[T]o act in concert with, or at least not in conflict with, others, we require a narrative (scope) and a means of decidability (choice). Religion provides both. Philosophy (reason), Scientism (evidence), Politics(utility), and Magianism(mythology) all are forms of religion: means by which we compose useful narratives and construct useful rules of decidability so that we can succeed in cooperating with others in a densely populated world where we share a division of perceptive and cognitive labor.
Theme: Religion
-
Religions Come In Many Forms
Progressivism (Democratic Socialist Secular Humanism) is just as much a religion predicated upon falsehoods as is supernatural scriptural monotheism. We are unequal. Diversity is bad. Redistribution to the point where it affects reproduction is bad. To some degree scientism is just as much a religion as any of them when paired with correlative mathematics (statistics). I am not quite sure that mathematical modeling of the physical universe doesn’t equally qualify as a form of Buddhism (any set of axiomatic rules in which everything is possible and therefore the rules cannot be possibly true). Western conservatism (aristocratic egalitarianism) is certainly a religion, even if its content was accumulated empirically over thousands of years. At present it is a mythology. I hope someday to debate the standing atheists – not in defense of religion, and not against atheism, but that they are not atheists, but statists, innumerate and pseudo-scientific. -
SO IS TRUTH ENOUGH TO BASE A MORE AGGRESSIVE ‘RELIGION’ UPON? I think it is. The
SO IS TRUTH ENOUGH TO BASE A MORE AGGRESSIVE ‘RELIGION’ UPON?
I think it is.
The end of history is the truthful civilization.
Source date (UTC): 2015-07-16 08:50:00 UTC
-
BLOCKS VK’S ATHEISTS Um. I don’t really get this. Atheists are often an annoying
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/World/2015/Jul-13/306474-russia-blocks-atheist-webpage-over-insulting-believers.ashxRUSSIA BLOCKS VK’S ATHEISTS
Um. I don’t really get this. Atheists are often an annoying bunch, but they’re as easily ignored as are the muslims and christians and jews, and… everyone else.
The interesting bit is that the action was not requested by the Orthodox church, but by the Chechen Muslims.
Russia will go Muslim before the west does.
Source date (UTC): 2015-07-14 07:51:00 UTC
-
RELIGIONS COME IN MANY FORMS To act in concert with, or at least not in conflict
RELIGIONS COME IN MANY FORMS
To act in concert with, or at least not in conflict with, others, we requre a narrative (scope) and a means of decidability (choice). Religion provides both. Philosophy (reason), Scientism (evidence), Politics(utility), and Magianism(mythology) all are forms of religion: means by which we compose useful narratives and construct useful decidability so that we can succeed in cooperating with others in a densely populated world where we share a division of cognitive labor.
Progressivism: Democratic Socialist Secular Humanism is just as much a religion predicated upon falsehoods as is supernatural scriptural monotheism. To some degree scientism is just as much a religion as any of them when paired with correlative mathematics (statistics). I am not quite sure that mathematical modeling of the physical universe doesn’t equally qualify as a form of Buddhism (any set of axiomatic rules in which everything is possible cannot be possible). Western conservatism (aristocratic egalitarianism) is certainly a religion, even if its content was accumulated empirically over thousands of years. At present it is a mythology.
I hope someday to debate the standing atheists – not in defense of religion, and not against atheism, but that they are not atheists, but statists, innumerate and unscientific.
Source date (UTC): 2015-07-11 07:59:00 UTC
-
I Love Everybody. So Go Hang Some Politician 🙂
[I] Love everybody. I’m a Christian. That’s what it means to be Christian. It’s one thing to deny the differences in our distributions. It’s one thing deny we vote in blocks. One thing to want to limit sacrifices to kin. But it’s something altogether different to fucking hate people. This is why I get frustrated with the right. We have lunatics and autistics in libertarianism, and they hate the abstract thing called the state. But the right has these lunatics that just hate other humans. Instead of saying ‘what is wrong with us that we fail to protect ourselves?’ they criticize others for satisfying their own strategies. THE PROBLEM IS US, NOT THEM. You wanna hate? Hate OUR people that did this. But don’t others for seeing the walled garden and wanting to live in it. That’s insane.
I want to know how to protect my tribe from losing its competitive advantage: high trust and the commons. And I’m as kin-selection oriented as the next guy. And I don’t like immigrating MORE of the below 105 median peoples into a high trust society when I can see Mathusian limits to work on the horizon. But I don’t hate people. People are pretty stupid wetware machines that just follow breadcrumbs. I get frustrated like everyone else. I get angry like everyone else. But you know, the blame is due the guy that’s looking at you in the mirror who isn’t out there shooting some politician in the head for what he or she has done. It’s not in the people wanting to live in our high trust society. Find a way not to leave the breadcrumbs.Source: Curt Doolittle
-
I Love Everybody. So Go Hang Some Politician 🙂
[I] Love everybody. I’m a Christian. That’s what it means to be Christian. It’s one thing to deny the differences in our distributions. It’s one thing deny we vote in blocks. One thing to want to limit sacrifices to kin. But it’s something altogether different to fucking hate people. This is why I get frustrated with the right. We have lunatics and autistics in libertarianism, and they hate the abstract thing called the state. But the right has these lunatics that just hate other humans. Instead of saying ‘what is wrong with us that we fail to protect ourselves?’ they criticize others for satisfying their own strategies. THE PROBLEM IS US, NOT THEM. You wanna hate? Hate OUR people that did this. But don’t others for seeing the walled garden and wanting to live in it. That’s insane.
I want to know how to protect my tribe from losing its competitive advantage: high trust and the commons. And I’m as kin-selection oriented as the next guy. And I don’t like immigrating MORE of the below 105 median peoples into a high trust society when I can see Mathusian limits to work on the horizon. But I don’t hate people. People are pretty stupid wetware machines that just follow breadcrumbs. I get frustrated like everyone else. I get angry like everyone else. But you know, the blame is due the guy that’s looking at you in the mirror who isn’t out there shooting some politician in the head for what he or she has done. It’s not in the people wanting to live in our high trust society. Find a way not to leave the breadcrumbs.Source: Curt Doolittle
-
CIVIC EVOLUTION? (important idea) (very interesting) 1) TEMPLE(adds cooperation)
CIVIC EVOLUTION?
(important idea) (very interesting)
1) TEMPLE(adds cooperation)
2) —–>CHURCH(adds education)
3) ————->BANK(adds production)?
Were the templars the highest political order we achieved? (yes?)
I have been fairly certain that the most important recent institutional development has been the Credit Union.
But what if your credit union also offered education?
Individual + Family + Credit Union + Insurance + Education.
Individual + Partnership + Banking + Investing + Treasury.
Individual + Unit + Regiment + Militia.
Individual + House + Government + The Law.
!!!! Is the central bank the central force prohibiting the conversion of Credit Unions into the central means of producing a civic order? !!!!
Dammit. Yes it is. Wow. Awesome. !!!!!!
I think this is my big idea for Q3 2015.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute.
Kiev, Ukraine
(PS: Aaron Kahland . I knew you were right. I just had to figure out why. Now I know why. )
Source date (UTC): 2015-07-06 05:47:00 UTC
-
it can be internalized, and it can be externalized the same way we externalized
it can be internalized, and it can be externalized the same way we externalized scientific language over religous.
Source date (UTC): 2015-07-02 14:31:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/616615289732624384
Reply addressees: @ne0colonial
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/616554708212281344
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/616554708212281344
-
Q&A: “Is The Soul Property?”
Q&A: “Curt, What do you say about soul? And its relation to property?” – Mahmoud B. [Y]our indisputable Property is that which you act to obtain without forcing involuntary transfers upon others. Meaning: without {violence,theft, fraud, suggestion, obscurantism, omission, indirection (externality), free riding, socializing losses and privatizing commons, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, war, conquest, and genocide.}
- You may act to construct your life.
- You may act to construct your kin.
- You may act to construct cooperative relations.
- You may act to construct your reputation.
- You may act to construct private property
- You may act to construct common physical property.
- You may act to construct normative property (by forging opportunity)
- You may act to construct institutional property (by bearing costs of such things as military service, jury duty, emergency services, and ‘policing’ the preservation of life and property.)
Your soul, if you believe in such things, and act as if you believe in such things, is, like reputation, something you must constantly bear costs to maintain. As such since you have born costs for both physical and normative constructs, and have done so morally – without the imposition of costs upon others – they are by definition your property. EXISTENCE Now, the manner in which your soul may or may not exist is somewhat challenging, because it can only knowingly exist as an analogy: a form of anthropomorphization of the record of one’s actions recorded in memories of people, physical marks on reality, and the long term consequences of events in the physical world. In this sense your ‘soul’ good or ill, does persist, just as the interaction of molecule of water affects all those around it. (the theory that water has memory is a useful analogy.) So for those who wish to preserve the traditional behavior and traditional anthropomorphism in a manner that we can say may or may not be scientific, we can suggest that primitive man intuits his soul as his thoughts and actions, just as we intuit the persistence of our genes through reproduction. To take it further, we can (and we will very likely never disprove this so it’s useful for religious folk), we can work with what is called quantum mysticism. That is, that your thoughts take place in physical space and time and affect the universe around you. So even your thoughts affect the universe. The thing is, the concept of a soul (an accounting of your life) is a useful one. It seems to produce good outcomes. [Y]ou should not take this argument as terribly firm support for monotheism, but as a purely normative exercise in the economically beneficial results of providing an intuitive means of behavioral accounting in which individuals can resist cooperating with others on matters of ill intent under the correct presumption that the consequences of thought and action are kaleidic and infinite, and that one cannot be forced for any reason into immoral actions (those that impose costs upon others property.) Not all of us are above 125 in intelligence, and we require such analogies for both pedagogical purposes and for use by those who cannot grasp either rational or scientific arguments. The same is true for ethics. We need virtue (imitative), rule, and outcome based ethics, because we have young and simple, adult but not wise, and wise and experienced people in the world. We are unequal. As unequals we need unequal tools. I hope this helps you. As far as I know this argument will survive all current criticism. Existentially, your soul does exist as a record of your actions in the universe, and primitive man could not articulate such ideas. If you want to get into reincarnation then I cna’t help you. Neither can the Dali Lama. He knows it’s a great argument because it is untestable. As you may see, I am trying to provide a means of reformation to the main religions while at the same time undermining those parts of religion that are false, lies, or harmful. But I am not hostile to religion: myth and ritual. Personal religion is a good thing (having been near death at least three times myself). I hope that this answered your question. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.
-
Q&A: “Is The Soul Property?”
Q&A: “Curt, What do you say about soul? And its relation to property?” – Mahmoud B. [Y]our indisputable Property is that which you act to obtain without forcing involuntary transfers upon others. Meaning: without {violence,theft, fraud, suggestion, obscurantism, omission, indirection (externality), free riding, socializing losses and privatizing commons, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, war, conquest, and genocide.}
- You may act to construct your life.
- You may act to construct your kin.
- You may act to construct cooperative relations.
- You may act to construct your reputation.
- You may act to construct private property
- You may act to construct common physical property.
- You may act to construct normative property (by forging opportunity)
- You may act to construct institutional property (by bearing costs of such things as military service, jury duty, emergency services, and ‘policing’ the preservation of life and property.)
Your soul, if you believe in such things, and act as if you believe in such things, is, like reputation, something you must constantly bear costs to maintain. As such since you have born costs for both physical and normative constructs, and have done so morally – without the imposition of costs upon others – they are by definition your property. EXISTENCE Now, the manner in which your soul may or may not exist is somewhat challenging, because it can only knowingly exist as an analogy: a form of anthropomorphization of the record of one’s actions recorded in memories of people, physical marks on reality, and the long term consequences of events in the physical world. In this sense your ‘soul’ good or ill, does persist, just as the interaction of molecule of water affects all those around it. (the theory that water has memory is a useful analogy.) So for those who wish to preserve the traditional behavior and traditional anthropomorphism in a manner that we can say may or may not be scientific, we can suggest that primitive man intuits his soul as his thoughts and actions, just as we intuit the persistence of our genes through reproduction. To take it further, we can (and we will very likely never disprove this so it’s useful for religious folk), we can work with what is called quantum mysticism. That is, that your thoughts take place in physical space and time and affect the universe around you. So even your thoughts affect the universe. The thing is, the concept of a soul (an accounting of your life) is a useful one. It seems to produce good outcomes. [Y]ou should not take this argument as terribly firm support for monotheism, but as a purely normative exercise in the economically beneficial results of providing an intuitive means of behavioral accounting in which individuals can resist cooperating with others on matters of ill intent under the correct presumption that the consequences of thought and action are kaleidic and infinite, and that one cannot be forced for any reason into immoral actions (those that impose costs upon others property.) Not all of us are above 125 in intelligence, and we require such analogies for both pedagogical purposes and for use by those who cannot grasp either rational or scientific arguments. The same is true for ethics. We need virtue (imitative), rule, and outcome based ethics, because we have young and simple, adult but not wise, and wise and experienced people in the world. We are unequal. As unequals we need unequal tools. I hope this helps you. As far as I know this argument will survive all current criticism. Existentially, your soul does exist as a record of your actions in the universe, and primitive man could not articulate such ideas. If you want to get into reincarnation then I cna’t help you. Neither can the Dali Lama. He knows it’s a great argument because it is untestable. As you may see, I am trying to provide a means of reformation to the main religions while at the same time undermining those parts of religion that are false, lies, or harmful. But I am not hostile to religion: myth and ritual. Personal religion is a good thing (having been near death at least three times myself). I hope that this answered your question. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.