Dec 29, 2019, 1:33 PM I’m definitely anti theology, but not anti ‘religion’ in the ancient sense of myth(heroism, tragedy), ritual(sacrifice, debt payment), Oath, feast, sport, and festival, but in addition we require mindfulness as anonymity increases so the stoic-epicurean(science) vs buddhist (nonsense) methods are both superior to the semitic (self destructive). A ‘good’ religion is possible and the romans had just about developed it with Aryanism of homer (upper), Stoicism (upper middle, middle), epicureanism (lower middle), and sol invictus (lower) before the jews began their undermining. Today we know that aryanism of homer (aristocracy) is only available to those with agency, that stoicism was the proactive version of cognitive behavioral therapy and epicureanism the only means of true happiness for ordinary people, and that the underclasses desire escapism by false promise. We see buddhism tried to do all at once, and so did christianity judaism and islam – and all of them through falsehood. In usual european tradition, the market supplied class-religions of aryanism(homer,tragedy), stoicism, epicureanism, and sol invictus (brotherhoood) with christianity attractive mostly to women, slaves, immigrants and the underclasses. Just as Aristotelianism is attractive to our upper classes today, secular christianity our middle, and christianity our working, and islam our underclasses. The european solution to everything is markets that serve the interests of the classes but limited to preservation of cooperation between the classes by truth, duty, promise contract, rule of law of tort-property, and jury. In other words we mandate monopoly only on the material, legal, and political, and let people follow the ‘narrative’ that fits their agency. The problem is, that judaism and islam are both evolved to destroy that market of cooperation and restore authoritarianism and monopoly.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Yes a Good Religion Is Possible – We Had Them
Dec 29, 2019, 1:33 PM I’m definitely anti theology, but not anti ‘religion’ in the ancient sense of myth(heroism, tragedy), ritual(sacrifice, debt payment), Oath, feast, sport, and festival, but in addition we require mindfulness as anonymity increases so the stoic-epicurean(science) vs buddhist (nonsense) methods are both superior to the semitic (self destructive). A ‘good’ religion is possible and the romans had just about developed it with Aryanism of homer (upper), Stoicism (upper middle, middle), epicureanism (lower middle), and sol invictus (lower) before the jews began their undermining. Today we know that aryanism of homer (aristocracy) is only available to those with agency, that stoicism was the proactive version of cognitive behavioral therapy and epicureanism the only means of true happiness for ordinary people, and that the underclasses desire escapism by false promise. We see buddhism tried to do all at once, and so did christianity judaism and islam – and all of them through falsehood. In usual european tradition, the market supplied class-religions of aryanism(homer,tragedy), stoicism, epicureanism, and sol invictus (brotherhoood) with christianity attractive mostly to women, slaves, immigrants and the underclasses. Just as Aristotelianism is attractive to our upper classes today, secular christianity our middle, and christianity our working, and islam our underclasses. The european solution to everything is markets that serve the interests of the classes but limited to preservation of cooperation between the classes by truth, duty, promise contract, rule of law of tort-property, and jury. In other words we mandate monopoly only on the material, legal, and political, and let people follow the ‘narrative’ that fits their agency. The problem is, that judaism and islam are both evolved to destroy that market of cooperation and restore authoritarianism and monopoly.
-
The Christian Denominations and Their Variations
Dec 29, 2019, 1:40 PM Again, orthodoxy survived because the church ‘minded its own business’ and did not as in the west, start with an attack on the aristocracy and seek to destroy it, but was imposed by the state as a means of governing (administering) the (ignorant) peasantry. The truth is that our pagan religions whether mediterranean, Atlantic, Germanic, Scandinavian, Slavic, or Finnic are far superior in mirroring reality than the semitic. But that the Jesus figure is certainly an ideal if we want to cooperate in large numbers across families, clans, tribes and nations. Not how Orthodoxy emphasizes god (the community), Catholicism Church Dogma (political), and Protestantism the life of Jesus(Personal). It’s fascinating that the religion managed to specialize for what was needed for each. However, only orthodoxy (god, community, organized religion), and evangelical protestantism (Jesus personal, folk religion) will survive, and that catholicism (political) has devolved into money-seeking traitor to european civilization and now selling indulgences to the superstitious underclasses.
-
The Christian Denominations and Their Variations
Dec 29, 2019, 1:40 PM Again, orthodoxy survived because the church ‘minded its own business’ and did not as in the west, start with an attack on the aristocracy and seek to destroy it, but was imposed by the state as a means of governing (administering) the (ignorant) peasantry. The truth is that our pagan religions whether mediterranean, Atlantic, Germanic, Scandinavian, Slavic, or Finnic are far superior in mirroring reality than the semitic. But that the Jesus figure is certainly an ideal if we want to cooperate in large numbers across families, clans, tribes and nations. Not how Orthodoxy emphasizes god (the community), Catholicism Church Dogma (political), and Protestantism the life of Jesus(Personal). It’s fascinating that the religion managed to specialize for what was needed for each. However, only orthodoxy (god, community, organized religion), and evangelical protestantism (Jesus personal, folk religion) will survive, and that catholicism (political) has devolved into money-seeking traitor to european civilization and now selling indulgences to the superstitious underclasses.
-
the Grammars are as important an insight as is Testimonial Truth, Propertarian Ethics, The Ternary Logic of Social Science.
Dec 30, 2019, 11:35 AM It’s increasingly clear to me that the Grammars are as important an insight as is Testimonial Truth, Propertarian Ethics, The Ternary Logic of Social Science. Why? Scientists, philosophers, logicians, mathematicians who don’t understand the foundations (grammars) of their disciplines.Scientists: It’s testimony on results after falsification of all available dimensions. The means of falsification are irrelevant. Philosophers: avoiding cost, actionability, informational asymmetry, and reciprocity creating unreality. Idealism is merely confession of ignorance. The majority of Philosophical terms and categories are dead because they were WRONG. Logicians: there is no closure, and logics are only falsificationary, you can’t prove anything without appeal to reality. Stop treating it as scriptural interpretation (hermeneutics). Mathematicians: it’s just a language of positional names limited by the grammar of ratios, meaning that positional names provide both perfect disambiguation by a single constant relation (position) and position can be used to generate endless names, so it is endlessly possible to describe constant relations, where the term pattern refers only to some set of constant relation. It’s not that math is unreasonably effective at describing constant relations it’s that it’s only possible for it to describe constant relations.
-
the Grammars are as important an insight as is Testimonial Truth, Propertarian Ethics, The Ternary Logic of Social Science.
Dec 30, 2019, 11:35 AM It’s increasingly clear to me that the Grammars are as important an insight as is Testimonial Truth, Propertarian Ethics, The Ternary Logic of Social Science. Why? Scientists, philosophers, logicians, mathematicians who don’t understand the foundations (grammars) of their disciplines.Scientists: It’s testimony on results after falsification of all available dimensions. The means of falsification are irrelevant. Philosophers: avoiding cost, actionability, informational asymmetry, and reciprocity creating unreality. Idealism is merely confession of ignorance. The majority of Philosophical terms and categories are dead because they were WRONG. Logicians: there is no closure, and logics are only falsificationary, you can’t prove anything without appeal to reality. Stop treating it as scriptural interpretation (hermeneutics). Mathematicians: it’s just a language of positional names limited by the grammar of ratios, meaning that positional names provide both perfect disambiguation by a single constant relation (position) and position can be used to generate endless names, so it is endlessly possible to describe constant relations, where the term pattern refers only to some set of constant relation. It’s not that math is unreasonably effective at describing constant relations it’s that it’s only possible for it to describe constant relations.
-
Confusing the Math with Reality
Dec 30, 2019, 4:12 PM (from elsewhere) The first four minutes of this video are nonsense. There is no conflict between the coordinate system (our means of description) and the change in the background (described by that coordinate system), and the motion of the particle (energy, change) through the background. He’s confusing the math with reality given that we don’t know the underlying geometry, so we have to resort to use of aggregates (the wave function). Math is a language (logic, grammar) of positional names ideal for the description of constant relations (patterns). If history is a judge of anything, we are stuck in a problem that Hilbert warned us about, and Einstein and Bohr trapped us into, by using probability (aggregates) instead of solving the problem of the underlying geometry. Whether that geometry is a circular (loops) creating a 3d space, or triangles and tetrahedrons creating 3d space, the resulting pattern of which is loops or strings, is something we don’t know and it’s why quantum mechanics and relativity are seemingly incompatible. They make use of two aggregates describing two different patterns. Both theories are correct. The same way that biology and chemistry are correct. But the geometry underneath quantum mechanics is something we just don’t know yet. Unfortunately mathematical platonism is as infectious a disease in physics as it is in mathematics – and lest not even get started on economics.
-
Confusing the Math with Reality
Dec 30, 2019, 4:12 PM (from elsewhere) The first four minutes of this video are nonsense. There is no conflict between the coordinate system (our means of description) and the change in the background (described by that coordinate system), and the motion of the particle (energy, change) through the background. He’s confusing the math with reality given that we don’t know the underlying geometry, so we have to resort to use of aggregates (the wave function). Math is a language (logic, grammar) of positional names ideal for the description of constant relations (patterns). If history is a judge of anything, we are stuck in a problem that Hilbert warned us about, and Einstein and Bohr trapped us into, by using probability (aggregates) instead of solving the problem of the underlying geometry. Whether that geometry is a circular (loops) creating a 3d space, or triangles and tetrahedrons creating 3d space, the resulting pattern of which is loops or strings, is something we don’t know and it’s why quantum mechanics and relativity are seemingly incompatible. They make use of two aggregates describing two different patterns. Both theories are correct. The same way that biology and chemistry are correct. But the geometry underneath quantum mechanics is something we just don’t know yet. Unfortunately mathematical platonism is as infectious a disease in physics as it is in mathematics – and lest not even get started on economics.
-
I Don’t Want You to Trust Me, Since Truth Should Stand on Its Own.
Dec 30, 2019, 9:12 PM (from elsewhere) Thank you brother for the honest question. I understand that when one cannot comprehend the truth or falsehood of a set of ideas that one must trust that the man who utters them does comprehend them – and relays them with his warranty of due diligence in both the truth of the content, and the meaning he conveys when relaying it. My position is that I don’t want you to trust me, since truth should stand on its own. The problem then, is overcoming the barrier of complexity. There are a lot of you who want me to sound like a preacher selling a moral parable. There are others of you who want me to sound like a politician selling an ideology. There are others of you who want me to sound like a general inspiring the troops. But I am a judge rendering judgements in the law of nature and the natural law of men. So we are in a difficult position of you (all of you) one way or another, demanding some impossible test of character. Yet the only test is this: why would a man of accomplishment sacrifice everything in his life: time, wealth, business, family, relationships, and risk ostracization, punishment, imprisonment, and even death, to write down in law for the first time a scientific understanding of his people’s strategy, history, in recipe form, to give them moral license, a set of demands, a means of transition, and a plan of execution of a revolution – in order to save them from the second dark age that threatens this time to not only enslave them but to exterminate them? Who else would pay that cost but one who was devoted to it? Do you have any idea what I have given up to do this? I’ve bet my entire life that I can give mission to a revolution that restores my people to their historical path, and defeats the enemy forever. If you can’t comprehend my words. You can’t sympathize with my thoughts. You can’t empathize with my feelings, you can at least take the evidence of my incentives. We must win. I bet more than anyone else so far that I can make us win. You must only choose whether you trust your own judgement.
-
I Don’t Want You to Trust Me, Since Truth Should Stand on Its Own.
Dec 30, 2019, 9:12 PM (from elsewhere) Thank you brother for the honest question. I understand that when one cannot comprehend the truth or falsehood of a set of ideas that one must trust that the man who utters them does comprehend them – and relays them with his warranty of due diligence in both the truth of the content, and the meaning he conveys when relaying it. My position is that I don’t want you to trust me, since truth should stand on its own. The problem then, is overcoming the barrier of complexity. There are a lot of you who want me to sound like a preacher selling a moral parable. There are others of you who want me to sound like a politician selling an ideology. There are others of you who want me to sound like a general inspiring the troops. But I am a judge rendering judgements in the law of nature and the natural law of men. So we are in a difficult position of you (all of you) one way or another, demanding some impossible test of character. Yet the only test is this: why would a man of accomplishment sacrifice everything in his life: time, wealth, business, family, relationships, and risk ostracization, punishment, imprisonment, and even death, to write down in law for the first time a scientific understanding of his people’s strategy, history, in recipe form, to give them moral license, a set of demands, a means of transition, and a plan of execution of a revolution – in order to save them from the second dark age that threatens this time to not only enslave them but to exterminate them? Who else would pay that cost but one who was devoted to it? Do you have any idea what I have given up to do this? I’ve bet my entire life that I can give mission to a revolution that restores my people to their historical path, and defeats the enemy forever. If you can’t comprehend my words. You can’t sympathize with my thoughts. You can’t empathize with my feelings, you can at least take the evidence of my incentives. We must win. I bet more than anyone else so far that I can make us win. You must only choose whether you trust your own judgement.