THE EQUILIBRIUM OF CHURCH AND STATE
Source date (UTC): 2017-10-11 10:30:00 UTC
Theme: Religion
-
The Equilibrium Of Church And State
The beauty of Christianity. It’s all nothing but nonsense but the single grain of truth inside it, is enough to create the goods that result from it. Unfortunately, one cannot politicize christian ethics, morality, and mythology without producing a suicidal social order (as we have seen in the west). We too often forget that the church arose as a peer to the martial aristocracy and that the competition between the two – the more feminine church, over family, charity, and mythology, and the more masculine aristocracy, over property, and rule of law. When law interferes with the church, or church interferes with law, both fail to preserve the equilibrium: they each provide LIMITS to the other. The limit of christianity is that which we can individually act upon. The limit of politics is that which we collectively must act upon. For christianity to survive at all – which looks currently bleak – requires we restore the equilibrium between the feminine church and the masculine aristocracy, so that both provide the necessary goods, but each is limited from producing it’s bads – by limiting christianity to the personal, and limiting the state to the collective. -
Important Question:
If you speak, display, and act in Testimonial Truth, then what is the difference between a Religion, a Philosophy, a Logic, a Science, and a Testimony? A Religion consists of a commitment. A Philosophy a Preference. A Logic and a Science extensions of perception, and Testimony a warranty of due diligence. But then, what is the difference between a Religion of Natural Law ( transcendence, beauty, excellence, truth, agency, sovereignty, reciprocity, markets ) and a Philosophy of natural law, a logic of natural law, the science of natural law, and the testimony under natural law? Well, I don’t see any difference other than that a religion requires a group, an oath, a ritual (cost), a mythos, and the institutional means of intergenerational persistence. Conversely, without a religion what is one’s contractual commitment to others of adherence to natural law? Without others who insures your adherence to natural law in word, display and deed? An intellectual movement, a political movement, and a religious movement, are normatively and legally bound in the current era. One does not debate one’s religion. One merely refuses the alternatives to it. Therein lies our answer. 😉 -
IMPORTANT QUESTION: If you speak, display, and act in Testimonial Truth, then wh
IMPORTANT QUESTION:
If you speak, display, and act in Testimonial Truth, then what is the difference between a Religion, a Philosophy, a Logic, a Science, and a Testimony?
A Religion consists of a commitment. A Philosophy a Preference. A Logic and a Science extensions of perception, and Testimony a warranty of due diligence.
But then, what is the difference between a Religion of Natural Law ( transcendence, beauty, excellence, truth, agency, sovereignty, reciprocity, markets ) and a Philosophy of natural law, a logic of natural law, the science of natural law, and the testimony under natural law?
Well, I don’t see any difference other than that a religion requires a group, an oath, a ritual (cost), a mythos, and the institutional means of intergenerational persistence. Conversely, without a religion what is one’s contractual commitment to others of adherence to natural law? Without others who insures your adherence to natural law in word, display and deed?
An intellectual movement, a political movement, and a religious movement, are normatively and legally bound in the current era.
One does not debate one’s religion. One merely refuses the alternatives to it.
Therein lies our answer.
😉
Source date (UTC): 2017-10-10 19:40:00 UTC
-
Important Question:
If you speak, display, and act in Testimonial Truth, then what is the difference between a Religion, a Philosophy, a Logic, a Science, and a Testimony? A Religion consists of a commitment. A Philosophy a Preference. A Logic and a Science extensions of perception, and Testimony a warranty of due diligence. But then, what is the difference between a Religion of Natural Law ( transcendence, beauty, excellence, truth, agency, sovereignty, reciprocity, markets ) and a Philosophy of natural law, a logic of natural law, the science of natural law, and the testimony under natural law? Well, I don’t see any difference other than that a religion requires a group, an oath, a ritual (cost), a mythos, and the institutional means of intergenerational persistence. Conversely, without a religion what is one’s contractual commitment to others of adherence to natural law? Without others who insures your adherence to natural law in word, display and deed? An intellectual movement, a political movement, and a religious movement, are normatively and legally bound in the current era. One does not debate one’s religion. One merely refuses the alternatives to it. Therein lies our answer. 😉 -
@jordanbpeterson Postmodernism <-Marxism <-Abrahamism <-Pilpul <-Wisdom Literatu
@jordanbpeterson Postmodernism <-Marxism <-Abrahamism <-Pilpul <-Wisdom Literature vs. Science <-Reason <-Common Law <-Testimony to Peers.
Source date (UTC): 2017-10-10 14:42:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/917762246255828993
-
Christianity And Natural Law
Christianity is reducible to the extension of kinship trust to non kin. What we call ‘Christian Love’ means treating others as kin. Now, Natural Law is reducible to reciprocity. But it turns out that being very forgiving, over time, is the best possible cooperative strategy. While we evolved altruistic punishment for the untrustworthy (violators of reciprocity), meaning that we retaliate at high cost against ‘cheaters’ (untrustworthy), it turns out that exhausting forgiveness produces the highest trust polity, and by consequence the most prosperous. Unfortunately, the limit of such tolerance is in interpersonal relationships and does not scale AT ALL. And so christian tolerance in politics and group evolutionary strategy is suicidal, even if christian tolerance in interpersonal relations is extremely beneficial. The reason being is that an individual can eventually know the limit of tolerance for another, while none of us can know the exhaustion of tolerance for those we do not personally know. As such all christian tolerance and charity is limited to the interpersonal, and all political tolerance is limited to reciprocity. Because the moment we engage in political charity or unlimited charity we create the very evil that we seek to eliminate through our tolerance. Or in economic terms: if you subsidize any behavior you will always get more of it. This is not true on an interpersonal scale, but it is always true beyond the interpersonal scale. Worse, there are many people who seek virtue signals (status) by giving away that which others produced. They steal status from others by this means. So tolerance, especially christian tolerance, beyond the personal scale, where you pay the costs of your charity yourself, merely creates more evil in the world. For this reason most christians are anything but. They are just seeking self congratulatory virtues without actually earning them – but instead, they become bad people in and of themselves, and subsidize bad people in politics, and subsidize bad people in the community. As such christianity is a defect if practiced on other than the interpersonal scale. So the optimum strategy is “A Prosecutor in Politics, and a Saint in Person.” Christianity became suicidal when it became political rather than merely personal. So so natural law then provides us with an equilibrium of the via-negativa and the-via positiva: the via-negativa (law) being reciprocity, while the via positive (wisdom) being interpersonal exhaustion of opportunity for cooperation. You see, this is why science and scientific law are so important: so that those who pretend they are good are not able to create evil on vast scales under cloak of moral intentions. If you bear no sacrifice, you can earn no virtue. Period. And that is a necessary consequence of the natural law of reciprocity. -
CHRISTIANITY AND NATURAL LAW Christianity is reducible to the extension of kinsh
CHRISTIANITY AND NATURAL LAW
Christianity is reducible to the extension of kinship trust to non kin. What we call ‘Christian Love’ means treating others as kin. Now, Natural Law is reducible to reciprocity. But it turns out that being very forgiving, over time, is the best possible cooperative strategy. While we evolved altruistic punishment for the untrustworthy (violators of reciprocity), meaning that we retaliate at high cost against ‘cheaters’ (untrustworthy), it turns out that exhausting forgiveness produces the highest trust polity, and by consequence the most prosperous.
Unfortunately, the limit of such tolerance is in interpersonal relationships and does not scale AT ALL. And so christian tolerance in politics and group evolutionary strategy is suicidal, even if christian tolerance in interpersonal relations is extremely beneficial. The reason being is that an individual can eventually know the limit of tolerance for another, while none of us can know the exhaustion of tolerance for those we do not personally know. As such all christian tolerance and charity is limited to the interpersonal, and all political tolerance is limited to reciprocity.
Because the moment we engage in political charity or unlimited charity we create the very evil that we seek to eliminate through our tolerance. Or in economic terms: if you subsidize any behavior you will always get more of it. This is not true on an interpersonal scale, but it is always true beyond the interpersonal scale.
Worse, there are many people who seek virtue signals (status) by giving away that which others produced. They steal status from others by this means. So tolerance, especially christian tolerance, beyond the personal scale, where you pay the costs of your charity yourself, merely creates more evil in the world.
For this reason most christians are anything but. They are just seeking self congratulatory virtues without actually earning them – but instead, they become bad people in and of themselves, and subsidize bad people in politics, and subsidize bad people in the community.
As such christianity is a defect if practiced on other than the interpersonal scale. So the optimum strategy is “A Prosecutor in Politics, and a Saint in Person.” Christianity became suicidal when it became political rather than merely personal.
So so natural law then provides us with an equilibrium of the via-negativa and the-via positiva: the via-negativa (law) being reciprocity, while the via positive (wisdom) being interpersonal exhaustion of opportunity for cooperation.
You see, this is why science and scientific law are so important: so that those who pretend they are good are not able to create evil on vast scales under cloak of moral intentions.
If you bear no sacrifice, you can earn no virtue. Period.
And that is a necessary consequence of the natural law of reciprocity.
Source date (UTC): 2017-10-10 11:06:00 UTC
-
Christianity And Natural Law
Christianity is reducible to the extension of kinship trust to non kin. What we call ‘Christian Love’ means treating others as kin. Now, Natural Law is reducible to reciprocity. But it turns out that being very forgiving, over time, is the best possible cooperative strategy. While we evolved altruistic punishment for the untrustworthy (violators of reciprocity), meaning that we retaliate at high cost against ‘cheaters’ (untrustworthy), it turns out that exhausting forgiveness produces the highest trust polity, and by consequence the most prosperous. Unfortunately, the limit of such tolerance is in interpersonal relationships and does not scale AT ALL. And so christian tolerance in politics and group evolutionary strategy is suicidal, even if christian tolerance in interpersonal relations is extremely beneficial. The reason being is that an individual can eventually know the limit of tolerance for another, while none of us can know the exhaustion of tolerance for those we do not personally know. As such all christian tolerance and charity is limited to the interpersonal, and all political tolerance is limited to reciprocity. Because the moment we engage in political charity or unlimited charity we create the very evil that we seek to eliminate through our tolerance. Or in economic terms: if you subsidize any behavior you will always get more of it. This is not true on an interpersonal scale, but it is always true beyond the interpersonal scale. Worse, there are many people who seek virtue signals (status) by giving away that which others produced. They steal status from others by this means. So tolerance, especially christian tolerance, beyond the personal scale, where you pay the costs of your charity yourself, merely creates more evil in the world. For this reason most christians are anything but. They are just seeking self congratulatory virtues without actually earning them – but instead, they become bad people in and of themselves, and subsidize bad people in politics, and subsidize bad people in the community. As such christianity is a defect if practiced on other than the interpersonal scale. So the optimum strategy is “A Prosecutor in Politics, and a Saint in Person.” Christianity became suicidal when it became political rather than merely personal. So so natural law then provides us with an equilibrium of the via-negativa and the-via positiva: the via-negativa (law) being reciprocity, while the via positive (wisdom) being interpersonal exhaustion of opportunity for cooperation. You see, this is why science and scientific law are so important: so that those who pretend they are good are not able to create evil on vast scales under cloak of moral intentions. If you bear no sacrifice, you can earn no virtue. Period. And that is a necessary consequence of the natural law of reciprocity. -
Natural Law For Catholics
Natural Law: I have no idea what these men think natural law refers to, but in CAN only refer to Reciprocity. Every other reference is just an excuse for parasitism or predation by moral pretense. Revelation: The knowledge gained through the sciences (physical, physiological, natural-meaning cooperative, and testimonial(meaning knowable)) as a means of achieving agency in the universe. God: God is a unit of measure. God is a fictional (mythical) character (archetype) within a group’s mythology, that in turn expresses the group’s evolutionary strategy (geographic, demographic, economic, political norm, tradition, and religion), that when used through imaginary role play, functions as a an instrument of measurement (decidability), for those (many) circumstances, and for those (many uneducated) people, who must decide in the face of complexity, undecidability, or uncertainty, when the consequences of our actions (externalities, particularly intertemporal and long term externalities) are beyond our ability to judge. Sympathy with an authority figure is the simplest form of measurement available to man other than his own physical abilities to act. Sympathy, particularly with a paternal or maternal figure, is the first cooperative form of measurement man evolved, and the one that requires no specific education other than ordinary social participation, in order to function. THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL LAW THOUGHT 1. Natural law is an eternal moral law revealed to all people through human nature. Correction: The Natural Law of reciprocity is necessary for the preservation of cooperation, for any cooperative species – particularly a sentient one. Without the natural law of reciprocity, and the moral intuitions that accompany it, including altruistic punishment, then cooperation would not survive, and the population would not survive. Conversely, the more cooperation, the more contract, the more truth, the more trust, the lower the cost and the greater velocity of that cooperation. And as such, the greater prosperity. 2. Natural law influences (but cannot save) even fallen and sinful humanity. Correction: Man evolved as a rational actor, and must have evolved as a rational actor, in order to survive. Man acts rationally at all times given his incentives. He developed defense of his investments (possessions, and opportunities) before he developed cooperation. He developed moral instinct in parallel with his ability to cooperate, and language to improve his ability to cooperate. But while predation, parasitism, theft, fraud, and free riding and conspiracy are all natural to man – and universally demonstrated, it is simply almost always more advantageous to cooperate than not, or to engage in parasitism, or predation. And even so, we have developed systems of providing incentives against man’s rational choice of non-cooperation, parasitism, and predation, both informal (manners, ethics, morals, traditions) and formal (laws, enforcers, and governments). Man is not fallen angel but risen beast. That is simply the fact of it. He is rational – not good or bad, that is simply the fact of it. We all simply work to keep one another ethical, moral, and powerless so that it is always more rational to cooperate. 3. Natural law is the proper basis of political authority. Correction: The Natural Law of Reciprocity provides perfect decidability in matters of conflict. Reciprocity provides perfect decidability in matters of cooperation and exchange. Reciprocity provides perfect decidability in matters of the production of commons. Reciprocity provides perfect decidability in international agreement and conflict. Ergo, the Natural Law of Reciprocity provides the ONLY perfectly decidable means of dispute resolution, cooperation and exchange, production of commons, and international agreement and conflict. 4. Natural law authorizes society to establish a government. Correction: Natural Law of Reciprocity informs us that we require a judiciary to adjudicate differences, and markets to cooperate. Forming a political order (government) to do so on behalf of the population is a choice. But since all governments have been corrupt (especially the church), the price of government (management team for the commons), must be weighed against the benefit of one. 5. Governments are themselves subject to the natural law. Correction: Governments do not exist any more than god exists. Only people exist. A government consists only of people. And all people either observe the Natural Law of Reciprocity, and are held accountable by the rest of the population, for adhering to the Natural Law of Reciprocity, or they don’t. If they don’t, then they should expect retaliation for their crimes against the natural law of reciprocity, and therefore the polity. 6. Each society’s laws should apply the natural law to that society’s particular circumstances. Correction: Each society may create contracts under natural law that both preserve aggregate reciprocity but create combinations of rights and duties. But no, the natural law of reciprocity is no more violable than is the balance scale. Either the two weights balance, and reciprocity is preserved, or it does not balance and reciprocity is not preserved. Period.