quality as a feature of culture.

The culture that has such historical economic dysfunction that it needs constant influx of native born and foreign workers to survive? (All of Europe and colonies)

If you're asking for where the moral value is determined, I suggest you have not been paying Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>226388
Breeders do actually benefit childless men like me. A nation doesn't have future workers and taxpayers without someone giving birth to them.
They also make social security/pension payments once I'm old solely for my benefit, they're only guessing and hoping they'll be beneficiaries in 40-50 years.

Circumventing the problem by importing third world people still means someone somewhere has to give birth to them first, since you can't spawn new humans out of nowhere.

Would you write on this board if your parents didn't breed?

>>226390
If you're a NEET and a net loss to the system, then what you're effectively doing is promoting and perpetuating your own dysfunction without even having the "benefit" of reproducing. If you're a net gain to the system then you're advocating inefficiency and your own disadvantage.

Norway and Denmark are the only Yurp nations running an actual sustainable budget surplus - with Norway being an (important) outlier because they managed to manage their oil resources exploitation by private/foreign interests. Every other wealthy nation is endebting the current and future population primarily to pay for net losses. Even importing wealthy skilled foreigners is a bad idea because any wealthy foreigner of means will have an accountant on payroll somewhere to never be subject to more tax than benefit they receive.

Denmark is especially noteworthy because they had active eugenics laws into the late 60s and are *still* reaping the benefits.

Social Security/Pension payments is nationally variable; In my case my contribution has already outweighed any benefit I would get from it unless I some how live until 110. That's based solely on a projection of stable interest and the value of receipts - it takes no consideration of *opportunity costs*. I'd have a larger or even a third side business if I could afford the home - and work space - an extra $900/month that has been burnt up over the last 10 years of my life by the state social programs and interest payments made to fund them.

The problem is that most modernised economies are built on the assumption of cheap and disposable labor *somewhere*. The rent seekers propped up and fortified by this arrangement will seek to perpetuate it at the expense of everyone else - and call it privatised social security and pension contributions. They will then, if and when the system stumbles a little, borrow from the future to pay off their gambling debts as they have done at least 4 times in the last 20 years. This is the reality of techno-feudalism.

And the only solution to feudalism is the cull - as happened with the black death. If labor is *scarce* then it's value *goes up* and there is both greater incentive to adopt truly efficient and modern practices, active drive to dispose of bullshit jobs that accomplish nothing of lasting value, and greater opportunities available to the skillePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>226388
>
The culture that killed and/or bred out their competitors? If you're east or central European this is the Mongols and the Turks. If you're Western European this would be the Vikings.

Fun fact: VIKING TIER culture of Novgorod (runes and such) is being refurbished by Russians (in a sense) - and maybe it will coexist with
> the Mongols and the Turks
> competitors

Killing doctors that perform abortions is wrong. What next, killing succubi that have abortions? Abortion is not considered murder per se. I know someone that refused to get an abortion and the baby lived less than 2 hours and might of been in physical pain etc because she was fucked up. Aborting a downs/autistic/etc fetus might stop a consciousness being trapped in a body with a bad life. Abortion is definitely ok in cases of rape and incest. I don't know a lot about abortion though.

>>225088
oxytocinphages still do care about "toucc fluffy tail" preludes, apparently

>>215776
>>215776
Gerontology won't necessarily help a grandpa to get laid, but his expectations pushed down to his kids may actually restrain his offspring from mating.



Removing a bunch of stray dogs from premises = less bitches (literally)

N u ( l 3 a r kablooies – even stags won't get to have sex.


so hey, modern soyentists seem to find pleasure in *reducing* oveall sex on Gaia

>>211213
>Yes I hate it as well. Zoomers now socialize by sitting in a voice chat call and posting porn with each other. So if you're not posting porn for them you're an outsider, troll, schizo. Coomers think you are a newfag if you're not constantly browsing twitter or pixiv for new loli coom to share with the bros on friday.

avoid modern interwebz then

Hannover Museum Online awaits

If I am not fucking your gf I don’t want to hear about her that’s my bottom line

>>215776
I just enjoy taking it easy…

>>226391
I don't know why you want to reach master level rather than just learning to play your favorite anime songs. Are you this motivated to reach master level in other areas? Maybe you could become a master stock trader and all of a sudden be looked at as an endearing quirky guy, I mean if you made 50 million dollars from stocks your autism would be perceived as eccentric genius.

>>226468
Wha? Without proper technique you may accidentally end up fingering yourself, not fapping

>>226546
that’s not supposed to ever happen
you’re just projecting on other wizards that you accidentally did that when fapping and that it was perfectly normal

>>226392
Maybe try cheesemaking. Starting with something like a cheddar then moving onto brie or whatever you like.
Or making cider/wine/beer.

I’m identical to op this feels weird I don’t have much to add other than I relate

The very material mechanics of the universe exist in such a way to seemingly necessitate struggle and death for any living organism. As such, it would seems that the aliens would need to exist outside of our material world, in which case I would question why they need to create us in the first place to suffer? They are seemingly immensely powerful already as is. It seems these redditors are just placing a sci-fi spin on Gnosticism.

>>226371
Even powerful as they are, they need energy to survive, and this energy/loosh they need is generated by people's suffering.

>>226374
"Pain" isn't quantifiable like kilojoules or megawatts. It's subjective. That seems like a bad theory.

Didn't Scientology have a theory like this?

>>226320
definitely one of the best theories to explain why we’re here

>>225736
I still remember the day my dick randomly stopped working properly. It was a Saturday summer morning when I was 31. I was sure it only happens to people who are like age 60 but nope.

I wasn't even a coomer and the only thing that makes it properly work now is viagra.

>>225736

I am one of those coomer types and I have to say that while my dick did get much harder when I was younger, it was mainly because all of these feelings were new and exciting.

I did have a bit of a crisis at 36 when I wasnt getting that hard anymore. The more I worried about it the worst it got. I even went to the doctor and threw the idea out there of it maybe being my age and he looked at me like I was crazy. He then said no I am nowhere near the age where that is a concern. He said I probably just didnt have the right stimulus anymore. He checked my testosterone just in case and it was fine.

I eventually managed to figure out how to calm my brain down and get my dick working again, but if I chose to believe that there was something wrong with me then I probably never would've recovered.

The dick will retain its ability to get hard as long as your heart remains healthy. It literally is just a valve that sends blood to your dick. If you are healthy then the problem is in the signaling between the brain and that valve. If you get stuck in your head and start to truly believe that you aren't going to get hard then you aren't gonna get hard. Cruel irony.

yeah it's crazy that humans do shit that make them feel good…

>>226066
Does it? (OP, probably)

Does it? (me)

Does it? (ostensibly, every wizard lest a random snibbety snab)

>>225580
I'm gonna be real with you, roman ruins in real life are really fuckin boring.

>>225878
you're lifting quotes from the transcendental aesthetic without attribution and modifying the wording slightly to adapt it to my post and in so doing making it seem like it's contradicting it when the original (and sometimes also your modifications of it) are in perfect agreement with it.

>Time is not an empirical concept that is drawn from the experience of change.
the "change" i'm talking about in that post is not something one can have an experience of, but is a "feature" (or "form" in kantian) of experience itself. change is not something you can touch, see, hear, etc., but is a feature that is always present in experience, the the changing itself of sensations (tactile, visual, auditory, etc). therefore, it's not an empirical concept, since there are no empirical objects from which to abstract it from. the way i "derived" it in the post when i said, "look for time in our perception", wasn't by "drawing it from an experience" - because all experience necessarily has it - but by what kant called "the faculty for intuiting a priori".
the original sentence by kant (A30/B46) in guyer-wood's translation is, "Time is not an empirical concept that is drawn from an experience", which is fully in line with how i treated it.

>Simultaneity or succession, that are the basis for change, would not come into perception if the representation of time did not ground them a priori.
this is the next sentence in the transcendental aesthetic. the only modification you did is adding ", that are the basis for change," to adapt it to my post, which ironically makes it literally equivalent to what i said in it, yet you somehow say it as if it were asserting something new that contradicted what i said. simultaneity is what i enumerated as (1) and succession is what i enumerated as (2), and i said that these two are what time in essence is, and furthermore that they "are fundamental and necessary facts of experience".

>From that a priori intuition we can ground further apodictic principles about the relation of time
but i also said the same thing informally in a passing comment and you're just repeating it to me in kantonese
>and that is in essence what time is (then we can derive further facts about it from those two ifPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>224922
>once you die, you die

You know, that would be quite a bummer to be stuck in some "cannot proceed further" state of pain of dying.

that's why "dying horribly" is something really scary - not just because it looks horrible.

>>224915
No, I'm not prepared for it at all, but I hope to be soon

>>224915
I'm not prepared. I'm scared.
>>224925
Not that wizard but I think it's really unfortunate how it's become such a hot-button topic. I think it's unfortunate how both sides always make this worse. I find it an extremely interesting topic, probably the most interesting and important topic this is. It's the same with religion as a whole. I've thought about these things a lot and watched a lot of videos (and read a book or two I got recommended to me) but there has just never been something that convinced me that there is "something more". Anything to show we aren't just atoms and a conciousness destined to one day stop existing forever. This isn't because I'm "too smart for religion", "too rational" or anything stupid like that. There are plenty of smarter and more rational (if there even is such a thing) people than me who disagree completely. I am totally open to other perspectives but have never genuinely believed in one other than my own. I could live my life as a monk or priest but I'd never truly believe it to my core.
But it's something that should be discussed more.
Recently been toying around with the idea of uploading conciousness into a computer (obviously just from a philosophical standpoint). If you just clone your brain 1:1 into the computer there will simply be you and someone with your brain from your perspective. Meanwhile if you did the same and wiped you out at the same time it'd just be you dying from your perspective.
But what if you first replaced half your brain with the computer while you remained fully concious, then from your perspective you'd just be yourself but with half-computer brain. So that's still you, right?
But what if they did that simultaneously for both sides of the brain? Which one would your conciousness go into? None? What if you kept the two brain-halves alive but in a sleep-state then put them together and re-activated them, then from your own brain's initial perspective it just went to sleep and woke up like you do every day.
So conciousness and death don't exist but we simultaneously know they do because we're concious and alive in this moment. Are we already dead? Always dying? What is a stream of conciousness if it can be split and what happens if it is?
Who are you?

>>224918
>near death
>near

Come back to us with the post-death experiences.