by Adam Voight An example of why Religion is more moral than science, engineering, philosophy or magic. “Saruman” – Old English for “engineer”. Of course, over the long run the difference between religion and magic is contested and variable. This is why Odin is the sketchiest Sky Father ever. He is both Gandalf and Sauron, whom Tolkien split up into Good and Evil facets. The clue is the Nine Rings of Power given to the Ringwraiths: Odin’s Ring produced nine rings every day, and the giving of rings is typical of the lord’s gifts to his men. The phrase “Lord of the Rings” is only used once in all of Germanic lit: it refers to Beowulf, but it is so used late in the story, just before the fatal dragon episode (I cannot find it now. it mentioned during some swimming episode, perhaps in recounting his expedition against Grendel’s mom or swimming to Finnmark.) It seems that Tolkein saw the modern era as a struggle within the soul of Europe, between the good Odin and the bad Odin. Notice that Gandalf officiates at a wedding, something that Odin would never do; the Vanir and Thor were best for this purpose. Wagner also made Odin the crux of the conflict in the Ring cycle, by making Odin’s one lie to the Giants the tragic flaw that brought about Ragnarok. Odin in this version is more of a villain than in the Eddas, but shares the villainy with Alberich. In the Eddas, he is a good guy, but still crazy. Praying to him before a battle could bring victory, or it could bring you death with induction into the Einherjar. (CD: Thank you. exactly.)
Theme: Science
-
Religion was the hardest problem in social science.
(FB 1541426321 Timestamp) I told ya. Religion was the hardest problem in social science. The rest was trivial by comparison. But once you understand religion as a science, you are no longer bound by the limits of your experience.
-
An Example of Why Religion Is More Moral than Science, Engineering, Philosophy or Magic.
by Adam Voight An example of why Religion is more moral than science, engineering, philosophy or magic. “Saruman” – Old English for “engineer”. Of course, over the long run the difference between religion and magic is contested and variable. This is why Odin is the sketchiest Sky Father ever. He is both Gandalf and Sauron, whom Tolkien split up into Good and Evil facets. The clue is the Nine Rings of Power given to the Ringwraiths: Odin’s Ring produced nine rings every day, and the giving of rings is typical of the lord’s gifts to his men. The phrase “Lord of the Rings” is only used once in all of Germanic lit: it refers to Beowulf, but it is so used late in the story, just before the fatal dragon episode (I cannot find it now. it mentioned during some swimming episode, perhaps in recounting his expedition against Grendel’s mom or swimming to Finnmark.) It seems that Tolkein saw the modern era as a struggle within the soul of Europe, between the good Odin and the bad Odin. Notice that Gandalf officiates at a wedding, something that Odin would never do; the Vanir and Thor were best for this purpose. Wagner also made Odin the crux of the conflict in the Ring cycle, by making Odin’s one lie to the Giants the tragic flaw that brought about Ragnarok. Odin in this version is more of a villain than in the Eddas, but shares the villainy with Alberich. In the Eddas, he is a good guy, but still crazy. Praying to him before a battle could bring victory, or it could bring you death with induction into the Einherjar. (CD: Thank you. exactly.)
-
Religion was the hardest problem in social science.
(FB 1541426321 Timestamp) I told ya. Religion was the hardest problem in social science. The rest was trivial by comparison. But once you understand religion as a science, you are no longer bound by the limits of your experience.
-
Looking … nope. Just more GSRMS (Gossip, shaming, rallying, moralizing, and at
Looking … nope. Just more GSRMS (Gossip, shaming, rallying, moralizing, and attempted reputation destruction) targeting other solipsists. Thankfully we have science that tells us that such a technique is the female brain’s only alternative to argument – due to inferiority.
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-04 15:29:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1059105276559851521
Reply addressees: @PRO__UNLIMITED @PopChassid
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1059100060301037569
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/1059100060301037569
-
RT @Steve_Sailer: The biggest scientific accomplishment of psychology since 1900
RT @Steve_Sailer: The biggest scientific accomplishment of psychology since 1900 has been IQ. Yet we are constantly told that IQ is a fraud…
Source date (UTC): 2018-11-04 12:29:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1059060068048617472
-
Do You Know The Difference?
Religion Vs Ideology Vs Philosophy Vs Logic Vs Mathematics Vs Science A RELIGION consists of any set of ideas of justification which require belief in, testimony to, or action according to, one or more falsehoods as a cost of inclusion and use. AN IDEOLOGY consist of any set of ideas that agitate, motivate, or inspire achievement of political ends under majoritarian (monopoly) democracy. An ideology need not be internally consistent externally correspondent, or existentially possible. It need only motivate individuals to act in furtherance of policy. A PHILOSOPHY consists of any set of internally consistent ideas of decidability which justify pursuit of personal preferences or group goods. A LOGIC consists of any deflationary grammar of decidability that assists in the falsification by competition of one or more constant relations between states. (Note that one proves nothing logically other than internal consistency, because all premises of external correspondence are forever contingent.) MATHEMATICS consists of a deflationary grammar of decidability consisting of competition between positional names under the preservation of ratios providing a single axis of decidability: position – but in N dimensions; thereby providing commensurability between any set of positional relations of any number of dimensions. A SCIENCE consists of any set of ideas that provide decidability independent of personal preference or group goods, by the systematic elimination of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit, by the use of measurement and record of actions â demonstrations versus words. NATURAL LAW of RECIPROCITY (Tort), was produced scientifically (empirically) by trial and error, through the resolution of disputes across personal preferences, group goods, norms, traditions, and intuitions, cumulating always and everywhere that decidability is provided by property, and property consists in the demonstrated investment of human action or inaction anything whether genetic, material, behavioral, or informational.
-
Defending Hayek
[T]here is so much “shyte” written about Hayek that it’s impossible to defend him against the cabbages of sophism. Look, Hayek in the sensory order, in the Knowledge Problem, in the Pricing System’s solution to the Knowledge Problem, can only be understood as he finally understood it, as a question of the Law, and the LAW as the institutional means of preserving the exceptionalism of western civilization. We do not submit to the market, we submit to the law, and we do so because it is, as in all cases, the means by which we provide no incentive to others to fail to submit to the law. The fact that we finally had power of the purse sufficient to interfere in the economy merely required hayek to expand it. Fortunately for me, and unfortunately for hayek, I was born after Turing (and chomsky) and Hayek before. So Hayek’s work can be completed in a method he could sense in the Sensory Order but not develop into the Science of Law he finally understood was the NEGATIVE means by which we produce positive ends. Popper got partway there. Hayek got partway there. Turing got partway there. Chomsky took turing and added a little bit more. But it was too late to prevent the 20th century’s consumption of the accumulated capital of western civilization.
-
Do You Know The Difference?
Religion Vs Ideology Vs Philosophy Vs Logic Vs Mathematics Vs Science A RELIGION consists of any set of ideas of justification which require belief in, testimony to, or action according to, one or more falsehoods as a cost of inclusion and use. AN IDEOLOGY consist of any set of ideas that agitate, motivate, or inspire achievement of political ends under majoritarian (monopoly) democracy. An ideology need not be internally consistent externally correspondent, or existentially possible. It need only motivate individuals to act in furtherance of policy. A PHILOSOPHY consists of any set of internally consistent ideas of decidability which justify pursuit of personal preferences or group goods. A LOGIC consists of any deflationary grammar of decidability that assists in the falsification by competition of one or more constant relations between states. (Note that one proves nothing logically other than internal consistency, because all premises of external correspondence are forever contingent.) MATHEMATICS consists of a deflationary grammar of decidability consisting of competition between positional names under the preservation of ratios providing a single axis of decidability: position – but in N dimensions; thereby providing commensurability between any set of positional relations of any number of dimensions. A SCIENCE consists of any set of ideas that provide decidability independent of personal preference or group goods, by the systematic elimination of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit, by the use of measurement and record of actions â demonstrations versus words. NATURAL LAW of RECIPROCITY (Tort), was produced scientifically (empirically) by trial and error, through the resolution of disputes across personal preferences, group goods, norms, traditions, and intuitions, cumulating always and everywhere that decidability is provided by property, and property consists in the demonstrated investment of human action or inaction anything whether genetic, material, behavioral, or informational.
-
Defending Hayek
[T]here is so much “shyte” written about Hayek that it’s impossible to defend him against the cabbages of sophism. Look, Hayek in the sensory order, in the Knowledge Problem, in the Pricing System’s solution to the Knowledge Problem, can only be understood as he finally understood it, as a question of the Law, and the LAW as the institutional means of preserving the exceptionalism of western civilization. We do not submit to the market, we submit to the law, and we do so because it is, as in all cases, the means by which we provide no incentive to others to fail to submit to the law. The fact that we finally had power of the purse sufficient to interfere in the economy merely required hayek to expand it. Fortunately for me, and unfortunately for hayek, I was born after Turing (and chomsky) and Hayek before. So Hayek’s work can be completed in a method he could sense in the Sensory Order but not develop into the Science of Law he finally understood was the NEGATIVE means by which we produce positive ends. Popper got partway there. Hayek got partway there. Turing got partway there. Chomsky took turing and added a little bit more. But it was too late to prevent the 20th century’s consumption of the accumulated capital of western civilization.