Well, I mean, scientifically speaking, that set of mammalian instincts and surviving memory processes that constitute what we metaphorically and pre-scientifically call a ‘soul’ is in fact existential in the individual. So perhaps I don’t grasp what you mean.
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-30 15:40:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1928476511012540783
I didn’t take it as criticism but as opportunity. 😉 Thanks for the opportunity. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-30 15:26:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1928473142982221869
–“We’re done talking philosophy, now it’s time for action”–
Well, I would argue the problem for the right as well as the left is Overdeterminism of religion (right supernatural, left pseuoscientific), bad if not entirely childish philosophy (feminine destructive left, masculine constrictive right), but worse a near total lack of understanding and knowledge of the distribution of human abilities, nature, and competence; A total ignorance of what made us successful vs others; a total ignorance of engineering society via-negativa by law and institutions. In other words childish simplicity.
The reason the right fails is the same the left fails. A failure to propose operational means of running a polity to prevent assymetry of returns between the masculine capitalizing (conservative) and the feminine hyperconsuming (progressive).
The right is as dumb, ignorant, impulsive, and childish as the left. It’s just that the right is correct in diagnosis of those problems of decadence and hyperconsumption the left finds pleasure in.
As for modes of thinking, operations (engineering) human behavior such that we maximize the suppression of the consumptive and the expansion of capitalization.
Science and operationalism tell us only what is true independent of our want or preference. What is good and within our want or preference will forever be the domain of philosophy and rational choice.
The problem then is the false attribution of wisdom to philosophy instead of theology and mythology, the attribution of truth instead of preference and good to philosophy and reason, and the attribution of truth to empirical and correlative science instead of as true as we can testify to at present, when the only truth we can ever know in total is causality (operationalism), which is, at least at the scale of elements comprehensible, even if at present the quantum background and what if anything lies beneath it are beyond our present capacity observe and measure.
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-30 15:25:23 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1928472814958608589
—“I’d be happy to hear this from someone who’s publish some sort of substantial treatise on our current predicament from both a first principles and systems theory perspective.”—
Hmm… we’re 800 pages in and only 3/4 of the way finished with the volume (Volume 1 – The crisis of the age).
The problem with your question is causal density on one hand (the total scope of collapse) of which we’ve documented something nearing 100 that are converging.
That said the underlying causes is human nature in the absence of sufficient legal boundaries to prevent the evasion of responsibility, degradation of transparency, and collapse of enforceability. And the underlying cause – the first principle – is the the vacillating equilibrium between the masculine reproductive strategy of capitalizing constraint and order(behavioral costs) necessary to produce the surplus that makes a prosperous civilization possible under the constrained vision of man, provokes the feminine reproductive strategy of hyperconsumption, presumption of the unconstrained vision of mankind, the cost evasion, and irresponsibility that lead to consumption of accumulated behavioral capital.
And this sinusoidal problem is endemic in history. And it begins with (a) academics, public intellectuals, and politicians, and spreads to (b) bureaucracy and the overproduction of parasitic pseudo-elites.
The only way to stop it of course is law and education, court and punishment. Even then it’s going to persist within tolerated limits.
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-30 15:07:43 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1928468371848487252
(Diary)
I’m not sure which is more tediously indecisive. This cat that can’t decide whether inside or out, or a significant other that can’t decide on which restaurant for dinner.
Look, it’s not that complicated. Because it’s not that meaningful. 😉 Flip a coin for goodness sake. 😉
Better not to give them the option. boot the cat out the door. Just tell the significant other where you’re going. Save yourself hours and hours of wasted time over the years. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-30 00:56:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1928254198036189409
“Told You So”
It’s beginning….
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-29 18:19:20 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1928154205795111332
Yes. I update the docs periodically as we progress with volume 1.
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-29 17:11:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1928137088047665227
Same. yes.
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-29 16:26:54 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1928125910772756609
–“that intelligence is an emergent property of matter”–
@sama
More correctly, of evolutionary computation within the combinatorial limits of matter’s capacity to organize to store and eventually predict possibilities for additional seizure of energy (negative entropy).
Well, you know, it’s better that Sam and Crew get there than not. But yes I’ve been far ahead of this particular curve. And they are still having developmental issues by not mirroring the cognitive structure of the brain, and having these accidental insights instead, and being surprised by what is rather obvious (at least to this particular epistemologist).
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-29 16:22:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1928124825970823230
Comparison of European Supernormal and Semitic Supernatural Gods
–“This analysis compares the “supernormal” gods of Indo-European traditions (Rigveda, Norse, Celtic) with the “supernatural” gods of Semitic traditions (Mesopotamian, Canaanite, and early Jewish), focusing on their theological roles, characteristics, and cultural implications. The Indo-European gods, rooted in steppe pastoralist culture, are relatable, human-like figures tied to natural forces and heroic ideals. In contrast, Semitic gods are often transcendent, authoritative, and linked to urban hierarchies, as emphasized in Mesopotamian myths like the Enuma Elish. This comparison challenges David Livingstone’s thesis in The Dying God that Mesopotamian “dying god” myths are the primary drivers of Western civilization.
European Supernormal Gods (Indo-European: Rigveda, Norse, Celtic)
1. Human-Like and Relatable Qualities
Rigveda: Gods like Indra, the thunder-wielding warrior, are depicted as anthropomorphic, with human traits like bravery, cunning, and even flaws (RV 1.32). Indra drinks soma, battles Vritra, and aids humans, acting as a heroic ally rather than an aloof ruler. The Ashvins, divine horsemen, intervene directly in human affairs (RV 1.116), reflecting accessibility.
Norse: Thor, the thunder god, is a relatable figure with a hammer (Mjölnir) and a temper, fighting giants to protect humans (Poetic Edda, Þrymskviða). Odin, despite his wisdom, is a wanderer who sacrifices himself for knowledge (Hávamál), showing human-like ambition and struggle.
Celtic: Lugh, the Irish warrior-god, is multi-skilled and approachable, leading battles and aiding heroes (Cath Maige Tuired). Taranis, the thunder god, is tied to natural phenomena, with human-like vigor. Celtic gods often interact closely with humans, as seen in tales of divine aid in Táin Bó Cúailnge.
Supernormal Trait: Indo-European gods are “supernormal” in their exaggerated human qualities—strength, courage, or cunning—making them relatable figures who embody the steppe’s warrior ethos and clan-based cooperation. They are not distant but part of the natural and social world.
2. Tied to Natural Forces and Cosmic Order
Rigveda: Gods are linked to natural phenomena (Indra: thunder, Agni: fire, Soma: ritual drink) and uphold rita, the cosmic and moral order (RV 10.90, Purusha Sukta). Their power is tied to the natural world, not a transcendent realm.
Norse: Thor’s storms and Odin’s winds (Völuspá) connect gods to nature. The cosmos, created from Ymir’s body, is organic, with gods maintaining balance through action, not divine decree.
Celtic: Taranis’ thunder and the Dagda’s control over fertility (Cath Maige Tuired) tie gods to the earth and seasons. Druids’ rituals emphasize harmony with nature, not submission to a cosmic ruler.
Supernormal Trait: Indo-European gods are immanent, embedded in the natural world, reflecting the steppe’s mobile, pastoralist lifestyle where nature and human action are intertwined.
3. Heroic and Decentralized Authority
Rigveda: Indra’s leadership is earned through heroic deeds, not divine mandate (RV 1.32). The pantheon lacks a rigid hierarchy, with gods like Varuna or Agni sharing roles cooperatively.
Norse: Odin leads the Æsir but is challenged by other gods and giants (Poetic Edda). Thor’s authority stems from his strength, not absolute rule. The gods’ power is decentralized, mirroring clan-based societies.
Celtic: Lugh’s leadership in battle (Cath Maige Tuired) is based on skill, not divine right. Celtic gods operate in loose alliances, reflecting tribal autonomy.
Supernormal Trait: Indo-European gods reflect the steppe’s egalitarian ethos, where authority is earned through action, not imposed. This contrasts with the hierarchical divine kingship of Semitic traditions.
Semitic Supernatural Gods (Mesopotamian, Canaanite, Jewish)
1. Transcendent and Authoritative
Mesopotamian: In the Enuma Elish (c. 18th–12th century BCE), Marduk ascends to supreme ruler by defeating Tiamat, establishing a divine kingship. Gods like Enlil or Inanna demand human submission, mediated by priests in urban temples.
Canaanite: El, the head of the Canaanite pantheon (Ugaritic Texts, c. 14th century BCE), is a distant, supreme deity, with Baal as a storm god subordinate to him. Their authority is cosmic and absolute, detached from human relatability.
Jewish: Yahweh, in early Jewish tradition (e.g., Exodus 20), is a transcendent, singular god who demands exclusive worship and obedience, far removed from human-like traits.
Supernatural Trait: Semitic gods are “supernatural” in their transcendence, existing above the natural world and human experience, with absolute authority over creation.
2. Tied to Urban Hierarchies and Divine Kingship
Mesopotamian: Marduk’s victory in the Enuma Elish establishes Babylon’s primacy, with humans created to serve gods (Tablet VI). Temples and priestly classes reinforce divine-human separation, reflecting urban Mesopotamia’s centralized societies.
Canaanite: Baal’s battles (Baal Cycle) reinforce his role within a divine hierarchy under El, tied to city-state politics in Ugarit. Worship is formalized through temples and rituals.
Jewish: Yahweh’s covenant (Deuteronomy 6) establishes a divine law, with priests and prophets as intermediaries, reflecting a shift from polytheistic hierarchies to monotheistic authority.
Supernatural Trait: Semitic gods are linked to urban, hierarchical societies, with divine authority mirroring kingship and requiring institutional mediation, unlike the direct, clan-based worship of Indo-European gods.
3. Dying and Resurrecting Gods
Mesopotamian: The “dying god” archetype, central to Livingstone’s thesis, is evident in Tammuz, who dies and resurrects seasonally, tied to agricultural cycles (Inanna’s Descent). This reflects Mesopotamia’s sedentary, fertility-focused culture.
Canaanite: Baal’s death and revival in the Baal Cycle parallel Tammuz, emphasizing cyclical renewal for urban agricultural societies.
Jewish: Early Jewish theology lacks a dying god, but later Christian influences (e.g., Jesus’ resurrection) adapt this motif, aligning with Semitic cyclical themes.
Supernatural Trait: The dying-resurrecting god, absent in Indo-European traditions, underscores Semitic gods’ connection to agricultural cycles and divine transcendence, contrasting with the enduring, warrior-like Indo-European gods.
Key Divergences and Implications for Livingstone’s Thesis
Theological Nature: Indo-European “supernormal” gods are immanent, human-like, and tied to natural forces, reflecting the steppe’s mobile, egalitarian ethos. Semitic “supernatural” gods are transcendent, authoritative, and linked to urban hierarchies, emphasizing submission.
Cultural Context: Indo-European gods mirror the decentralized, warrior-led societies of the Yamnaya and related cultures (c. 3000 BCE), seen in the Rigveda’s Indra, Norse Thor, and Celtic Lugh. Semitic gods reflect Mesopotamia’s urban, priest-mediated societies, as in Marduk or Baal.
Mythological Focus: Indo-European myths emphasize heroic endurance and cosmic order through sacrifice (RV 10.90, Völuspá), not cyclical death. Semitic myths, with dying-resurrecting gods like Tammuz, focus on agricultural renewal, central to Livingstone’s argument.
Critique of Livingstone: Livingstone’s The Dying God overstates the influence of Mesopotamian “dying god” myths on Western civilization. The supernormal gods of Indo-European traditions, dominant in Europe’s cultural foundation, show little trace of this motif until Christianization introduced Semitic elements (e.g., Jesus’ resurrection). Europe’s “confidence and clarity,” as you noted, stems from Indo-European steppe heritage, not Mesopotamian causality.”–
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-29 02:59:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1927922834912989625