(FB 1544957637 Timestamp)
(FB 1545060768 Timestamp) —“How do we repair our religions? Curt Doolittle, what do you think”—Muhamed Dukmak (a) no more lies (b) make lies prosecutable in court so that the state can’t intervene, (c) prosecute liars for profit until there are no more lies. (d) let our religions adapt to the prohibition on lies, (e) try to organize new religions (which is likely to include restoration of our folk religions), (f) and let the natural self interest of all of us take its course.
(FB 1544957315 Timestamp) THE DESIRES OF ABSOLUTISTS by Bill Joslin I don’t think the absolutists are haters. I think they lack what they claim we lack – that being a foundation for meaning,. motivation -“a superordinate transcendental ideal to be subservient to”… We have that – it’s called Career, Friends, Family and Kids. They’re looking for meaning and inspiration. They’re unestablished males seeking to individuate from “dad”. The critiques leveled at us as best as I can see are a series of straw men and equivocations , but suspect their main recruitment efforts which are successful are build off critique of propertarianism (much like our strongest arguments are leveled against libertarians) – without prop – there would not really be much for absolutist to build their case on without going whole hog pomo. Besides it’s a strange conflation of de Jouvenel On Power used to justify “charisma” (he who drives the idiom is king) as a “metaphysically” coherent justification for absolute rule (the idiomatic subterrain king) (which if you really thought about it – what drives idiomatic mimicking in society (fashion, fame etc) is often driven from the underclasses up (pop music, pop culture, thug culture etc)… At least we understand why this is: omegas service as stress relief for the group – deferred aggression and initiation of play. Why? Because that’s all they have to offer. They’re not haters per say, just building a castle in the clouds and looking for others to agree it’s made of stone. Now, I shouldn’t have said they “lack” what they claim we are lacking, but rather have said they are looking for (trying to construct) what they see we are missing. But it kind of baffles me… For instance; aesthetics and transcendentals being required for motivation… Joel once said to me that having an aesthetic is propelling these young men toward excellence – working out, self perfection, career etc…. Yet under in the sheepdog group the things which Ivar is doing with is family business, of Alain is doing personally, or Bryan is doing locally… There are many of us driven forward by understanding the operational necessity of agency-en-toto . It’s a simple if-then operation. If agency is at the root of this then I should build agency, if I value (xyz) then I should act (agency) … This doesn’t diminish or reduce motivation to some materialistic or positivist frame (Anglo ontology as they would say) but rather demonstrates that aesthetics grounds into something more fundamental. The result is a market for aesthetics – each moving in the same direction (increase agency) for their own personal reasons opposed to a grand unifying aesthetic. Just seems like they’re seeking another monopoly – or rather seeking someone who has a monopoly on aesthetics and/or a monopoly on inspiration ( a leader ) You know…. “Anglo ontology can’t provide a transcendental” – yet I see that it is. It’s just not always a shiny, polished, sophisticated ideal… It can be mundane – like love of your family, or pride in work well done – it can be simple. And that is where I see their dissatisfaction – what we propose isn’t “special” enough. And that specialness they seek I think is the outward manifestation of young males seeking to establish themself via status symbols (specialness) at reduced costs (ideals over reals). I have a great respect for and see them walking the same path I did 20 years ago… That path leads here not over there. Give them time, let them live, forebearence for what ever costs they’ll impose in the meantime… They’ll eventually meet us somewhere in the middle – all young men must individuate on their own terms (or it wouldn’t be an individuation process). They’re my brothers too…. If anything it’s taught me what that patient yet irritated look on my father’s face meant, when I railed away at some stupidity in my youth.
(FB 1545059299 Timestamp) There is no exit only conquest.
(FB 1544932085 Timestamp) Wiki Page is Actually OK. Surprisingly. Technically there is no meaning of life, other than increasing the probability of genetic persistence for those within six or fewer generations of you. We say we want to find ‘meaning’ but this is nothing more than a word-association between the (Positive) experience we feel when we understand, and the fact that there is nothing to undrestand about life other than to make the best use of it that we can before we die. So the question isn’t whether there is meaning to life. THere isn’t. At best we can estimate a sort of accounting. The question is whether we can CREATE MEANING with our lives. Experiences, Friends, Family, Generations, Achievements. Leave the world better for having lived in it. We have but one shot at life, and we have only one choice, and that is how we make use of the time within it.
(FB 1545059232 Timestamp) UM. THE GENDERS CANNOT TAKE EACH OTHER’S VENTING SERIOUSLY –“I can’t understand men who talk about … putting women back in the kitchen, out of the workforce, or referring to of r_pe during a war. …”— A Female Friend That’s because you aren’t a man. Just like I am not a woman and can’t imagine that they’re serious rather than hyperbolic (LARPing). I have overheard far too many conversations of women talking about their husbands as mere monetary and physical resources to be exploited, and the stupidity of men and how women would do such and such better, and how they need female ‘unity’. I am also aware that women are over-privileged compared to men in everything from moral intuitions, to daily life, to health care, to political processes. These things are simply empirical. But they do not change the opinions of women on their relative status. Naxalt(defense of child) is to some degree a defense against male hyperbole(defense of tribe). This is why it is so hard for males and females to communicate at any scale. This is why men and women cannot work in or debate politics together except under the most optimum of circumstances. Hyperbole (exaggeration) of offense, and NAXALT (exaggeration) of defense. Defending children vs Exciting men. These cognitive differences are real, universal, and inescapable. If men wanted to oppress women they would do so. They do not do so because those women are their wives, daughters, sisters and mothers. But if men agree to do something, there is nothing that can stop them. Because in the end, the use of violence determines all political conflict. And political competition is simply a means of circumventing political violence within the limits of provoking political violence. Western men treat their women better than all other people’s combined. And under majority democracy it has come at the cost of inequality of outcomes for those men. Hence why I recommend houses for the genders, if there is to be a democratic government of any kind: so that we limit each other.
(FB 1545060927 Timestamp) That jesus will forgive you is in practice true – for rather complex reasons, all of which are scientific if your concept of deities is that they consist of information distributed between minds. In this sense deities exist as numbers exist – and all of them exist. They have no control over nature but vast influence and control over the minds and actions of humans.
(FB 1544928066 Timestamp) ( Keeping with the theme: Fishing for morons is … it’s so easy. Find something a small mind can feel a sense of superiority (or less inferiority) by attacking or defending and leave it in the open like an eel trap. I should invent a name for this game and see if we can catalog the twenty five most effective moron-traps. )
(FB 1545055782 Timestamp) BUT, THAT’S WHAT LAW MEANS —“It’s the law because it’s the law, accept it” seems like absolutism— Hue Whitman That’s what Laws of Nature(unconscious, deterministic) and Natural Law (conscious, volitionary) mean: they are DESCRIPTIVE. You cannot violate the laws of nature but you can manipulate them. You can violate the natural laws, and pay the consequences. The natural world already calculates its optimum, and we ‘cheat’ it. The natural law is something else men cheat. However, the optimum method of human evolution is the elimination of cheating (parasitism). If you eliminate all parasitism you end up with natural law. If you do not then you don’t. That’s what “Law” means “Decidable” in scientific language, and which means “Absolute” in archaic moral language. We have ‘appropriated’ the term ‘law’ in science, and reframed the original meaning of law as the series Findings of Common Law (Court), Command(Ruler), Legislation(Government), Regulation(Bureaucracy). The Continental system of law is different in this hierarchy since the continent uses Roman and Napoleonic law, and the state is separate from the people, whereas in Anglo (Scandinavian) Civilization, the Rulers are just current members of the people. This subtle difference is profound in consequence between the continental and intercontinental (anglo) civilizations.
(FB 1545060768 Timestamp) —“How do we repair our religions? Curt Doolittle, what do you think”—Muhamed Dukmak (a) no more lies (b) make lies prosecutable in court so that the state can’t intervene, (c) prosecute liars for profit until there are no more lies. (d) let our religions adapt to the prohibition on lies, (e) try to organize new religions (which is likely to include restoration of our folk religions), (f) and let the natural self interest of all of us take its course.