—“Humans really don’t live day to day in the “conscious” “rational” mode, you know this but it seems you unconsciously push against this fact.”— SG Simmons Because religions are relativistic and truth absolute. As such in matters of conflict, the truth and the law, supercede religion – for the simple reason that they do in fact supercede it. For some reason it is inconceivable to people that we can create religions (as the stoics tried to, as buddha tried to, and the japanese do) that are in fact, not false. But this is why I have to work on this problem so hard. And why law is so important. So that we can end the undecidability of religions and produce one that is decidable.
Theme: Truth
-
The Law Allows Us to Create Religions that Are Not False
—“Humans really don’t live day to day in the “conscious” “rational” mode, you know this but it seems you unconsciously push against this fact.”— SG Simmons Because religions are relativistic and truth absolute. As such in matters of conflict, the truth and the law, supercede religion – for the simple reason that they do in fact supercede it. For some reason it is inconceivable to people that we can create religions (as the stoics tried to, as buddha tried to, and the japanese do) that are in fact, not false. But this is why I have to work on this problem so hard. And why law is so important. So that we can end the undecidability of religions and produce one that is decidable.
-
The West’s Strategy
THE WEST’S UNIQUE STRATEGY: TRUTH, DUTY, SOVEREIGNTY, RECIPROCITY AND MARKETS IN EVERYTHING. Trump is demanding truth, duty, sovereignty, reciprocity and markets in everything. The outcome of simply constructing only fair deals produces western civilization. And the balance of powers.
-
The West’s Strategy
THE WEST’S UNIQUE STRATEGY: TRUTH, DUTY, SOVEREIGNTY, RECIPROCITY AND MARKETS IN EVERYTHING. Trump is demanding truth, duty, sovereignty, reciprocity and markets in everything. The outcome of simply constructing only fair deals produces western civilization. And the balance of powers.
-
The criminalisation of speech, thought and emotion, the superseding of common la
The criminalisation of speech, thought and emotion, the superseding of common law, treason incorporated into law. The state demanding a monopoly of violence, a monopoly of truth, and using the monopoly of violence to enforce the monopoly of truth. And the state conducting alien colonisation is treason by itself.—by Alex Macleod
-
The criminalisation of speech, thought and emotion, the superseding of common la
The criminalisation of speech, thought and emotion, the superseding of common law, treason incorporated into law. The state demanding a monopoly of violence, a monopoly of truth, and using the monopoly of violence to enforce the monopoly of truth. And the state conducting alien colonisation is treason by itself.—by Alex Macleod
-
More on The Esoteric, Occult, and Literary and A Request that Men Face Their Lack of Agency as Individuals
How do I make clear that one does not argue with the fulfilling (wisdom lit) but with the truth (science)? Well that’s what I try to do. I have had to continuously counter-signal attacks against my work for not providing a lower agency, more accessible version of the natural law. THERE ISN”T ONE. Man can be lifted to it by constructing his agency, but it cannot be lowered for those lacking it. And yes it is lower agency to need literature because it relies on appeal to intuition and does not consist of a continuous stream of constant relations between reality and decision. But that does not mean that when one possesses lower agency one cannot still live a fulfilling life. It means that literary argument is analogy and wisdom helpful in choice of preference and good – and perhaps even understanding. It can in fact function as sedation. Or even inspiration. Inspiration necessary because of a lack of membership in teams granting one agency. I would read the lord of the rings, and dune, and Neuromancer to envision possibilities, and in fact, most history to gain wisdom. I can understand reading the essays of wise men (particularly Montaigne and Chesterton). But these are vehicles for understanding. Not for argument and decision. Any more than religion and rationalism are means of arguing for truth. IT IS QUITE HARD TO LACK AGENCY AS A YOUNG MAN. As such i’m criticizing the lack of organizations for MEN. But I undrestand the struggle of being an individual young male, particularly in modernity. It’s alienating. Literature is a substitute for membership in a group with which one obtains agency. Individualism is the necessary subject of the Law – all else requires guilds, teams, militias, armies, and governments: NUMBERS. Again… esotericism is escapist literature for those with low agency, and I’m absolutely positive if I spent 25k for an academic and his grad students to do the research it would come out as the same. Esotericism is simply another secular religion. And literature is between wisdom literature, secular theology, entertainment, and escapism. So it’s ok to criticize and I understand the market need exists. But I am not trying to fill that market need by DEGREDATION but by transcendence of the male into that which he longs for by EXISTENTIAL rather than fantasy means. And if not, then all that matters is that a small percentage of the population of choose agency, action, and transformation of the real world, as an army, rather than literary sedation, as an individual.
-
More on The Esoteric, Occult, and Literary and A Request that Men Face Their Lack of Agency as Individuals
How do I make clear that one does not argue with the fulfilling (wisdom lit) but with the truth (science)? Well that’s what I try to do. I have had to continuously counter-signal attacks against my work for not providing a lower agency, more accessible version of the natural law. THERE ISN”T ONE. Man can be lifted to it by constructing his agency, but it cannot be lowered for those lacking it. And yes it is lower agency to need literature because it relies on appeal to intuition and does not consist of a continuous stream of constant relations between reality and decision. But that does not mean that when one possesses lower agency one cannot still live a fulfilling life. It means that literary argument is analogy and wisdom helpful in choice of preference and good – and perhaps even understanding. It can in fact function as sedation. Or even inspiration. Inspiration necessary because of a lack of membership in teams granting one agency. I would read the lord of the rings, and dune, and Neuromancer to envision possibilities, and in fact, most history to gain wisdom. I can understand reading the essays of wise men (particularly Montaigne and Chesterton). But these are vehicles for understanding. Not for argument and decision. Any more than religion and rationalism are means of arguing for truth. IT IS QUITE HARD TO LACK AGENCY AS A YOUNG MAN. As such i’m criticizing the lack of organizations for MEN. But I undrestand the struggle of being an individual young male, particularly in modernity. It’s alienating. Literature is a substitute for membership in a group with which one obtains agency. Individualism is the necessary subject of the Law – all else requires guilds, teams, militias, armies, and governments: NUMBERS. Again… esotericism is escapist literature for those with low agency, and I’m absolutely positive if I spent 25k for an academic and his grad students to do the research it would come out as the same. Esotericism is simply another secular religion. And literature is between wisdom literature, secular theology, entertainment, and escapism. So it’s ok to criticize and I understand the market need exists. But I am not trying to fill that market need by DEGREDATION but by transcendence of the male into that which he longs for by EXISTENTIAL rather than fantasy means. And if not, then all that matters is that a small percentage of the population of choose agency, action, and transformation of the real world, as an army, rather than literary sedation, as an individual.
-
The Goal of Reading Fiction Is Analysis Itself
THE GOAL OF READING FICTION IS ANALYSIS ITSELF Benjamin Franklin If a person’s goal in reading narrative fiction is only to come to an understanding of the truth, then that is indeed childlike. In my view, the goal is not to come to an understanding of the ideas, but the goal is the analysis itself. It’s the same goal one has when they are solving a puzzle. Of course you eventually solve the puzzle, but the outcome is not that important compared to the act of solving the puzzle. Someone could just give you the solved puzzle, i.e just present the ideas in essay format, but the subjective experience would be qualitatively different from solving it yourself. Those who study fiction in the way one would study science or law are misguided, in my view. The level of seriousness in the two pursuits are incomparable. I find serious commentators who quote fiction to be as annoying as you probably do. The worst authors of fiction are those who put ideas or some notion of truth in the foreground. It comes off as preachy. Ayn Rand is a notorious culprit of this style of writing. For these kinds of authors, the philosophy does indeed transform into the veneer and the narrative slips into the background. Good authors make the narrative the veneer and the ideas become a puzzle to be solved by the observer. Now, you can argue about the time worthiness of analyzing fiction. It is potentially not as worthy of a time investment as doing science. But, if you consider the long term, the potential inevitable extinction of humanity along with all traces of their existence, then all actions are equally worthy of time or equally unworthy of time.
-
The Goal of Reading Fiction Is Analysis Itself
THE GOAL OF READING FICTION IS ANALYSIS ITSELF Benjamin Franklin If a person’s goal in reading narrative fiction is only to come to an understanding of the truth, then that is indeed childlike. In my view, the goal is not to come to an understanding of the ideas, but the goal is the analysis itself. It’s the same goal one has when they are solving a puzzle. Of course you eventually solve the puzzle, but the outcome is not that important compared to the act of solving the puzzle. Someone could just give you the solved puzzle, i.e just present the ideas in essay format, but the subjective experience would be qualitatively different from solving it yourself. Those who study fiction in the way one would study science or law are misguided, in my view. The level of seriousness in the two pursuits are incomparable. I find serious commentators who quote fiction to be as annoying as you probably do. The worst authors of fiction are those who put ideas or some notion of truth in the foreground. It comes off as preachy. Ayn Rand is a notorious culprit of this style of writing. For these kinds of authors, the philosophy does indeed transform into the veneer and the narrative slips into the background. Good authors make the narrative the veneer and the ideas become a puzzle to be solved by the observer. Now, you can argue about the time worthiness of analyzing fiction. It is potentially not as worthy of a time investment as doing science. But, if you consider the long term, the potential inevitable extinction of humanity along with all traces of their existence, then all actions are equally worthy of time or equally unworthy of time.