Scientific Psychophysiological Benefits of Ascetic Chastity

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Diebert,

Have you always had this strong dislike?

Yes, I have always been a fan of clear writing. A writer with wide-ranging erudition is not a problem for me, so long as he is able to keep the padding to the bare minimum needed for the subject. Ark was not writing a several hundred page book on all the ways philosophers have justified their failures with women. He was asking if celibacy has any proven scientific benefits. There was simply no need for this many quotations, names pulled from every century and school of thought, and concepts -- both simple and complex -- drawn from across the globe.

Quite frankly, it's offensive to the intelligence of the audience. If I didn't know who all these people were, I'd have been overwhelmed. As it stands, I know most of them -- and still find the treatment unbelievable, both in the haste with which he draws parallels between thinkers, and the complete lack of necessity in using such a diversity of philosophers.

And if so, what if you were drawn to this forum because you had this in common with many members here?[/

I was drawn to this forum because I stumbled across David's treatment of Ne Plus Ultra. So yes, I was drawn here because the members write clean prose. But it was not a subconscious decision.

I get your point and there are many days I don't have the time or the patience but then I just ignore the topic. If one is not hungry - don't start cooking dinner.

Agreed, it might have been better to just ignore this topic and let people who actually cared deal with it.

I actually had been fully intending to do so, until this wise guy started outright insulting the intelligence of the other posters because his first post was so poorly received.

I can't excuse their behaviour; in fact, if his post had been well-written, I'd probably have taken his side, since it's pretty obvious that nobody [myself included] even really bothered to read it. But the fact is, he wrote something boring and damn near unintelligible before even lurking around to check what his audience was, and then insulted his audience for not immediately getting him. The people poking fun at him are not stupid by any means. They simply don't care to read and respond to fully-cited verbose academically-written works.

Basically, he violated the first rule of writing: know your audience.

[Jamesh]

Ken Wilber. I've never read his stuff before, but I tend to generally agree with the concepts being expressed.

http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/ ... /part2.cfm

This para is about a third of the way through the text.

"The earliest forms of evolution—such as quarks, electrons, protons, atoms, and molecules—are accompanied by the four, major, gross energy-forces: electromagnetic, gravitational, strong and weak nuclear . It is common to refer to these as "physical" energies or "gross" energies, and that is fine, as long as we remember that these "physical" or "material" energies are not the whole of matter-energy, but simply the lowest levels of matter-energy (i.e., the lowest levels of mass-energy in the UR quadrant).

I regard the bolded sentence as being incorrect. They are the whole of matter-energy. At the same time he does recognise
"complexifications of gross matter" create levels of consciousness and thingness, so if he was thinking of this layered relativity as being a kind of pseudo ADDITION to matter energy, then the energies themselves are not the whole of what we observe in energy-matter.

There is a hell of a look of novel conceptual detail in these sort of writings. I don't like that, as it often leaves too many avenues for misinterpretation. Tends to be just a bit too academic to me, not generalised enough.

Haven't read the second half.

[Edit: Read a bit more]

This bit is incorrect as well.

"Something is clearly not quite right with that scheme. But once you (mis)identity spirit with the quantum potential, there is no other way to go. Precisely because the quantum potential is not actually a radically formless or nondual domain, it cannot serve as anything resembling a genuine spiritual reality, but rather is simply one aspect of a manifest realm that itself has qualities and quantities, and hence is not the radically Unqualifiable."

Nope, it does have qualities [two only], but no quantities.

My expansion/contraction theory removes these misinterpretations. A dualistic causal or energy foundation is all that is needed, and "complexifications of gross matter" cause all properties, all definitions, all forms of consciousness - not a a range of fundamental types of energy. What he refers to as holons, are just where expansion/contraction are balanced, and the energy connection between holons is where the forces are less balanced.

[Simon]

This might be due to the ammount of freedom women have recently had in the west to not only form their own opinions and be more independent (which I think is good), but to act on those opinions and become more dominant as wives and overblown famous media figures (which I think is bad, they should be restrained)

Do you think that all overblown famous media figures should be restrained, or only the female ones? And restrained in what way(s)?

Well, I think it's the men who should be restrained from earning a living by exploiting the bodies of those who have a talent for appealing to the base instincts of people. All the big female stars that function to absorb and suck the life out of consciousness, have gotten to be so powerful due to the men behind the scenes.

Behind every powerful pop group, or pop singer for instance, is a man pulling the strings and setting up the concerts.

As for male celebrity figures - - often they are heralded as so great because of their ability to get the hot chick. So yeah, there should be laws against supporting producitons that only trying to appeal to base instincts.

Totally unrealistic, I know. Just a thought.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Behind every powerful pop group, or pop singer for instance, is a man pulling the strings and setting up the concerts.

Yeah, like that Sharon Osbourne - he set up all knds of things for his... husband. Or Brooke Shields' mother - I understand he was pretty strong in getting his daughter in the spotight. (model, not singer, but a big star nevertheless, and I'm just going with big names off the top of my head)
;)

[Simon]

Well, sure there are exceptions, and they should be restrained all the same.

The attitude should be:

Condoning people to use technology, for performances, musical, film, or simply condoning photos, is condoning media and media is an extremely powerful tool that only the wisest among us should be wielding. Not just anybody should be able to stand up on stage with a microphone or mass distribute photos and movies of themselves or others. Making an icon out of yourself for base purposes should be frowned upon.

One should have to articulate clearly what their values are and then demonstrate those values via the art medium they choose.

And no, the Blue Lagoon and the Ozzbournes are not worthy of being granted the financial and property support they were given.

But there's a minority of people who get rich off of these silly people who enjoy being the center of attention, and so as long as that minority rules, then we're screwed.

[Philosophaster]

One should have to articulate clearly what their values are and then demonstrate those values via the art medium they choose.

Haha. Wow. Welcome to the Middle Ages.

[Simon]

One should have to articulate clearly what their values are and then demonstrate those values via the art medium they choose.

Haha. Wow. Welcome to the Middle Ages.

You my friend are a perfect example. You exemplify what I'm talking about.

You come along and irresponsibly and unintelligently post lewd pictures for kicks, and then, following this incident, you are promptly restrained with a warning.

If the warning fails, then you will be restrained by other means. (being asked to leave, or getting banned)

Yes, you're right, it's funny.

[Philosophaster]

I am not sure how any of that is relevant to what I just said.

I was addressing the idea that one should expect art to be didactic or to demonstrate values in a clear and unambiguous way. This is a very medieval-churchly attitude. Make of that what you wish.

[Simon]

I am not sure how any of that is relevant to what I just said.

I was just using your behavior to support the very point that you were laughing at (the point being, that we should evaluate, determine, and restrain the fools from misusing media). The beauty of it was that, out of all the people, you were the one who criticized it. You were the pefect one.

I was addressing the idea that one should expect art to be didactic or to demonstrate values in a clear and unambiguous way.

Yes, I know - middle ages = bad.

I couldnt help but find it funny. Your logic seemed to be:

Any ideas belonging to the middle ages are bad, simply because they are part of the middle ages.

Very lazy. Although, I will respect you if you make an effort to be clear about why you think it's a bad idea, an effort that goes beyond, 'middle ages = bad' type thinking. Who knows, I might actually agree with you. It's not like I'm taking the idea that seriously.

So, what's wrong with the idea? Any artist, or aspiring entertainer who can't articulate his values before the philosopher kings shouldn't be granted the property to put on display whatever it is he or she wants to put on display. The careful and intelligent upbringing of citizens is one of the chief concerns to us!

I realize this idea is unrealistic to implement without a gradual (and unlikely) working up to it - and I'd respect and expect criticism's on those grounds.

[Philosophaster]

I guess there is nothing at all wrong with it, if you do not consider a draconian level of control over freedom of expression "wrong." Why should your own narrow ideas about what is good or moral art dictate what anybody else gets to broadcast with his own property? If a person has no right to purchase whatever property and media equipment he likes and use it in any peaceful way he likes unless he first consults the rulers, then he really has only whatever rights the rulers grant him, which is another way of saying he has no rights at all, only whatever quantity of freedom the whims of current rulers give him at the moment.

[Philosophaster]

There are two fundamentally different ways of looking at artistic freedom:

"All that is not explicitly forbidden is permitted," meaning that people are by default free to broadcast whatever they want.

"All that is not explicitly permitted is forbidden," meaning that people must go through a strict approval process before being allowed to broadcast anything at all.

The second is what you are advocating. If you would like to live in the aesthetic wasteland of Plato's Republic, go right ahead, but I will not be joining you.

[Philosophaster]

Yes, I know - middle ages = bad.

It is not just that one particular era that restricted freedom of expression was bad, but that every last regime which has put severe restrictions on freedom of artistic expression has also been tyrannical in at least several other areas like freedom about what sorts of things can be publically debated, freedom of political affiliation and expression, freedom of assembly and protest, and religious freedom.

But you, of course, will be different, right? You will restrict only the stuff that is actually bad and harmful, unlike all those ignorant tyrants of the past, no?

Right.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I realize this idea is unrealistic to implement without a gradual (and unlikely) working up to it - and I'd respect and expect criticism's on those grounds.

While I agree that GF is not the place for girly pictures, I would also say that restraining freedom of speech is a tricky business. People should be able to be free to express whatever is on their minds even if only for the purpose of letting someone know where they are so someone can either help them or suggest help if it is needed. The thing is that it is not for the greater good to put anything anywhere anytime.

Whereas all plants could be considered "good" not all plants allow other plants to live. If a garden is not weeded, certain plants will not live. The weeds are such things as what belong to the animal realms: sexuality, low-brow fighting... the whole rude and crude routine. That's what sells best on mainstream media, and what seems to run rampant across a lot of message boards. Sex sells, and people love a blood bath too - as long as they are not the ones getting bathed... yet strangely, getting enough blood baths often leads people to strike out at others - and the weed of violence has choked out an attempt to understand. Same thing with sexuality - if guys are habituated into seeing a woman and thinking "hey, babe" the weed of sexuality has choked out his willingness to hear if she has any actual thoughts - and chokes out her willingness to talk about anything decent as she realizes she has wasted her time talking to someone too preoccupied with how to get in her pants to hear one word she said.

There could well be some good that comes from the animal realms, and most people are animals anyway, but that does not mean that sheep belong in the living room.

[Simon]

"All that is not explicitly forbidden is permitted," meaning that people are by default free to broadcast whatever they want.

I'm actually in agreement with this. So I'm going to compromise a bit and modify my argument.

The ruling class should invest money into industries more wisely and not inflate the shit out of morally bankrupt things, hollywood, proffesional sports, junkfood industries, while failing to provide some basic health care and better education.

People should be free to do whatever they want, but they should not be financially supported in excess to do whatever they want.

People's ambition should be restrained in the sense that they should be left to their own devices if they wish to do something that is unintelligent and purely aesthetic. The result is that they will never get too powerful.

In America, we have a situation where we are left to wonder in dismay as to how much money was spent on supporting the career of Jessica Simpson, Madonna or Britney, or whoever else you can think of.

In the netherlands, prostitution and soft drug usage is legal. However, in the Netherlands statistics are better than america's in terms of the age people start doing drugs, the age that people become prostitutes, the number of prostitues and drug users. And it's much easier to get off drugs and get out of the prostitution business, and Guns are absolutely illegal.

In the Netherlands and much of Europe, the ruling class invest their money much more wisely and the result is that their culture isnt pulled by the horses of sex symbol icons, who function only to procrastinate the need for basic things like health care, and consume the potential for consciousness in the next generation.

Sadly, most of the world envies america, while the netherlands, much of europe, and the best of america, is only appreciated by the sufficiently sophisticated.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

People should be free to do whatever they want, but they should not be financially supported in excess to do whatever they want.

I don't think that would do any good. Football players get paid much more than scientists because people are much more willing to pay to see football than science. Pop icons get paid what they do because that is what people want to see. The moral bancruptcy of the animal realms is a lucrative proposition for those willing to feed the beasts.

[Philosophaster]

I'm actually in agreement with this. So I'm going to compromise a bit and modify my argument.

The ruling class should invest money into industries more wisely and not inflate the shit out of morally bankrupt things, hollywood, proffesional sports, junkfood industries, while failing to provide some basic health care and better education.

Okay. I am all in favor of people "voting with their wallets" for better things than the nonsense that currently abounds on TV and in magazines.

When you have the level of freedom of expression that many Western countries have, you discover something: a great number of people want really lowbrow, crass, ugly things, and they want them all the time. This is disappointing, and some people naturally want to shove things back to the opposite end and allow expression only for artists and performers that they judge are promoting good values or beautiful art. I am not willing to walk that road.

[Simon]

When you have the level of freedom of expression that many Western countries have, you discover something: a great number of people want really lowbrow, crass, ugly things, and they want them all the time. This is disappointing.

I agree that they want these ugly things, but I don't think it's so much that they want these low brow things any more than they want the more lofty pleasures and achievements to be had.

I think it's that when crude-low brow stuff is made easier to be had, or encouraged to be had, then I think people can't help but fall into it. But if you give them the right upbringing, then they will fearfully side-step vices, or briefly experiment before moving on with a bit of guilt. I think that many people as they get older, regret that they didnt have a more disciplined and careful up-bringing. They feel cheated.

But I'll admit, perhaps sometimes they don't.

Often they realize that there is no satisfaction and happiness in their pleasures, yet they are often so miserable or lacking in esteem that they can't lift themselves out.

And often, successful sophisticated people are often thankful for their more strict and careful upbringing.

So basically, I think that humans generally want to live above the crass life they live, it's just that they never had the disciplined upbringing to achieve it.

Most people are addicts who are unhappy and lacking in any useful ability, mainly because they were exploited by their naive, foolish, negligent parents/society.

Otherwise, I'm at a loss to explain the big differences between a place like america in contrast to places like the Netherlands, Switzerland, Canada, etc. Maybe different gene pools.

Not like its perfect in those places. But I'm attacking the worst aspects of media and pointing the finger at environmental conditions rather than only human nature.

[Arktos]

"The generative energy, which, when we are loose, dissipates and makes us unclean, when we are continent, invigorates and inspires us. Chastity is the flowering of man; and what are called Genius, Heroism, Holiness, and the like, are but various fruits which succeed it." - Henry David Thoreau

http://www.ktk.ru/~cm/contin.htm

By Dr. R. W. Bernard, A.B., M.A., Ph.D.

HEALTH RESEARCH, MOKELUMNE HILL, CALIFORNIA 95245

An opinion has gained ground in modern times, not only among the general public, but also among physicians, that the belief in the physiological value of continence belongs to the dark ages of religious superstitions and scientific ignorance and is incompatible with physiological knowledge. Certain pseudosexologists, have exploited this idea to their commercial advantage and have created in the public mind a phobia in regards to continence, which is regarded as a cause of nervous and mental diseases and a positive health danger...

A careful reading should, however, convince any open-minded reader that the above view is false, and that continence per se can never do harm, but is always beneficial...

...and that when trouble occurs in an individual not practicing normal sex relations, the fault is not continence but some vicarious means of sex expression, excessive nocturnal emissions, etc.

In view of the richness of the semen in lecithin, cholesterol, phosphorus and other constituents of nervous and brain tissue it is clear that it is incontinence, or loss of these valuable nerve- nourishing substances which, by promoting undernutrition, is responsible for disturbed functioning of the nervous system and brain and never true continence, contrary to the unscientific views of the psychoanalysts.

We have seen that the internal secretions of the sex glands stand at the basis of the individual's physical and mental vitality...

...and that sex hormones are present in the external as well as in the internal secretions of the gonads. Many of the effects attributed to such hormones, as we have seen, are due to the physiological effect of resorbed semen...

...Conservation of semen means conservation of sex hormones and increased vigor, while loss of semen means loss of hormones and diminished vitality...

...also chronic deficiency of such hormones leads to the symptoms of senility, which Voronoff and Steinach strove to overcome by increasing the amount of sex hormones in the blood.

The semen is a viscid albuminous fluid, alkaline in reaction, which is very rich in calcium and phosphorus, also in lecithin, cholesterol, albumen, nucleoproteins, iron, vitamin E, etc.

In the ejaculation of the normal man, about 226 million spermatozoa are given off; these are rich in phosphorized fats (lecithin), cholesterol (the parent-source of sex hormones), nucleoproteins and iron.

An ounce of semen is considered to be equal in value to sixty ounces of blood...

...of which it constitutes an extract of some of its most valuable of constituents, as far as its vitalizing power is concerned.

...Dr. Frederick McCann remarks on this point, "From what has been stated it must be admitted that the spermatic fluid does possess potentialities justifying the belief of ancient writers concerning its vital properties.

The semen contains substances of high physiological value especially in relation to the nutrition of the brain and nervous system. If resorption of semen through the wall of the female genital tract has a vitalizing effect on the female organism the same should be the case in the body of the male in which it is formed and conserved.

And conversely, loss of semen must deprive the organism of vitality and valuable substances necessary for the nutrition of nervous tissue, such as lecithin, which has been used therapeutically with great success for the cure of neurasthenia resulting from sexual excess.

The following are among the many physiological evidences which demonstrate the value of continence:

1. There is a remarkable similarity of chemical composition between the semen and the central nervous system, both being especially rich in lecithin, cholesterin and phosphorus compounds, which would indicate that seminal emissions withdraw from the body substances necessary for the nutrition of nervous tissues.

2. Excessive voluntary seminal losses (through masturbation, coitus, coitus interruptus, and contraceptive practices) are debilitating and harmful to the body and brain.

3. Excessive involuntary seminal losses (through nocturnal emissions, diurnal emissions, spermatorrhea, etc.) are debilitating to the nervous system and may cause neurasthenia.

4. Observations of the immediate effects of the sexual orgasm indicate that it temporarily exhausts the nervous system, and when repeated too frequently leads to chronic nerve- weakness (sexual neurasthenia).

5. Continence is beneficial to the brain (for conserved lecithin from retained semen is a true brain food.)

Hence some of the greatest intellectual geniuses in ancient and modern times led continent lives. These include:

Pythagoras,
Plato,
Aristotle,
Leonardo da Vinci,
Spinoza
Newton
Kant
Beethoven
Herbert Spencer, etc.

6. Recent physiological evidence, pointing to the fact that the seminal fluid contains substances of great physiological value (such as Poehl's Spermine, which is a nerve-stimulant, lecithin, cholesterin, vitamin E, male sex hormones, etc.) supports the idea that continence is beneficial to health...

...as do the experiments of Prof. Brown-Sequard on the vitalizing effects of testicular extracts and those of Prof. Steinach on the rejuvenation that follows the enforced conservation of semen through ligature of the efferent testicular duct.

7. Leading physiologists, urologists, genito-urinary specialists, neurologists, psychiatrists, sexologists, gynecologists and endocrinologists endorse the physiological value of continence. Among such authorities are Moll, Kraepelin, Marshall, Lydston, Talmey and others.

[Shahrazad]

Arktos,

Any benefits of abstinence for females? I confess I haven't read the whole thread.

.

[Unidian]

I think the "physiological benefits of chastity" thing is a bunch of unmitigated bull. I don't mind people choosing to be chaste because it is in line with their values for whatever psychological reason. But to appeal to Victorian ideas in defiance of all modern research in order to push the idea that absitinence has any significant physiological benefits is silly and irresponsible. It's just another attempt to roll back the clock in pursuit of some sort of salvation, no different that other irrational fundamentalist ideas.

[Nordicvs]

Hello Trevor (and the rest),

I never pretended my initial post was a masterpiece of literature, but a rough stimulus to further thoughts. The critique you offer amounts to nothing more than irrelevant quibbling and playground taunts. You say I pull concepts from every which way, but the mind of the sage is synthetic and incorporates information from each perspective as much as possible.

I am not going to waste my time proving myself and taking insults from coarse-natured knaves and undereducated bozos. I have been privately informed that the more mature posters are not especially available right now, so I will return to the board in a week or so and see if the more sapientally-minded return.

I hate agreeing with the majority, I really do, but you really are a pretentious fuck. "Egotistical little twat," might be a better term for you.

1. The fact that you decided to be insulted demonstrates your vast ego. A real man would have shrugged that off and got on with it, rather than pouting.

2. The fact that you limit 'sagehood' to Eurasian farming-consciousness rebels and 'mental insurgents' shows your bias and longing to be part of a crowd (some intellectual elite, no doubt), because you're one of these 'profane modernists' and you can't stand yourself. Also, see #1.

3. "The level of self-complacency, puerility and vulgar modernist hubris is too much." Look in the mirror much? (By the way, all those names you dropped were also "modernists" in their day. Wisdom is not only found in words, nor is it restricted to big glowing signs that say, "Hey, you, squirrelly loquacious city-dweller, here's some older wisdom for ya!") What medieval hubris.

4. Hypocrite: "Freudo-Marxist reference?" What the fuck is this, then?---> I am not going to waste my time proving myself and taking insults from coarse-natured knaves and undereducated bozos. In other words, (a) "If you don't agree with me, you need to study what I've studied and look at it exactly in the context that I do and discuss it exactly as I do." That's regurgitated Freud ("If you disagree with me, you're in denial") with a little snobby academic intellectualism tossed in for good measure, or (b) "I'm taking my ball and going home, sniff, sniff." Or (c) a bit of both. (I agree with Trevor: "you need to read a fuck of a lot less.")

5. "The higher races transmute sexual energies into spiritual ones." What the fuck, exactly, is a "higher race?" The problem with soaking up Greek or German or Asian thought is that, for one thing, you absorb the ignorance, bigotry and bias of the author and era as well (just as stroking Nietzsche endlessly results in a reflexive "anything Christian" aversion and anti-Jesus mentality, creating a blindspot for things such as humility, of which you could use a huge dose).

6. Most of those old writers were adapting to decadent periods and cultures, and should be viewed in the context of prison inmates trying to cope with their captivity (why the fuck do you think Hinduism came about in the first place?---like Semites in the Levantine and Babylon, enduring pure excess, corruption, waste and depravity, god-goddess-worshipping insanity, they developed their belief systems, their philosophies, in reaction to that; same with Europeans with dogshit for spirit, reacting to the stagnant femininity and mediocrity of their culture).

Furthermore, while many were on the right track in some ways, they scarsely had the benefit of microscopes or telescopes (no one really understood biology until Darwin---Christ, look at Aristotle's ignorant blather, not to mention his irrational racism towards Persians---and most lived in the Flat-Earth time. Context matters; best not to take anything as the Gospel, lest you look like a Creationist. They reveal to us examples of what's possible; they are not wisdom incarnate.

[7. And if my slamming of your "wisdom-makers" up there bothers you, see # 2 and # 1.]

All your notions are still modernist and complacent to me. You have volumes to unlearn, son.