Curt Doolittle

Theme: Religion

  • AESTHETICS: EUROPEAN VS. ABRAHAMIST By @[100016659043273:2048:Daniel Gurpide] Ar

    AESTHETICS: EUROPEAN VS. ABRAHAMIST

    By @[100016659043273:2048:Daniel Gurpide]

    Art is the celebration of life, and the exploration of life in all its aspects. If life is unimportant—a mere diminutive prelude to the real life which is to begin with death—then art can only be of negligible importance.

    Greek humanism was superseded by Christianity: by a religion which divided man against himself, teaching him to view his body with shame, his emotions with suspicion, sensuality with fear, sexual love with feelings of guilt. This life, it taught, was a burden, this world a vale of tears—our endurance of which would be rewarded at death: the gateway to eternal bliss. This religion was, inevitably, anti-art and anti-life. The alienation of man from his own nature, especially from his emotional nature; the all-pervading hypocrisy to which this gave rise throughout the Christian era; the devaluation of life and of the world—and hence, inevitably, their wonderfulness; the conception of man as not a god but a worm, and a guilty one at that: all this is profoundly at odds with the creative impulse and its subject matter.

    The importance of the desert in biblical symbolism is clear: a desert that erases all representations and rejects them on behalf of the invisible and the uniform. Yahweh’s believer must consent to transforming the imagination into a desert, and this implies a ban on all representation.

    Not only are depictions of Yahweh forbidden, but also images of all worldly things—starting, of course, with man, who was created in God’s ‘image.’ It is not hard to find a clear anti-aesthetic bias in biblical iconoclasm.

    Christian art began as heresy. Transported to an art-loving people, Christianity became a religion more artistic than would have been the case had it remained in the hands of the Judeo-Christians. However, this came only from a long, slow process. In the Christianity of the first centuries, iconoclasm was the rule: the Mosaic prohibition of image representation was widely observed. The idea of the great ugliness of Jesus was also widespread (e.g., Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria). Only when the Church, following the compromise of Constantine, became more pagan did the birth and development of a Christian iconography become apparent. However, traces of iconoclasm may still be found in Byzantine ritual as well as Protestantism.

    Iconoclasm is also present in Islam, where the rare Arabic Muslim thinkers who concerned themselves with aesthetics tended to envision art only in abstract form.

    The emptying of human representation goes hand in hand with the abandonment of human particularity and diversity, for these are themselves images.

    Extensions of—and contemporary points of comparison with—the Mosaic ban on representation have often been sought, for example, in respect of abstract art, whose birth and development coincide, metaphorically, with that of Post-modernism and—experienced in concrete terms—with the internationalist ideal of the abolition of borders. ‘An entire aspect of Western modernity finds resonance with the old iconoclast exigency, and from this point forward, thinkers of Judaic filiation actively intervene at the tip of this modernity to mark out where it is going, not truly in opposition to it but rather in advance of it.’ (Jean-Joseph Goux, Les Iconoclastes)

    The contrast with the Indo-European world is striking. In the Bible, the beautiful is not necessarily good, and the ugly is not necessarily evil. It may even happen that good may be so precisely because of its ugliness, and, similarly, that evil is handsome precisely because it is evil. Lucifer is an angel glowing with light. The Devil will adorn himself with all the paraphernalia of seduction, whereas the arms of Yahweh, says Isaiah (53:2), have grown ‘as a root out of a dry ground, without beauty or comeliness to attract our eyes.’ In paganism, however, good cannot be separated from beauty; and this is normal, because the good is in form, the consummate forms of worldly things.

    Consequently, art cannot be separated from religion. Art is sacred. Not only may the gods be represented, but art is the means of their representation; and insofar as men perpetually assure them of representation, they possess full status of existence. All European spirituality is based on representation as mediation between the visible and the invisible. Beauty is the visible sign of what is good; ugliness is the visible sign not only of what is deformed or spoiled, but of what is bad.

    For the ancient Greeks, solemnity is inseparable from visual, tangible representation. It is through the fusion of the aesthetic and the sacred that religious sentiment attains its peak.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-31 09:14:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. ELI ON THE FIFTH ABRAHAMIC REVOLT AGAINST CIV

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    ELI ON THE FIFTH ABRAHAMIC REVOLT AGAINST CIVILIZATION

    —“Postmodernism is the 5th Abrahamic revolt against Western Reason, Empiricism, Aristocracy, and Eugenia – their ongoing struggle to drag humanity back into ignorance, poverty, disease, filth, parasitism and superstition:. The 1st, Judaism; 2nd Christianity; 3rd, Islam; 4th, classical, Marxist, pseudoscientific, Socialism; 5th, Postmodern, cultural Marxist, critical theory and intersectional socialism.” — Eli Harman

    (perfect)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-30 20:41:09 UTC

  • They cannot be made commensurable.

    —“The West’s egalitarianism and loss of noblesse oblige: Atheists amongst the elite will attack the concept of religion on a whim, because they don’t need it, not considering they have a duty to society by virtue of their position, and different people have different needs to function optimally.”—Graham Davies my only comment is that once you open up democracy you are forced into the problem of the different needs of the classes. The necessary law of the aristocracy, the fanciful philosophy of the middle, and the supernatural religion of the bottom all must somehow compete – but they cannot be made commensurable.

  • They cannot be made commensurable.

    —“The West’s egalitarianism and loss of noblesse oblige: Atheists amongst the elite will attack the concept of religion on a whim, because they don’t need it, not considering they have a duty to society by virtue of their position, and different people have different needs to function optimally.”—Graham Davies my only comment is that once you open up democracy you are forced into the problem of the different needs of the classes. The necessary law of the aristocracy, the fanciful philosophy of the middle, and the supernatural religion of the bottom all must somehow compete – but they cannot be made commensurable.

  • The Saudi – Us – Iran Relationship

    Washington is Saudi Arabia’s mercenary force by Aaron Kahland —“Iran is run by Shia fundamentalists. Shia Islam arose and was influenced by the moderating force that was Zoroastrianism. Iran’s Islamic revolution was a national-liberation struggle against the puppet-like regime of the Shah – who was installed by the CIA – as we now know for certain. The remainder of the Arabic Middle East is dominated by both secular and religious Sunni regimes. These regimes sell their oil to US (and British) companies that profit from value-added activites such as refining. In exchange for the license to purchase this crude oil, the US (and Britain) agree to support Sunni expansionism in the Middle East. This is why when Saudi Arabia invades Bahrain (majority Shia) or Northern Yemen or backs insurrections in Shia-ruled Syria – Washington immediately imposes sanctions on those object of Sunni expansion and begins to supply weapons to Saudi-Arabian backed protagonists. This is why Romanian made Kalashnikovs purchased by Washington ended up in the hands of ISIS. It is also why Muslim Bosnians were armed with weapons licensed by the US and manufactured in Egypt – and much of the reason why US bombs fell on those fighting Muslims in the Balkans. To put it accurately, Washington is Saudi Arabia’s mercenary force in the Middle East. That is what explains the US’ seventy-odd years of pursuing geo-political goals that are directly in conflict with its own strategic interests. The US is, to put it frankly, Sunni-Islam’s bitch.”— Aaron Kahland

  • The Saudi – Us – Iran Relationship

    Washington is Saudi Arabia’s mercenary force by Aaron Kahland —“Iran is run by Shia fundamentalists. Shia Islam arose and was influenced by the moderating force that was Zoroastrianism. Iran’s Islamic revolution was a national-liberation struggle against the puppet-like regime of the Shah – who was installed by the CIA – as we now know for certain. The remainder of the Arabic Middle East is dominated by both secular and religious Sunni regimes. These regimes sell their oil to US (and British) companies that profit from value-added activites such as refining. In exchange for the license to purchase this crude oil, the US (and Britain) agree to support Sunni expansionism in the Middle East. This is why when Saudi Arabia invades Bahrain (majority Shia) or Northern Yemen or backs insurrections in Shia-ruled Syria – Washington immediately imposes sanctions on those object of Sunni expansion and begins to supply weapons to Saudi-Arabian backed protagonists. This is why Romanian made Kalashnikovs purchased by Washington ended up in the hands of ISIS. It is also why Muslim Bosnians were armed with weapons licensed by the US and manufactured in Egypt – and much of the reason why US bombs fell on those fighting Muslims in the Balkans. To put it accurately, Washington is Saudi Arabia’s mercenary force in the Middle East. That is what explains the US’ seventy-odd years of pursuing geo-political goals that are directly in conflict with its own strategic interests. The US is, to put it frankly, Sunni-Islam’s bitch.”— Aaron Kahland

  • ELI ON THE FIFTH ABRAHAMIC REVOLT AGAINST CIVILIZATION —“Postmodernism is the

    ELI ON THE FIFTH ABRAHAMIC REVOLT AGAINST CIVILIZATION

    —“Postmodernism is the 5th Abrahamic revolt against Western Reason, Empiricism, Aristocracy, and Eugenia – their ongoing struggle to drag humanity back into ignorance, poverty, disease, filth, parasitism and superstition:. The 1st, Judaism; 2nd Christianity; 3rd, Islam; 4th, classical, Marxist, pseudoscientific, Socialism; 5th, Postmodern, cultural Marxist, critical theory and intersectional socialism.” — Eli Harman

    (perfect)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-30 16:41:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. THE SAUDI – US – IRAN RELATIONSHIP Washington

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    THE SAUDI – US – IRAN RELATIONSHIP
    Washington is Saudi Arabia’s mercenary force
    by Aaron Kahland

    —“Iran is run by Shia fundamentalists. Shia Islam arose and was influenced by the moderating force that was Zoroastrianism. Iran’s Islamic revolution was a national-liberation struggle against the puppet-like regime of the Shah – who was installed by the CIA – as we now know for certain.

    The remainder of the Arabic Middle East is dominated by both secular and religious Sunni regimes. These regimes sell their oil to US (and British) companies that profit from value-added activites such as refining.

    In exchange for the license to purchase this crude oil, the US (and Britain) agree to support Sunni expansionism in the Middle East. This is why when Saudi Arabia invades Bahrain (majority Shia) or Northern Yemen or backs insurrections in Shia-ruled Syria – Washington immediately imposes sanctions on those object of Sunni expansion and begins to supply weapons to Saudi-Arabian backed protagonists.

    This is why Romanian made Kalashnikovs purchased by Washington ended up in the hands of ISIS. It is also why Muslim Bosnians were armed with weapons licensed by the US and manufactured in Egypt – and much of the reason why US bombs fell on those fighting Muslims in the Balkans.

    To put it accurately, Washington is Saudi Arabia’s mercenary force in the Middle East. That is what explains the US’ seventy-odd years of pursuing geo-political goals that are directly in conflict with its own strategic interests. The US is, to put it frankly, Sunni-Islam’s bitch.”— Aaron Kahland

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-30 13:43:01 UTC

  • THE SAUDI – US – IRAN RELATIONSHIP Washington is Saudi Arabia’s mercenary force

    THE SAUDI – US – IRAN RELATIONSHIP

    Washington is Saudi Arabia’s mercenary force

    by Aaron Kahland

    —“Iran is run by Shia fundamentalists. Shia Islam arose and was influenced by the moderating force that was Zoroastrianism. Iran’s Islamic revolution was a national-liberation struggle against the puppet-like regime of the Shah – who was installed by the CIA – as we now know for certain.

    The remainder of the Arabic Middle East is dominated by both secular and religious Sunni regimes. These regimes sell their oil to US (and British) companies that profit from value-added activites such as refining.

    In exchange for the license to purchase this crude oil, the US (and Britain) agree to support Sunni expansionism in the Middle East. This is why when Saudi Arabia invades Bahrain (majority Shia) or Northern Yemen or backs insurrections in Shia-ruled Syria – Washington immediately imposes sanctions on those object of Sunni expansion and begins to supply weapons to Saudi-Arabian backed protagonists.

    This is why Romanian made Kalashnikovs purchased by Washington ended up in the hands of ISIS. It is also why Muslim Bosnians were armed with weapons licensed by the US and manufactured in Egypt – and much of the reason why US bombs fell on those fighting Muslims in the Balkans.

    To put it accurately, Washington is Saudi Arabia’s mercenary force in the Middle East. That is what explains the US’ seventy-odd years of pursuing geo-political goals that are directly in conflict with its own strategic interests. The US is, to put it frankly, Sunni-Islam’s bitch.”— Aaron Kahland

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-30 09:43:00 UTC

  • Religiosity and Computational Discounting

    (the economics of spirituality) I think where I stand today, is that I have almost fully converted to where i see the computational needs of the brain and the need to acquire certain resources (of all kinds), as causing emotional responses and wants. So when I study world religions it’s this computational savings I look for, and I try to understand what computational discount they’re ‘buying’ with it and what their ‘paying for it’ with external consequences of a large number of people doing so. So I don’t any longer hold (believe) that we are trying to serve emotions, but that emotions inform us as to the demands of our computational necessities. And so this allows me to extract my intuitions from the process of religions, because those religions were developed to ‘fool’ those intuitions by cheap means of training. So just as using propertarian language has helped me disassemble social science, and acquisitionism has helped me disassemble psychology, computational demands have helped me disassemble what we call spirituality. The ceremony of religion is just satisfying our need for computational discounts by running with the pack for a while, in some kind of ritual. The dogma of religion is discounting our reason. The homogeneity of religious provides discounting on cooperation. To some degree these computational efficiencies serve the same purpose as do money and prices: they create discounts from the production of commensurability, and incentive to pursue it.