[T]he alternative to religion of lies, is european, history, stoicism (mindfulness), epicureanism (living within your means), ancestor worship (recognition of debts of intergenerational transfer), the play (tragedy), sport(hunt) and festival (feast). No more lies. My exploration of paganism is reducible to the ethnocentric advantage of ancestor worship, the raising of ancestors to archetypes, and the market adaptability of the pantheon of archetypes without the need for altering the group strategy or narrative. In other words, it facilitates the natural hierarchy of abilities, and it eliminates the need for lying that produces anchoring. Like many things our greco roman ancestors had most of the institutions correct – they overextended into civilizational diversity and encountered anceitn primitive people bent on lying.
Theme: Religion
-
Religion Without Lies Is Possible:
[T]he alternative to religion of lies, is european, history, stoicism (mindfulness), epicureanism (living within your means), ancestor worship (recognition of debts of intergenerational transfer), the play (tragedy), sport(hunt) and festival (feast). No more lies. My exploration of paganism is reducible to the ethnocentric advantage of ancestor worship, the raising of ancestors to archetypes, and the market adaptability of the pantheon of archetypes without the need for altering the group strategy or narrative. In other words, it facilitates the natural hierarchy of abilities, and it eliminates the need for lying that produces anchoring. Like many things our greco roman ancestors had most of the institutions correct – they overextended into civilizational diversity and encountered anceitn primitive people bent on lying.
-
The Consistency of European Natural Religions
The Consistency of European Natural Religions https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/25/the-consistency-of-european-natural-religions/
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 13:56:28 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232303350412169216
-
The Consistency of European Natural Religions
THE CONSISTENCY OF EUROPEAN NATURAL RELIGIONS
—“The transition in Hesiod’s theogony from primordial forces of nature (Titans) through the Titanomachy where the immortals gain mastery over these forces is the same sequence found in the Scandinavian transition from the older Vanir nature gods to the Aesir.”—Scott De Warren
OUR DESTINY IS GOD HOOD
-
The Consistency of European Natural Religions
THE CONSISTENCY OF EUROPEAN NATURAL RELIGIONS
—“The transition in Hesiod’s theogony from primordial forces of nature (Titans) through the Titanomachy where the immortals gain mastery over these forces is the same sequence found in the Scandinavian transition from the older Vanir nature gods to the Aesir.”—Scott De Warren
OUR DESTINY IS GOD HOOD
-
Getting to Your Personal Epiphany
—“I feel you are missing the archetypal experience description. I get that that could be included in testimonial but feel empirical science/lawful testimony and mystical testimony are two different functions.”—Bill Smith
Try again. I can sense something there and I probably know how to answer it but I’m not sure.
—“Scientific experience is summarized in scientific testimonial which leads in the direction of expressions of empirical natural law. … Mystical experience is expressed in poetry, the development of religious structures that send one down a destination-less path and manifestations of the ephemeral like the Runes. … I believe they are different things requiring different metrics and modes of expression and experience.”—Bill Smith
Correct. The question is, must they be coherent compatible and commensurable even if they are expressed in different grammars: deflationary-scientific vs inflationary-poetic. And my answer is yes. There is no reason for conflict. And it is this conflict that undermines our civlization from within.
—“If you’re saying what I think you’re saying I’m about to tear up due to the truth you’re conveying… as I’ve never known anyone else who did or even could communicate that fundamental lack intrinsic to our culture. That was a powerful experience. Actually I think you might have broken me. At least … I hope you did.”—Bill Smith
Broken means bad? lol. What does that mean? I’m scared.
—“Broken as in the change in conscious experience of reality due to a distinguishable event or experience but is dependent on previous works or studies.”— Bill Smith
Ok. “a moment of sudden revelation or insight.” Revelation, Epiphany, Paradigm Shift. (Good. I don’t have to feel guilty all day now. lol -hugs.)
-
Getting to Your Personal Epiphany
—“I feel you are missing the archetypal experience description. I get that that could be included in testimonial but feel empirical science/lawful testimony and mystical testimony are two different functions.”—Bill Smith
Try again. I can sense something there and I probably know how to answer it but I’m not sure.
—“Scientific experience is summarized in scientific testimonial which leads in the direction of expressions of empirical natural law. … Mystical experience is expressed in poetry, the development of religious structures that send one down a destination-less path and manifestations of the ephemeral like the Runes. … I believe they are different things requiring different metrics and modes of expression and experience.”—Bill Smith
Correct. The question is, must they be coherent compatible and commensurable even if they are expressed in different grammars: deflationary-scientific vs inflationary-poetic. And my answer is yes. There is no reason for conflict. And it is this conflict that undermines our civlization from within.
—“If you’re saying what I think you’re saying I’m about to tear up due to the truth you’re conveying… as I’ve never known anyone else who did or even could communicate that fundamental lack intrinsic to our culture. That was a powerful experience. Actually I think you might have broken me. At least … I hope you did.”—Bill Smith
Broken means bad? lol. What does that mean? I’m scared.
—“Broken as in the change in conscious experience of reality due to a distinguishable event or experience but is dependent on previous works or studies.”— Bill Smith
Ok. “a moment of sudden revelation or insight.” Revelation, Epiphany, Paradigm Shift. (Good. I don’t have to feel guilty all day now. lol -hugs.)
-
The Revolution of the Ancient World
THE REVOLUTION IN THE ANCIENT WORLD Where are aristotle, plato, socrates, zeno, epicurus, roman law, greek mathematics, and the christian destruction of the ancient world in your narrative? The talmud, bible and koran are not an enlightenment but simply the marxism-socialism- postmodernism-feminism of the ancient world: the counter-revolution against reason.The revolution in the ancient world was reason. It was democritus’ atomism, socratic skepticism (failure), platonic idealism(failure), and the success of aristotelian reason, empiricism, proto-science, stoic and epicurean replacement of conflationary religion, and roman law and administration, creating markets for all peoples – but the semites (the equivalent of ghettos) couldn’t grasp that ‘uncontrolled vision’ and sought to restore controlled (feminine) monopoly and conflation using female methods of deceit, and the female method of undermining from within. The revolution in the modern world starts with aesthetics in italy and makes its way into the legal minds who apply it to science producing the anglo revolution (athens). The germans(spartans) reacted by doubling down on it and becoming the worlds best materialists, and the americans inherited both civilizations for a time when the french and russians instigated the third war of german containment. Weak minds need certainty. Mindfulness doesn’t.
by Martin Štěpán: I’ve been listening to Xenophon’s memorabilia. What Socrates appears to be doing is not so much being skeptical but asking exactly the right questions to get the other to get exactly where he wants him to get. But in this, he’s teaching genuinely good values and makes people think about things they really should be thinking about. I’m not seeing the failure.
In my understanding he invented rhetorical falsification. The scale of this innovation, in retrospect, is … it’s conceptually revolutionary. Because he is not trying to deceive. He is trying to create the habit of inquiry. His ‘failure’ was in producing a systematic work. Plato’s systematic work was a train wreck. Aristotle’s systemic work, at least from my perspective, is a reaction against plato’s. When I read aristotle and plato i get the feeling that I have when reading the Abrahamists – it makes me angry. I think Aristotle might have had a similar reaction.
by Martin Štěpán: I remember some of the passages from the Organon that definitely read like a reaction. Plato’s Socrates in the early works is truly just skeptical and contradicts every interpretation so that at the end, nobody is certain of anything. Whereas Aristotle says we have to enumerate possible meanings (serialize?) and inquire which one applies in the context (disambiguate?). Organon ultimately must have been much more important work than all wrong scientific conclusions he came up with. (I didn’t get to Ethics yet.) And yeah, Plato turned Socrates into proto-Jesus.
-
The Revolution of the Ancient World
THE REVOLUTION IN THE ANCIENT WORLD Where are aristotle, plato, socrates, zeno, epicurus, roman law, greek mathematics, and the christian destruction of the ancient world in your narrative? The talmud, bible and koran are not an enlightenment but simply the marxism-socialism- postmodernism-feminism of the ancient world: the counter-revolution against reason.The revolution in the ancient world was reason. It was democritus’ atomism, socratic skepticism (failure), platonic idealism(failure), and the success of aristotelian reason, empiricism, proto-science, stoic and epicurean replacement of conflationary religion, and roman law and administration, creating markets for all peoples – but the semites (the equivalent of ghettos) couldn’t grasp that ‘uncontrolled vision’ and sought to restore controlled (feminine) monopoly and conflation using female methods of deceit, and the female method of undermining from within. The revolution in the modern world starts with aesthetics in italy and makes its way into the legal minds who apply it to science producing the anglo revolution (athens). The germans(spartans) reacted by doubling down on it and becoming the worlds best materialists, and the americans inherited both civilizations for a time when the french and russians instigated the third war of german containment. Weak minds need certainty. Mindfulness doesn’t.
by Martin Štěpán: I’ve been listening to Xenophon’s memorabilia. What Socrates appears to be doing is not so much being skeptical but asking exactly the right questions to get the other to get exactly where he wants him to get. But in this, he’s teaching genuinely good values and makes people think about things they really should be thinking about. I’m not seeing the failure.
In my understanding he invented rhetorical falsification. The scale of this innovation, in retrospect, is … it’s conceptually revolutionary. Because he is not trying to deceive. He is trying to create the habit of inquiry. His ‘failure’ was in producing a systematic work. Plato’s systematic work was a train wreck. Aristotle’s systemic work, at least from my perspective, is a reaction against plato’s. When I read aristotle and plato i get the feeling that I have when reading the Abrahamists – it makes me angry. I think Aristotle might have had a similar reaction.
by Martin Štěpán: I remember some of the passages from the Organon that definitely read like a reaction. Plato’s Socrates in the early works is truly just skeptical and contradicts every interpretation so that at the end, nobody is certain of anything. Whereas Aristotle says we have to enumerate possible meanings (serialize?) and inquire which one applies in the context (disambiguate?). Organon ultimately must have been much more important work than all wrong scientific conclusions he came up with. (I didn’t get to Ethics yet.) And yeah, Plato turned Socrates into proto-Jesus.
-
re: Jackson Crawford, Tyr vs. Odin as Chief God
Dr. Crawford; In order to suppress controversy you’re overstating your case. You’re representing sources, because under the defensive protection of the scientific method, we don’t hypothesize without evidence. Meanwhile I think Dumezil and the rest of us are interested in the evolution of european natural religion over time. To claim we can’t use etymology which is about as close to genetic evidence that we come, is rather unscientific, and to claim we can’t apply the same method of analysis to mythology is also. And to claim the popularity of the farmer’s god over the ruling class’ god in a tripartite hierarchical society given the difference in those demographics isn’t scientific either. Every mythos we know of evolved like every political and legal technology and every narrative technology by rules similar to language. Every mythic tradition is subject to the same forensics. So you’re creating conflict where there isn’t any. It is very hard to argue that Odin didn’t rise to prominence some time between the IE expansion and first testimony (roman). That would mean that european natural religion had a deus ex machina moment and Odin came out of nowhere in contrast to the entire cross civilizational IE pantheon. In the context of all those european mythologies, Odin is a pretty clear rotation into prominence. And Odin is the ‘odd man out’ in european religion. Of the european iranic and indo-iranic branches, each group evolved deities to fulfill the needs of a survival narrative given geographic and cultural competition. Europeans gods are are interesting because conquering (and replacing) early neolithic farmers was easier than the more advanced civilizations of the indus and mesopotamian regions. They were under less adaptive pressure. Yet still we have Odin. Why? That’s the interesting question. How did he rotate into prominence and why? So to say Odin is the primary germanic god – well of course he is by the thirteenth century record. That doesn’t tell us anything interesting. It doesn’t provide explanatory power. It doesn’t tell us why and where he came from. What change or pressure or advantage caused the germanic branch of the european expansion to rotate a psychopomp into the primary god (all father) to replace sky father? What drove the germanic adaptation (rotation) of a psychopomp into the god of the aristocracy?