I get the impression the truth makes people upset.
Particularly mutants.
They want god…they need the supernatural to make their mutations bearable.
Mutations accumulated and protected from natural filtering processes need to justify them supernaturally.
Nevertheless
Words like “god” can be “brought down to earth”, i.e., made real, made tangible, made physical, placed within the natural world of experiences, by defining them in reference to experienced phenomena.
If on the other hand, we want to make them mystical, supernatural, we define them “out of existence”, and we do so only because we don’t like existence, or feel insecure about our place with existence…seeking comfort is something occult, something magical.
Consider the concept of morality.
does it require a god, a one-god, to be independent form human subjectivity or social engineering?
No.
If our motive is truth and not comfort, not escape form truth…then morality, like god, like masculine/feminine can be defined within the observable world and still independent form all human subjective perspectives.
It depends on the individual’s motive, his willful objective.
Same as free-will.
If we wish to dismiss it we can easily define it out of existence…or as it is currently defined…conventionally.
But what if we wish to define it independently form culture and individual desires and still keep it within the realm of the experienced the real?
Can e see will in action?
Yes…we see it in choice…we experience it as choice…as movement towards.
Is there an invisible force acting?
There’s no reason to presume that there is.
Is there freedom?
Yes…if we don’t define it supernaturally…
We are not omnipotent…but we do have potency to the degree that we have the power to choose.
So we can measure freedom…we don’t need to hypothesize it’s existence…we experience it as a quantity and quality of options.
Watch the vid above…giving my own general positions on Abrahamic spirituality.
Did the average man believe in his gods literally…yes…mediocre minds needs certainty…they need literal answers with no ambiguity.
Did they actually believe there were gods living on the peak of mount Olympus…yes., probably. The mediocre masses needs spirituality to be an easy metaphysics to believe in and then live their lives.
They don’t really care about truth if it doesn’t affect their daily life. They need what is good enough, and they find it by adopting the prevailing beliefs of their group.
But the religion itself is about nature, viz., its multiplicity, its uncertainty, its dynamism…
Abrahamism is about salvation from nature, so not only do they literally believe in the abstractions they were raised on but the religion itself is obscure, selling occult knowledge, abstract, esoteric…with no references to anything real.
It is magical.
It is a believe in an absolute, a singularity.
Absolute = indivisible, immutable singularity, i.e., one, nil, order, god…give it any name.
Does Abrahamism have its roots in paganism?
Yes.
We can see it clearly in Christianity, especially Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
There the pagan tropes are converted into an absolute singularity, e.g. trinity.
The human mind needs absolutes. It works on binaries. It’s work is in converting a fluid, fluctuating, interactive existence into static, complete, whole concepts, i.e., abstractions.
The literal, therefore, is its natural way of conceptualizing.
It cannot afford to remain skeptical, to doubt itself …to have a debate.
It must act immediately, and so it needs approximations of what is most probable.
It is a perverted philosophy, a distorted Reason, an inversion, the “negation of the negation”.
They are the nomads, the nomads of history, wandering from place to place, taking nothing, and giving nothing.
“No regrets” isn’t their slogan,- they have nothing to regret.
They’ve learned to despise: the ones with the most contempt hate the strongest, the most powerful, the most beautiful.
And what do these people, these desert dwellers, these sand-wanderers know? They know their god lies buried, buried in the desert of their souls, and they know they will never find it. Their God is theft. Their god is conquest. Their god is destruction. Nothing is more seductive, more alluring, than destruction.
But all this is too highfalutin for the nihilists. Lies, to them, are more real than truths. To them, to speak simply, there is no God, no universe, no life, no love, no truth, no beauty, no goodness, no anything. There is nothing. We are it, nothingness, emptiness, nihil. The tableau of a man’s admirations is the mirror of his aspirations; his aspirations, a measure of his soul. And the measure of the nihilist soul is, well, nihil.
To the nihilist, to be free means not to be tied to any truth or to any value. If you are free, you are free to do as you please. This is the basis of nihilist ethics: the individual is free, so everyone is free to do as he pleases. We are all equal; you should not believe in values, you should not believe in any good things. If you want to do something good, do it because you want to, not because you have to. There are no obligations or duties.
There is in all of us, a great refusal, a horrible “NO!” at the center of Life, as Knowledge comes first to us as an illness, a despair, but the nihilist does not recover, does not mature knowledge into virtue, giving life meaning. To all that is not me, the nihilist says, “NO!” We do not exist, we are nothing, we are emptiness. To give life meaning is to love. To love is to give, and to give is to create. Therefore, to love is to do. To do is to create. There is no escaping this. Even Nietzsche could not, at the end, escape it. The nihilist believes he is the sole arbiter of what is good and what is not. It is all him. In the end, he has nothing in which to believe. Everything is his, so it is no one else’s.
An affirmation is to negate negation. Advancement out of nil.
They give no-thing, because no-thing is all they have.
Their god.
They appropriate corrupt and return, claiming it as their own.
They’ve learned to appropriate, and eventually developed a hatred for manual work - living off the land. Human husbandry, using words to manipulate psychology and face reality via proxies.
They evolved into urban nomads, living on the periphery, concealing their identity by mixing the blood of the host with their own. This too is appropriation.
Parasitism necessitates such extreme sacrifices.
Peddlers of superstitions, abstraction Gypsies.
They carry their one-god with them…because it is a representation of their tribes. They are their own divinity - those that chose to embrace rather than reject the nil, and many are worshipping them and don’t even know it.
They chose to worship what all other tribes rejected. They chose to embrace the nil, seeing in it a potential to exploit.
Power of negation…Nil is God.
It destroys everything and creates no-thing.
Rebellion against the world that is. Rejection of past, is how they escape regret. All is present and future.
There is no past…no nature, i.e., sum of all previous nurturing. Forgetting.
This has become salvation. Absolution of sins.
But they do not agree…some reject freedom as well.
They were slaves and are slaves…to the divine nil.
What they seek to free themselves from is the tangible, the body…the earthly. Surrender themselves to the idea. The no-thingness.
Retuning to it is part of their own salvation myths…their Messianic prophesies.
We are not a refusal…we are a yay-saying.
Some of us have been infected by the worship of the absolute nil, and are lost to us.
‘No’ is the foundation of life. No life no consciousness without a “repulsion”, a refusal…‘No’ to what is toxic, what is not ‘I’.
This expands to become a mental illness, a no to all that is perceived and a turning inward to the imperceptible, the idealistic…the words representing no-thing, but concepts with no external referents.
Solipsism. Subjectivity to the extreme.
‘No’ becomes an identity. Possessed by the divine Nil. Constant revolution against the real.
Inter-Subjectivity converts it to a shared solipsism…nepotism follows from this self-referentiality.
‘Other’ are the ones who do not share the idea with no external referents - the inter-subjective ideal; those who use words as conduits to attach to a tangible reality rather than detach from it.
This detachment technique, using words, is then used in parasitism. The host infected by nihilism loses contact with reality…begins to wander aimlessly, missing the crucial component of a shared esoteric ideal. Zombification.
The carrier parasite can now hijack the organism from the inside…using words…ideologies of nil.
This is the potential they saw in nil. The potential to convert rival tribes to zombies wandering upon the deserts of the real, lost to reality…and in their lostness to give the host a new direction.
Directing it towards its own end.
Lifecycle of a parasite ends with its own demise. It self-sacrifices to pass on the nihilistic meme…the idea with no external referent. Selfish meme. They embrace their sacrifice as a collective burden - they identify with being victimized, for without it they are seduced by other memes, more masculine ideals. After years of emasculation, symbolic self-castration, they are swept away.
The Greeks almost accomplished it…and partially did…ergo Christianity was born.
If we lived by the Ten Commandments given to Moses by God there would be need to consider the concept of morality as you require it.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
Remember the sabbath day and keep it holy.
Honour thy father and thy mother.
Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal.
Man wasn’t murdering others indiscriminately before the one-god was invented.
Animals show moral behaviour with no belief in a one-god.
What you speak of is Mosaic Law…addendums to innate moral behaviours.
Attempts to repress human natural impulses and allow stable civilizations to emerge by supressing natural sexuality.
Morality is genetic.
Ethics are memetic…addendums, additions. Technologies/techniques. Like monogamy.
Ten Commandments were invented as socioeconomic rules of conduct so as to minimize group frictions, caused by masculine competitiveness.
This is why they are never totally adhered to, despite the reward/punishment, used to impose themselves.
He believes that if he can create a machine, to do his bidding, to do his lifting, to do his thinking, eventually invalidating himself completely, that such a monstrosity will reveal to him the meaning and purpose that his life never had.
But this robot cannot be programmed to live, if its master never did.
Golem is a primitive fantasy about immortalizing consciousness by transferring it into a mechanical body with replaceable parts.
Binary codes reducing the body’s four-code to a form that can be copied - abstracted down to binaries. Loss of data is the necessary sacrifice. Self-amputation. Self-mutilation.
Freedom from the body is the goal. Liberty from the tangible, the corporeal, the physical…the world. Salvation.
When they were lost in the desert for 40 years - exaggerations make the best lies - they discovered how to invert slavishness into mastery. This was their revolutionary innovation. Nothing more than this.
This was so seductive that others wanted to partake…but were refused, starting the animosity they thrive on.
Christianity and Islam emerged due to this refusal to share salvation.
But the Jews did stand for something.
Whether it was Moses, Jesus, Herzl, Marx or Rand, it was something.
Did the cynics and skeptics stand for something?
The postmodernists, many of whom are white?
Now Christianity began as a doomsday religion, but that’s not what most Christian denominations became, and as far as religions go, Judaism is worldly, not world denying or renouncing.
Asceticism for Judaism is a means, not an end.
Judaism is pro-family and pro-nation, like Herzl’s Zionism.
You can find a broad range of positions among Jews, from conservatism to liberalism to anarchism, socialism and nihilism, from spiritualism to materialism and everything in between.
Are Hinduism, Buddhism and Daoism not at times otherworldly, world renouncing and passive?
And yet these religions were formed by settlers, not desert or urban nomads.
Was paganism not far more superstitious than Judaism?
Was the God of the Jews so otherworldly?
He is their heavenly father and lord, not a nothing.
Yes, of course.
They stood for their own method of propagating and surviving among goy.
Selling what they did not purchase themselves - they became master salesmen…and are still selling crap. Nihilism they sell.
Superstitions.
All infected by the same disease.
Zombies…in the movies, can your own family turn on you if it is infected by the virus?
What are the symptoms?
Detachment from reality…individualism which behaves as if it were a single organism, an insatiable appetite…the body rotting away as if it didn’t matter…
Allegories.
Christianity was a by-product of Hellenism coming in contact with Judaism.
But go back to the source…read what their texts, their holy books say.
See how they use language.
Start here https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=197545here.
Then go find Bjerknes and listen to his study of their scriptures and what they prophesise, and why.
There are many conservatives and world affirmers within the Jewish clan.
What happens is many Jews tend to promote all that is liberal, progressive and passive wherever they roam, to break down barriers, to make it easier to travel and trade, for they did not have land of their own for over two thousand years.
Some Jews are self-serving hypocrites, promoting stringent internationalism and globalism for the west, but nationalism for Judea, but not all, some are more consistent.
I’m not going to get into details in public.
Ask Voltaire why.
I will say…playing both sides is part of their method.
Look to France. Who is part of the right emerging there…anti-immigration, France first…he even proposes a French identity based on blood, heritage.
He ain’t even French…look at his face.
Chimpanzees do not murder members of their own group.
The dominant male steps in and stops all conflicts before they become serious. He enforces peace.
This is not a human invention.
There is a natural rule, developing in all social species where violence and murder within the group is prohibited, unless there are other overruling circumstances.
Why?
Because in-group murder decreases the survival probability of the entire group.
So murder is not immoral in nature - life needs to kill to survive, source of man’s first guilt when he develops self-consciousness - it becomes self-destrtuve for social species and for species that have adopted a cooperative survival and reproductive strategy. Pagans developed rituals around killing one’s enemies or even prey. They thanked it for tis sacrifice - does it sound familiar, imbecile? They honoured their enemies.
If one kills a potential mate before or after mating, this will not pass on his or her genes.
Yet, some species, like praying mantis the female consumes the male after mating. That’s an exception, only possible for the female.
Morality is that. A innate rule forcing self-control - overriding already evolved impulses. It is mind imposing control over the body.
Rules that increase cooperative effectiveness.
They require no god, no universal doctrine. But only to make them more threatening.
Another example…incest.
It is immoral not because of some divine rule but because it increases the possibility of unfit mutations to be passed on, and it develops unfit combinations of genes.
Why is paedophilia immoral?
Because it destroys what has yet to develop the natural means to make copulation tolerable, because copulation is an interventional act…it is aggressive and certain psychologies have to mature to make it tolerable, and because it takes advantage of what has no ability to choose…rationally; hasn’t fully developed his/her free-wil, his/her ability to judge and to choose from his/her options.
Most moral rules are based on natural consequences.
Ethics develop much later as addendums to facilitate the development of stable complex systems where individuals do not know each other, are of different families and then different tribes; exceeding the number of relationships a human mind can maintain.
To integrate males and females that would be excluded from the gene-pool and so invest them in the welfare of the group. individuals that would remain un-invested in the welfare of the collective…disinterested and even disruptive.
To prevent thievery and appropriating another’s property to allow complex economics to develop.
No God giving Moses his commandments. That’s theater.
Do you understand?
No god required, other than to make the simple and those with no self-cotnrol to develop control - become civilized, i.e., cultivated.
Moral behaviour = genetic…innate to social species and those using heterosexual reproduction to pass on their genes, to overcome mortality.
Ethics = memetic…socioeconomic rules, accentuated by reward, fear enforced by a divine authority - fear of god - to force the average moron to abide by group norms, and group objectives, ideals.
Men were not slaughtering one another before Christianity or Abrahamism developed. Compassion, altruism wasn’t invented by religion.
In fact many species show it.
We are currently living in a period of moral confusion. The old consensus has been replaced by moral pluralism, and in some cases, with a call to moral relativism. In some quarters, we see demands for “common morality”, and “human solidarity”, which suggests, at least, that there is some agreement in what morality requires. But in the context of such a moral vacuum, we find a call for “relativisation” of moral discourse, with claims that there is no necessary correlation between what we call good or evil. Even in the more moderate voices that do not deny that there are some moral facts, they hold that it is wrong to speak of morality as though there is only one truth. But this position is not defensible.
There is a moral consensus in the West and among the “advanced” cultures of the world, to the extent that the ethical demands of the Judeo-Christian tradition are, by and large, universally accepted. This consensus was established over centuries of human life and thought, and it is the product of generations of moral teaching, and of experience of the evils of evil. To pretend that it is a contingent product of any culture or religious tradition is to deny reality. The moral demands of the world’s great religions have, at times, been radically different from each other, but they all converge on a common set of values which can be summarized as follows:
I. The good must be intrinsically valuable.
II. The good must be of such a kind that it is right to prefer the good to the evil.
III. The good must have value independent of whether others will value it.
IV. The good must be a good in its own right, not because it satisfies the desires of others.
V. The good is one among many goods.
VI. The good has value in itself.
I know of no alternative model of morality, and indeed, we should note the striking moral convergence of the world’s great religions, if not their full compatibility. These demands are consistent with a strong deontological morality, while the last three demand a consequentialist analysis of morality. The final three demands are also found in the ancient Greek view, where the supreme good is happiness (eudaimonia).
The idea of the intrinsic value of the good and its value in its own right may be traced back to ancient Greek philosophy. The Stoics were probably the first to argue that virtue was an end in itself and that it had a value independent of human approval. The doctrine of intrinsic value of the good and of its value in its own right was subsequently developed by a series of philosophers (in particular, Plato and Aristotle), which culminated in the Christian idea of God.