RT @KomanderXander: “Women conform to whatever reduces conflict – not what is good or true”
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-02 22:19:23 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1742309642179580044
RT @KomanderXander: “Women conform to whatever reduces conflict – not what is good or true”
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-02 22:19:23 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1742309642179580044
Well clearly, most of the founders were of this category of christian, and jefferson certainly the most so. So the question is more of, who can bear how much superstition?
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-02 22:18:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1742309512701256108
Reply addressees: @JMh12061951
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1742291335275561083
–“Faith is not a business transaction. Or at least it shouldn’t be. When it becomes a transaction, it’s worthless.”– Craig Gipson
I would need this statement explained to me, because I’m not quite sure which argument you’re making. But I think I might be able to science it if I was sure – and then explain that as you mean it, I assume you are correct – despite stating “worthless at all” instead of worthless to whom.
It was far easier to solve (science) every other problem I worked on than religion. Religion was the hardest problem in social science. It took me years. No other problem took more than a year or two.
Because we are unequal in sex bias (empathizing systematizing), unequal in traits (personality and intelligence) and unequal in experience(upbringing and education) … and despite this inequality, chrstianity claims to be a universal religion despite that it’s a personal religion where it’s meaning is whatever an individual can justify it means within the very broad boundaries it establishes.
Both islam and rabbinical judaism are far more rigorious innovations on top of christianity, just as christianity is an innovation on semitic cults to make them survivable against greco roman reason – which – unfortunately was a much higher burden on the mind and intuition than the semitic superstitions and mythicisms.
But the flexibility of christian religion, because it is so ‘unspecific’ and so ‘personal’, and more of a collection of parables and subequent concepts (trinity etc), it was more able to adapt to more advanced european civilization that was aristocratic military realism (top down) rather than underclass peasant mysticism (bottom up).
So given that in all aspects of life, we are free of previous survival, economic, social, and political constraints, with a vast scope of opportunities in each, we are diverging from one another more according to our sex biases, traits, class, experience, and ethnicity, than converging.
This has put extraordinary pressure on our depenence on a common set of weights and measures, of both cognitive frame, values, expectations, and behavior.
We have seen our people diverge into preference for a grammar (logic, narrative) that is within their cognitive ability and suits their traits and temperaments, reflecting our individual preference that grammar (logic) in the the spectrum of grammars available to man: myths, theology, ideology, philosophy, empiricism, science, and now operationalism made possible by our breadth of knowledge of the laws of the universe at all scales.
Under agrarianism, all but a tiny fraction of us were largely indifferent. And just as in early urban areas, it was possible for people to diverge into a division of labor and separate classes of influence and responsibility given our abilities, we are seeing people cognitively diverge into a division of cognitive labor using whatever system of understanding (measurement) they can possibly manage given the equilibriuim or disequilibrium between the feminine empathizing to masculine systematizing, the combination of feminine empathizing with feminine neuroticism and the intellectual capacity of the individual to access (use and understand) a grammar that services any point on that spectrum. We are, we have, diverged. So faith is only accessible to a certain coincidence of genetic, personality, and intelligence traits. For the rest they need increasing self confidence in the precision of, unambiguity of, consistency, and correspondence with actionable reality of, whatevrer set of principles they use to guide themselves through the kaleidic experience of life.
Spirit is intuition. It is fast. It is cheap. And we trust it more than our reason. Moreover, the more empathic, conforming, neurotic, and reactive vs systemic, disconforming, stable, and active one is, the more one requires dependence upon intuition, and the more one depends on a trained intuition to maintain self regulation.
So what are we going to do given the divergence between our people? We must accomodate them all.
Reply addressees: @tx_pilgrim
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-02 22:17:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1742309115391598592
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1742296436153204794
RT @NoahRevoy: The biggest reason for the right failing to accomplish anything of note is that they lack a coherent set of demands for refo…
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-02 21:49:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1742302016636907638
Mythology vs Philosophy.
Inspiration is missing. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-02 17:45:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1742240614022893602
Reply addressees: @KelleyOser @Tomisla74291209
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1742240384603038130
Nope. There is no such data anywhere. We do see different rates of dissolution in different sects in different regions, and we do see some stability in certain classes and regions. But in general the decline continues.
What we do see is discussion of an increasing demand for the equivalent but the churches aside from some of the black churches and some of the evangelical or highly fundamentalist are attracting converts at a rate nearly the rate at which they’re losing members.
Reply addressees: @HoseaTanatu @SydSteyerhart
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-02 17:44:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1742240505285554176
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1742225882381799810
Correct.
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-02 17:42:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1742239858230243473
Reply addressees: @CyberDickensian
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1742234896788025449
RT @curtdoolittle: CHRISTIANITY
Simple and Painful.
Proto, early, and ancient european civilization was aristocratic and Conquest and Slav…
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-02 17:41:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1742239756270895559
How Do We Satisfy The Spectrum of Human Intuitions?
—“Jefferson was a self-declared Epicurean who even disliked Plato. Like many others he saw Christianity as a necessary evil, a mass-tradition that can at best be steered into a more moderate deist, rationalist variant. But most of that has no meaningful purpose today, why bother.”–
Well this is what I am exploring. If 1/3 require faith, 1/3 require tradition, and 1/3 require rational philosophy bounded in empirical evidence then how do we accomodate what that spectrum of people requires?
How do we produce a system of ‘ethical and moral’ weights and measures, using the hierarchy of necessary grammars (logics) from the supernatural, to ideal, to real, so that these produce the same behavior despite the incresingly demanding means of justification for them?
Reply addressees: @Tomisla74291209
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-02 17:41:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1742239683239649280
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1742236119293378706
THE
Turns out that at least the sequence of aristotle > aquinas > Smith > Blackstone is correct in that there is a universal at least via-negativa morality. But that without the christian ethic’s via positiva we might not have discovered how to integrate the lower classes and women into aristocratic civilization.
That positiva consists of only four rules, and those four rules solve the problem of high trust in a counter-intuitive manner.
Especially given that christianity is a personal religion more so than social or political – and it allows individual interpretation because it’s so imprecise that it doesn’t even state those four rules at any point or do so clearly.
So while it’s true that there is nothing in christianity that was not in european culture at the time, christianity accelerated the rate at which the underclasses could integrate into aristocratic civilization – not because they had positive merit, but becuase they would do fewer wrongs.
And that was enough.
Unfortunatley, the forcible imposition of that religion prevented the gradual continuation of the evolution of the greco-roman tradition into what we assume would have been sol invictus, preserving the arististocracy AND incorporating the underclasses, instead of developing the church as a hostile competitor to the aristocracy, the greco croman traditions of thought and literacy, and thte consequence was a dark age.
Because christianity as a personal religion is much more selfish than the pagan religions that were impersonal but political. Hence why christianity has such a hard time competing with judaism and islam both of which are political not personal religions.
Reply addressees: @Airmanareiks @SydSteyerhart
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-02 17:35:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1742238232325099520
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1742227304405671995