Source: Facebook

IS CHRISTIAN LOVE IMPORTANT, OR NOT? GOOD OR BAD?

(promoted to post)

(Now that it’s the next day and I’m not under the influence (as much). )

“Christian Love” refers to the unconditional extension of kinship love (cost-bearing) to non-kin. This concept exists in the literature. It is just appropriately mangled by church rhetoric.

This idea was an innovation at the time. We take it for granted now. But in the ancient period, at the beginning of the decline of the Roman period, and the beginning of the medieval, it was an invention. We could actually make the case that it is christian love in competition with aristocratic egalitarianism that defines the medieval period.

We take this concept of the devotion of Jesus/Ascentic-Monts and Saints/Mother-Theresa, for granted, but it was just as much an innovative technology as was reason.

Now. At present we know the strategy originated in slave morality. And that it causes unification in the slave populations and prevents division within them. But what we didn’t account for was that in combination with near-breeding and property rights, chivalry, and the incentive to imitate aristocracy, that it would produce high trust and economic velocity.

Once combined with the re-emergence of science under Bacon in the 13th century, and the Hansa’s recreation of the incentives of the trading society of the greek Aegean, and roman mediterranean in the north sea, that

My question is whether all of this is nonsense, and that christian love was nothing but a detriment, and that Martial (not marital – marriage, but martial as in military) was all that mattered. This is the the premise behind Mithraism which heavily influenced the state’s design of institutional christianity. Mitraism being dominant in the armies where brotherly love was constructed as part of the intitatic brotherhood of soldiers that goes back as far as we havre evidence of human warafare.

It’s also lost on us today (and it is why I illustrate argumentative technique) that the social science of the ancient world was the study of religion – a formal improvement upon myth and oral tradition. And that people investigated religion the way we use comparative law, comparative government, and scientific analysis.

The religious era was a great transformation of mankind.

The Just as was the invention of reason – and the counter to reason: in Augustine and Muhammed.

Just as was the invention of experimental science from Bacon to Smith and Hume – and to a lesser degree Jefferson – and the counter to experimental science was german, french, and jewish rationalism.

Just as was the invention of evolutionary physical and social science by Darwin, Spencer, and Maxwell – and the counter to evolutionary science by Freud, Marx, Cantor, Keynes, Rawls.

Just as SHOULD HAVE BEEN the evolution of the unification of truth, philosophy, science, biology, morality, and law, but that failed. Brouwer(math), bridgman(science), mises(economics), popper(philosophy), hayek(law).

But that revolution failed, and the postmodern revolution outpaced our development of science through about 1990-2000 (my generation of thinkers). And fully ensconced pseudoscience and wishful thinking, as well as outright deceit, using suggestion by loading,f raming, overloading and partial information to convert women and the underclasses just as christianity had done milennia before.

So my question is, christian love a ‘bad’ technology, that merged slave morality of the jews and the soldier morality of mithraism (soldiers are also slaves) into a weak approximation of warrior love (aristocratic egalitarianism).

While we know there is but one truth, we still require a spectrum of truth necessary for different externalities produced by our actions.

Just as we need different levels of educational argument.

Just as we need different levels of ethical argument.

Just as we need different levels of technical argument.

Do we also need different levels of love?

Or is martial love enough, if all men are engaged in martial commons?

How do we extend high trust to non kin?

Is it through:

– Martial love among warriors and aristocracy? (right)

– Commercial love of those who engage in commerce? (libertarian)

– Christian love among women, children and ‘slaves’ (proles)? (left)

This is my question.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine