Category: Civilization, History, and Anthropology

Feb 4, 2020, 10:46 AM Greg’s comment that GSRRM is witness intimidation and his suggestion that we maintain a consistent western paradigm accessible to the people sparked an insight that I had to stew on overnight. But it consists of three parts: first that we have always used both positive religious and negative judicial priesthoods – even though we invented philosophy as a bridge. That westerners are always testifying as if before thang or court, or reporting as if before officers. That our piety is both judicial and aspirational. And that our commons of truth is the result of this compartmentalisation of ethics and our justification of action across the spectrum from intolerant law to forgiving religion thereby providing both maximal opportunity and graceful failure on one end and maximum decidability and intolerance exposing failure on the other.

Feb 4, 2020, 10:46 AM Greg’s comment that GSRRM is witness intimidation and his suggestion that we maintain a consistent western paradigm accessible to the people sparked an insight that I had to stew on overnight. But it consists of three parts: first that we have always used both positive religious and negative judicial priesthoods – even though we invented philosophy as a bridge. That westerners are always testifying as if before thang or court, or reporting as if before officers. That our piety is both judicial and aspirational. And that our commons of truth is the result of this compartmentalisation of ethics and our justification of action across the spectrum from intolerant law to forgiving religion thereby providing both maximal opportunity and graceful failure on one end and maximum decidability and intolerance exposing failure on the other.